Talk:Battle of Wake Island

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

To do[edit]

Generic "marines"[edit]

There were marines deployed on both sides, and the statement in introduction is meant to reflect that. Please stop changing it to "[[United States Marine Corps|Marines]]" - they weren't the only marines involved! --Jpbrenna 18:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield 2 video game[edit]

Removing/rewriting "the only inaccurate part of the map is that the artillery island is not an actual part of the island in real life." BF2's "Wake Island 2007" map has plenty of trees in an area which is today a runway.

Result[edit]

Result of the battle was "Japanese military victory United States Morale victory", changed it to Japanese victory. While the Americans put up good fight, we shouldn't cast out any morale victories in result section. If we do, we should probably add them to all battles of WW2 where small garrisons have proven to be resilient, and there are lots of those. Muhvi 12:05, 28.08.2006 (UTC+3)

I concur --- first of all, the phrase is "moral victory --- yes, they have the same root, but moral is the usual rendering in English. Secondly, Muhvi is right on: There have already been disputes about phrases like Pyrrhic victory etc. in Battle of Crete and other articles. If we are going to use them, we need to come up with useful definitions, discuss, and vote on them in the Military History Wikiproject. Perhaps we can come up with a useful definition of "Pyrrhic" (Iff victor casualties/vanquished casualties > percentage N --- and in this case it may have indeed been Pyrrhic for the Japanese ), but moral victory is so amorphous as to be almost useless in a battlebox, because it needs so much hedging and further discussion. I agree that Wake was a moral victory as it served to galvanize public support and enhance the reputation of the Marine Corps --- which would prove critical after the war when it was suggested in earnest that the Marines be abolished --- but by any other measure it was a defeat. Pardon my slippery slope, but if we start allowing terms like "Moral Victory" in the battlebox for Wake Island, we'll soon have to allow "Learning Experience" for disasters like the Dieppe Raid and "A Bridge Too Far" for Operation Market Garden. Let's just call a defeat a "defeat" and elaborate in the article. --Jpbrenna 21:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In some ways, Wake WAS a Morale (e added purposely) victory. After the trashing at Pearl Harbor, it gave the American public and military a morale boost to see the US marines and civilians hold out so long against such overwhelming odds. Wake, in some ways, proved to the average American after Pearl Harbor that the military COULD fight, and fight outstandingly well despite having everything against them. I've read period papers, letters and diaries, and Wake was BIG news in 1941, even though it was a loss for the United States. While agree about the removal of "Moral Victory," I do think some reference to the morale effect Wake had on the American public after Pearl might be good to ref. --205.157.110.11 22:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone edited the result again, reverted it. If you want to include something about morale, add section about it to the article itself. Battlebox should remain with simple japanese victory because that it is. It is not the place for in depth analysis of situation, it is simple fact box. Muhvi 00:11, 23.10.2006 (UTC+3)

Pyrrhic victory in result, changed it to japanese victory. While the japanese casualties were high considering the size of the garrison, it wasn't pyrrhic in any sense, japanese could've lost many times that much and still continued the war in similar fashion. Battlebox should remain with simple japanese victory because that it is. Muhvi 00:31, 13.07.2019 (UTC+3) —Preceding undated comment added 21:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive detail in battlebox[edit]

The battlebox was cluttered and did not conform to Wikipedia style standards (especially bizzare was the use of braces for parentheses). The breakdowns by service were uneccesary: anyone who is that interested will likely read the whole article and learn them in the course of his reading. I also took out the POW murders: these were not battle deaths, which are an inevitable consequence of war, they were mass-murders committed long after the battle had ended, and they are discussed fully in the article. We simply can't cram a whole article into the battlebox --- which defeats its purpose --- so we need to keep it brief. --Jpbrenna 21:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction/confusing text[edit]

According to the article (under section 4.1), "Rear Admiral Shigematsu Sakaibara ordered the execution of the 98 captured American civilian workers (...)". One of the workers escaped, and carved "98 US PW 5-10-43" at the site, before he was captured and later killed. Does this mean that 99 prisoners was ordered to be killed, or did he include himself in his carving? Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 01:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the same section, it appears that Rear Admiral Shigematsu Sakaibara's sentence was commuted to life in prison, but in the article about Shigematsu Sakaibara it states that he was hanged (with a final statement, no less). Both descriptions cite the same source, which can no longer be found. Danesparza (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Video Game section[edit]

This section was originally too long and detailed, but instead of being edited it was removed without any discussion / agreement. I wrote a much shorter version which could definitely be improved but is a better length. Please do not remove it arbitrarily, there is a precedent across many military articles on wikipedia for including video game depictions alongside other popular culture depictions. 121.45.27.47 13:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Trivia sections and discussions here and here, references to the appearance of a subject in popular culture such as video games is to be avoided. That's why the section was removed completely. It doesn't add materially to the subject of the article. Cla68 21:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and I have removed these references yet again. PLEASE do not add them back to the article - if necessary, create a separate article about them. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American prisoners[edit]

We might want to consider a section dedicated specifically to the prisoners. The article mentions one massacre which took place on the island, but there's more to the prisoner story than that. To wit: the Japanese didn't keep all its prisoners on the island. The Japanese transported most of the Wake Island prisoners to Fukuoka Camp 18 in Sasebo where they were forced into slave labor building the Soto Dam for the remainder of the war. Scores died and perhaps another hundred were unaccounted as they were transferred from the camp.[1] Rklawton (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confused about suken Ship[edit]

"Both Japanese destroyers were lost with all hands, and Hayate was the first Japanese naval ship sunk during World War II." Ok...I'm alttile confused, but last time I checked the first Japanese ship to be sunk by the US was a midget sub by the USS Ward. This happend on the morning of December 7, 1941 before Japanese aircraft reached Pearl. Now I don't know if one ment during declared war between the US and Japan or what. Either way I just wanted to bring this up before any editing is to happen. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.39.5 (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hayate[edit]

destroyer Ward sank a Japanese submarine near Pearl Harbor about an hour before Japanese planes bombed the American fleet[2], Hayte is the first surface warship sunk--Work permit (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Occupation[edit]

Phil Scearce's book, "Finish Forty and Home", goes into much more detail on the raid on July 24th over Wake Island, and the experiences of each of the pilots during that raid. We may want to go into more detail in this section. I added a few additions, but this section, and that specific raid could be broken out more with more history. Jesse Stay (talk) 05:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:WakeIsland (1942 movie) cover.jpg[edit]

Image:WakeIsland (1942 movie) cover.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Landing attempt "has been repelled by just shore batteries"[edit]

This is clearly an overstatement, since 50% of the major losses (the Kisaragi) obviously had been inflicted by aircraft. Furthermore, the whole paragraph lacks in-depth citations.Especially in the light that the battle report of the Yubari does not mention any hits on her (according to "A battle history of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1941-1945, Paul S. Dull). 213.61.58.164 (talk) 08:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)kookee[reply]

For this, see also the wikipedia article on "Yubari". 213.61.58.164 (talk) 09:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)kookee[reply]

It's not sourced anyway, so I took it out. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

POW lack of detail/clarity[edit]

Were the military POWs part of the contingent set to work building defenses, or were they taken away beforehand? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding there was no distinction. There were civvies present during the fighting and took part in it, and were taken in the aftermath. I don't believe there was any evacuation. I will need to look up the excellent hyperwar site to clarify this. I think that clipper got out just hours before, with some Pan Am people. Irondome (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Check this out http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/I/USMC-I-III-1.html Irondome (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This gives precise details of the fate of the P.O.W.'s including civilians. In 1943 over a hundred civilian prisoners were massacred. This can be used to bulk up the references in the article. http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/V/USMC-V-A.html#Wake Irondome (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Battle of 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coming up to 75 commemoration...[edit]

So lets help make this article fitting for those marines/civilians. 71.222.142.117 (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back, the article has improved a lot over the years, it is nice to see that. This year finally added a long over-due section on the submarines, but I think still needs more details on air combat and the forces involved. A75 (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Wake_Island&oldid=1218276825"