Talk:Attack on Pearl Harbor/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Order of Battle

What about ground troops? did the Japanese pack any marines and how many US (and allies???) were on Oahu and the other Hawaiian islands? 50,000 American troops - on internet.213.106.120.244 (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The Japanese Navy did not have marines per se. Their closest equivalent were the Special Naval Landing Forces which were sailors trained as infantry. I don't think any were with Nagumo's task force; they were all needed in China, the Mandates, or with the Southern Operation (the Japanese opening offensive in southeast Asia). The U.S. garrison on Oahu was built around 24th and 25th Divisions with a few elements of Marine defense battalions in transit. The two Army divisions were unusually well-trained and well-equipped for the U.S. army of the day; that is, badly trained and poorly equipped, but not as bad as the National Guard divisions being fleshed out with draftees back on the mainland.--Yaush (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks for that. here is a source and something that might be worth putting in. Staff ride handbook for the attack on Pearl Harbor, 7 December 1941: a study of defending America Jeffrey J. Gudmens 1 Review DIANE Publishing, 2005 "in december 1941 the US Army had 42,857 men assigned to the Hawaiian Department, commanded by LTG Walter C. Short." 213.106.120.244 (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Found photographer for the historic picture at the top of this article.

While researching a documentary on Pearl harbour for the National Geographic Channel I found the photographer who took this picture.

Takeo Shiro was the observer on a Type 97 (B5N 'Kate') Torpedo bomber in the first wave of the attack. As I write, he is 92 years old and living in southern Japan.

His own copy, and the camera he took it with, were destroyed when the aircraft carrier he served on - Hiryu - was later sunk at the battle of Midway. Thus, the captured copies stored in various archives were the only surviving record of this image.

He makes no claims about copyright or ownership.

I've never contributed to wikipedia before, so not sure how to edit image info etc. but I felt this information was an interesting addition to an image I've seen for decades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.82.19.226 (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 70.112.125.123, 23 May 2011

The page says PH lead to the US entry in the the Pacific and European theaters... Not entirely correct. The US declared war on Japan the next day, but not on any of the other axis countries. Germany actually declared war on the US, and that is how the US entered the European theater officially.

70.112.125.123 (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Without the attack, Germany & Italy wouldn't have declared on the U.S., so it did lead to the U.S. entry, actually... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

•  Not done: Per comment by TREKphiler. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.99.166.229, 12 June 2011

Please edit the section marked "controversy". It lacks proper citation from a reliable source. The source it cites appears to be bogus and at other times the citation just isn't even there.

24.99.166.229 (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The section has a couple of cites that should establish that there is a controversy, and a link to the main Wikipedia article discussing that controversy. Is the problem that the cited sources don't discuss the controversy? I don't have copies of either work readily accessible.Yaush (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Should Mitsuo Fuchida be included in the Japanese leaders section of the infobox, he led the air attack on Peal Harbor

I am curious if the above question is valid for a discussion on it. What are other's views?--R-41 (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

He's too junior. By that reasoning, Layton & Rochefort should be on the list, to name just 2 who immediately come to mind. So should every air wing commander in the Kido Butai & squadron commander in Hawaii. The listing is for the top guys. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Should WP:TRIVIA section be removed?

Last December, we discussed the fact that 2011 will be the 70th aniversary of this event and bringing the article to Featured Article status.[1] So, I deleted the trivia section in accordance to WP:TRIVIA.[2] Unfortunately, the trivia section keeps getting restored. Should the trivia section stay or be removed? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Attack on the Phillipines

The section on the attack on the phillipines is improperly marked up. But I also don't think it even belongs in this article; the information should be moved to the article on the attack on the phillipines and the section in this article changed to a link there. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.68.15 (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. It's too POV for his own page, never mind this one. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"Japanese attacks on barracks killed additional personnel."

Uhh, whilst recognizing how sensitive this issue is to the American audience, is it not now accepted that most of these casualties were from American shells that in the haste of the battle were not properly fused, thus exploding on impact when they hit the ground? Old_Wombat (talk) 10:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Nested parentheses

The lead currently starts with the text:

The attack on Pearl Harbor (called Hawaii Operation or Operation AI by the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters (Operation Z in planning) and the Battle of Pearl Harbor) was a...

Is it really necessary to have nested parentheses? This is confusing. —danhash (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Since the ref is to IGHQ's ID of it in planning, as opposed to an entirely separate case, it should stay. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"no drill" vs. "not drill"

This edit caught my eye. My first thought was "what the heck is a Beloite and Beloite?". I was unable to answer that question by looking in the article, Wor (surprisingly) by a bit of quick googling. Some more googling turned up

• [3] - "No Drill", but not quoting a message asserted to have been sent from the headquarters of Patrol Wing Two.
• [4], ""'This is no drill' were agreed-upon code words ..."; [5], "The navy messenger was carrying a penciled note ...".
• [6] - "NO DRILL is replaced by NOT DRILL" "at 7:58 ...", "at 8 AM ...".
• [7] "AIR RAID PEARL HARBoR THIS IS NO DRILL".
• [8] - "Enemy air raid, Pearl Harbor. This is not a drill."
• [9] (Full text of "Pearl Harbor attack : hearings before the Joint Committee on the investigation of the Pearl Harbor attack, Congress of the United States, Seventy-ninth Congress, first session, pursuant to S. Con. Res. 27, 79th Congress, a concurrent resolution authorizing an investigation of the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and events and circumstances relating thereto ..."), under PROCEEDINGS OF ROBERTS COMMISSION 1569, "Enemy Air Raid — Not Drill."

It appears that there were a number of messages sent and received variously, with some variations in wording; or perhaps I'm just confused. In any case, the article could probably deconfuse this better. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't name the book, but the duo are well-known historians who put years of study into the issue (yes, historians do this sometimes) & concluded "not", rather than "no", was the word actually sent. I came across this, IIRC, in Roscoe's history of USN sub ops. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• [10] - "AIRRAID ON PEARLHARBOR X THIS IS NO DRILL" - Photograph of the telegram. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.88.131 (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Except, that's what was copied by the receiving operator, not (necessarily) what was sent by the originator, Bellinger.... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

New "additional reading" available.

The full text of the Congressional Investigation into the Attack on Pearl Harbor is now online at: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/congress/

The "Magic" Background to Pearl Harbor is also available, in HTML and PDF: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/magic/

If you have any problem, please email me. (Sorry if this is the wrong place for this, it's my first day here.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OpanaPointer (talk • contribs) 12:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Those are great links, thx! And you're not wrong putting them here, tho, correctly formatted, they might also go on the article page. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. By all means add them to the article page. You may find it helpful to click on the "Templates" menu that appears just above the edit window, and select "cite web". It's an exercise well worth going through yourself. --Yaush (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Very helpful Yaush. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)