Jump to content

Talk:Wake Island

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 120.16.220.60 (talk) at 08:29, 3 December 2020 (→WAKE ISLAND vs. WAKE ATOLL: Atelerixia, next time please start your discussion in the article's tallk page.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Easternmost

Apparently Wake is the closest US territory to the International Date Line on the East side. Since Alaska straddles 180°, it's actually the furthest East and West. Bollar 03:45, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

There is no East Pole. Furthermore, why would you pick "lowest" East latitude in one arbitrary (even if none of the older, once-common alternatives are used much any more) coordinate system rather than 180° E as "easternmost"? Furthermore, I don't think Wake is either highest or lowest East latitude on a Greenwich base in U.S. including possessions. I'm taking this nonsense out.
"Easternmost" is a point which can be reached in a shorter distance from anywhere else in the U.S. by traveling in an easterly direction rather than in a westerly direction. Gene Nygaard 14:27, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What's more, a zig-zag "East Edge of the Earth" is even sillier than basing it on Greenwich coordinates. Just how many ships have fallen off as they traveled on to the east of Wake Island? Gene Nygaard 14:40, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fixed "population"

What the article previously said was that there were 200 contractors present as of October 2001 in a July 2004 estimate. Now, I rather doubt that there was an attempt made in July 2004 to have estimated how many contractors were present in 2001, but rather that was the incorporation in to the article of a more-current estimate without removing the old language. My edit makes the logical assumption that the estimate as of 2004 was of the number of people present in 2004. If someone knows this to be wrong, please revert it. I also know from my own experience how nebulous such a number can be; at any one moment, just who is "permanently" there, who is "TDY", and who is "in transit" can be confusing and sometimes even somewhat subjective; but the 200 number of "permanent" contractors sounds reasonable based on other sources. Rlquall 20:46, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See the anonymous comment at the beginning of the article as you edit it (something that would have been better put here in Talk), which claims that this is an unattributed plagiarism of the CIA Fact Book. That might mean that the CIA published those figures in 2004, identifying them "as of October 2001" because that was the latest statistics they had available. Gene Nygaard 14:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

pronounciation

is it pronounced wae k (as in "wake up") or wah ke (as in "wah-wah pedal" and "Kenny")? Just wondering... WB 07:55, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

I took it for granted it was the former... Since the article says name is English, after "Captain William Wake", not Polynesian, that seems a safe assumption. But this William Wake is probably not the Archbishop William Wake the link takes you to...
—wwoods 08:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I've always heard it pronounced with a long a, as waek, like the English word, I'm sure it's the way to do it, given the above. Wyss 03:26, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

relief force

The article says the Saratoga relief force never made contact with enemy forces, and that they turned back. My sources at the History Channel say it was the decision of Admiral Pie? (Not sure on name) to order the task force to turn back when the message "issue in doubt" was radioed from Wake.

The relief force turned back for fear of loss of the precious carriers, on orders from CinCPac, Adm William S. Pye. (I AM sure of the name...) It was not in response to "issue in doubt"; Pye waffled and had as much as decided before this was recieved. Also, though, the names of the Japanese and American commanders would be appreciated. (I want to say the U.S. was Col Cunningham, but I haven't read Wake Island recently...) --squadfifteen

Battle Info

The battle section is getting too long again - this is the reason I created the Battle of Wake Island article. One day, the battle info will make this article too long, and it also demans the subject by treating it as just an interesting part of Wake Island history instead of an important World War II battle which deserves separate treatment. Please, please stop putting stuff here when you see an interesting tidbit on the History Channel, and put it in the battle article instead. This article should only contain a brief summary of the battle. --Jpbrenna 10:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote some of the battle section to remove non-objective wording and to remove the connotation that the civilian losses were secondary to the military losses, which in my view is wrong. Civilians don't sign up to fight, so the civilians should get listed with as much importance as the military personnel. Hue White 15:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon/Hurricane Ioke

Should we add info about Typhoon/Hurricane Ioke? It has it's crosshairs to Wake. And around 200 of it's residents were planned to be evacuated. --IrfanFaiz 11:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't those kind of updates be more appropriate for wikinews:main page? — MrDolomite | Talk 15:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is over Wake right now, just add that it struck Wake. --IrfanFaiz 12:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commander?

It's been a while for me but I thought I recalled that a Major P. S. Devereaux, USMC, also had been in command of Wake. Struck me as odd because Winfield Scott Cunningham was also a "Three Name Person". I'll dig more, maybe they were in command at different times. — MrDolomite | Talk 15:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Major James P.S. Devereaux was the commander of the Marine battalion. [1]
—wwoods 17:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, he was a "Four Name Person", I was googling him incorrectly. Thx for the info. Now we just have to decide what, if anything, to do with it. :) — MrDolomite | Talk 23:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orothographic Projection

The projection is on American Samoa and not on Wake Island. Therefore, I shall delete it.

PC game appearence

Should it be mentioned that Wake makes an appearence in the game, Battlefield 2? I didn't know that Wake was an actual island and just assumed it was a fictional location until I saw a program on the History Channel. And, more importantly, BF2 is where I first heard of Wake Island.PowderedToastMan 20:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some video game information into the article. HonJarder 05:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this information. This is not notable. --Henry W. Schmitt 16:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, Battlefield 2 is a multi-million selling military video game. I think a brief one line mention of its inclusion would be appropriate. I haven't added the information, just stating my opinion. Kristmace 01:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
there are tons of games made about WWII, I did control f for 'game' on that page and nothing came up except a footnote with the word in it, but not about video games. -Henry W. Schmitt 05:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Henry W schmitt is being very unreasonable. Wikipedia is a people's encyclopedia. It should contain reference to the game battlefield 2 because it was one of the bestest selling games ever. 77.248.188.153 (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wake Island also appers on Battlefield 1942, 1943 and 2142. Just thinks it should be mentiond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christoffre (talk • contribs) 22:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the reference to the Battlefield series of video games. Battlefield is so iconic that it should get a mention in the article. Many people know Wake Island from the Battlefield games. Also if a wikipedia administrator has a problem with video gamers (like this henry w schmitt guy) 118.209.46.14 (talk) 08:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC) then I suggest you detract from editing articles which are related to video gaming as you are biased and its against Wikipedia's to edit an article with bias. 118.209.46.14 (talk) 08:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Locator map

This article needs a locator showing the position of the territory in the world. -- Beland 01:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it needs one that's correct, not the old orthographic one pointing to American Samoa. Deleted again; leave it out this time, or get the right one. Note that Wake is north of the equator! KarlM 08:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Claim to Wake Island

Was Wake Island claimed Jan. 17, 1899 by Taussig or July 4, 1898 by Greene? It was not claimed under the Guano Islands Act. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.140.246.114 (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Even more conflict on the date. It was noted the island was "taken" Jan. 17, 1900 in the wikipedia article for 1900. Also it was interesting that the reason for the US claim on the island was to establish a communications link between Hawaii and Manila. I see no reference to this in the main article. --Trode (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Airstrip illustrations

The airstrip as illustrated here would seem not to be accurate. It depicts a 1.5km northwest/southeast runway which no longer exists as such and has been built over with base facilities, as can be confirmed via Google Earth. The only functional runway would seem to be the 3km one in the east/west direction. I see that the CIA world factbook still has the old runway configuration, and that is likely the source of the image in question. Airfield info for PWAK can be found here. Fehrgo 01:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded an image found on WikiTravel which seems to reflect the airstrip more accurately and added it to the article. Vires et Honestas 02:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks, I did a new one but noticed yours is already up there, which has more info on it anyway :) Fehrgo 17:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed there wasn't an article about the airbase (Wake Island Airfield), so I'm currently writing one. I'm not currently daring enough on adding a wikilink on this page, so if anyone with more balls wants to do it, be my guest. (btw thanks for the info on PWAK, Fehrgo!). Btw, can I use that image for my article? D4RK-L3G10N (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Wake Island

Is Wake island a destination people can visit or is it off limits due to its military status by the US?? Cheers (Murchy 00:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Extra Space

Fix the extra space at the top between the start of lead and disambig statement.68.148.164.166 (talk) 04:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not liberated before surrender of Japan?

Being in the center of Pacific Ocean, this island wasn't liberated before the end of Second World War.The article doesn't tells why this island was forgotten, by american military commanders, during World War II.Why this siland wasn't liberated, before surrender of Japan?Agre22 (talk) 02:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)agre22[reply]

Who said the island was forgotten? And MOST territory held by the empire of Japan was not liberated before surrender. The US strategy, which in the end resulted in the least number of US combatant, Japanese combatant, as well as the least number of non combatant deaths was skip over these areas and get close enough to Japan to bomb its war making capabilities. See Iwo Jima, Okinawa, or Battle of the Philippines articles here to see what happened with contested attacks on occupied areas.
The Japanese lost close ta 1,000 Japanese casualties taking the island from a couple hundred US military. The US would have lost as many or more taking it back contested. The Japanese garrison could defend it, but it could not field air craft. As long as the Jpanses could not field air craft from there, and it could not, taking it would have resulted in mass casualties on all sides for no strategic or tactical gain. Scores of other occupied islands presented the same logic.73.212.229.38 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wake Island Rail

I have created a small reference and link to the extinction of the Wake Island Rail Bird under the heading of Japanese Occupation (when the extinction occured) as I was suprised this is not mentioned at all on Wake's main page. --Beeblebrain (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You refer to the bird and its extinction but you didn't actually bring a reference to the article. Can you cite the source? Binksternet (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References to the precise cause of extinction (starving Japanese troops) now added to the Wake Island Rail page following new research paper published in 2011 [2] There is already a reference to the Wake Island Wildlife Refuge which does outline the demise of the Wake Island Rail, so I have reinserted what I think is an important reference and link to it under the section on Protected Status.Parkywiki (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Marshallese Claim

As I understand WP conventions, since this is a disputed territory, and the Marshallese government has not renounced its claim, the Infobox at the top-right should be a "disputed island" infobox, with the sections "Claimed by" and "Administered by". Examples: Serranilla Bank, Paracel Islands, Spratly Islands, Senkaku Islands--these are just a few, but all islands listed in the List of territorial disputes have this convention applied. Can someone whose familiar with the subject change the infobox? Rennell435 (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wake Island/Palmyra Atoll --name, erosion

It seems to me that it would make sense to combine the articles on Wake Island and Palmyra Atoll under the latter name. A new page would discuss the war period, battles,build up, etc., under the title Wake Island (WWII) or some such.

Also in Google Earth Palmyra Atoll/Wake Island appears (6/21/09) to be significantly eroded from just a few decades earlier. It's half gone. Anyone know if that is true? If so, what's happening? 143.100.37.61 (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wake and Palmyra are not the same island... --Golbez (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


American possession

The section says "...it remained in operation up to the day of the first Japanese air raid in World War II." Does this refers to the first Japanese raid on the USA, or the first Japanese air raid of the war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.1.32 (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ballard short story

Is it worth adding a reference to J.G.Ballard's short story "My Dream of Flying to Wake Island" to the Popular cultural references section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.130.91 (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ship name

shouldn't the ship's name be "Prince William Henry"? Wefa (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Wake Island. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of EnenKio: redirect?

I've asked over on the KoE Talk page about converting the KoE article into a redirect to the relevant section here. There probably won't be much footfall there, so I thought I'd ask here too. Comments over on the KoE Talk page appreciated. Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology issue in intro section

The paragraph below seems weird. I interpret it as saying the second attack occurred on December 23, 1941, that is, 12 days after the first attack. It also implies this second attack had support from returning troops from the attack at Pearl Harbor, "four days previously". However, the attack at Pearl Harbor occurred at December 7, four days before the FIRST attack at Wake Island. Either it must have been the first attack which had support from returning troops from the attack at Pearl Harbor "four days previously" or the second attack had support from returning troops from the attack at Pearl Harbor "26 days previously". I don't know what actually occurred, just that the current description of events isn't consistent with when the attack at Pearl Harbor occurred.

On December 11, 1941, Wake Island was the site of the Empire of Japan's first unsuccessful attack on American forces in the Battle of Wake Island when U.S. Marines, with some US Navy personnel and civilians on the island repelled an attempted Japanese invasion, sinking two enemy destroyers and a transport. The island fell to overwhelming Japanese forces 12 days later in a second attack, this one with extensive support from Japanese carrier-based aircraft returning from the attack on Pearl Harbor naval and air bases in Hawaii further east, four days previously. Wake Island remained occupied by Japanese forces until the end of the war in September 1945.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joje86 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ American Naval History: An Illustrated Chronology of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, 1775-present, Jack Sweetman, Naval Institute Press, 2002

"Economy of Wake Island" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Economy of Wake Island. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Military of Wake Island" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Military of Wake Island. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Wake Island/Military" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wake Island/Military. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Wake Island/Economy" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wake Island/Economy. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Correct Name of This U.S. Territory

 On January 16, 2009, the Fish and Wildlife Service of the U.S. Department of the Interior established a national wildlife refuge for Wake with the name 
 Wake Atoll National Wildlife Refuge.  Wouldn't that suggest that the official name for this U.S. territory is now Wake Atoll rather than Wake Island and that
 Wikipedia should now change the name accordingly in all their references to this territory?
 Atelerixia (talk) 05:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History section

The history section should be streamlined. There are too many comments about local events that may be too insignificant for mention. There are also not enough citations for many of these events. Leiwang7 (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WAKE ISLAND vs. WAKE ATOLL

In order to determine the correct name of the U.S. territory that is generally known either as Wake Island or Wake Atoll, I contacted the Office of Insular Affairs in the U.S. Department of the Interior to get a definitive answer. The question I posed to that office was as follows: "Inasmuch as the national wildlife refuge that was established on Wake in January 2009 was given the name 'Wake Atoll National Wildlife Refuge,' is the official name of that U.S. territory now 'Wake Atoll' instead of 'Wake Island'? I received an answer to my query from the Policy Division of the Office of Insular Affairs. The answer that I received was as follows: "Both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Office of Insular Affairs use Wake Atoll to refer to the whole territory and Wake Island to refer to the largest of the atoll's three islands." With that information, I edited the Wikipedia article "Wake Island" to change the instances of "Wake Island" that referred to the territory as a whole to "Wake Atoll." You then reverted my edit as being "incorrect." Obviously, my edit was not incorrect, and I would appreciate it very much, therefore, if you would kindly undo your revert of my constructive edit. The next step would be to have the title of that article moved from "Wake Island" to "Wake Atoll." Atelerixia (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sometimes, an atoll can contain several small islands. Just by reading your proposal, it does contain a few good points. However, we need to see some hard evidence from you in order to make a decision whether to support your move request or not. I suggest you copy and paste your email here (with your and that officer's private contact details covered/hidden). If your email prove to be genuine, I would support you. 120.16.220.60 (talk) 08:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wake_Island&oldid=992064816"