User talk:TOMKIMMEL
- Please see the bottom of this page for the most recent comments. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
On December 12, 1941, the Director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover told the President of the United States that an FBI source reported in strictest confidence that: Army and Navy Intelligence in Washington, DC had learned the entire Japanese attack plan days before the attack, and sent it to Admiral Kimmel, the Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet in Hawaii, who did nothing about it.
Mr. Hoover soon supplied this information to Supreme Court Associate Justice Owen Roberts, Chairman of the Roberts Commission, the tribunal immediately appointed to investigate the Pearl Harbor disaster. Justice Roberts tried but could not prove that Kimmel had this information and failed to act on it. But then Roberts failed to follow Mr. Hoover’s logically suggested written investigative leads in Washington, D.C., as to whether this information was available in Washington and simply not sent to Hawaii. And then later, Roberts inexplicably lied to Congress about where he got the original allegation against Kimmel.[1]--TOMKIMMEL--TOMKIMMEL (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)see www.pearlharborattack911attack.com, download & links, "Why Did Pearl Harbor Occur," for details and sources.
July 2009[edit]
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
- editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
- participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
- linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your article contributions. This is a simple mistake to make and is easy to correct. For future reference, the need to associate edits with users is taken care of by an article's edit history. Therefore, you should use your signature only when contributing to talk pages, the Village Pump, or other such discussion pages. For a better understanding of what distinguishes articles from these type of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. Intelligentsium 18:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Tom. It is my assumption that you are Husband Kimmel's son. I know that you are an authority on subjects relating to your father's involvement in some of the world's most controversial events. Your input here is certainly valued but we have policies against what we call original research. If you have authored material that you feel is relevant to an existing Wikipedia article, it is best that you make the availability of this information known on the respective article's talk page. That way an uninvolved third party can evaluate the information to see that it adheres to our neutral point of view policy. The guideline on citing oneself might be useful as well. You definitely have a conflict of interest in this so we need to be especially careful about what information gets included in articles – that is not a suggestion that none of your contributions can be included. Let me know if you have questions about this. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
On December 12, 1941, the Director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover told the President of the United States that an FBI source reported in strictest confidence that: Army and Navy Intelligence in Washington, DC had learned the entire Japanese attack plan days before the attack, and sent it to Admiral Kimmel, the Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet in Hawaii, who did nothing about it.
Mr. Hoover soon supplied this “reliably reported” information to Supreme Court Associate Justice Owen Roberts, Chairman of the Roberts Commission, the tribunal immediately appointed to investigate the Pearl Harbor disaster. Justice Roberts tried but could not prove that Kimmel had this information and failed to act on it. But then Roberts failed to follow Mr. Hoover’s logically suggested written investigative leads in Washington, D.C., as to whether this information was available in Washington and simply not sent to Hawaii. And then later, Roberts inexplicably lied to Congress about where he got the original allegation against Kimmel.[1]--TOMKIMMEL
MUFKA, IS THE PRECEDING OK? REGARDS, TK
- The text itself seems to be ok for the most part. The quotes around "reliably reported" places undue emphasis in a place where the statement needs to remain neutral. In order for this statement to be suitable for inclusion, because you are undeniably connected to the subject, you'd need to provide reliable sources separate from yourself to back up the statements. In this case, since it might be considered a fringe theory, it would need to be supported by multiple reliable sources. I assume that this is all public information so providing third party sources should not be a problem. Since you and I alone will not be able to come to a consensus that will stand up to community scrutiny, I suggest that we move this discussion to Talk:Husband E. Kimmel where others can participate. Opening it up to a wider forum may draw in some hardliners, but I'm sure you will be able to make a rational argument. See you there. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)