Talk:Walter Short

Regarding controversy about Stinnett's Book
I removed an unsupported editorial comment about Stinnett's book that was intruded into a correction I offered concerning General Short's place in history.

Whether "all reputable historians disagree with Stinnett" is a matter for discussion, not an editorial comment intended to discredit an alternate view. The controversy over Stinnett's claims should be addressed separately. The person who made that (personal) observation has an axe of their own to grind, which we should DISCUSS. Whoever wishes people to read against Stinnett can offer citations same as I did.

Forgive my not knowing where to post this statement more appropriately.

Decahedonist (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC) — Decahedonist (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Err, you obviously need to read WP:NPOV and in particular WP:UNDUE. Fringe views and conspiracy theories are supposed to be given less weight and, in any event, the opinions of other scholars about a given source are very much relevant. I tripped the Stinnett section and added sourced criticism of his book. Nsk92 (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Stinnett wrote a book refuting several assertions in the article. To attack mention of the book shows your partisanship against its contents. Your edits are clearly intended to "bolster the official story"; who are you to decide whether Stinnett is or is not "Fringe" - based on what? Whether any given military historian is willing to concede any points to Stinnett?

The article refers to the original commission as charging that Short and Kimmel were insufficiently concerned with a Japanese attack. Stinnett describes how Kimmel, due to his great concern over an immiment Japanese attack, had in fact launched a Task Force to locate the Japanese along the optimal route Kimmel predicted. Kimmel was ordered by superiors to withdraw the task force. According to Stinnett, had the task force simply continued another 24 hours, it would in fact have encountered the Japanese fleet en route to Pearl Harbor. So the commission's charge about lack of concern was bogus.

Credit and Fault where Credit and Fault are due. Stinnett exonerates Kimmel and Short. If that's controversial, then list it as controversy - quit making edits to elide the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.68.177 (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Now having read NPOV I see no reason Stinnett should not be accorded recognition in a section about "Controversy." His book is well-documented. Whether (as Wikipedia says) he was correct in his assertions is not the point.

Decahedonist (talk) 06:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC) — Decahedonist (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.