Talk:Attack on Pearl Harbor/Archive 14

Order of Battle
What about ground troops? did the Japanese pack any marines and how many US (and allies???) were on Oahu and the other Hawaiian islands? 50,000 American troops - on internet.213.106.120.244 (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The Japanese Navy did not have marines per se. Their closest equivalent were the Special Naval Landing Forces which were sailors trained as infantry. I don't think any were with Nagumo's task force; they were all needed in China, the Mandates, or with the Southern Operation (the Japanese opening offensive in southeast Asia). The U.S. garrison on Oahu was built around 24th and 25th Divisions with a few elements of Marine defense battalions in transit. The two Army divisions were unusually well-trained and well-equipped for the U.S. army of the day; that is, badly trained and poorly equipped, but not as bad as the National Guard divisions being fleshed out with draftees back on the mainland.--Yaush (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * thanks for that. here is a source and something that might be worth putting in. Staff ride handbook for the attack on Pearl Harbor, 7 December 1941: a study of defending America   Jeffrey J. Gudmens   1 Review  DIANE Publishing, 2005 "in december 1941 the US Army had 42,857 men assigned to the Hawaiian Department, commanded by LTG Walter C. Short." 213.106.120.244 (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Found photographer for the historic picture at the top of this article.
While researching a documentary on Pearl harbour for the National Geographic Channel I found the photographer who took this picture.

Takeo Shiro was the observer on a Type 97 (B5N 'Kate') Torpedo bomber in the first wave of the attack. As I write, he is 92 years old and living in southern Japan.

His own copy, and the camera he took it with, were destroyed when the aircraft carrier he served on - Hiryu - was later sunk at the battle of Midway. Thus, the captured copies stored in various archives were the only surviving record of this image.

He makes no claims about copyright or ownership.

I've never contributed to wikipedia before, so not sure how to edit image info etc. but I felt this information was an interesting addition to an image I've seen for decades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.82.19.226 (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 70.112.125.123, 23 May 2011
The page says PH lead to the US entry in the the Pacific and European theaters... Not entirely correct. The US declared war on Japan the next day, but not on any of the other axis countries. Germany actually declared war on the US, and that is how the US entered the European theater officially.

70.112.125.123 (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Without the attack, Germany & Italy wouldn't have declared on the U.S., so it did lead to the U.S. entry, actually...  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  02:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Per comment by TREKphiler. Alpha Quadrant    talk    22:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.99.166.229, 12 June 2011
Please edit the section marked "controversy". It lacks proper citation from a reliable source. The source it cites appears to be bogus and at other times the citation just isn't even there.

24.99.166.229 (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The section has a couple of cites that should establish that there is a controversy, and a link to the main Wikipedia article discussing that controversy. Is the problem that the cited sources don't discuss the controversy? I don't have copies of either work readily accessible.Yaush (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Should Mitsuo Fuchida be included in the Japanese leaders section of the infobox, he led the air attack on Peal Harbor
I am curious if the above question is valid for a discussion on it. What are other's views?--R-41 (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * He's too junior. By that reasoning, Layton & Rochefort should be on the list, to name just 2 who immediately come to mind. So should every air wing commander in the Kido Butai & squadron commander in Hawaii. The listing is for the top guys.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  02:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Should WP:TRIVIA section be removed?
Last December, we discussed the fact that 2011 will be the 70th aniversary of this event and bringing the article to Featured Article status. So, I deleted the trivia section in accordance to WP:TRIVIA.  Unfortunately, the trivia section keeps getting restored. Should the trivia section stay or be removed? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Attack on the Phillipines
The section on the attack on the phillipines is improperly marked up. But I also don't think it even belongs in this article; the information should be moved to the article on the attack on the phillipines and the section in this article changed to a link there. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.68.15 (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleted. It's too POV for his own page, never mind this one.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  18:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"Japanese attacks on barracks killed additional personnel."
Uhh, whilst recognizing how sensitive this issue is to the American audience, is it not now accepted that most of these casualties were from American shells that in the haste of the battle were not properly fused, thus exploding on impact when they hit the ground? Old_Wombat (talk) 10:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Nested parentheses
The lead currently starts with the text:

Is it really necessary to have nested parentheses? This is confusing. —danhash (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the ref is to IGHQ's ID of it in planning, as opposed to an entirely separate case, it should stay.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  00:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"no drill" vs. "not drill"
This edit caught my eye. My first thought was "what the heck is a Beloite and Beloite?". I was unable to answer that question by looking in the article, Wor (surprisingly) by a bit of quick googling. Some more googling turned up It appears that there were a number of messages sent and received variously, with some variations in wording; or perhaps I'm just confused. In any case, the article could probably deconfuse this better. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * - "No Drill", but not quoting a message asserted to have been sent from the headquarters of Patrol Wing Two.
 * , "This is no drill' were agreed-upon code words ...";, "The navy messenger was carrying a penciled note ...".
 * - "NO DRILL is replaced by NOT DRILL" "at 7:58 ...", "at 8 AM ...".
 * "AIR RAID PEARL HARBoR THIS IS NO DRILL".
 * - "Enemy air raid, Pearl Harbor. This is not a drill."
 * (Full text of "Pearl Harbor attack : hearings before the Joint Committee on the investigation of the Pearl Harbor attack, Congress of the United States, Seventy-ninth Congress, first session, pursuant to S. Con. Res. 27, 79th Congress, a concurrent resolution authorizing an investigation of the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and events and circumstances relating thereto ..."), under PROCEEDINGS OF ROBERTS COMMISSION 1569, "Enemy Air Raid — Not Drill."
 * I can't name the book, but the duo are well-known historians who put years of study into the issue (yes, historians do this sometimes) & concluded "not", rather than "no", was the word actually sent. I came across this, IIRC, in Roscoe's history of USN sub ops.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  19:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * - "AIRRAID ON PEARLHARBOR X THIS IS NO DRILL" - Photograph of the telegram. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.88.131 (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Except, that's what was copied by the receiving operator, not (necessarily) what was sent by the originator, Bellinger....  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  10:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

New "additional reading" available.
The full text of the Congressional Investigation into the Attack on Pearl Harbor is now online at: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/congress/

The "Magic" Background to Pearl Harbor is also available, in HTML and PDF: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/magic/

If you have any problem, please email me. (Sorry if this is the wrong place for this, it's my first day here.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OpanaPointer (talk • contribs) 12:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Those are great links, thx! And you're not wrong putting them here, tho, correctly formatted, they might also go on the article page.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  13:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. By all means add them to the article page. You may find it helpful to click on the "Templates" menu that appears just above the edit window, and select "cite web". It's an exercise well worth going through yourself. --Yaush (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Very helpful Yaush. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Landfill!
I have a photo of them burying one of the midget subs in some seawall a few years later. Was this common practice? I find it odd to say the least!

And would it have been Sakamaki's? That is the only one the US had on its hands more-or-less intact, right?

Any online sources? The pic I have was in an old Vets' mag or the like, I forget. 66.105.218.11 (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not Sakamaki's. That one, |"Ha-19" was taken back to the US and shown around the country to sell war bonds, and ended up in Key West, FL, after the war. It's currently on display at the Nimitz museum.

Spventi (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * turns out it was Day of Infamy where I saw it: http://books.google.com/books?id=4-1oRluqPtsC&pg=PA154-IA15&lpg=PA154-IA15&dq=%22midget+sub%22+filling+seawall&source=bl&ots=T7y3kPbbXy&sig=vrJyYbWaxsNOBCmXzUQ78FZL8BI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_38BT4iEE8aZgwfn57WRAg&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22midget%20sub%22%20filling%20seawall&f=false


 * same sub diff pic: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h54000/h54302.jpg


 * i'm confused tho. they call this one Midget B -- distinguished from Midget A recently found by UHawaii.  and Sakamaki's was Midget C, right?


 * in any case, Midget B went into a seawall...WITH CREW INSIDE! i'm still skeptical.  66.105.218.32 (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 January 2012
...' Subsequent operations by the U.S. prompted Germany and Italy to declare war on the U.S. on December 11'... Roosevelt never asked Congress to declare war on Germany, but to recognise that a State of War existed between the US and Germany/Italy. This is a minor edit, but it would be inaccurate to leave it.

129.11.77.197 (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * A valid point. Since Germany & Italy have already declared war, tho, as I understand it, for Congress to recognize would be pro forma & not really needed for WP to mention. The important point is covered.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  23:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Present day memorials - additional
The Utah is the only other ship (other than the Arizona) that had loss of life and that still remains (partially submerged) at Pearl. There were several attempts to salvage her, but were unsuccessful. It remains as a tomb for those that died there. There are two memorials, one is on land, and the other is on the ship itself. There are several excellent websites that describe this "forgotten" ship and the present day memorials.76.235.181.211 (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 February 2012
Under the section, "Niihau Inicident," the downed Zero pilot is incorrectly cited as Petty Officer Saikaijo. The pilot was Shigenori Nishikaichi. And the residents who helped him were Nisei--Japanese-Americans. The article also incorrectly states that one of the residents disappeared. She was sent to prison and moved to Kauai after she was released.

CURRENT TEXT The Zero flown by Petty Officer Saikaijo of Hiryu was damaged in the attack on Wheeler, and he flew to the rescue point on Niihau. The aircraft was further damaged on landing, and Saikaijo was helped from the wreckage by one of the native Hawaiian inhabitants. The island’s residents had no telephones or radio and were completely unaware of the attack on Pearl Harbor. The pilot’s maps and other documents had been retained by his local rescuers, and when Saikaijo realized this he enlisted the support of the only two Japanese residents of the island in an attempt to recover them. During the ensuing struggles, Saikaijo was killed, one of the Japanese residents committed suicide and the other disappeared. The ease with which the local Japanese residents apparently went to the assistance of Saikaijo was a source of concern for many, and tended to support those who believed that local Japanese could not be trusted.

REVISED TEXT The Zero flown by Petty Officer Shigenori Nishikaichi of Hiryu was damaged in the attack on Wheeler, and he flew to the rescue point on Niihau. The aircraft was further damaged on landing, and Saikaijo was helped from the wreckage by one of the native Hawaiian inhabitants. The island’s residents had no telephones or radio and were completely unaware of the attack on Pearl Harbor. The pilot’s maps and other documents had been retained by his local rescuers, and when Nishikaichi realized this he enlisted the support of two Japanese-American residents of the island in an attempt to recover them. During the ensuing struggles, Nishikaichi was killed, the resident committed suicide, and his wife was sent to prison. The ease with which the local ethnic Japanese residents apparently went to the assistance of Nishikaichi was a source of concern for many, and tended to support those who believed that local Japanese could not be trusted.

Douglas Shinsato, Translator/Publsiher of For That One Day: The Memoirs of Mitsuo Fuchida, Commander of the Attack on Pearl Harbor,"2011, pages 293-294.

Dshinsato (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅, and thanks for an extremely good edit. Refs and everything! -- andy4789 ★ ·  (talk?   contribs?)  20:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Refs and everything" I was of the understanding that self-published sources weren't reliable...  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  02:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The book is listed at Amazon as being published by eXperience, inc. I can dredge up two such companies on Google; neither is an established publishing house. That said, the new version is consistent with Wikipedia's own article on the Niihau Incident and the sources there may be more reliable. --Yaush (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

USS Ward
The crew of the USS Ward claimed to have put a shot through the conning tower of a midget submarine at the entrance to Pearl Harbour. On the "History Channel" the submarine was located and proved to have a shell hole through the conning tower exactly as claimed.

It now appears that the USS Ward can claim to have fired the first US shot of WW2.AT Kunene (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that the Ward fired these shots has never really been in dispute. Are you saying that the article disputes this somehow, because this isn't new information.-- JOJ Hutton  15:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 March 2012
4 battleships sunk 3 battleships damaged 1 battleship grounded 2 destroyers sunk 1 other ship sunk 3 cruisers damaged[nb 1] 1 destroyer damaged 3 other ships damaged 188 aircraft destroyed 159 aircraft damaged 2,402 killed 1,247 wounded[3][4]

140.32.16.14 (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC) In the sidebar where casualties are listed, the article states that 155 American aircraft were damaged, according to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-1.htm, 159 were damaged.


 * Thanks for improving Wikipedia! This was done by Trekphiler a few hours ago. mabdul 13:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hawaiian Time
...at 7:48 a.m. Hawaiian Time[64] (3:18 a.m. December 8 Japanese Standard Time...

huh? 2:48? 3:48?  certainly not 3:18! 66.105.218.10 (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. 07.55 Hawaii =03.25 Tokyo. (I've seen 03.23...)  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  10:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

07:55 Hawaii would be 14:55 Toyko plus 1 day check out timeanddate.com 205.172.16.87 (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Was that true in 1941...? Because I've seen the 03.23 time quoted in several places.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  23:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ignoring possible summer times, Hawaii is GMT -10 hours (2 hours from dateline). Tokyo is GMT +9 hours (3 hours from dateline) so they are 5 hours apart. 07:55 in Hawaii is 02:55 in Tokyo. But there may well have been a half hour local time added, giving you your 03:25. Rumiton (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As said, is that now, or 1941? Because IIRC, the Hawaii local time then differed from now...  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura
 * That's now, but it couldn't have been more than 1 hour different. The shape of the world doesn't change that much. Rumiton (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I understood it was 30min diff, which would account for it. (IIRC, this was raised here some while ago.)  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  15:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * TREKphiler is correct. See these., en translation (original page), en translation (original page), and the bottom of the page. See also. Hawaii-Aleutian Time Zone and UTC−10:30 Oda Mari (talk) 08:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

hi, i'm the poster who started this section, and all i can say is...WOW. i'm from oahu, but this is the FIRST i've ever heard of this 30 min offset! not a single one of my elder relatives has ever said "remember when we were 1/2 hr out of sync w the mainland...". nor do i recall any of my WWII/PH books pointing this out.

i think this should be clarified in the article. i'm willing to venture that precious few readers have ever heard of this earlier definition for HAST, and are dismissing one or the other of those attack times as a typo, same as i did.

many thanks to those who set me straight, esp Oda Mari!

btw, i took the liberty of changing section header, since the issue is not really on the Japan end. i hope this doesn't add to the confusion.... 66.105.218.16 (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Here are some references I've found online that support Hawaii being in a half-hour time zone in 1941:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

There are more, but I think that it's pretty obvious now that Hawaii WAS in a half-hour time zone in 1941. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * yeah, i was already convinced above. i just think there should be a quickie explanation/parenthetical somewhere in the sentences in question, same as those articles felt it necessary.  i'll defer to the masses, however, before changing anything.


 * also, isn't there any sort of official TERM to refer to these 2 diff definitions? seems clunky to keep saying "pre-47 HAST" and "modern HAST".  not so much in the discussion here, but even on the Hawaii-Aleutian Time Zone page cited above.  66.105.218.11 (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm, this is from Prange At Dawn We Slept, p. 372: "Tokyo time was nineteen and a half hours ahead of the special U.S. military time zone for Hawaii, and fourteen hours ahead of Washington, D.C. Eastern Standard Time." Cla68 (talk) 10:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That looks like the solution to the clunks, too. It's not pre/post-'47, it's Hawaii Military Time, or something. Was there a term for that...? (Also, just for curiosity's sake, was Midway on it, too?)  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  21:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * huh? that HAST page indicates it is a pre/post 47 issue, nothing abt military vs civilian. prange's quote is misleading to refer to "HI military time" specifically when local CIVILIAN time was one and the same! 216.50.220.23 (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Radio news report on Pearl Harbor
This may be of interest to those participating here. There is a 25 second news report (radio) talking about the attack on Pearl Harbor, Sunday evening at 9:35 PM from December 7, 1941, the day of the attack. It's at the beginning of an Inner Sanctum show titled "Island of Death" (the show title is just a coincidence and was written long before the attack). Here's a link to the page at the Internet Archive or for those who are lazy, a direct link to the MP3 (13.1 Mb). 64.40.60.22 (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Assumption in the article's introduction
"[Pearl Harbor] was a surprise military strike..." Is there good evidence that it was a surprise attack? Most of the evidence I've studies shows that high-level officials knew the attack was coming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coching (talk • contribs) 17:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There's absolutely no credible evidence for that. (As this clearly demonstrates.) The historiographic consensus is, it was a complete surprise.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  23:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree it was total military surprise. Even if high level officials thought war was coming they did not know the nature of it, or the time frame. Such knowledge, if it existed, would not have stopped the attack being a perfect and utter tactical surprise. Binksternet (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The article currently doesn't explain it very well, but high-level US government and military officials were expecting a Japanese military strike around that time, but did not expect it to happen at Hawaii. They sent out several general warning messages, one of which I believe mentioned the Philippines, which Kimmel and Short (and MacArthur, for that matter) failed to heed. Cla68 (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Bink's right, this was a masterpiece of tactical surprise, & pretty near one for strategic. Cla68's right, there: the notorious "war warning" message mentioned just about every place but Hawaii. (The conspiracy loons conveniently ignore that...) Nobody on the U.S. side believed Hawaii could even be a target, let alone that it was one. Indicators of it (like the increase in signal traffic through Hawaii) weren't noticed because nobody was looking, & because there just wasn't the manpower to recover more decrypts than were already being read. All the other claims of forewarning are nonsense & depend on hindsight, conspiracy, or both.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  04:41 & 04:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The answer is threefold: (1) The US government did know that a war with Japan was highly likely and US military forces in the Pacific underwent repeated drills in preparation for potential war. (2) The US government nor military officials did not believe that Hawaii would be a target of a large-scale Japanese military attack, they thought that no strike force could travel from Japan to the Hawaii region without being detected (though they were prepared for sabatoge by Japanese agents in Hawaii) - the location that US officials believed would be the first target by Japan in a war was the Philippines. (3) Some people make the mistake in believing that the US government's Magic decrypting magine could decode all Japanese coded messages and claim that the US government should have known about the attack - in reality the machine could only decode Japanese diplomatic messages, but the Japanese military coding was not yet able to be decrypted - that occurred in 1942.--R-41 (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The US government believed that Hawaii was too far away for Japan's first strike. The Japanese plan was indeed highly likely to not proceed as smoothly as it did because of the vast distance of sea the carrier striking force had to travel through - this meant that refueling ships were required to perilously wait half way between Japan and Hawaii to refuel the massive Japanese warships, in which they could be detected by US patrols. There was the issue of the weather - clear skies during the Japanese carrier force's long voyage to Hawaii would have been catastrophic because it endangered detection by US air patrols. Dense clouded skies and stormy weather during the voyage was preferable to avoid detection because no recon aircraft couldn't fly in such weather. However if such stormy weather took place at the time when the carriers were supposed to launch their aircraft to attack Oahu, it could be catastrophic. All these reveal that the Japanese attack on Oahu was extremely complicated and highly difficult to pull-off simply because of the massive distance between Japan and Hawaii. The US suspicion that the Philippines would be the first target was more reasonable because of the close proximity that would allow a large-scale Japanese attack and invasion with reenforcements from Japan that were not available to the Japanese carrier fleet that struck Hawaii.--R-41 (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hawaii did indeed receive warnings about a potential war with Japan but as mentioned above, what US military officials believed was the real Japanese threat in Hawaii was from Japanese agents committing sabotage. Sabotage by Japanese agents was a real and recognized threat on the island because Oahu had many people of Japanese descent living on the island, and indeed there were Japanese agents on the island who served as spies. General Walter Short who was in charge with the defense of Oahu took these warnings of potential sabotage by Japanese agents seriously and ordered the organization of warplanes and warships in tight columns and rows close to installations so that they could be easily guarded from potential sabotage. Unfortunately for General Short and the US military in Oahu - though organizing warplanes and warships into tight rows and columns was good for defense against sabatoge, it was catastrophically dangerous in the event of an air raid as the rows and columns made easy targets for enemy warplanes.--R-41 (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Counting Ship Sunk
Hello all--

Trying to reconcile the infobox's list of US ship types sunk with the category "Ships sunk during the attack on Pearl Harbor". Both list seven, and the four BB's are easy, but of the three remaining, only one is a destroyer (the Shaw). I presume either the Utah or the Ogala is the other, but either way that last one is not a destroyer. What is the proper correction? JMOprof (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * West Virginia, Oklahoma, and California were sunk. Nevada was beached in sinking condition. Utah and Oglala were sunk. Shaw, Cassin, and Downes (the last three all destroyers) were destroyed in dry dock. I can't see a way to come up with seven. --Yaush (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you forgot Arizona &#9786;  but that makes six. Quoting what the infobox says
 * 4 battleships sunk (I take that to be Arizona, West Virginia, Oklahoma, California)
 * 3 battleships damaged (Maryland, Tennessee, Pennsylvania)
 * 1 battleship grounded (I take that to be Nevada)
 * 2 destroyers sunk (who then? the Category lists Shaw)
 * 1 other ship sunk (I presume Ogala, but could be Utah)
 * The two pages don't jibe. JMOprof (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * groan* How could I fail to ... Remember the Arizona!? But, yeah. The counts just don't look right. --Yaush (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok...Here's my proposed fix:
 * I'll remove Shaw from the category
 * I'll delete the line "2 Destroyers sunk"
 * I'll change the line to read "2 other ships sunk"
 * I'll change the line to read "3 destroyers damaged"
 * Look good? JMOprof (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think you can remove Shaw, given the fairly spectacular explosion she suffered. Cassin & Downes, yes, 'cause IIRC, they were never listed "sunk". (IDK why, since they were total wrecks...) "One other ship" is a puzzle to me, too, since you're right, both Utah & Ogala could qualify. So, "1 DD sunk, 2 damaged, 2 other sunk"?  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  23:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't "sunk" imply that it was destroyed or rendered unsalvageable? Some of the "sunk" ships were returned to full service. Cla68 (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Sunk" just means it stopped floating—it gained negative buoyancy and settled to the bottom. The issue of possible salvage or complete loss is not integral to the concept of "sunk". Where the bottom is is critical. Binksternet (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There's also, I think, the issue of, "Did they leave the ships on the bottom?" Which, in the case of Cassin & Downes, they salvaged enough to consider them "not sunk". Maybe? Or was it just propaganda, to hide the extent of losses?  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  02:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Would it be worth it to put more detail in the losses column, such as "2 battleships destroyed, 2 battleships sunk (later returned to service)..." or something like that? Cla68 (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Mostly in the lead now. No need to clutter the infobox, IMO. If it needs clarifying, IMO, the text is the better place: room for as much detail & clarity as needed.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  05:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Using Google's first defintion, "sunk" means "(of a ship) Go to the bottom of the sea or some other body of water because of damage or a collision." Shaw, Cassin and Downes were all in drydocks (Cassin and Downes in front of Pennsylvania). They were not sunk, and all three returned to service. 3 Destroyers Damaged is an accurate description, though 3 Destroyers heavily damaged is more complete. I suppose, looking at the collapse of Cassin against Downes in the Aftermath photo, Cassin might be considered sunk in a flooded dock, since she capsized there. However, the dock was flooded post-attack, so while I don't think it "counts", we could go with Trek's line "1 DD sunk, 2 damaged, 2 other sunk" (meaning in order Cassin, Shaw, Downes, Utah, Ogala), and that Cassin should replace Shaw in the category. Thoughts? JMOprof (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * On further review, if Cassin is sunk, Shaw is too, seeing the picture on the Shaw page. So then the infobox, stands when correcting other sunk from 1 to 2.  JMOprof (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * On further, further review, the Naval History & Heritage Command (link at ref 1) does not list any of the destroyers as sunk. I propose we align the infobox with NH&HC.  JMOprof (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

War Crime
Isnt randomly attacking a nation without declaring war or even giving any hint of their intentions a war crime even back then? and do NOT star another one of those nationalist propaganda piles about how japan is a victim. PLEASE DONT (50.68.14.50 (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC))


 * An attack without a prior declaration of war or an ultimatum with a conditional declaration of war was a violation of the Hague Convention. However, it was acceptable to take defensive military action without prior notice if there was a credible immediate threat. This was meant to cover clearly reasonable actions like destroyer Ward attacking the midget submarine, but the various Axis dictatorships (among others) treated it as a loophole large enough to drive a Tiger tank through. --Yaush (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To threadstarter: How does this discussion add to improving the article? Answer that, or stop making nonsense rants. Thank you.--Eaglestorm (talk) 10:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I second that, adding a section on war crimes or rewriting the article to define the attack as such would add unnecessary complexity, in my opinion. --Coching (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It might not be unreasonable to put in a very brief mention that the violation of the Hague Convention by the attack was part of the indictment for "crimes against the peace" tried by the Tokyo International Military Tribunal. However, I'm in no rush to do this -- let's think it out first. --Yaush (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That is an exaggeration and misrepresentation of why Japan had not declared war - when in fact Japan did deliver a declaration of war - but it arrived late due to a delay in meeting Secretary of State Cordell Hull. This is what really happened between Japanese and American diplomats on December 7th: The Japanese government intended to achieve both a surprise attack and adhere to the Hague Convention. At 9:00am (EST), the Japanese government informed the United States government that it was ceasing all diplomatic relations with the United States. At approximately 10:00am (EST) - the Japanese government informs the Japanese ambassador to the US in Washington to deliver the declaration of war to the US government at 1:00pm (EST) that was morning in Hawaiian time. However there were delays in the Japanese diplomats in Washington decoding the messages sent by Japanese government, the Japanese diplomats arrived to meet Hull but were only able to meet Hull after 1:00pm (EST) when the attack on Pearl Harbor had already begun.--R-41 (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * ♠"Japan did deliver a declaration of war - but it arrived late due to a delay in meeting Secretary of State Cordell Hull." Well, no. There are two factual mistakes. One, the delay was because the translation & preparation of a clean copy wasn't complete on the intended schedule; Tokyo neglected to inform the Ambassador of the importance of the timing. Two, the "14h Part" wasn't a declaration of war: it was a declaration of the end of negotiations. IIRC, the formal declaration of war wasn't until about a day later, by which time it was moot.
 * ♠"At 9:00am (EST), the Japanese government informed the United States government that it was ceasing all diplomatic relations with the United States." Not according to my reading of the timing. The "14h Part" was intended to do that, wasn't it?
 * ♠"to deliver the declaration of war" Again, factually wrong. It wasn't a delcaration of war.
 * ♠""delays in the Japanese diplomats in Washington decoding the messages" Also, factually wrong, as already said.
 * ♠"The Japanese government intended to achieve both a surprise attack and adhere to the Hague Convention" Maybe. They didn't. And, BTW, it was IJN that wanted to shave it so close. There was opinion no announcement should be made at all.
 * ♠That said, calling it a "war crime" IMO elevates it to a degree of treachery it doesn't deserve, & seems to hearken to the "sneak attack" myth. In short, it's too POV. Surprise attacks, unannounced attacks, are nothing new. "Waging hostile war" & "crimes against peace" are victor's justice, no more.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  02:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Mostly agree, Trekphiler. Japan clearly was at least in technical violation of the Hague Convention. However, '"crimes against peace" are victor's justice, no more' is a decidedly non-neutral position, whatever its philosophical merits. --Yaush (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Oil on the waters
How do I contact the editor in chief of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor? For future context, Here is what I would say to the editor in chief if I knew how to ask questions: I can't parse this sentence: "The complete US oil embargo changed to the Naval view to support of expansion toward support for an invasion of the Dutch East Indies and seizure of its oil fields." If I could figure out what the author was trying to say, I would edit the page and make the correction, but I am mystified by the sentence. If I knew who the author was, I'd contact him/her directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkFilipak (talk • contribs) 16:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No "editor in chief": you're primus inter pares here. ;p You've also done the right thing when in doubt: post the issue on Talk & let somebody who knows the subject (or the page) better (try... ;p ) fix it. Looks to me like a stray word: IJN changed position based on the embargo. I'll get it fixed...right now. :) BTW, welcome.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  01:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Trekphiler, How do I contact you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkFilipak (talk • contribs) 05:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Foreknowledge Theory Link?
Since there is a page on Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory, why not link it in from this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.221.4.127 (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Any Enterprise planes get a shot in?
In this edit to the Niihau Incident article, ProudIrishAspie asserts that the Enterprise launched some planes on the morning of December 7 and two Curtiss SOC Seagulls attacked and damaged one of the Zero fighters. I reverted the change because it was an extraordinary claim unsupported by reliable source.

Does anyone here know of any US aircraft carrier-launched planes getting a lick in on December 7? I don't, but if a source is found it would be an interesting addition. Binksternet (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Lundstrom's First Team book has exhaustive detail on the US carrier's fighter operations at the time of the attack. I will check it next chance I get if no one else gets to it first. Cla68 (talk) 05:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * A Google book search of Lundstrom, though not exhaustive, leaves me with the impression that no such event took place. Binksternet (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Enterprise Air Group action reports can be found online, They prove that several Enterprise planes did arrive during the battle. Several got shot down by both Japanese planes and Nervous American AA Gunners. Enterprise planes did manage to shoot at least one Japanese plane down, perhaps more. Cg23sailor (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * According to Lundstrom, 18 Enterprise SBDs arrived at Pearl Harbor during the attack, and five were shot down either by Japanese fighters or friendly fire. He doesn't say if they claimed any Japanese airplanes damaged or shot down.  Six fighters arrived from the carrier over Pearl Harbor after the attack was over, and four of them were shot down by friendly fire, with three pilots killed. Cla68 (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, then it is in the realm of the possible. Next step is to find an expert who we can quote, saying the Enterprise guys damaged a Japanese Zero. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Was the attack both a tactical victory and a strategic failure?
From what I have read, the principal purpose of the Pearl Harbor attack was to cripple the US navy in the Pacific by destroying its aircraft carriers in the Pacific that were based in Pearl Harbor, destroying the drydocks, and destroying the fuel facilities at Oahu. Yamamoto emphasized that the US aircraft carriers needed to be destroyed because he saw them as a serious threat, but they had left Pearl Harbor at the time of the attack and of course survived. Furthermore, though the Japanese technically "sunk" a number of US warships, they sunk in shallow waters many were raised, repaired, and returned to service with the exception of USS Arizona that exploded and the USS Oklahoma and USS Utah that capsized. The Japanese achieved a tactical victory in inflicting significant damage to US forces in Oahu but it seems apparent they failed to achieve their strategic goals. Should the infobox include a statement that it was a strategic failure?--R-41 (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the sources support the statement that it was a strategic failure, so I think it would be ok to put in the infobox. Cla68 (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * R-41, your first supposition is entirely wrong. The purpose was to cripple the US Navy, and the way to do that (according to 1941 naval thought) was by sinking some battleships. The aircraft carriers were a secondary worry, not the main thing. Furthermore, there was never any intention to hit facilities such as drydocks, fuel storage or metal shops. Yamamoto emphasized that the plan only gave Japan a six-month window of freedom after which the US would retaliate in strength. The Japanese strategy was precisely achieved. Unfortunately for Japan's imperial goals, this tactical and strategic victory did not end up being sufficient. Binksternet (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This source says that Yamamoto developed eight guidelines for the attack, the second of which says that the American aircraft carriers should be the primary targets, see here: . This source also says that the American aircraft carriers were the primary target of the Pearl Harbor attack .--R-41 (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ♠"cripple the US navy in the Pacific by destroying its aircraft carriers in the Pacific that were based in Pearl Harbor, destroying the drydocks, and destroying the fuel facilities at Oahu" No. IJN GHQ expected the war to be over before the drydock & tank farm ever became an issue; they weren't even on the target list. As for CVs being #1 priority, I've seen claims on both sides; the existing doctrine was for "decisive battle", & that (implicitly) was "between battleships".
 * ♠Was it a tactical victory. Yes. Was it a strategic failure? No: it was a strategic catastrophe. It was, as Morison puts it, "strategic ibecility". It was a gun in the mouth moment. (BTW, I'd argue, if Yamamoto wanted to cripple the USN's efforts against Japan, he should have bombed the hell out of the Sub Base & the old Admin building, basement of which was home to Hypo... And should have left intact the torpedo store at Pearl {not attacked}, & at Cavite {destroyed IIRC}. 8o ;p )
 * ♠"Should the infobox include a statement that it was a strategic failure?" This has been argued & argued & argued, & we finally settled on a compromise, which is in the infobox now. It's a can of worms. Don't reopen it.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  15:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Trek - speaking of the info box, why does it say "Kingdom of Italy"? Is there some nuance or even BFO (Blinding Flash of the Obvious) that I'm overlooking.  If it's Nazi Germany, shouldn't if be Fascist Italy?  Inquiring minds, etc.  JMOprof (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No BFO, here. I have no clue. ;p I'd say, Italy was still a kingdom (per Britain), even if the government was fascist, but...  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  02:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So basically you are saying that the only reason why strategic failure is not mentioned is because you think it is a pain in the ass because it has been argued in the past? That doesn't seem like a rational objection, but an objection out of frustration. What are your sources for claims that the destruction of the US carriers were not Yamamoto's number 1 priority? - It sounds very revisionist.--R-41 (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What is revisionist is the focus on the carriers as a target. At the time, they were a secondary concern at best. Ray Merriam (one of your linked authors) is just such a revisionist. John F. O'Connell is a retired Navy guy and your second link is to a work of fiction, utterly unusable here. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ♠"What are your sources for claims that the destruction of the US carriers were not Yamamoto's number 1 priority? " Offhand, I can't name one. I've read a lot, most of it with no intention ever to cite it. And I don't need a cite: I'm not making a claim on the page that needs it. You want to change it, so you need to cite RS the CVs were #1 priority. As for BBs being main emphasis, have a look at IJN behavior for the duration: preserving BBs for a "decisive battle" that never comes... For which, see Kaigun (&, I think, Barrier & Javelin). Doctrine in all major navies at that time, including the U.S. & Britain, put BBs first, per Mahan. And if you look at Yamamoto's deployments at Midway, you see it: CVs in the van (at risk), BBs safely behind. Tell me again how Yamamoto put CVs #1? (I should also say, since I can just hear somebody thinking "Why did the U.S. rely on CVs, then?": duh... The Battle Line is on the bottom of Pearl Harbor?)
 * ♠"the only reason why strategic failure is not mentioned is because you think it is a pain in the ass" No, I think arguing it over & over when it's a settled issue is a pain in the ass, & pointless, & a waste of everybody's time. BTW, I was one of those who thought "strategic failure" & "grand strategic failure" belonged. I was persuaded to leave it be, & I see no good argument yet to reopen the issue.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  19:32 & 19:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright then, sorry if I do not have your the level of expertise on the subject, I was mistaken. No need for the aggressiveness, read Please do not bite the newcomers.--R-41 (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing "aggressiveness" there... None was intended, to be sure. (Just my natural abruptness, I guess. :) )  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  06:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Infobox and the "Kingdom of Italy"
Is there a reason the infobox goes out its way to say "Kingdom of Italy?" The link is to

Axis Powers

I propose we either change to Fascist Italy, or remove "Nazi" and go with simple country names. JMOprof (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing/hearing no defenders, I propose to change it to "Germany's and Italy's declaration of war against the United States" JMOprof (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 July 2012
I'd like to ask for the following changes:
 * a) Correction of typos in note #7 (subsection "Anticipating war"): "Lt. Cdr. Takeshi Naito, the assistance naval attaché to Berlin, flew to Taranto to investigate the attack first hand, and Naito subsequently had a lengthy conversation with Cdr. Mitsuo Fuchida about his observations. F i chida led the Japanese attack on 7 December 1941." - obviously should read assistant and Fuchida, respectively.
 * b) Removal of Isaac C. Kidd from the infobox - though unarguably the highest ranking victim of the attack, there's stated no clear reason for his inclusion in the infobox section "Commander" - he's not even mentioned in the article afterwards.

Thank you. --87.249.145.69 (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done Ryan Vesey Review me!  21:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. -22:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.249.145.69 (talk)

Flags
Recently, someone changed the info box to show a Revolutionary War era US naval ensign next to Adm. Kimmel's name in the info box, followed by an edit revert that gave the reason: "Use National flags."

To the best of my knowledge, a naval ensign _is_ a national flag. Moreover, the corresponding part of the info box showing Japanese forces uses the Japanese naval ensign, so that the rationale given seems to me rather inappropriate. I think that the revert itself is correct, however, because (and again, to the best of my knowledge) at the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the national ensign was the only flag used as a naval ensign by the US Navy.
 * Spventi (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * ♠IDK if there's a guideline, but my understanding is, the icons are to illustrate nation, not service, so the national flag is apt regardless.
 * ♠That said, I've seen a dedicated IJN ensign, which isn't the meatball, so if we intend to switch the USN one, we'd need to change that, too.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  23:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I had a discussion about this over in the Wiki Flag Template page. It went like this: I would think syntax like could grow to , which is also to say that  should pull from here:  Jack of the United States. Thanks. JMOprof (talk) 07:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The convention at WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS is to use navel ensigns, not naval jacks. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Can you point the way to where those conventions are articulated.  I see them honored often in the breach.  JMOprof (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:SHIPFLAGS for ships; not sure about military history. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks...infobox military person is all over the place. "Allegiance" is usually flag of the era, but "Service" has been service flags, DoD departmental seals or other representations.  I advocated above that the Jacks be used for the Navy, and I have placed such myself on a "roll my own" usage.  JMOprof (talk) 01:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the main reason that the ensign is preferred is that when a ship is at sea, it is more likely to be flying the ensign than the jack. -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I get that part. But we're talking icons, and an icon that's just the field of stars is more intelligible than ~1/6 of an icon that also has 13 stripes.  One man's opinion &#9786; JMOprof (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Not resolved, as you can see. JMOprof (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment As the person who reverted that edit, let me restate my reasoning. Use the American Flag, for an American commander. Thats not too hard to figure out now is it? If it was up to me, flags would be banned from every infobox. They convey nothing. They are an eyesore. And they cause arguments just like this one.-- JOJ Hutton  01:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I could live with deletion entire. I disagree the icons convey nothing, tho. They do convey who's who at a glance, not always simple or clear for the uninitiated. In this case, yes, but does every reader know what country Blamey represents? Or Wavell? Or Slim? And cases like this make the case for keeping IMO.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  01:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Does every person know which flag goes with which country? Probably not. I realize the United States flag is pretty recognizable, but can you tell me  what flag this is, without looking it up? Flag icons only work if everyone knows what they mean, otherwise its just unneeded color.-- JOJ  Hutton  02:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It takes good eyes to see the difference between and, the 1912 flag, which is what we should be using here for Pearl Harbor, if we use one.  So to my point, that you can see a difference between US Naval Jack.svg and US Naval Jack 48 stars.svg, the 50-star Jack and the 48-star Jack respectively, made as roll-your-own.  I have no objection for naval commanders being represented by their respective Jacks or naval ensigns.  It is common for Royal Navy commanders to get  instead of , for instance.  I do see that there are other views &#9786; and perhaps to JOJ's point, only the cognoscenti deal in naval jacks. JMOprof (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sidebar Numbers Inaccurate?
The tally of both human and hardware losses in the sidebar do not agree with the figures confirmed by the National Park Service. Why is this? Should they not be corrected? --Don (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. There appear to be discrepancies in the numbers even among reliable sources. You might examine the souces cited for these figures for more discussion of this. --Yaush (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Weapons
What weapons were used at the attack of pearl harbor? Thanx Aaron §. 12.31.229.187 (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's already in the article, under First Wave Composition and Second Wave Composition. --Yaush (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Tyson was also here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.91.81.168 (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

251st CA Regiment
Would it be undue weight to add a mention of the presence of the 251st?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Unless it played a prominent role in the antiaircraft defense, or its failure to play a prominent role in the antiaircraft defense is especially noteworthy, I'd say not. The article doesn't really give that thorough an order of battle anywhere. For example, there's no detailed information on the fighter squadrons that were on the island and should have played a greater role in its air defense. --Yaush (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I recently started working on the ashore elements of the American side here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Surviving Ships
I've seen a number of claims about still existing ships present at the attack on Pearl Harbor. For example, the even the home page of Historic Ships in Baltimore, Taney's parent organization, claims that it is "The Last Surviving Warship of Pearl Harbor" when it is in fact technically not a warship, and was actually in Honolulu Harbor during the attack and not Pearl Harbor as the other 2 named survivors were. (The museum's specific page on the Taney is a bit more correctly nuanced.) Or consider the link for YT-153 below, which mentions 2 other surviving tugs from the attack, but fails to mention the Taney. (Perhaps they meant to say there were 2 other surviving ships, which would explain the exclusion of the Taney.)

I'm certain that 3 of the following 4 ships were present during the attack and still survive. The fourth I don't even have a name for - the only evidence I have for it's existence is from the reference for YT-153. Anyway, the ships are:
 * USCGC Taney (WHEC-37) - a coast guard cutter on display in Baltimore.
 * USS Hoga (YT-146) - a tug currently in Suisun Bay but destined for the Arkansas Inland Maritime Museum.
 * USS YT-153 - another tug apparently still in use as a dive boat in Rhode Island.
 * An unnamed mystery tug according to the link for YT-153 above. ("Two other tugs from that day are still with us, but are no longer operable.")

There's also the battleships Arizona, Utah and Oklahoma of course, but they usually aren't counted since they are just wrecks now. (They are no longer "floating" as it were) Are there any I missed? Does anyone know what the mystery tug is? -Noha307 (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the US Naval History & Heritage Command Reference 1, these are the tugs at Pearl Harbor:


 * Ocean-going Tugs (AT)
 * AT-13 (Ontario)
 * AT-28 (Sunnadin)
 * AT-38 (Keosanqua)(at Pearl Harbor entrance)
 * AT-64 (Navajo)(12 miles outside Pearl Harbor entrance)


 * District Craft Harbor Tugs (YT)
 * YT-9 (Sotoyomo)(in YFD-2 with Shaw)
 * YT-119
 * YT-129 (Osceola)
 * YT-130
 * YT-142
 * YT-146 (Hoga)
 * YT-152
 * YT-153 (underway in channel)


 * Motor Tug (YMT)
 * YMT-5
 * JMOprof (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Radio Bulletins
Several of the early radio reports, such as by H.V. Kaltenborn on NBC grossly understated the amount of damage and the attack and overstated the American response to the attack. At 3:15 pm EST, Kaltenborn stated that about 50 planes were involved in the attack and most were shot down. His report also stated that the Americans were expecting the attack and that the anti-aircraft guns brought down many of the planes. This, and many other news reports are available at http://archive.org/details/1941RadioNews

Does anyone know if the media was mislead or were many of the commentators making stuff up? Jtyroler (talk) 08:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Should we note that the attack took place on a Sunday?
The article presently seems not to note that it was a Sunday when the attack took place - and I'm fairly sure (without citing specific sources - though I'm sure they can be found) that this has been seen by some as significant, in as much as the bases were at their least alert on Sundays. Should we mention this, at least as a possible factor? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It wasn't just a Sunday, it was a Sunday morning following an especially busy Saturday night, the night of the battle of the battleship bands which was accompanied by a greater degree of carousing than usual. Yes, the article should say it was Sunday morning, and commend the Japanese for their excellent timing. Binksternet (talk) 06:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Tactical?
The Tadaichi quote is enough to call this victory tactical? Winning naval supremacy in the biggest theater of operations that ever existed is a pretty big result. Reiftyr (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Because they didn't? The victory was a narrow tactical success. In strategic & grand strategic terms, it was lunatic & suicide to even carry it off.  TREK philer   any time you're ready, Uhura  21:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Should I add that Pearl Harbor violated international law of waging war of aggression and commencing hostilities against the U.S. without warning?
Should I add those? Thanks. I thought it was the important to state the international law regarding the attack on Pearl Harbor. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We're sorry, but what kind of bonehead assertion are you trying to make? WHICH international law?--Eaglestorm (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I notice on this section that said, "Japan tried to upheld the conventions of war" but I was just asking permission if I can replace the "conventions of war" with the 1907 Hague Convention because it was the only international law that addressed the Opening of Hostilities when the attack on Pearl Harbor occurred and I want to add a little bit of new links and information related to it. You know, a little bit more specific and understandable to the reader. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 05:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Was Japan signatory? If not, she wasn't bound by it.  TREK philer   any time you're ready, Uhura  04:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a well known fact that Japan was the signatory of the 1907 Hague Convention, including the first section of Opening of Hostilities. Look at this link So now can i add please? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You'll need to source it, both Japan signatory & it being a violation. I'd be brief, since there's already enough on the "surprise" nature & the 14-Part message. I'd also wait & see if anybody has a problem with it. Give it a couple of weeks (minimum).  TREK philer   any time you're ready, Uhura  09:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Note that Japan had already broken the Hague Convention by using poison gas at the Battle of Wuhan in 1938. But then the Hague Convention was broken many times by many belligerents, including by Germany in their bombing attack on London by Zeppelin in WWI, and several other nations with their multi-engine bombers and siege engines aimed at cities. The British used poison gas in Mesopotamia in the 1920s, and they strafed villages for the terror effect. The Italians used poison gas in North Africa against Ethiopians in 1936. The Hague Convention was a tattered and stained document by 1941. Binksternet (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed. And to put a caution on adding, which I forgot before: this has overtones of calling it a "sneak attack", which IMO the page doesn't need.  TREK philer   any time you're ready, Uhura  17:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Trekphiler, regarding Japan's signatory, you can look up at the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and there are links that can take you to the list of countries that signed and ratified it. I already looked and see that Japan signed and ratified all 12 sections so yes Japan was the part of the 1907 Hague Convention. Regarding the violations, do you want me to list some of the examples? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the relevant international law is worth noting, but it's best done by citing a secondary source that analyzes the legal issues. Off-hand, I don't actually know of such a source ... which, on reflection, is kind of surprising. --Yaush (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

"Further reading"
Yet another addition to this section. I'm skeptical of "Further Reading" sections generally; I'd prefer to let the bibliography serve this function. If the work isn't notable enough to provide part of the article content, I don't think it's notable enough. But that's just me.

Is there some set of reasonable criteria we can use to constrain which works are added to the "Further Reading" section? --Yaush (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That assumes, and a very poor it is, that the references used are even remotely substantial enough to not require "further reading" for a real grasp of anything but very simple topics. One severe disadvantage of popular, written by committee, things such as Wikipedia is that far too often articles are based on a couple of popular works someone has read without real study or doing research quality bibliography search. I consider one of the main features, rather than a bug, of this site to be the ability to point an interested reader toward sources of more comprehensive knowledge. The references and external links can do that. Some good solid "further reading" suggestions for which few volunteer writers here have the time or even ability to digest into an "article" can be valuable to someone wanting to dig into a subject. The base list here is better than most, but still falls short of complete coverage. Palmeira (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My problem isn't with taking the time to find high-quality links for readers who wish to make a more in-depth study of a topic. The problem is with including links that are not used to support anything in the article. If they're of such high quality, why aren't they being cited in the article? --Yaush (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would guess because someone might know of the reference without the time or inclination to do an edit. Been there myself in some WW II and other pieces that are sketchy, confused, pounding a single reference or viewpoint or otherwise in serious need of a comprehensive rework and unwilling to take time to do that much rework—so, I've thrown in a couple of good "read more" hints. There are stubs here and pieces with one or two "popular" references resulting apparently from someone stumbling on a good book that have volumes of real source material available. At best such a "read more" might get someone with more interest in the subject to convert them to reference level. At least they give a reader with an interest a pointer of where to go for more depth. Palmeira (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm very surprised that the important work by Morgenstern is not mentioned or referenced in the article since it clearly needs to be. Lifeboy (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say Morgenstern's book deserves to be discussed at the Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory article, but not here. --Yaush (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Strategic Implications
The Japanese confidence in their ability to achieve a short, victorious war meant that they neglected the navy repair yards, oil tank farms, submarine base, and old headquarters building. All of these targets were omitted from Genda's list, yet they proved more important than any battleship to the American war efforts in the Pacific. The survival of the repair shops and fuel depots allowed Pearl Harbor to maintain logistical support to the US Navy's operations, such as the Battles of Coral Sea and Midway. It was submarines that immobilized the Imperial Japanese Navy's heavy ships and brought Japan's economy to a virtual standstill by crippling the transportation of oil and raw materials: import of raw materials was down by half what it had been at the end of 1942, "to a disastrous ten million tons", while oil import "was almost completely stopped". Lastly, the basement of the Old Administration Building was the home of the cryptanalytic unit which contributed significantly to the Midway ambush and the Submarine Force's success.

The oil storage tanks and repair yards were crucial to the US Pacific operations, for instance USS Yorktown got patched up right after Coral Sea so she was in time to see action at Midway.Limefrost Spiral (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No argument. It's the mention of Surigao Strait, & the survivor at the memorial (& the memorial pictures generally IMO), that's unnecessary.  TREK philer   any time you're ready, Uhura  22:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that another editor moved the memorial picture up, as it didn't fit in the Memorial section. As for Suriagao Strait, that battle article mentions the Pearl Harbor connection, so just reciprocate in passing.Limefrost Spiral (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ♠Moving the pic isn't the issue. Including it is. IMO, it's trivial.
 * ♠Same applies to Surigao Strait. That the BBs were survivors merits mention there; here, the reciprocal significance is much smaller, not enough to keep it IMO.  TREK philer   any time you're ready, Uhura  08:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The points made by Trek are the ones I was concerned with, too. Binksternet (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Concerning "A major flaw of Japanese strategic thinking was a belief that the ultimate Pacific battle would be fought by battleships, in keeping with the doctrine of Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan. As a result, Yamamoto (and his successors) hoarded battleships for a "decisive battle" that never happened". I struggle a little with how this is a "strategic implication" of the attack on Pearl Harbour specifically, rather than a general Pacific War issue. More to the point, had the American carriers been at Pearl Harbour at the time of the attack, they would have (by design of the plan) been among the primary targets. Would it be more fair to say, as is implied earlier in this paragraph, that it was the fortunate absence of the American carriers that allowed for or furthered these consequences? The current wording seems to suggest that the carriers were deliberately not targeted, when in truth they weren't targeted because they weren't present (which left only the battleships as the remaining primary high value targets). For your consideration... 159.18.26.14 (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the thing about those decisive Mahanian battles: you have to win them. The IJN tried four times and went 1-3, so to say "it never happened" is incomplete.  Beyond Pearl Harbor, they just never went the IJN's way.  The IJN does get credit for making the battleship the principle capital ship once again, by luring Halsey away at Leyte.  But then Kurita turned away, and the IJN was done.  user:JMOprof &copy;&iquest;&copy;&#0172;  17:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ♠It was, indeed, a fortunate occurrence. It's also true, AIUI, Nagumo's orders called on him to find, & sink, the U.S. carriers. He didn't. That, IMO, was, at least in some measure, because (as a battleship sailor) he didn't appreciate the importance of carrier air.
 * ♠That it isn't an implication may well be true. (I regret to say so, since I think I put it in. : I was trying to get at IJN battleship hoarding, & how attacks on the U.S. battleships at Pearl Harbor seemed to lead to a "wait for it" attitude. There's also the broader issue of Japan expecting a short war. In either case, IMO, Japan's expectation of "decisive battle" was in play, because it governed the targetting decisions.
 * ♠If I'm right, & Nagumo neglected carriers thanks to his experience & training, then it's correct IJN doctrine influenced the outcome more broadly than it appears on its face. Since I can't source Nagumo's neglect, I suggest we mention his training, the outcome, & the doctrine, & let readers decide if it influenced his decision, & the broader outcome of the war. Objections?
 * ♠If, OTOH, somebody can source the neglect, add it; the case is stronger that way.  TREK philer   any time you're ready, Uhura  18:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Exact number of aircraft & tankers in the Japanese attack disputed
According to the the following reference 2 Japanese tankers, and not 8 as is suggested by this wikipedia article, were part of the Japanese fleet.

Moreover the reference also states that 423 aircraft were on board Japans 6 aircraft carriers and of these, 360 aircraft took part in the hostilities, contrary to the reference here on this wikipedia article that apparently lists 353 aircraft taking part.

http://www.pbs.org/thewar/detail_5208.htm

So should the article be changed, or these numbers discussed?

86.41.157.14 (talk) 04:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request
2nd par: Philippines, not Phillipines 218.102.179.207 (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. --Yaush (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

File:The USS Arizona (BB-39) burning after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor - NARA 195617 - Edit.jpg to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:The USS Arizona (BB-39) burning after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor - NARA 195617 - Edit.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 7, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-12-07. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Casualties
On the third paragraph of the introduction, the article notes that "2,402 Americans were killed" during the attack. However, in Section 2.5 (American casualties and damages), the figure is cited as "2,386". I've looked through the casualty list, and the total is indeed 2,402 (soldiers and civilians). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.137.179.181 (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Mention of common false-flag accusations.
A recent addition of material regarding the attack being commonly cited as a false flag incident was reverted (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor&oldid=591622293&diff=prev), with a note reading "Total misunderstanding of 'false flag' versus the conspiracy theory about FDR supposedly egging Japan into war. —User:Binksternet" I believe my cited sources reliably illustrated the case that Pearl Harbor is repeatedly labeled as a false flag, so where is the misunderstanding? Thank you. startswithj (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources you presented certainly don't support the claim that "Debate has existed since the attack as to whether it constitutes an example of a false flag.", especially not in keeping with WP:UNDUE. The closest these sources seem to suggest is that there are conspiracy theorists that believe that Pearl Harbor is one of several false flags, and not much more than that.  There certainly doesn't seem to be anything suggesting that there's any kind of "debate" about it. - Aoidh (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The false flag article should discuss undisputed, clearly documented false flag operations. There are countless assertions of false flag operations from conspiracy theorists, and one can find sourcing that supports such assertions for virtually every major event of the 20th and 21st centuries. It is inappropriate to label or choose the Pearl Harbor attack as an example of a posited false flag operation.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There are two articles (List of conspiracy theories and Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory) which specifically mention this conspiracy theory. It would not be UNDUE to include a brief mention of it with a main leading to the latter article. There's even a link to Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory at the end of the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm responding primarily to the edit at false flag, which gave equal prominence to real false flag operations and the posited Pearl Harbor conspiracy. I have no objection of a clearly subordinated link, but I don't think it's appropriate to do so at false flag, as it will quickly turn into a mess of conspiracy theory speculation instead of an article on undoubted provocations.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * False flag would be Americans pretending to be Japanese, flying over Pearl Harbor and shooting up the place, the purpose being to get the USA to start a war. That did not happen! Not even close. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed to both, but some mention of the conspiracy theory seems warranted. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There don't seem to be a whole lot of sources that support any false flag Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory though. Even among conspiracy theorists this doesn't seem to have too much traction, only gaining a passing mention in reliable sources and that's about it. It certainly doesn't warrant a mention at False flag, and that other article you linked seems to cover the conspiracy theories pretty well already. - Aoidh (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Jeanette Rankin, the only member of Congress to vote against the declaration of war on Japan, tried to justify her vote with the claim that the attack might have been a false flag operation. That's of some mild historiographical significance, but as an actual historical description of the attack on Pearl Harbor, yeah: Not even the fringiest of the fringe conspiracy theorists seem to push that idea much. The Japanese were only too delighted to take credit for a stunningly successful surprise attack, both then and after the war. --Yaush (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, all. I see your point about the sources I brought forward not necessarily discussing a debate, as well as the distinction made specifically "false flag" conspiracy versus a more general "allowed it to happen" or "encouraged it to happen" conspiracy. I merely wanted to add brief mention to this article and to false flag that there exists a significant number of people suspecting a conspiracy and labeling it a false flag. Along with the Reichstag fire, Pearl Harbor seem like the most infamous of supposed "false flag" examples. Indeed, 9/11 was (and still is) heavily rehashed as a "new Pearl Harbor false flag" by conspiracists, and it seems like whitewashing not to acknowledge this common characterization. How about this simpler rewrite?
 * Since the attack, several journalists, authors, and retired military personnel have have argued that parties high in the U.S. and British governments knew of the attack in advance and may have let it happen (or even encouraged it) with the aim of forcing America into war via a "back door," or in the extreme, as a "false flag."[citations]

Thank you, startswithj (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So why, after the "simpler rewrite" is this content being removed entirely? Was someone not happy to have any mention of Pearl Harbor as a trigger for the US to enter the war? If you want to remove this material, argue WP:FRINGE to discredit the sources or argue WP:UNDUE to take the text from the lede into the body. You can't reasonably claim that the word since makes the sentence confusing or that the age of the sources makes them irrelevant.  Honestly, scholarship means actually weighing the material, not making up bullshit reasons to justify that you don't like it.
 * So that we're clear, I'm not claiming false flag. I'm saying the material says some people think (in hindsight) that Pearl Harbor was pretty damn convenient for war hawks and I don't think that's true.  Occam's razor suggests it was simply US laziness met with Japanese bad intentions.  The fact is that some people make that claim and I think it's worth mentioning.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for others, but I removed the text in question because I don't believe a 60-year old source can support the claim of "since the attack..." because 'since' implies that belief is still held. That may be true (and I suspect it is) but a more current source is needed or a different phrasing.  Hot Stop   04:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't remove the content, and I disagree with the grounds on which it was removed. The removal-edit's note gives a complaint reading "'since the attack…' implies the statement is still true…" The statement is that "several [parties] have argued [claims]." This statement is still true—it has not changed that several people have argued these claims. I'll undo the deletion now. Thanks for the ping, and best regards, startswithj (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've given it a slight rewrite to address my concern.  Hot Stop   04:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * These "several journalists etc" directly called revisionists by Gordon W. Prange in "At dawn we slept". On page 851 there are Notes: Revisionists Revisited. Very first one says "Some major revisionist books include ...  Frederic R. Sanborn, Design for War; Charles C. Tansill, Back Door to War; ...".  These are exact sources for above-mentioned sentence.  Do we really need to include this stuff into the article and afterward add Prange's beating of their arguments ? This is article about attack, not about conspiracy theories.   --Tigga (talk) 05:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of Gordon Prange. If that can be verified, then we can qualify those statements to answer critics rather than remove it entirely.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 07:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Harry Dexter White
If you think other scholars disagree with Steil by all means include them. But please don't try to cover up statements from those you disagree with!

Steil's book has been called “the gold standard on its topic” by the New York Times, “a triumph of economic and diplomatic history” by the Financial Times, and “a superb history” by the Wall Street Journal.Jimjilin (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Steil's conclusion about the Pearl Harbor attack is easily dismissed as wrong. He misses the forest for the trees. Steil writes that the 26 November 1941 Hull note was the catalyst for Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. Actually, Yamamoto proposed in January 1941 to attack Hawaii. The torpedo planes trained all during the summer of 1941 with aerial torpedoes so that an attack on Pearl Harbor would be successful. NSA historian Robert J. Hanyok writes about how the Japanese were already working on the radio deception plan by mid-November. On 17 November, the ships assigned to attack Pearl Harbor were secured for secrecy, and moved out away from the mainland. The Japanese fleet had already put to sea the day before the Hull note (26 November on the other side of the date line), tasked with only one mission—the attack on the Hawaiian naval base. So from concept to delivery, the attack on Pearl Harbor was 10–11 months in the making. It was not the result of one diplomatic interchange, not the result of the Hull note. Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Couldn't have said it much better, Bink. Too many people are looking to put the blame in DC, & want to ignore Japanese actions.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  02:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Binksternet. TFD (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)