Talk:Robert Stinnett

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Why I deleted criticism of his book

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article" which is exactly what I did. User Trekphiler added one-sided criticism that 1) shouldn't be in a biography, 2) is sourced by an Amazon.com book review which itself has no citations and is the opinion of the reviewer, and 3) requires more background information than is provided to enable the reader to understand what is being criticized. Bob (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

♠The Amazon cite is for a PDF I have a copy of (&, as the page comment clearly says, I can't find the original website for), which reviews Stinnett's book. (I take linking to Amazon, & allowing readers to judge for themselves what Young thinks, preferable to claiming I have a source & refusing to provide access to it.) Day of Deceit is, without question, what Stinnett is best known for. The criticism is not in any fashion an attack on Stinnett himself, but on the position he took in that book; at most, it attacks his credibility. (I might say his honesty, since he has AFAIK yet to fulfill his pledge to provide copies of his alleged documents.) If he didn't want that criticized, if he didn't want his reasoning criticized, he shouldn't have written something that was so patently nonsensical, nor promised to provide evidence & refused to do so.

♠If you'd prefer, you can cite from Prange's Pearl Harbor: The Verdict of History & At Dawn We Slept, Haughler's Codebreakers Victory, Kahn's new book on it (the name of which I'm ashamed to say I can't recall :( ), the Cryptologia article, the Jacobsen articles, or the NSA's history of crypto.

♠As for it being one-sided, since no credible historiographer shares this view, it's bound to be. Nor does it go into as much detail as it might; that's saved for the book's page, & the conspiracy loon page. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe, not impartial

The article presented Stinnett's fringe theory as though it were a proven fact. I have removed some of the most egregious breaches of impartiality, but the whole article needs to be balanced with mainstream material. The notability of Mr Stinnett has also not been demonstrated. Martijn Meijering (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]