Talk:USS Panay incident

message: I got tired of the useless assertations, so I took an entirely radical and unthinkable step to solve the problem. I asked them.
:Features written by NARA staff are in the public domain. Prologue does not hold any copyright, but individual authors may choose to copyright.  Trevor Plante is a NARA archivist, and therefore his article is in the public domain. Copyrighted articles are indicated by the (c) symbol after the author's name. 
:Even though there is no copyright, we are interested to know where Prologue features are reprinted and ask that, as a courtesy, Prologue is given as the source.
:Thank you for inquiring.
:Mary C. Ryan
:Policy & Communications Staff - NPOL
NPOL being the policy branch of NARA.  There's an email address and a phone number attached, but I'm not putting them up unless requested to do so.
There, was that really so hard? -- Cyrius 20:10, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Public domain

message: Wow. An excellent start, and an interesting read. I think it would be pertinent, however, to expand upon the significance of the event in the introduction. This was the first Japanese attack on any US target during the prelude to WW II, right? Obviously, it didn't garner a lot of direct response, nothing like the response that Pearl Harbor, the Maine, or the Lusitania did, but I think it's a much more significant event than simply one of many attacks. Also, please cite your sources in a dedicated References or Sources section. LordAmeth 15:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WPMILHIST Assessment

message: The is not alone in telling that the Panay was deliberately bobmed by the Japanese. But could anyone explain to me the why? Why were the Japanese officers deliberately attaking a ship of the neutral USA? thestor 12:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deliberate Attack, but why?

message: There is lots of extended blah-blah about people who offered or donated trivial amounts of money in regret for the Panay bombing. This is a bunch of triviality and non-encyclopedic in nature and does not belong here. I have erased some of it now, and I am tempted to erase all of it. What is important (and encyclopedic) information is the large amount of money paid to the U.S. by the Japanese government. It is hard to believe why someone would want to write all the stuff about triviality by private individuals. Someone needs to learn about how scales of importance apply to events - and not to babble about things.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.90.237 (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: too much blah blah re donations

message: The post incident section seems to take up about three-quarters of the article, but focuses largely on the responses of some (by no means all) Japanese citizens. It's also largely taken from one source.</br> 
I suggest it gives the matter undue weigth in an article on this subject; it should be substantially trimmed, and the original article linked for further reading. The subject of Japanese dislike of the militaristic stance their country had is a worthwhile subject, but such an in-depth treatment of a single aspect of it is out of place here. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, something needs to be said about the donations, since it seems to have been a diplomatically important aspect of the event. I've read the National Archives article on the subject before, and it's clear that Ambassador Grew and the State Department were quite troubled on how to handle the affair. While the original blanket copy-and-paste was obviously excessive, the way it has been clumsily chopped out leaves the current article with a nonsensical break in this section. It needs to be rewritten with a summary of what happened. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

text: Another problem with this section is that it starts by talking about the contributions, but never gets around to explaining what contributions it's talking about, or why they were a problem.  This could easily be solved by adding one sentence to the beginning of the paragraph explaining that they were (I presume) voluntary donations by Japanese citizens who wanted to show their regret for the incident.  Alas, I know nothing about them as I'd never heard of them before.  Maybe somebody with more information can tidy this slight issue up.  JDZeff (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post incident 

message: hi, my purnell's The Illustrated encyclopedia of 20th Century Weapons & Warfare under "D1A, Aichi" (p. 674) states "Most saw action in China, one unit dive-bombing and sinking the USS gunboat Panay in the Yangtze in 1937." just wondering why the article doesn't mention these aircraft (also no mention of this in the aircraft's wikiarticle). thanks, Coolabahapple (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Incident" involving other aircraft?