Talk:Attack on Pearl Harbor/Archive 4

message: The article says:
:"One particular flaw of Japanese strategic thinking was that the ultimate Pacific battle would be between battleships of both sides."
This is because it was based on the theories of Alfred T. Mahan. Every major navy shared Japan's delusion; she was the only one to cleave to it so strongly for so long. This article isn't exactly the place to mention that; if somebody knows where it should be, let me know?  Trekphiler 12:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Imperial Japanese Navy or War Plan Orange might be suitable for that. Nevfennas 07:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanx for the heads up.  Trekphiler 00:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On the other Mahan

message: Thank you for having a lot more info that I never knew i now do because I am working on a report that I needed Pearl Harbor for.-Call of duty 03:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank You  

message: Anyone where about a letter written to the US administration several months before about Japanese plans TO attack Pearl Harbour and that Truman was aware of that but refrain to make it public and react before the December 7 incident?--JForget 18:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There might be mention of it in Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate. -Will Beback · † · 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suspicous letter about an attack to Pearl Harbour?

message: I'm sure this has been discussed before in many forms, but ... I wikied this randomly, searching for "Battle of Pearl Harbor", and was surprised to be redirected to "Attack on Pearl Harbor".  Is there some technical military distinction I'm missing here between a "battle" and an "attack"?
Put another way, are there other examples of Wikipedia articles about "two military forces engage in combat" that are titled "Attack on (X)"?  I note also that it's categorized under "Battles of Japan"/"Battles of the United States".  --GenkiNeko 19:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Battle" implies opposing forces fighting each other. This is closer to a "raid", in which one force inflicts surprise damage against little opposition. I'd argue against changing it to "battle". Since the article name has been stable for years, substantial support should exist for a name change before it's enacted. -Will Beback · † · 21:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this should be thoroughly discussed beforehand.  As to the "raid" idea, that makes intuitive sense to me; my concern is that I haven't seen a whole lot of other articles about similar events that use that terminology.  --GenkiNeko 22:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do see articles like Doolittle Raid, Second Raid on Schweinfurt, Schweinfurt-Regensburg mission, Bombing of Hamburg in World War II, Bombing of Dresden in World War II, Bombing of Tokyo in World War II, , Rotterdam Blitz, etc. So "Bombing of Pearl Harbor" or "Raid on Pearl Harbor" might be alternatives. What similar events are you comparing it to? -Will Beback · † · 22:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing the research on that.  In light of those other articles, I think this is a reasonable name for the article after all.  "Raid on Pearl Harbor" might be technically better, though I confess I've almost never heard that name in English.  --GenkiNeko 00:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Its most common name is Attack on Pearl Harbor. I've rarely(Actually, never) heard it called Raid on Pearl Harbor. Bombing of Pearl Harbor I have a few times. However, I'm sure most people when looking for this article type in Attack on Pearl Harbor. Just my two cents. Gelston 08:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unlikely any one phrase wil lsatisfy all. And all this was debated earlier in this article's history. See the archives o fhte talk page. We settled on 'attack' as the least likely to provoke conflict. More or less. ww 04:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV - Article Title 

message: This whole section sounds like unencyclopedic speculation, but I've only removed the most blatant sentence: "Nagumo must have been very happy to suffer no losses and very probably did not want to push his luck."  Even if that sentence was copied verbatim from a published source, it sounds like a wild guess.  At the very least, the very excess use of the word "very" could be avoided where it very probably could be worded better (irony intended) :-) Jaksmata 17:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your removal of that sentence. But the section as a whole is legitimate. The decision has been the subject of speculation by historians and we should report the issues they've raised. We should not add our own speculations. -Will Beback · † · 21:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nagumo's decision to withdraw after two strikes 

message: Hey guys.
Right...
Singapore Burning, by Colin Smith () informs us that a particular Commander Genda (attache of IJNAF @ Japanese Embassy, London) was quite impressed by the raid on the Italian Fleet @ Taranto, Italy by the RN, and wrote a careful appraisal that was sent to Tokyo. Susequentley IJNAF pilots honed their skills with the knowledge of the tactics used at Taranto.
Perhaps this could get a mention somewhere? 
FeZzYwEzZy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FeZzYwEzZy (talk • contribs) 16:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already in there. See the "Background" section. -Will Beback · † · 22:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taranto as an influence 

message: Don't know how the editors feel about external links. Original Pearl Harbor Photos looks questionable to me. Just passing through.
  Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  15:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem. It's not a commercial site. The photos are likely taken on behalf of the U.S. Gov. and so would be public domain. -Will Beback · † · 20:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Glad I left it alone.   Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  13:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The photos are already linked from this article in the U.S. Naval Historical Center external link, which has those and more, and is clearly a reliable official source.  This link isn't spam, but they lack sourcing, the statement at the top of the pages is wrong (not someone's private photos), and are redundant in this article. See the Snopes article on the pictures.  I'm removing the link. --*Spark* 13:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this spam or OK? 

message: Can someone please confirm the edits made by 24.9.72.71 are valid? 24.9.72.71 made a lot of changes to this article without providing descriptions for most of their edits.--Just James 03:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything looks fine, 90% of the edits were either to page formatting or were changes that the user changed back in the next edit. There were only a few edits that he kept and I fixed a couple of them per Wikipedia:MOS so it doesn't look like they is any problem. I would't worry.— WilsBadKarma (Talk) 03:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits by [[User talk:24.9.72.71|24.9.72.71]]

message: I repaired some vandalism by 141.156.196.225.   he had vandalized two parts of the page (at 16:13, feb 3, and 16:14) and one of them was fixed by someone else before i fixed it.Mdk0642 01:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism by 141.156.196.225 

message: Let me make more controversy. The article says US losses were heavy. 2400 KIA isn't heavy, against a potential over 20000. Also, the infobox has Japan with 441 a/c. This looks to me to include every VS on every IJN cruiser & battleship. Nagumo's six decks had 359 a/c between them; they were the strike force, so that's the important number. Cf Willmott's Barrier & the Javelin & Sakai & Caidin's Zero, among others, for exact numbers. The 20000 figure is a postwar comment by Nimitz, mentioned in Holmes' Double-Edged Secrets (& likely elsewhere).  Trekphiler 00:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like someone counted some lost a/c more than once. Can you, or any reader of this comment, provide better ones. My memory reports something less than 100 a/c lost, and I think that's high. It was a very efficient attack from an IJN view. Lots of damage to the enemy and little to them. Good trade off for them. ww 04:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it was double-counting, just somebody failing to distinguish between striking & recon a/c. Japan lost an astonishingly low 29 birds; I'm unclear if that includes a/c damaged beyond repair or recovery accidents, but my understanding is all were directly due to enemy action. It was an exceptional tradeoff, product of surprise.  Trekphiler 20:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, 15% of a force killed or wounded is not "comparatively light", especially if the comparison is against the 64 killed on the other side.  40-1 KIA's is a heavy loss in any fight.  
The comment on heavy losses is also regarding materiel, not just human losses, the Japanese lost 4 minisubs and 29 a/c, while the US lost 4 battleships, & five other ships, and 188 a/c.  To say the losses were comparatively light implies the minisubs had the near value of a battleship and a destroyer, and 6-1 ship losses is also "comparatively heavy", not "comparatively light.  Second, calling the ships lost obsolete without citation seems to weaken the results of the attack.  Yes, the planes and ships were obsolete by today's standards, but they were our Pacific Fleet at the time, equivalent to the Japanese forces, and they seemed to be pretty formidable to the Japanese, so much so that they attacked them. CodeCarpenter 22:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I was counting the materiel losses. It was comparative to the potential losses, not to the Japanese losses, which is the usual standard. It "seems to weaken the results of the attack"? That's the idea. The Japanese missed the boat, destroying ships & planes that would play small or no part in the war even had they survived. And it's not "obsolete by today's standards"; they were obsolete at the time. (If you don't know that, maybe you shouldn't criticize comments by people who do.) And how formidable to the Japanese they were isn't the issue, either. IJN was in the grip of a faulty doctrine, & we shouldn't be endorsing it; the idea is to present a historical view, not parrot the contemporary mistakes. Furthermore, I wouldn't put too much emphasis on it; the attack on Pearl Harbor was as much a political statement, an attack on British-American unity, as on the Fleet.  Trekphiler 18:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: By the numbers

message: Can somebody clarify this?
:"First, for classic battleship warfare, the relative isolation of Hawaii would make it difficult for any naval fleet to be outflanked"
I'm unaware of naval warfare allowing "any naval fleet to be outflanked". Also, I rewrote this:
:"for Japan to achieve the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere". This "Co-prosperity sphere" was shorthand for control of the resources (especially oil reserves) of Southeast Asia, the Dutch East Indies, and a defensible buffer around them."
I've always understood the "Co-Prosperity Sphere" to be a political entity unconnected with strategy. The strategy was to form an impenetrable barrier, which was misguided & impossible (given IJN doctrine); cf War Plan Orange & Imperial Japanese Navy.  Trekphiler 20:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where's [[David Gerrold]]?

message: The article says "353 planes reached Oʻahu". It also says only 350 were launched.  Trekphiler 04:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Twilight Zone]] [[mathematics|math]]

message: Commanded by Captain Charles M. "Savvy" Cook, & Fleet flag, what happened to her?  Trekphiler 05:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sweet Home [[USS Pennsylvania (BB-38)|''Pennsylvania'']]

message: The article said
:"Conversely, the Pacific theater became Japan's sole focus of attention; overwhelming the Americans and, later, defending against them, undermined cooperative efforts against British and Russian holdings in East Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Indian Ocean region."
This is nonsense, & I deleted it. Japan's primary effort from 1931-1945 was China. "Cooperative efforts against British and Russian holdings" didn't exist, nor were there any Axis plans for them. The Germans & Japanese couldn't even come to a firm agreement on supplying U-boats. 
It also says
:"Opening a second front against the Soviet Union, which never came to fruition, would have been of considerable value to the combined Axis' war effort."
I see a potential benefit to Germany. I'm unclear how it was supposed to aid Japan. It would not stop supplies to China (well, it might stop Soviet supplies to China...), nor would it secure Japan's oil (Germany had none to spare). It would have engaged the Kwantung Army, which IJA was itching to get in action. It would also have been an unmitigated disaster for IJA, which had laughably bad antitank guns, in the face of T-34s (& Germany had quite enough trouble with them herself). This point needs to be clarified or removed.  Trekphiler 06:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oh, really?

message: The article said "which detailed the administration's plan to provoke a war with Japan." This is nonsense, & I deleted it. I've read the memo, reproduced in Stinnet, which I've also read. It's not supported by the facts, & you have to believe in a conspiracy to read it as a "plan to provoke a war with Japan".  Trekphiler 07:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Take a memo

message: "The Pearl Harbor attack was a brilliant tactic, but part of a strategy based on the belief that a spirit as firm as iron and as beautiful as cherry blossoms could overcome the materially wealthy United States. That strategy was flawed, and Japan's total defeat would follow.[24]" 
This sounds far too literary for any encyclopedia. Also, the bit on FDR knowing in advance should be more detailed in discussion/refutation. 75.68.6.81 12:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too literary?

message: I changed or deleted "The United States had decrypted and translated the last part of the final message" and "after decryption and translation of the 14th part (he was out for a morning horseride)" The main part of the 14 Part message, 1 reason why the U.S. had it so quickly & the Japanese had trouble, was in English. See Prange, Goldstein, & Dillon, December 7th 1941. I also deleted "though there was a delay in sending it because he could not be immediately located." as redundant; I rewrote.  Trekphiler 00:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the problem. The Foreign Office had oredered destruction of all but one Purple machine at the Washington Embassy, and for such high level messages only one or two poeople were aloowed to work on them (decryption, translation, typing, ...). The US had staffing problems (limited numbers of Japanese speakers, for instance), but it certainly had more available staff and so was faster. And so I'm not clear quite what your objection is/was. ww 07:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was "translation"; U.S. crypto guys didn't have to translate it from English, so mentioning it as a cause of delay is specious & inaccurate. You've misread it; it had nothing to do with the Japanese.  Trekphiler 00:46 5 March 2007 & 03:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lost in translation

message: If Lockhard & Elliot didn't specify statute or nautical miles, how does the editor know it was "136 nautical miles (218 km)", pray tell? Also, I rewrote to this:
:"U.S. losses were comparatively light: 2403 dead and 1178 wounded, 5 obsolete battleships, 3 destroyers, 3 cruisers, and 188 (mostly obsolescent or obsolete) planes."
2400 KIA out of over 20000 is light; the BBs were old, & too slow to serve as task force escorts; P-36s were obsolete; & P-40s, obsolescent. Only the PBYs were current. In addition, I corrected "destroyer Nagara" to "light cruiser Nagara"; do everyone a favor, don't change it back. I also deleted "(cruiser Mikawa flag)"; Mikawa was the Admiral, not a ship. I also added "(Vice Admiral Mikawa Gunichi, Hiei flag)" to Support Force; he was SO.  Trekphiler 03:01 & 03:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidently somebody doesn't read the talk page. What is "comparatively light", "blatant POV" or "vandalism"?  Trekphiler 01:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cant't agree with your 'comparatively light' characterization. It's widely felt to have been a monstrous loss, and is proportionally high as well (see earlier analysis on this point above here). ww 19:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "It's widely felt to have been a monstrous loss"? I'm not persuaded. However "widely felt" it is, the professionals who opine on it disagree. Nimitz (who should damn sure know) felt the Navy got off easy. Consider: 7 battleships with crews around 1500 each; about 12 cruisers, about 1000 each; about 30 destroyers, about 150 each; 2 Army infantry divisions, 20-30000; a Navy patrol wing & 2 AAF fighter groups, about 3000; & I don't know how many Marines. Against that, 2400 KIA/1200 WIA is "compratively ligt", regardless how "widely felt to have been a monstrous loss". I'm changing it back. See my comment on "obsolete" above, too.  Trekphiler 18:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Details, details

message: Does anybody else have a problem with this?
:"It resulted in the destruction not only of the Japanese armed forces, but also in the destruction of Japan's allies."
To me, this implies a direct connection between the attack & the defeat of Germany, which is, at least, a bit overblown.  Trekphiler 04:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Through a word processor, darkly

message: I can't get the words under "General Short" and "Battleship Row" to not be hidden beneath the images. Could someone look at that? Kyaa the Catlord 04:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Must be your browser. I'm not seeing the problem.  Trekphiler 06:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It occurs in both firefox and IE 7. Not quite as badly in IE 7, though. Kyaa the Catlord 07:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem with my borwser (Firefox 1.5) either. I think I have to agree with Trek here. The common factor would be...? Lots of guesses, no good thoughts. ww 19:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could just be your system, Kyaa. I've had weird stuff happen on pages, too, but it doesn't show up for other people. Reboot? Update your OS? Change your CPU? Throw your monitor out the window? (I'd call that a last resort. ;D)  Trekphiler 04:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've verified this happens on multiple computers in multiple browsers. [] Kyaa the Catlord 05:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Words under pictures

message: The article calls it "Operation Z". So does Toland, IIRC. Except Prange (with Dillon & Goldstein), who I would trust far more than Toland, in Pearl Harbor Papers (based on Japanese records) say "Op AI", after the initial letters for "Hawaii" in Japanese, per standard Japanese wartime practise. Z? Got a better source than Toland?  Trekphiler 04:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oh, say, can you Z?

message: The article says 93 91 (oops. Trekphiler 18:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On the count of 
93
91

message: Am I correct in my understanding that Hawaii time was GMT-10:30 in December 1941? It might be useful to add that in a footnote. We should then change the current link from Hawaii time in the first paragraph, which leads to an indication that Hawaii time is -10:00 (true now but not then, if I am correct). --Cam 18:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hawaii time

message: Instead of Japan's current flag (), shouldn't this article use the War Ensign – ? JGHowes 00:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese flags