Talk:Attack on Pearl Harbor/Archive 6

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I class submarine 

message: :'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)
replies: text: Rather than adding more to the article we should try to trim. -Will Beback · † · 20:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First attack since 1812 

message: 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)
replies: text: Indeed, the nuclear bomb is irrelevant to this article. The Land 21:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor = U.S. Atomic Bomb? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. The Land 21:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casus Belli 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Alternate history 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:OsaNag.jpg

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Clear as mud