Talk:Niihau incident

message: Thanks for the interesting article! Just some constructive criticism for the authors:
Who is Saikaijo, as in "Meanwhile, Harada and Saikaijo, now both armed..." Is that a typo?
The transition from a luau in the pilot's honor, to any thought that he should be imprisoned, to Harada going over to the pilot's side, to Harada convincing the leaders to imprison the pilot in Harada's home, is a bit abrupt and confusing.
:The above points have all been corrected, and the name "Saikaijo," (apparently a misreading of the Japanese characters in Nishikaichi's name that appeared in Gordon W. Prange's book, Dec. 7 1941: The Day the Japanese Attacked Pearl Harbor), no longer appears in the revised article.
SBJ00:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Saikaijo

message: I'm moving this section to talk until secondary sources can be offered to back it up. —Viriditas | Talk 09:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the article again.  Out of four whole pages, the author devotes one sentence to his theory, stating, "With the nation in an uproar over the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, there can be no doubt that the Niihau event influenced the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt to summarily remove more than 100,000 persons of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast and intern them in the U.S. interior."  So, in other words, there's nothing to substantiate this theory except the insistence of "there can be no doubt".  Now that we have an actual, secondary source and attribution is possible, I would support adding the material back in with a few changes. —Viriditas | Talk 11:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote the content and added it back into the article. Thank you for following up on this. —Viriditas | Talk 12:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It now looks fine to me. Still, I would suggest the addition of the quote from the official 1942 report. Perhaps the link to the History Today article should be included in the main article. Cheers. Aussiesta 08:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote and the link are already in the article.  Are you referring to something else?  I've merged them into prose form, which is preferred, as opposed to blockquotes that offset the text. —Viriditas | Talk 12:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks perfect now, thanks. Aussiesta 10:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries.  —Viriditas | Talk 11:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible repercussions section 

message: This “incident” may have had another effect besides providing a morale-lifting example of Hawaiian resourcefulness, as evidenced by the following statements: 
The rapidity with which the three resident Japanese went over to the pilot’s cause dismayed the islanders.  The more pessimistic among them cited the Niihau incident as proof that no one could trust any Japanese, even if an American citizen, not to go over to Japan if it appeared expedient (Gordon W. Prange, December 7th, 1941: The Day the Japanese Attacked Pearl Harbor (New York: McGraw Hill, 1962, pp. 375-77).
 
The fact that the two Niihau Japanese who had previously shown no anti-American tendencies went to the aid of the pilot when Japan domination of the island seemed possible, indicate likelihood that Japanese residents previously believed loyal to the United States may aid Japan if further Japanese attacks appear successful. (Official report, January 26, 1942, Navy Lt. C.B. Baldwin)
 
There are those who think that this dramatic incident quickly had an influence on decisions and actions taken thousands of miles away, in the West Coast area of the United States mainland, leading to the Japanese American internment.
====Reply to removal of content====
There's a whole article on History Today about this incident and its direct relationship with the internment of Japanese American citizens during the war: http://www.historynet.com/magazines/world_war_2/3038111.html
And much more elsewhere. The Possible Repercussions sidebar should be added to the main article. I smell political correctness in its withdrawal. Aussiesta 15:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the article again.  Out of four whole pages, the author devotes one sentence to his theory, stating, "With the nation in an uproar over the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, there can be no doubt that the Niihau event influenced the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt to summarily remove more than 100,000 persons of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast and intern them in the U.S. interior."  So, in other words, there's nothing to substantiate this theory except the insistence of "there can be no doubt".  Now that we have an actual, secondary source and attribution is possible, I would support adding the material back in with a few changes. —Viriditas | Talk 11:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote the content and added it back into the article. Thank you for following up on this. —Viriditas | Talk 12:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It now looks fine to me. Still, I would suggest the addition of the quote from the official 1942 report. Perhaps the link to the History Today article should be included in the main article. Cheers. Aussiesta 08:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote and the link are already in the article.  Are you referring to something else?  I've merged them into prose form, which is preferred, as opposed to blockquotes that offset the text. —Viriditas | Talk 12:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks perfect now, thanks. Aussiesta 10:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries.  —Viriditas | Talk 11:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible repercussions

message: There's a whole article on History Today about this incident and its direct relationship with the internment of Japanese American citizens during the war: http://www.historynet.com/magazines/world_war_2/3038111.html
And much more elsewhere. The Possible Repercussions sidebar should be added to the main article. I smell political correctness in its withdrawal. Aussiesta 15:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the article again.  Out of four whole pages, the author devotes one sentence to his theory, stating, "With the nation in an uproar over the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, there can be no doubt that the Niihau event influenced the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt to summarily remove more than 100,000 persons of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast and intern them in the U.S. interior."  So, in other words, there's nothing to substantiate this theory except the insistence of "there can be no doubt".  Now that we have an actual, secondary source and attribution is possible, I would support adding the material back in with a few changes. —Viriditas | Talk 11:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote the content and added it back into the article. Thank you for following up on this. —Viriditas | Talk 12:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It now looks fine to me. Still, I would suggest the addition of the quote from the official 1942 report. Perhaps the link to the History Today article should be included in the main article. Cheers. Aussiesta 08:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote and the link are already in the article.  Are you referring to something else?  I've merged them into prose form, which is preferred, as opposed to blockquotes that offset the text. —Viriditas | Talk 12:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks perfect now, thanks. Aussiesta 10:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries.  —Viriditas | Talk 11:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to removal of content

message: Walter Lord's book "Day of Infamy" refers to the native Hawaiian who had first contact with the Japanese pilot as "Hawila Kaleohano". Is "Howard" simply an attempt at Westernization of his first name? -- • Kurt Guirnela • ‡ Talk 08:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it may have been vandalism.  It's been removed. —Viriditas | Talk 03:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the second page, second paragraph of that Historynet.com article linked to in the previous section refers to a "Howard Kaleohano", so it does appear to be some sort of Westernized version of his name. See the second paragraph on the page here: http://www.historynet.com/magazines/world_war_2/3038111.html?page=2&c=y  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysterius (talk • contribs) 04:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are correct.  The name was popularized by Beekman in his book.  Viriditas (talk) 05:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Howard Kaleohano or Hawila Kaleohano

message: I'm not yet convinced that "Niihau Incident" is the best or most accurate name for this article.  As far as I can tell, that is the name of Allan Beekman's 1982 book not the general name for this historical event. Viriditas (talk) 05:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, it's been almost a year and no response.  As far as I can tell, my research on this subject indicates that the name of this article should be "Invasion of Niihau" or "Battle of Niihau".  "Niihau Incident" refers to the name Beekman uses for his book and articles on the subject, not the name of the historical event. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Niihau Incident, or perhaps Incident on Niihau if the title have to be more general, is in my opinion probably the best description of the whole incident. Crash landing of single aircraft is hardly an invasion, and minor civil disorder resulting from actions of the aircraft pilot and Mr. and Mrs. Harada hardly deserves exalted title of a battle. --ja_62 (t|c) 21:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The topic is known as the "Battle of Niihau" in most sources on the subject, whether you think it deserves that designation or not.  The current article is plainly about Beekman's book, not the subject. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you mean sources you came up with? See WP:MILMOS#NAME. That's not my opinion which matters here. I'm not in principle against 'battle', as some sources apparently use such hugely exaggerating title for the whole incident (), but we must also remember that article shouldn't be about those sources. --ja_62 22:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is named after Beekman's book, "Niihau Incident"   The most common term for the event is "Battle of Niihau", which is supported by most of the sources in the Niihau article. Do a search for "Battle of Niihau" in Google books and news, and you'll see. Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, it looks like the "Battle of Niihau" is favored by writers, and "Niihau Incident" is favored by military historians, so might as well go with the latter for now.  I consider this matter closed. Viriditas (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: A classmate of mine at Punahou, John Bowles, published The Day our World Changed  (© 2004, Ice Cube Press), the recollections of more than 80 of our classmates' "Pearl Harbor day" experiences as 6, 7, and 8 year-old school children in Hawaii during and after the attack on Pearl Harbor.  Classmate Eddie Kam recalls that on the day of the attack he was with his father as they drove past sugar cane fields on their way out to Aiea (just to the north-west of Pearl Harbor) when they came upon an Army truck and a detachment of eight armed soldiers led by an officer.  Eddie recalls that his father stopped the car and they got out to see what was going on.  In his account Eddie said that the detachment had been sent out to investigate the report of a downed Japanese airplane.  Eddie said that he could see the swath cut through the cane field by the crash-landed aircraft, the aircraft itself about sixty yards off the road they were on, and plantation workers (mostly Japanese) who were helping to look for the plane's pilot.  Eddie recounts how as they were standing there watching the soldiers, their rifles at the ready and led by a lieutenant armed with a .45 automatic, move in a line towards the downed plane.  Then they heard a shot ring out and one of the soldiers cry out that he'd been shot (in the leg as it turned out).  Then someone was seen trying to crawl away from the plane.  Eddie says three more shots rang out, then the soldiers came back to the road, two of them carrying the body of the Japanese pilot. Eddie was standing close enough to get a good close look at the dead pilot, and describes the pilot's reddish hair and fair skin.  Eddie goes on to say that the soldiers were carrying the dead pilot's mess kit (rice, pickles, and fish) and other belongings, including the pistol the pilot used when he shot at the soldier.
Young Eddie Kam went on to graduate from Punahou, get a B.A. at Boston College and a law degree at UCLA, and teach law at the University of Hawaii, so I believe his account is credible.  His 'Pearl Harbor day' account starts on page 118 of Bowles' book, which is out of press now but can still be obtained through Amazon.com 
Since the Wikipedia article about the attack on Pearl Harbor says that 27 Japanese aircraft were destroyed and 55 airmen killed, what I'm wondering is, might it not be possible that other Japanese aircraft safely crash-landed in Hawaii besides the Niihau and Aiea incidents?  The Niihau incident is well-reported, as it is in this article (actually, more about it here than what I knew even when I was growing up in post-WWII Hawaii).  But what about other possible incidents similar to the one Eddie Kam recounted in John Bowles book?  Could there have been other Japanese pilots that survived their crash-landings, but were found, shot and killed by the Army, their bodies unceremoniously disposed of, and those incidents also 'under-reported' by the military?
And what about another possibility, that there may have been one (or more) Japanese pilots that safely crash-landed their aircraft, were found by friendly Japanese residents (as in this article), were welcomed and absorbed into a Japanese community somewhere, safely but warily living out not only the rest of the war in Hawaii, but also living out the rest of their life there as well?  I mean, they couldn't go back to Japan after the war, could they?  To face the ignominity and dishonor of having 'hidden' from enemy soldiers instead of bravely and honorably fighting it out with them as their fellow pilots had done -- to the death?
K. Kellogg-Smith (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A different and under-unreported 'downed pilot' incident? 

message: I'm struggling to understand why Shintani is portrayed here and in other media as a belligerent on the side of Nishikaichi. All accounts seem to indicate that he wanted nothing to do with Nishikaichi from their first encounter. The extent of his involvement was an attempt to bribe Kaleohano, which Kanahele implies was done under duress and notes that Shintani went into hiding with other villagers immediately afterwards. It explains why Shintani was able to return to the island while Irene Haruda wasn't. It's understandable that the pro-American war propaganda of the time would omit those facts to justify Shintani's arrest and internment, but there's no reason they should be omitted here. Thoughts?
Ben Kanahele's detailed account of the incident.
162.237.20.52 (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: On a minor sidenote, Kanahele notes the bribe was 200 yen, provided by Nishikaichi, not $200. 162.237.20.52 (talk) 07:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

text: Agree, a note of this should be made. The Verified Cactus 100% 21:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

text: Added. The Verified Cactus 100% 01:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ben Kanahele's account and Shintani's role 

message: "The Robinson family was unhappy with the censorship of the information about the Haradas, who had donated the aircraft and tractor pieces based on what they were told about how the display would read."
If it was the Robinson family who had donated the aircraft and tractor parts, and not the Harada family, as I believe is factually correct, would it not be more accurate to say "The Robinson family, who had donated the aircraft and tractor pieces based on what they were told about how the display would read, was unhappy with the censorship of the information about the Haradas."
I will add that when Mrs. Harada died many years after the war there was no mention of her involvement in the Ni'ihau Incident. 2603:800C:3944:BC00:BD2B:D77C:788A:BAF0 (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who donated the aircraft and tractor parts? 

message: On the 22nd August, an anonymous editor changed the wording in the lede from "committed suicide" to "died by suicide".  Does Wikipedia policy support this?  I am aware that some people find the use of "committed" in the context of suicide to be objectionable, but to my knowledge its still standard usage.  (I'm also of the view that the alternative of "died by suicide" is a particularly clunky phrasing, and by using the passive voice suggests its just something that happened with no agency of the person involved.  If it is consensus that "committed" is inappropriate, I would propose "killed himself" as a more direct alternative). Iapetus (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harada's suicide