Talk:The New Pearl Harbor

October 2004

I'll be happy to clean it up...where are the most pressing problems?

It's got a lot of problems:

• It needs to be wikifyed (links to other articles, formatting, etc). I took a stab at it, but it's can probably use more eyes. It almost certainly can use more links to other articles given how many noteworthy people, places, and events are named.
• It should be written like an encyclopedia article, not a giant list. Fold the lists into paragraphs. Summarize the general point.
• It needs a more Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Again, I took a stab at it, but it still feels like we're presenting facts when in fact what is being summarized is one particular viewpoint.

[NOTE: Wikipedia does not have a neutral point of view because it insists on mainstream sources which only serve an elite viewpoint]

• It really needs counter arguments. Critical analysis of the book would belong in this article, as would links to other articles supporting other views.

Just take a look at many longer, heavily editted articles and take your cues from there. Alan De Smet 19:27, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Editorializing

I've just reverted anti-Griffin editorializing. People who don't like Griffin or the book should not editorialize here. They are more than welcome to start a "criticisms" section and present (not assert) criticisms that others have made which can be cited. But no pontificating. And again, everything must be cited, as this is not a place for original research. Thank you. Blackcats 08:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What does this mean?

• (As summarized by Griffin from various cited sources)

That line is at the top of each list. Does this mean that we are copying his exact words? -Willmcw 08:39, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

That means that Griffin has cited various sources. He was not the original researcher of the book. I didn't write the above though, could maybe be re-worded to make it more clear. See the David Ray Griffin article for more info. Blackcats 23:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I meant- are we copying his words? However I now see that we are copying someone else's. [1] I'm going to remove the two long lists. If someone wants to summarize, in their own words, the contents of the book then that's fine. Cheers, -Willmcw 03:57, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Source needed

Source needed for the claim "many engineers deny." --Northmeister 04:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I second that notion. Who are the "many engineers"? --Haitanrain 06:54, 30 Oct 2006 (EST)

Paul Craig Scott

Who is this guy? --Krupo 20:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Good question. I've removed his name pending some indication of his notability. -Will Beback 22:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

How the Subtitle of the book relates to its contents

Having read the book, I have a number of opinions and would like some feedback before making any edits to the article.

I think the strongest argument for taking it seriously is that its contents are actually described in the subtitile: it really is a book of questions, not a book of claims, either refutable or irrefutable. The answers to the questions asked in the book are generally unknown (at least by average citizens like me). The fact that these questions have been documented in a careful manner is the whole point of the book.

This also seems related to Griffin's former profession as a professor of Theology: Theology is, of course, about asking Big Questions. So, when people claim that Griffin is making refutable claims in the book, I take that as a factually incorrect statement and assume that that person is a) seeking to obscure the issue or b) has not read the book in the context in which it is presented by the author.

<ahem>

So, the above may be editorializing, which is why I put it here and have not edited the article. But I think the article should mention the context of the book: Factually (accurately represented by the book's subtitle): this is not a book of answers, not a book of claims, not a book of conjectures, but a book of questions.

Of course you can say that it is standard rhetoric to frame issues (or attempt to do so) by asking misleading questions. My opinion is that this is not Griffin's tact in this book.

One more thing: it seems that in the "book world" or "the publishing industry" (a topic I know little about) the subtitle is given little respect; in fact the subtitle seems to exist for one reason: as a sales mechanism, and it's not only common but even standard for the subtitle to contain misleading hyperbole about the contents of the book. In this case, however, the subtitle seems to be quite to the point, as noted above. Perhaps this even works against the book, by putting a correct and concise description where people have come to expect hyperbole!

Comments, please.

Tzf 18:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

template removal

why was the template removed? — goethean ॐ 21:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_New_Pearl_Harbor

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_New_Pearl_Harbor

Dear MONGO and Morton,

I believe it is apparent from your contributions in AfD debates that you violently oppose certain articles which "advertise for non notable subjects". It is also apparent to me that this comes forth from your political standpoint, that 911 happened just as the official version tells us it happened. Since you are emotionally involved with the issue, I would ask you to take extra care not to accidently violate the guidelines, principles and aims of wikipedia in the process when dealing with such matters.

For me, all of internet is advertising. Amazon.com will praise any book they sell. The only place which is not advertising is wikipedia. It is a place where people of opposite viewpoints can reach consensus, not on the subject of dissent, but on a fair representation of dissent. If you succeed in banning notable books from wikipedia, it is you who is creating two Walled Gardens: the ones loving such a book, and the ones hating such a book. The reasonable, balanced judgement of wikipedia is lost.

I would very much love it when you would coöperate more with those editors with whom you dissent. Also I would welcome your contributions on:

• Wikipedia talk:911 POV disputes

— Xiutwel (talk) 12:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Mischaracterization

Although I don't generally like the PNAC, it must be noted that this description

---

noted that only a "new Pearl Harbor" would enable the military and defense policy transformations the group desired to rapidly take place

---

is a mischaracterization of what they actually stated. In the item on "Rebuilding America's Defenses" there were some comments about the development of military technology where they mentioned that in the absence of something like another Pearl Harbor the process of determining the relevant technological innovations would be a long one. They were not actually speaking of "policy transformations" in this context, but rather of military innovations such as the development of a giant aircraft carrier fleet by the US after Pearl Harbor had occurred in 1941. Deciding on which technology is going to be most relevant militarily is not something as a "policy transformation" and it shouldn't be equated with such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.21 (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Different editions/forwords

One had Falk and the other Meacher. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.24.33 (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)