Talk:Attack on Pearl Harbor/Archive 6

--207.73.196.84 15:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)s>"Many Japanese today s

Cowboy editing

I rewrote this:

"==Monumental status==

"Pearl Harbor is generally regarded as an extraordinary event in American history, remembered as the first time since the War of 1812 that America was attacked on its home soil by another country. It is important to recognize that this assertion is technically erroneous, as Hawaii was not a part of the United States at the time Japan attacked the American military installation there. In fact, Hawaii would not become the 50th state in the union until 18 years later, in 1959.

"A similarly erroneous comparison was used by the U.S. news media sixty years later when the September 11, 2001 attacks took place: the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks were almost instantly compared to Pearl Harbor. This comparison is less than apt, as Pearl Harbor was a military installation attacked by another nation in a time of war, while the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked by terrorists who hijacked commercial aircraft during peace time."

In the first place, the U.S. was not at war 7 Dec 1941. In the second, what terrorists did or didn't do has little bearing. In the third, news media are not notorious for making fine distinctions. And in the fourth, it misses the point: the comparison, as my edit notes, is a reference to "surprise attack". I left in the "technically erroneous", but added a note HI was felt U.S. territory in a way the Philippines weren't; the attack might as well have been on San Pedro. Moreover, as my (reverted) edit points out, the lessons of Pearl were not learned, & the WTC tragedy was the result. Trekphiler 22:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

As for this:

Obviously it is the intention of the American Government to conspire with Great Britain and other countries to obstruct Japan's efforts toward the establishment of peace through the creation of a new order in East Asia ... Thus, the earnest hope of the Japanese government to adjust Japanese-American relations and to preserve and promote the peace of the Pacific through cooperation with the American Government has finally been lost.

it's been attributed to me, 16.10 29 March 2007. I have no idea where it came from, & I most certainly didn't post it. Trekphiler 00:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see why reference to 9/11 is necessary at all. It in no way adds to an understanding of this event, and frankly I think attributing the intelligence failures leading to 9/11 as rooted in the failure prior to Pearl Harbor is opinion and conjecture. HawkeyeFierce 18:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Was I not clear? It isn't "rooted in the failure" (&, note, I never said it was, so it's not "opinion and conjecture", your comment is), it's similar to it. The solution following P.H., creation of CIA, was supposed to prevent similar surprises, in theory; clearly, this didn't happen. Still think it's unnecessary? I'd say we're back to "perspective", & if you don't think results of the attack & changes as a product of it are relevant, I'd suggest you re-examine yours. I was taught to "look for relevance" (as annoying as that became); I'd say the connection is relevant. Trekphiler 02:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Chill, dude. I don't think you were particularly clear, and I still think you're asserting opinion as fact, but it doesn't really matter. Here's what I deleted:

Unfortunately, the mistakes of intelligence collection, sharing, and analysis leading to the Japanese success at Pearl Harbor did not, in the end, lead to lessons, as the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center demonstrate.^[1]

Note that the footnote reference was to simply the words "Intelligence Blunders and Cover-ups" without any actual link to a source. There's a LOT of unsourced assertions going on there. If you can explain how that sentence is not opinion and provide a source that definitively backs it up, then go ahead and put it back in. I mean, that statement is basically saying that the intervening 60 years of development and history of American intelligence is irrelevant, and the only things that matter are the bookend events. That seems to be overreaching to me, especially given that there's no citation to back it up.HawkeyeFierce 15:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"Note that the footnote reference was to simply the words "Intelligence Blunders and Cover-ups""? Note also I cited the source on this page. Put it in if you're upset by no "actual link to a source". Or read the book. I have. It was on that basis I put it in in the first place. Trekphiler 04:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

After fixing the footnote, I put it back in. Better, I hope. And I wouldn't say "irrelevant", as Hughes-Wilson notes. It's not simple, but the constant "never again" suggests lessons were learned; I say (& Hughes-Wilson & others confirm) they should have been, & weren't, which is the point.

As for how I'm not clear, I'd be interested to know. "the mistakes of intelligence collection, sharing, and analysis"? It was collected before P.H., & before 11/9; it wasn't analyzed in either case, & was inadequately shared in both cases. "did not, in the end, lead to lessons"? If it had, analysis & sharing would have been better. What's not clear? Trekphiler 04:30 & 04:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Where the heck did you cite this source before? I don't see it in the midst of your extensive arguments in this discussion page. I still think a mention of 9/11 is completely irrelevant to an understanding of Pearl Harbor, and including it here cheapens the relevance and importance of PH. The actual statement made is clearly interpretive, and even if you have a cited source for it, it's hardly an established, non-controversial opinion and it should not be stated as fact. And you are still unclear because your discussions in this subheading are muddled and nigh-incoherent. I still have no idea why you think this should be included, but since this entry seems to be a pet project which has caused you to clash with others before, and since you're obviously just going to keep putting it back in I'm not going to get into an edit war with you. My suggestion is that you modify it to indicate that this is an interpretation by a modern-day commentator, not an established fact.HawkeyeFierce 15:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"Where the heck did you cite this source before? I don't see it in the midst of your extensive arguments in this discussion page."

"===More controversy?===

based in part on news reports and on Hughes-Wilson Military Intelligence Blunders & Cover-Ups (Harper Collins, 2001).

"and including it here cheapens the relevance and importance of PH." I'm not the one that keeps bringing up Pearl Harbor in reference to 11 September. Neither do I see how "it cheapens the relevance and importance". Do you think the attack is so iconic, it deserves no historical perspective? (Do you think Japan should be punished for it every 7 Dec?) I think a comment on the historical lessons that can, or should, be learned is important. I'd say the shock & surprise were equivalent, so a reference is valid. And it's American media that mentioned the connection first, not me. (BTW, American media have used the P.H. analogy with any number of surprises, so if anybody is trying to "cheapen the relevance and importance", blame your own newsies.)

"it's hardly an established, non-controversial opinion"? That there were mistakes made before P.H. & WTC2? That lessons should have been learned after P.H.?

"since you're obviously just going to keep putting it back"? I haven't seen a coherent argument against it. And your assumption of bad faith is unjustified.

"muddled and nigh-incoherent." Oh, really? Learn to read. Evidently, you prefer insults to actual analysis. Trekphiler 17:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so in this little snippet you go on a tirade against American media, argue that by remembering Pearl Harbor we're "punishing" the Japanese, completely mischaracterize the argument I was making against the inclusion of the one sentence at issue here, and still fail to explain why the sentence should be stated as fact rather than opinion. Yeah. I think I'm done here. HawkeyeFierce 18:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Tirade? 2 references is a tirade?

"completely mischaracterize"? I don't see any "characterization" of your argument. Neither do I see any answers.

"argue that by remembering Pearl Harbor we're "punishing" the Japanese"? When did I do that? You seem to imply any other reference "cheapens" the memory; I'm asking, do you suggest not punishing Japan each year also does so? (I repeat, learn to read.)

"still fail to explain why the sentence should be stated as fact rather than opinion." You've resorted to insults rather than reply to the points I tried to make. Who's not explaining? Trekphiler 18:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Since "I think I'm done here.", HawkeyeFierce, you probably won't notice this:

"lead to lessons.<ref>Hughes-Wilson, Military Intelligence Blunders & Cover-Ups (Harper Collins, 2001). Clausen suggests creation of CIA solved the problem; the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center demonstrate this is far from certain."</ref>

I rewrote. Happy now? Or is this a "tirade" against CIA? Trekphiler 18:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC) (BTW, I don't have Clausen's book in front of me, so don't complain I don't have publisher, date, & page #. Look it up.)

I think the whole section could be deleted - it duplicates material already covered. But Trek's re-write helps. -Will Beback · † · 21:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that it's a totally irrelevant part of the article and that the whole of it should be deleted. The WTC attacks and PH happened under completely different circumstances, with the only connection saying that the CIA failed to stop an attack. They are so loosely related, in fact, that I have half the mind to delete it. I won't. I want to hear your response. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seeraamaazu (talk • contribs) 01:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Evidently the (hundreds?) of words I've already spent aren't clear (presuming anybody's bothering to read them, which I begin to doubt). Let me say it again. For 50 years, media & others have said, "Not another Pearl Harbor", meaning "surprise attack". Every kind of surprise was compared to Pearl Harbor. The WTC attack was a massive surprise, of exactly the kind as Pearl Harbor. The attack was preventable, had intelligence been paid attention to & properly shared, just as before Pearl Harbor, when it wasn't, because of lack of manpower & excessive security, just as at WTC. Clausen's book claims creation of CIA solved the problem of intelligence sharing & would prevent any future surprises like Pearl Harbor; clearly, he's wrong. And since I think the article should have historical perspective, a connection to similar, preventable attacks, & reasons they happen, is appropriate, valid, necessary. Am I clear now? Or does somebody think perspective is irrelevant? I was hoping to educate & inform; evidently, anything beyond reportage is unacceptable. Trekphiler 10:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at the two images:

What do you think?The Anonymous One 01:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Burning Washington? (Oh, OK, helps to read the article...) I'd say leave off the DC pic; it's a bit off topic. (I can just see people doing exactly what I did: looking at it & wondering why it's included.) Trekphiler 03:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Image:USSArizona PearlHarbor.jpg the canonical picture of the Pearl Harbor attack? Why not put that in the infobox?

—wwoods 20:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree.71.161.41.63 02:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The USS Arizona is the image left buring in your mind's eye ... JIMO. J. D. Redding 19:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC) (PS., but the diagram is a good one for the infobox ... the USS Arizona should more centered ... again JIMO)

It isn't mentioned in the article, at least I don't think so, but the Japanese also lost a large I-Class Submarine on December 7. It was spotted by a destroyer and sunk. This isn't included in the casualty figure either. I'll check the exact casualty report and the events surrounding the sinking of that sub later, and then I'll change it.

Climie.ca 17:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Cam

Japan's loss of an I-boat is news to me, & I've been reading on the war for 25yr. IJN lost a minisub to USS Ward, which is mentioned... Trekphiler 04:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

They actually lost all five of the mini-subs and 9 of the 10 crewmen. I seem to recall an early loss of a large I boat, but on the 7th?? ww 18:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've gone back and checked my sources. I think that the I-boat, although sunk on the 7th, wasn't part of the pearl harbor operation, or at least not the attack. However, I know for a fact that a US destroyer did sink an I-Class Submarine on either the 7th OR the 8th. This IS mentioned in Dan van der Vat's analysis of Pearl Harbor, which puts the Japanese casualty figure at 129 [at least I THINK it was 129, I'll check that later tonight and repost].

Climie.ca 20:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Cam

I've a vague recollection of a USN attack on an I-boat, but not a sinking. And I'd be wary of van der Vat; Pacific Campaign is full of mistakes. Trekphiler 17:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

'Pearl Harbor is generally regarded as an extraordinary event in American history, remembered as the first time since the War of 1812 America was attacked on its home soil by another country. While this assertion is technically erroneous, as Hawaii was not a state at the time, it was widely regarded as "home soil".'

Should we work in some mention of Pancho Villa's attack on New Mexico in 1916? New Mexico was a state, though Villa didn't exactly represent the government of another country. —wwoods 20:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Rather than adding more to the article we should try to trim. -Will Beback · † · 20:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This article has references to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki no less than three times. I understand that this attack on the United States did, in fact, lead to the dropping of atomic bombs. But it also lead to a great many things as well, and they are not mentioned at all. We have a picture of an atomic explosion, but not one of the iconic sinking of the USS Arizona. Personally, have only one, single reminder about the cruel, inhuman American response to the Japanese 'expansion' is more than enough. --Angncon 20:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the nuclear bomb is irrelevant to this article. The Land 21:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

True. and if you don't want a cruel, inhuman American response, don't start a cruel, inhuman Japanese War. If you start a fight with someone, you don't get to define their response. ChiTwnG 02:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Should Casus Belli really be on here? I've only ever seen that term on the pages that are major wars, such as World War II, but never on an individual attack. Perhaps this should be removed.....Climie.ca 20:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The Land 21:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Participants in this discussion may or may not find Gingrich & Forstchen's latest alt-hist novel, Pearl Harbor: A Novel of December 8th, due to be published tomorrow, interesting. Publishers Weekly: "In this case, the Japanese attack far more vigorously and devastate a larger chunk of the U.S. Pacific fleet than they actually did. How this affects the war's outcome will be revealed in the sequel. Gingrich and Forstchen, though adept at bigger-picture issues, falter when it comes to establishing and developing characters;..."
—wwoods 01:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

These clowns have no grasp of extrapolation, & their grasp of technical issues is weak at best; take a look at their 1945 to see how not to do it. And their Gettysburg trilogy is relies on a completely unhistorical postulate with no basis in fact (to my knowledge). Trekphiler 04:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Harry Turtledove also has an alternate history on Pearl called Days of Infamy. I have it, just haven't gotten around to reading it. As usual for him, he turns it into a series, so there is now book 2, End of the Beginning. (Note that the links are not broken, they just don't exist yet.

The same problem exists in his page.) CodeCarpenter 12:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• I glanced at Days of Infamy, I was basically disappointed. He has Japan invade Hawaii rather than just attack Pearl Harbor. I guess it might have been possible but it really would have taken a huge change in Japanese plans since they didn't have the resources to invade Hawaii unless they dropped their other plans to invade other areas of the Pacific. It's an interesting book if you like that sort of thing but can't be taken seriously as a possible history, unless things were very, very different. He doesn't seem to be as good as several other alternate history writers I like. SS-GB and Fatherland really are much better than his books, although The Guns of the South was interesting, even if it requires time travelers with unlimited gold stocks. Guns of the South also tended to show a "southern" viewpoint on how the South really didn't like slavery and actually respected Black people, really pretty biased and, in my opinion, untrue. Fanra 02:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Fatherland? It's laughable. And, yes, Harry's invasion of Hawaii scenario is, too. Deighton's SS-GB is almost exactly what the Germans planned; it's also the most accurate alternate history I've seen. Trekphiler 03:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Another rumor was Roosevelt (or Marshall, or some other senior official or some combination) had known the attack was coming, but had allowed it to proceed for any of several reasons depending on the purveyor of the rumor. This began as early as the morning of the 8th, perhaps first by then Senator Guy Gillette.

I am not sure why this is placed under rumors? There is empirical evidence that the US government knew the attack was coming and - for obvious reasons (Roosevelt desperatly wanted to enter World War II) - let it happen.Maybe it is still a delicate matter, even today, that all these US marines died for this cause, but to place it under 'rumors' would be a glaring misjudgement.It it true of course that every attack or war is interpreted from different points of view, yet this matter should clearly be placed under the 'US view' (vs the Japanese view) and not be pointed out as rumors. Rumors are the kind of information that are not well founded with evidence. This case is.217.136.84.84 09:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

We've got a whole article on the Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate. This article is about the real attack.

—wwoods 18:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Wwoods is right. The relevance of the short "rumors" section to this article is that these rumors were contemporaneous - they started up right away. The actual issue of who knew what and when they knew it is handled in Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 19:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. This doesn't belong under "rumor", it belongs under "paranoid delusion". Trekphiler 09:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:OsaNag.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(The following was ripped from the FAR page) Totally overwhelming TOC, weblinks thrown in unformatted, different quote styles, over-quotation, "listishness," one sentence paragraphs, and POV concerns brought up by reviewers. Plus, it's absolutely massive (hence the overwhelming TOC). I wouldn't call it excellent. I think it's a good example of one type of old FA: a well known historical topic, randomly edited by a lot of people and still good, but sloppy. (In some ways the opposite of The Country Wife, which has preserved its consistency and only looks "off" to cite counters). Marskell 20:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)I will try to cover each one individually, and tie it to the Featured article criteria.

1. Totally overwhelming TOC - I thought it was "substantial"(FAC 2c), but we will need to shrink it. (UPDATE: Done as of 6/18/2007)
2. weblinks thrown in unformatted - Don't see this in the FAC, but I guess we need to format the weblinks. (UPDATE: Done as of 6/19/2007)
3. different quote styles - This will need I guess a choice of one style, I would suggest inline, since this is what many are, and it will shink the lengthwise size of the article. (FAC 2) (UPDATE: Done as of 6/19/2007, left in block style for the nine quotes involved.)
4. over-quotation - Again, not sure where this falls in. However, I guess we will need to remove some of the quotes, and shrink the size of others to be more spartan. (UPDATE: Done as of 6/19/2007, with some remaining quotes melted into the regular text.)
5. "listishness" - Ouch. I guess if a list is not needed, it should get removed. Perhaps those lists that are also in the article? Although I recall from a featured artcle of the day about the Wounded Knee Massacre that it was not only very "listish", but that it didn't match the numbers in the text. I guess once a bullseye is placed, it is tough to get it off. Also not sure where that falls under FAC. I am gonna skip this one, since my solution would be to just comment them out. (UPDATE: Done as of 6/29/2007, I decided to Be Bold, and remove lists that I could find. Order of Battle was the only one I actually removed.)
6. one sentence paragraphs - I guess this falls under Manual of Style (FAC 2) (UPDATE: Done as of 6/29/2007, with the sentences merged into the previous paragraph.)
7. POV concerns brought up by reviewers - I don't see it so much, but the original requestor felt it and another reviewer joined in. They said (contradictingly) that we gave too much info about Japan and not enough info about Japan's reason for the attack. (FAC 1d)
8. . Plus, it's absolutely massive (hence the overwhelming TOC) - I guess we will need to do some "shrinkage". (TOC 4)

Of course, others can help with the cleanup process, but we might want to focus on this for a little bit to get past this hurdle we crashed into because we didn't know we need to jump it. CodeCarpenter 17:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the guides (ie, hurdles) have been changing under editors' feet, your observation is apt. However, the drive for formal quality (ie, short and to the point) has some inherent problems. Some articles have larger contexts than others, due to the subject, and so brief is to some extent in the eye of the editor. If the editor has a strong committment to brief, there will be an urge to slash perhaps to the detriment of article quality as seen by other editors. And 'to the point' is even more difficult, for an article whose content is the focus of many historical threads / movements / etc must have more points than some other article with less widely ramifying connections. And so editors whose committment to 'to the point' is storng will sometimes, as in this article, go too far, and in so doing reduce the quality of the article from a content viewpoint. other editors will feel otherwise, leading to push and pull (but one hopes not edit wars). In the absence of precision in the guidelines ('short' and 'to the point'), there will be difficulty applying them many cases. As, I think, in this one. ww 17:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Use {{TOClimit|limit=3}} to shrink the TOC ... that will give you upto "#.# header". J. D. Redding 19:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, a suggestion for ease of use and updating. Chopped sections should be commented out, rather than wiped, so that they are easier to access if the decision is made to restore them. That worked well on a couple of other major reworks I saw done. Just a suggestion. CodeCarpenter 18:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me as matter of good writing and organizatrion, though I would be careful not to lose content, or distort, in so doing. ww 17:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion for a start. Rewrite section 1 so it's a very brief of how the USA and Japan came to collide in the mid-Pacific, not a potted history of Japanese imperialism. Merge sections 7, 9, 10, 11 as there is no need for 'aftermath' , 'impact' and 'significance' sections which all try to deal with the same things. Delete 'cultural impact' altogether. And split off the list of Medal of Honor winners to a separate article. Length itself isn't a problem - what is a problem is repetition and lack of focus. The Land 08:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the beginning of the article - have a look at User:The Land/Attack on Pearl Harbour for an idea of what a more balanced approach would look like. The Land 16:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that balance? or Whitewashing? I know that there are conspiracy theories about the US trying to get into the war, but the unprovoked attack should not be downplayed. Seems as "User:The Land/Attack on Pearl Harbour" is not balanced and leans in that the US was askingto get attacked, JIMO. J. D. Redding 21:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The Land 22:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Summary: 'the US and others didn't let Japan do what it wanted, Japan was forced to attack for "self-defense and self-preservation"' ... the stuff at "User:The Land/Attack on Pearl Harbour" is not balanced. J. D. Redding 22:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"the US and others didn't let Japan do what it wanted, Japan was forced to attack for "self-defense and self-preservation" was certainly the Japanese point of view at the time. However, it's not what I wrote. The Land 22:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest removing everything prior to 1937, articles dealing with the entire war like Causes of World War II are more suited for that. One should start with the war in China and then deal with deterioating japanese-american relations up to the full embargo. That effectivly left the japanese leadership with the options to either negotiate concessions for oil and admit it's status as a second class world power (depending on others) or to try to become a true worldpower by conquering the resources of Southeast-Asia, even if that meant war with the US. The views of both camps of the japanese leadership should be mentioned.

• Camp A: Britain is weak, Germany will have defeated Russia soon, it's now or never;
• Camp B: Japan industrially is to weak for a war against the US, the Yamamoto Quotes would fit well here).

Finally the decision for war. Nevfennas 19:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this suggestion oversimplifies the divisions within Japanese leadership. At the least it neglects the divisions within the Navy. That was in part a hangover from the Washington Naval Treaty supporter or opponent acrimony from the 20's. Positions on the Naval problem of possible war with the US were distorted by accusations of being a Treaty supporter from the opponents. Yamamoto is said to have been appointed to CIC in part to get him farther away from potential assasins. Several insufficiently hardline officers had already been killed (Army and Navy), so this was not an unrealistic concern.

Such classification has more one dimension is many shadings. If we use a simpler version, as suggested, we should be c areful to know that it is at best a rough guide to the reality. ww 17:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That's another way of doing it which would make sense to me. The Land 22:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me, if size is an issue, a link to a separate "causes" article is appropriate, with a summary here. The Land made a good start, despite a few flaws (as I noted commenting on the posted page); there may be others I missed in my brief glance at it. I also think too much emphasis on Japan feeling pushed is inapt, though it should be mentioned; more emphasis on U.S. miscalculation & excessive pressure (the oil embargo, for instance, was not supposed to be total; moving the Pacific Fleet & building strength in the Philippines were supposed to deter & ended up acting as bait) than is traditionally offered should be included. Trekphiler 03:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

<----

The objections to this article which are noted above are a mixed bag. some are quite sensible in my view (eg, separating out the medal of Honor list into a separate article). Others are not. The causes of this wee not in the previous two years or three. They are rooted in japan's attempt to become a first class power, and within that to the specially fanatic nationalist attitudes of some Japanese, especially those in the Armed forces, particular the Army. That should not be removed from the article, as it provides perspective from which to understand it, a major goal for WP.

The impulse to include 'balance' here is in my view unbalanced. The US applied diplomatic and commercial pressure to counter Japan's agressive actions in the Far East, and even in the case of the Panay incident did not take action in response to actual shooting and death of US citizens, sinking of patrol craft, etc. And due to cryptanalysis, it was clear to the US that the attack was deliberate. The shooting at Pearl was not partially caused by 'US provocation', it was caused by Japanese (some Japanese) clear decisions, at the highest levels, to stage that attack and to do so as a surprise.

Finally, the removal of Featured Article status surprised me, and so I left a note at the FAR talk page inviting some comment. The revision i now think is needed to that WP process is to notify all those who care enough about an article as guaged by keeping it on thier watchlists. Not all of us participate in one or another of hte projects which include this article and so the movement to review its FA status was invisible to me and it seems to others. Editors here are invited to comment on this at the FAR talk page, for a revision of procedure of some kind seems indicated lest this happen again. ww 17:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has said anywhere that the article should say the attack was due to 'US provocation'. I think we are all broadly in agreement about how to treat the chain of events from the mid-1930s onwards. One option is to start the article's background section in 1937. However, if you want to take it back further to the 1860s then it is not good enough to only explain Japan's militarism or the Japanese expansion onto the Asian mainland; you must also explain how the USA came to have interests in the Western Pacific and therefore why Japanese and America came to collide in the 1930s. If you're talking about Japan's desire to be a first rate power then you must talk about how hte USA cam to be one as well. The Land 18:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Clear as mud

The article says, "armor piercing bomb hit next to turret two." Next to it where? Alongside? Foreward? Aft? Can somebody with a source clarify? Also, can somebody with good, reliable sources clarify: the article says there were 414, 350, 353, & 441 Japanese aircraft involved. Which is it? Based on Caidin & Sakai, I'd say 353 is the best figure, & 441 probably includes all the CC & BB VSs, but I don't have Prange's or Willmott's OOB in front of me... Trekphiler 09:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This document at ibiblio has a quite detailed OOB, numbers adding up to 351 planes. But that was the plan, not including last minutes changes and difficulties. Nevfennas 10:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A major lesson we can learn from Pearl Harbor is why the people responsible for defense did not prepare adequately. In my opinion there is very little on this in the article. There is a heading "Investigations and blame" which is very short and undeveloped. But I am not talking about assigning blame. Only why they did not prepare for an attack. I am talking here about Short and Kimmel. I am not interested in blaming them or making them scapegoats. I just wish to understand why they did not prepare adequately. It was no secret that relations between the US and Japan were seriously strained and that a war was a real possibility. Add to this the clear warning they got on 27 November that war with Japan was expected in the very near future. I think that people in their position could be expected to act to be more prepared, but they did not. The anti-aircraft guns were not manned, the ammunition was not locked down, no submarine nets were in place, combat air patrols were not operating and the radar posts were not on high alert. The question is why, with the political situation so tense and an explicit warning, that they did so little. I would like to see more on this in Wiki becuase we can all learn from the answer. We can learn from history. I would like to speculate. 1. Short was 61 years old and Kimmel was 59 years old at the time of the attack. Like MacArthur I assume both were involved in World War 1, at least MacArthur served in France during WW1. Aircraft in that period were biplanes of limited range and I assume very few were launched from aircraft carriers. So neither probably conceived fully the fact that aircraft could attack Pearl Harbor in such very large numbers. Nevertheless the US had at least 3 aircraft carriers at the time of Pearl Harbor so there must be other reasons why they were caught out. 2. Underestimating the enemy and over confidence. I assume that the US was a major power in 1941 and again I assume that Short and Kimmel thought that the US was far superior militarily to Japan at the time. Maybe they just didnt think that Japan would be stupid enough to attack the US? MacArthur in the Phillipines had 9 hours between when he was informed of the Pearl Harbor attack and the attack by Japanese aircraft. He too was totally unprepared which seems even worse than the unpreparedness of Short and Kimmel. Apparently the Phillipine President lobbied his friend MacArthur not to attack Japanese bases so as not to invite a Japanese attack on the Phillipines. Yet MacArthur had orders to attack the Japanese if the Japanese attacked the US. It seems to me that maybe if the US had a Churchill that they would not have been caught so badly unprepared. Churchill was 'on to" Hitler right from the start and Churchill publicly, loudly and consistently warned that Hitler would attack. The US underestimated the VietCong and they are underestimating the enemy in Iraq now. I wonder whether history is repeating itself? I am no enemy of the US...I would be eating rice and kangaroo right now if it wasnt for the Yanks who fought so well in the Battle of the Coral Sea and at Midway etc. etc. etc. Anyhow I hope that my post eventually leads to a new heading in the Pearl Harbour page - Cause of unpreparedness. USChurchill 14:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Here one has to discern between Army and Navy. Unlike the Army, the Navy was basically prepared for an attack, the AA-Guns were loaded and opened fire as soon as the sailors realized they were under attack. AFAIK there were also not enough nets avaiable in PH and it was also argued they would unnecessarily block the traffic. It was the Army, who had the main responsibility for the defense of the harbor and the island, that failed. AA-Guns were not deployed, planes parked in the center of the airfields as the only response to the war warnings. So one may call Kimmel a scapegoat but not Short, who really failed. It's a little bit different with the High Commands in Washington (Stark and Marshall), who completely missed that the attack was coming. Maybe they were lured into false security by the usual accuracy of the intelligence-reports, which placed the carriers with the battleships in Japan waiting for the US-reaction to the attack on the Philippines. The entire japanese attack movements in South East Asia had been identified by US-intelligence (the japanese didn't even try hard to mask these), war with Japan was certainly exspected.

Finally there is little that can blamed on the civilian administration. The military in Washington had every information the administration had, despite the vast majority of resources going to Europe through Lend and Lease PH had adequate resources for it's defense. So the main causes of the surprise were the High Command exspecting the japanese to strike, but not at PH (which was at the outer limit of japanese fleet operation capability), Short inadequately preparing his forces for an attack that was considered unlikely by everyone. And finally the "mishap" with the radar-report about the incoming planes. Had the operators told the information center outright the number and direction of the inbound flight, or had that Lieutenant bothered to aks for details it would have been a different battle. Nevfennas 17:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, this is not a discussion forum. Wikipedia article talk pages exist only to discuss improvements to the articles, not to discuss the subjects of the articles. There are countless forums and chatrooms intended for such conversations. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Will on this point, with the reservation that, for such a contentious topic as this (gernations after the event), soem such discussion is relevant to the article and its content and style. Would that it were not so, but... WP policy cannot change the reality of contention which existed from the morning of 8 Dec 41 (eg in Gillette' recorded comment that FDR et al knew beforehand, and continues today at not much reduced volume. ww 17:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)