Talk:Attack on Pearl Harbor/Archive 4

Success?
The article says:
 * "In terms of its own objectives, the attack on Pearl Harbor was a tactical success which far exceeded the expectations of its planners."

That's the damndest definition of success I think I've ever seen. It brings the major industrial power into a war Japan is already over-extended with in China. It misses crucial targets in the harbor. It ignores major objectives (the carriers) Nagumo was expressly ordered to find & sink, even at the cost of half his carrier strength. For "success" like that, an American or British admiral would've been court martialed, & rightly. Trekphiler 12:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A tactical success can be a strategic blunder. Nagumo couldn't sink the carriers because they weren't there. As you pointed out in another comment, Nagumo was operationing at extreme range from his bases. How long could he have searched or waited for the missing carriers? Trade three Japanese carriers for three American ones? Would that have been a good deal?
 * —wwoods 08:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * From the Japanese POV, yes. Their plan (however misguided) was to form an impenetrabe barrier defense around SWP & hold it while the US became too exhausted to continue & settled for a negotiated peace. (That IJN was incapable of protecting merchant traffic made nonsense of this, but nobody in Japan saw it, & Nimitz underestimated it.) So, too, failing to attack the tank farms, Navy Yard, power station, Sub Base [!]--& the old HQ Building, where Hypo was located... Anything delaying a US counterattack was worth the sacrifice, given the barrier strategy. Not to mention Nagumo's express orders, or do you think disobeying a direct order in this way is defensible? (It's all too common among Japanese admirals. Cf Leyte) See Willmott's Barrier & the Javelin especially, also Blair's Silent Victory & Holmes' Double-Edged Secrets for the targets (tho I think Willmott mentions them all). Trekphiler 23:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

On the other Mahan
The article says:
 * "One particular flaw of Japanese strategic thinking was that the ultimate Pacific battle would be between battleships of both sides."

This is because it was based on the theories of Alfred T. Mahan. Every major navy shared Japan's delusion; she was the only one to cleave to it so strongly for so long. This article isn't exactly the place to mention that; if somebody knows where it should be, let me know? Trekphiler 12:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Imperial Japanese Navy or War Plan Orange might be suitable for that. Nevfennas 07:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanx for the heads up. Trekphiler 00:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

A suspicous letter about an attack to Pearl Harbour?
Anyone where about a letter written to the US administration several months before about Japanese plans TO attack Pearl Harbour and that Truman was aware of that but refrain to make it public and react before the December 7 incident?--JForget 18:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There might be mention of it in Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate. -Will Beback · † · 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks it could be this telegram coming from the Ambassador of Japan. I'm not sure if it was the same Ambassador who met with Truman (or someone at least from the Roosevelt administration) who tried to prevent the U.S that an attack will happen at Pearl Harbour (not if he was kept silenced by authorities) but was kept in the White House until the attack happen. So probably it was not a surprised attack that the U.S was aware of it and maybe let it happen.

Passage from Talk page:Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate from an unsigned editor

The Ambassador in Japan (Grew) to the Secretary of State Warning of an Attack on Pearl Harbor, 27 January 1941

[Telegram: Paraphrase]

TOKYO, January 27, 1941-6 p.m. [Received January 27-6: 38 a.m.]

125. A member of the Embassy was told by my --- colleague that from many quarters, including a Japanese one, he had heard that a surprise mass attack on Pearl Harbor was planned by the Japanese military forces, in case of "trouble" between Japan and the United States; that the attack would involve the use of all the Japanese military facilities. My colleague said that he was prompted to pass this on because it had come to him from many sources, although the plan seemed fantastic.

GREW

--JForget 20:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV - Article Title
I'm sure this has been discussed before in many forms, but ... I wikied this randomly, searching for "Battle of Pearl Harbor", and was surprised to be redirected to "Attack on Pearl Harbor". Is there some technical military distinction I'm missing here between a "battle" and an "attack"?

Put another way, are there other examples of Wikipedia articles about "two military forces engage in combat" that are titled "Attack on (X)"? I note also that it's categorized under "Battles of Japan"/"Battles of the United States". --GenkiNeko 19:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I checked out the Talk archives, and saw that this was discussed way back in 2002. However, I'm not sure why the outcome of that debate was to make it "Attack on Pearl Harbor". I agree with the point made there that even if one side is ill-prepared or surprised, it's still a battle - just one where the attacker has done well on the intel side of things.

The one angle I could see in favor of it being an "attack" and not a "battle" (suggested by a friend of mine) is that war hadn't been declared yet. On the other hand, the conflicts of the Vietnam War are listed as "Battles". What's the story here? --GenkiNeko 19:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Battle" implies opposing forces fighting each other. This is closer to a "raid", in which one force inflicts surprise damage against little opposition. I'd argue against changing it to "battle". Since the article name has been stable for years, substantial support should exist for a name change before it's enacted. -Will Beback · † · 21:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that this should be thoroughly discussed beforehand. As to the "raid" idea, that makes intuitive sense to me; my concern is that I haven't seen a whole lot of other articles about similar events that use that terminology.  --GenkiNeko 22:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I do see articles like Doolittle Raid, Second Raid on Schweinfurt, Schweinfurt-Regensburg mission, Bombing of Hamburg in World War II, Bombing of Dresden in World War II, Bombing of Tokyo in World War II,, Rotterdam Blitz, etc. So "Bombing of Pearl Harbor" or "Raid on Pearl Harbor" might be alternatives. What similar events are you comparing it to? -Will Beback · † · 22:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing the research on that. In light of those other articles, I think this is a reasonable name for the article after all.  "Raid on Pearl Harbor" might be technically better, though I confess I've almost never heard that name in English.  --GenkiNeko 00:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Its most common name is Attack on Pearl Harbor. I've rarely(Actually, never) heard it called Raid on Pearl Harbor. Bombing of Pearl Harbor I have a few times. However, I'm sure most people when looking for this article type in Attack on Pearl Harbor. Just my two cents. Gelston 08:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's unlikely any one phrase wil lsatisfy all. And all this was debated earlier in this article's history. See the archives o fhte talk page. We settled on 'attack' as the least likely to provoke conflict. More or less. ww 04:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Taranto as an influence
Hey guys.

Right...

Singapore Burning, by Colin Smith (ISBN 0-141-01036-3) informs us that a particular Commander Genda (attache of IJNAF @ Japanese Embassy, London) was quite impressed by the raid on the Italian Fleet @ Taranto, Italy by the RN, and wrote a careful appraisal that was sent to Tokyo. Susequentley IJNAF pilots honed their skills with the knowledge of the tactics used at Taranto.

Perhaps this could get a mention somewhere?

FeZzYwEzZy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FeZzYwEzZy (talk • contribs) 16:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC).


 * It's already in there. See the "Background" section. -Will Beback · † · 22:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

site hacked and vandalized
the Background section of this article has been vandalized. I tried to fix it in regular editing but couldn't figure out what happened.

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

Article or Book?
Are you guys trying to write a book, or encylopedic article? Colonel Marksman 07:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There's too much information. And the pictures repeat themselves showing the same thing, while others are completely irrelevant like the Lieutenant-Commander Mitsuo Fuchida picture, when someone could merely click on the main article for him instead. Even the Hiroshima bombing doesn't have this many pictures, and that was much more terrible than this.


 * I agree that the photos of admirals and statesmen are excessive. We've tried to keep extraneous material out of the article but it still keeps growing. It'd be nice to keep it as a comprehesive whole, but it still should be readable. -Will Beback · † · 10:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: The article is just under 10,000 words, excluding some end material, etc. -W.


 * Actually, I'm not sure there's too much information, though I can certainly identify several points I would not have made. What I think is wrong is the presentation, which is flaccid and has no distinction by now. Everyone throws in a fact or two, making little attempt to leave a readable article / section / paraagraph behind. Adding something sometimes requires rewiritng of much more than a sentence or two, if the article is to be still readable. Nearly always possible, but too few have been willing to put in the time and effort.
 * The Colonel's objection is too simple, I think. Yes it's a long artlcie, but then it's a big subject and still the central concern of many, 65 some years later. See the alternative theories artlce if in doubt. Thus, I predict that no effort to produce a stremlined Brittanica article, the Colonel's ideal I suspect, will ever succeed. ww 15:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not as bad as all that. This article keeps improving. Last year I did a complete overhaul. It might be time for one again, but there are not as many obvious problems as there were then. The article is now 20 pages, printed. Some material is covered in Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate. This is about the same length as September 11, 2001 attacks, excluding its related articles, category:September 11, 2001 attacks. I'm not sure how we can make it less "flaccid" while still being comprehensive. Encyclopedia articles are not meant to be exciting. -Will Beback · † · 21:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Initiated
Not that I have spare time, but I came across the article and would like to: I actually already started yesterday with some minor revisions of the "Aftermath" section. I will try to keep my changes as "modular" as possible, to allow selective roll-backing. Please excuse the mess as I reorganize the material. Comments welcomed. --Otheus 11:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * improve readability
 * remove redundant information
 * increase conciseness


 * Cleaned up lead paragraph and 1st section. "Background" should probably be renamed to something like "Motivation" --Otheus
 * Cleaned up the 2nd section and sub-sections, renamed it to "Japanese strategy and plans". I have my doubts about this one. Someone inserted details about the orders and directives without any context, and with too much irrelevant detail ("plans were debated, then approved, then begun, etc"). I believe that the list of fleets and forces should be removed, because it's way too much detail. But I left it in because of the Good Faith rule. I did some editorializing, namely regarding the factors that led to Japan employing a surprise attack. Geography is never mentioned in the article, but clearly should be.
 * Before I start on "US Preparedness", I need to do some work. --Otheus 14:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Monetary Damage
How many dollars worth of damage was inflicted by the Jpaneese? THis would be a usful statistic too add.

Edits by 24.9.72.71
Can someone please confirm the edits made by 24.9.72.71 are valid? 24.9.72.71 made a lot of changes to this article without providing descriptions for most of their edits.--Just James 03:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to go through them now I found some MOS changes that needed to be made and I'm working on the content now&mdash; Wils Bad Karma  ( Talk ) 03:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Everything looks fine, 90% of the edits were either to page formatting or were changes that the user changed back in the next edit. There were only a few edits that he kept and I fixed a couple of them per MOS so it doesn't look like they is any problem. I would't worry.&mdash; Wils Bad Karma  ( Talk ) 03:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

By the numbers
Let me make more controversy. The article says US losses were heavy. 2400 KIA isn't heavy, against a potential over 20000. Also, the infobox has Japan with 441 a/c. This looks to me to include every VS on every IJN cruiser & battleship. Nagumo's six decks had 359 a/c between them; they were the strike force, so that's the important number. Cf Willmott's Barrier & the Javelin & Sakai & Caidin's Zero, among others, for exact numbers. The 20000 figure is a postwar comment by Nimitz, mentioned in Holmes' Double-Edged Secrets (& likely elsewhere). Trekphiler 00:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone counted some lost a/c more than once. Can you, or any reader of this comment, provide better ones. My memory reports something less than 100 a/c lost, and I think that's high. It was a very efficient attack from an IJN view. Lots of damage to the enemy and little to them. Good trade off for them. ww 04:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I doubt it was double-counting, just somebody failing to distinguish between striking & recon a/c. Japan lost an astonishingly low 29 birds; I'm unclear if that includes a/c damaged beyond repair or recovery accidents, but my understanding is all were directly due to enemy action. It was an exceptional tradeoff, product of surprise. Trekphiler 20:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * First off, 15% of a force killed or wounded is not "comparatively light", especially if the comparison is against the 64 killed on the other side. 40-1 KIA's is a heavy loss in any fight.

The comment on heavy losses is also regarding materiel, not just human losses, the Japanese lost 4 minisubs and 29 a/c, while the US lost 4 battleships, & five other ships, and 188 a/c. To say the losses were comparatively light implies the minisubs had the near value of a battleship and a destroyer, and 6-1 ship losses is also "comparatively heavy", not "comparatively light. Second, calling the ships lost obsolete without citation seems to weaken the results of the attack.  Yes, the planes and ships were obsolete by today's standards, but they were our Pacific Fleet at the time, equivalent to the Japanese forces, and they seemed to be pretty formidable to the Japanese, so much so that they attacked them. CodeCarpenter 22:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was counting the materiel losses. It was comparative to the potential losses, not to the Japanese losses, which is the usual standard. It "seems to weaken the results of the attack"? That's the idea. The Japanese missed the boat, destroying ships & planes that would play small or no part in the war even had they survived. And it's not "obsolete by today's standards"; they were obsolete at the time. (If you don't know that, maybe you shouldn't criticize comments by people who do.) And how formidable to the Japanese they were isn't the issue, either. IJN was in the grip of a faulty doctrine, & we shouldn't be endorsing it; the idea is to present a historical view, not parrot the contemporary mistakes. Furthermore, I wouldn't put too much emphasis on it; the attack on Pearl Harbor was as much a political statement, an attack on British-American unity, as on the Fleet. Trekphiler 18:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Where's David Gerrold?
Can somebody clarify this?
 * "First, for classic battleship warfare, the relative isolation of Hawaii would make it difficult for any naval fleet to be outflanked"

I'm unaware of naval warfare allowing "any naval fleet to be outflanked". Also, I rewrote this:
 * "for Japan to achieve the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere". This "Co-prosperity sphere" was shorthand for control of the resources (especially oil reserves) of Southeast Asia, the Dutch East Indies, and a defensible buffer around them."

I've always understood the "Co-Prosperity Sphere" to be a political entity unconnected with strategy. The strategy was to form an impenetrable barrier, which was misguided & impossible (given IJN doctrine); cf War Plan Orange & Imperial Japanese Navy. Trekphiler 20:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Stuffing
The article says, "For pre-attack reconnaissance, two planes from the 8th Cruiser Division secretly scouted the Hawaii for the US aircraft carriers and targets, and so for the possibility of counter-attack." IIRC, this is confirmed by Dickson & Goldstein in Pearl Harbor Papers.

Also, it says, "Kāneohe Marine Corps Base". IIRC, it was home to the PBYs & was Marine Corps Air Station Kāneohe.

Also, I deleted "First Attack Unit engaged the enemy from the right flank." and "Second Attack Unit engaged the enemy from the left flank." Navy bases don't have flanks. This isn't "DS9".

Also, I corrected the quote "This is not a drill" to "This is not drill." The "a" was not included in the actual message.

Also, I deleted "threat from U.S. submarines". This was very exaggerated.

I question "Nagumo was under strict orders not to risk his command any more than necessary." He had orders to find & sink the U.S. carriers even if it meant loss of half his strike force.

Finally, what's up with this?

Is there a problem with this pic? Trekphiler 03:25, 04:17, 04:48, & 05:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Forgive my language but wasn't the original radio trans from Ford island "...THIS IS NO SHIT"? GarrettJL 23:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Never heard that before. The "not drill" (& it was "not", per standard telegraphic practise, which a well-drilled Navy man would use as naturally as English) reflects the fact there'd been a series of exercises in the days immediately prior; indeed, many believed the Japanese planes were "just another damned drill" ("On a Sunday?!"). Trekphiler 23:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Reading Prange et al., December 7h 1941, p. 118, "Man your battle stations! This is no shit!" came over Oklahoma's PA.


 * Also, deleted "covering the right flank" & "covering the left flank", per "not 'DS9'" above  Trekphiler 01:11 & 04:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Sweet Home Pennsylvania
Commanded by Captain Charles M. "Savvy" Cook, & Fleet flag, what happened to her? Trekphiler 05:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, really?
The article said
 * "Conversely, the Pacific theater became Japan's sole focus of attention; overwhelming the Americans and, later, defending against them, undermined cooperative efforts against British and Russian holdings in East Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Indian Ocean region."

This is nonsense, & I deleted it. Japan's primary effort from 1931-1945 was China. "Cooperative efforts against British and Russian holdings" didn't exist, nor were there any Axis plans for them. The Germans & Japanese couldn't even come to a firm agreement on supplying U-boats.

It also says
 * "Opening a second front against the Soviet Union, which never came to fruition, would have been of considerable value to the combined Axis' war effort."

I see a potential benefit to Germany. I'm unclear how it was supposed to aid Japan. It would not stop supplies to China (well, it might stop Soviet supplies to China...), nor would it secure Japan's oil (Germany had none to spare). It would have engaged the Kwantung Army, which IJA was itching to get in action. It would also have been an unmitigated disaster for IJA, which had laughably bad antitank guns, in the face of T-34s (& Germany had quite enough trouble with them herself). This point needs to be clarified or removed. Trekphiler 06:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Details, details
If Lockhard & Elliot didn't specify statute or nautical miles, how does the editor know it was "136 nautical miles (218 km)", pray tell? Also, I rewrote to this:
 * "U.S. losses were comparatively light: 2403 dead and 1178 wounded, 5 obsolete battleships, 3 destroyers, 3 cruisers, and 188 (mostly obsolescent or obsolete) planes."

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

Through a word processor, darkly
Does anybody else have a problem with this?
 * "It resulted in the destruction not only of the Japanese armed forces, but also in the destruction of Japan's allies."

To me, this implies a direct connection between the attack & the defeat of Germany, which is, at least, a bit overblown. Trekphiler 04:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, yes. A bit. --Otheus 07:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

On the count of 93 91
The article says 93 91 (oops. Trekphiler 18:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)) aircraft defended the Kido Butai. Prange (with Dillon & Goldstein), in December 7th 1941, p.86, say it was 39: 3 each Akagi & Kaga, 6 Soryu, 9 ea Shokaku, Zuikaku, & Hiryu. Looks like somebody transposted the numbers. Trekphiler 06:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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