Talk:Robert Alfred Theobald

Biography: Military / Science and Academia

	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 military biography work group.
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Military history: Biography / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Original research?

The article currently has the line, "Strangely enough, in an unclassified NSA document for officials only, Theobald's book was a recommended reading." The article seems (to me) to imply that the recommendation of this book in this NSA document suggests that other people in the intelligence community accept the "Roosevelt let Pearl Harbor happen" thesis. I don't think that claim should be made here, implicitly or explicitly, since it's not the role of Wikipedia to make such assertions. And if this line is not making such a claim, then I'm not sure what its relevance is. I will delete the line, but please feel free to restore it if you disagree with me. Omphaloscope talk 02:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]