Talk:Attack on Pearl Harbor/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Preemptive Attack?

Is it really proper to call Pearl Harbor a "preemptive attack"? I believe there is a technical difference (and an important distinction under international law, although I am not certain that this distinction existed in 1941) between a preemptive and a preventive attack.

A preemptive attack is an attack to avert an imminent attack by an enemy and is legal under international law as self defence. Is there any evidence that a US attack on Japan or Japanese interests was imminent?

If not, then it seems more fitting to call it a preventive attack - an attack against an enemy that is not imminently threatening attack but which one day might threaten your interests (such an attack is not legal under international law and is usually defined as aggression). I believe the Japanese planned to invade the Philippines and the Dutch East Indies and wanted to knock out the US Pacific fleet so as not to suffer an attack on their eastern flank. In such an event, attacking Pearl Harbor was a preventive and not a preemptive attack. Mcpaul1998 (talk) 07:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Mcpaul1998 on this. I don't believe there's in fact any reason to believe the United States was planning on attacking Japan in the near future, so "preemptive attack" seems like a completely incorrect phrase to use in this context. [ invisiblelemur (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2007

Agreed. Fixed. Binksternet (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"Preemptive" is wrong and "preventive" is speculative. The qualifier should be removed altogether.Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 21:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"Preventive" is supported here (MIT Press Journals) and here (Senator "Ted" Kennedy, 2002) and here (American Historical Association. The Fruits of Preventive War). Binksternet (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if it's supported or not, the attack was unprovoked, no matter what justification the Japanese used. The reasoning can certainly be expanded in the article but as part of the lead sentence it's POV pushing.Awotter (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

<--- And here we have an example of the problems lawyers cause. They have apparently defined premptive (see Mcpaul's post just above) in a way not quite consonant with ordinary usage. By that definition, Mcpaul would seem to be correct. However, in common usage this was an attack designed to preempt probable US response to the attacks on the Philippines, Malaysia, and the Dutch East Indies. Hence a preemptive attack. Perhaps we could include a footnote illuminating the obscure differences between ordinary usage and legal usage? ww (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Surprise Attack?

THE MEDIA REPORTS THE "OFFICIAL VERSION" of events. It is repeated in all the forms of the media. In a short time, the official version is printed up in textbooks. The official version may remain seemingly "carved in stone", even after researchers dispute the facts of the "official version" with evidence that what was reported initially and what is being taught in classrooms are false. Pearl Harbor is an example. Charles Callan Tansil wrote "Back Door to War" and Admiral Theobald wrote "The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor" long before Robert Stinnett wrote "Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor" in 2000 with proof obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests that it was known by FDR and others that the Japanese were planning the attack. Yet, the media failed to report the truth and efforts were made to withdraw open records. Even worse, a lavish Hollywood movie was produced to mislead a new generation of theater goers about Pearl Harbor.

Not only did the administration knew about Pearl Harbor, but the U.S. implement the program that by cutting off Japan access to oil, the Japanese Empire won't have any choice but to attack the U.S. to keep their war effort going. FDR saw or was given that memo from the Navy, implemented that program point by point, and Japan attacked the U.S. giving FDR the political cover he needed to enter the war.

The US was also financing the war through the Lend-Lease Act. Also of interest, the US business was also supplying oil to Germany, piping the oil down to South America and shipping over.

There is an entire article about alternative (to the standard interpretation) views of the attack. The claims adduced here are, obviously, disputed and are distinctly minority views (not that this establishes historical truth) and the two PH articles (this and the alternative theories one) reflect this. I would suggest that you add some material to the alternative theories article on these points, but I seem to recall the article already includes this or similar material. ww

Notes and References

I've made several edits to this page. I noticed that it used "ibid" a few times, and "ibid" is deprecated in Wikipedia (see WP:FOOT#Style_recommendations). I started what I thought would be a couple of simple changes, and ended up with a big reorganization. I'm only partially done, but it ought to be pretty clear where I'm headed with this. I need to break it off for now, but intend to finish up what I'm doing here tomorrow. Please comment or revert if you see a problem with what I'm doing. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've finished the Notes and References changes. I think the changes are an improvement. I do have a concern about one item in the References section. Previously, the article referenced a 1991 book titled Pearl Harbor. I was not able to find any info on a 1991 edition of that book. I did find info on a 2000 edition of a book by that title, author, and publisher, and I've cited that 2000 edition. If there was a 1991 edition, the page numbers mentioned in the article might not match the 2000 edition. I live in the Philippines and do not have physical access to U.S. universities or libraries, and it would be useful for someone who has access to a copy of this book would verify the page number info and make any needed corrections. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if its an issue of more than one reference per author, but Gordon Prange's "At Dawn We Slept" is a far better reference than the one listed. The one listed is a good reference, but "The Pearl Harbor Papers" is very detailed compared to the complete treatment given by "At Dawn We Slept." If there isn't an issue of more than one reference per author, then I reccomend keeping "Pearl Harbor Papers" and adding "At Dawn We Slept" and "Verdict of History", both by Prange. Leobold1 (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Naval Historical Society has archived most (I believe all, but I'm not 100% certain) of the After Action Reports from December 7, 1941. http://history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-4.htm and http://history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-4a.htm Leobold1 (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Dorie Miller footnote

I del the ref Dorie Miller as insufficiently notable. I don't disagree it's relevant, but how important is it to the attack? If you want, put up a page of everybody who got decorated & put him on it. (I'd like a page of them, myself.) Or goto the Navy Cross page, or something. In context of the attack's significance, unless he got the Medal, leave him out. Trekphiler (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a footnote, for crying out loud. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 11:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, when you deleted it the first time, you said then that it wasn't relevant -- now you're agreeing that it is. Since it's also interesting, and informative, it's back in. Since I've restored the status quo ante, please don't delete this material again without first discussing it here and making a specific and convincing case for its deletion that a consensus of interested editors agrees with. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 11:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've changed your sarcastic and insulting section heading to a more neutral one. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 11:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We can quibble forever over "relevant" or not. Show me how it changed the outcome. And "sarcastic and insulting section heading"? You get to change it just because you don't like it? I want to know why you feel it's so important to include this piece of trivia. If there hadn't been a movie, would you even know who he is? I'm deleting it precisely because of that. It doesn't rise past the level of trivia, fn/not, not in relation to the attack. (Don't tell me he's 1st Afr-Am to get the Navy Cross, that's still trivia.) Notice, I'm not suggesting it should vanish into the ether, just be moved from here to someplace that deals with the awards, because Dorie Miller did not do sh*t as far as the attack on Pearl Harbor is concerned. Notice, also, I removed the reference to Tautog for the same reason, & for less cause: Tautog downed the first Japanese aircraft in the attack, which, at least, is notable. Or should I put it back? Along with the band members joining HYPO? What was that consensus you wanted? Trekphiler (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't see that using a phrase from a beer commericial to discuss this issue is insulting? That's interesting. This title is descriptive and tells editors what is being discussed. As for the incident itself -- it's relevant, it's interesting, it's informative, it's notable for extrinsic reasons, and it's in a bloody footnote, which is the traditional way to deal with such material that's not appropriate for the main body of a piece. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 18:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that using a phrase from a beer commercial makes any damn difference. "it's relevant, it's interesting, it's informative", but it doesn't have any impact on the attack. How does not mentioning him inhibit your understanding of the attack? Don't give me "footnote" without answering the other side: deleted footnote material. Or is it because he's not white? Otherwise, why are you so bent out of shape over this? I'd delete the ref to Kidd & his Medal, too, if it was up to me; that isn't notable, either (just getting KIA doesn't make it), and that is the Medal of Honor. Trekphiler (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see the other material you deleted, but if you'd like I'll be glad to look at it, and if I think it's worthwhile keeping, because it's interesting or informative, then I'll revert it. But in any case, it's irrelevant, because we're not talking about *that* we're talking about *this*. I've given my reasons that it should be kept, in the place where it is now, and they seem to me to fulfill the obligation of the material to be included. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 06:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

<--"it's irrelevant"? No, it's not. It's about what's notable. And I'm not lobbying for restoring the other stuff. I just don't see why Miller is so damned important to the attack, footnote or not. Your reasons don't address notability at all, IMO. If I'd known I'd provoke a reaction like this, I might've left it in. It still deserves deletion. Trekphiler (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice it's now reworded so it's notable: it bears on performance & events during the attack, rather than being a trivial inclusion for its own sake. Trekphiler (talk) 07:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not notable enough for the main article, but it's a notable piece of human interest that's deserving of inclusion. Putting it in a footnote doesn't clutter anything up, it's just lying down there at the bottom for people who want to follow it, which is why it's the right place for it, just like another piece of info (can't recall it just now, sorry) which someone took out of a footnote and put into the main body. I reverted that, because the footnote was the right place for it, and it's the right place for this. If I was trying to insert it into the main article, you'd have a point, but your insistence on deleting it is unfathomable to me considering how the material is being dealt with. Please leave it in. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 07:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that you've restored the Dorie Miller reference, but have removed everything about the story that makes it interesting and notable. I've restored that information. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 07:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, you keep referring to a "film", and I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. If you're referring to the recent big-budget Pearl Harbor movie, I haven't seen it. In any case, my interest in the story has nothing to do with familiarity with it -- it simply strikes me, on its own, for no extrinsic reasons at all, as worthy of inclusion. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 07:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year! Perhaps in the spirit of goodwill, etc you might both stop edit warring over the footnote. You have both broken the three revert rule so I should, technically, be blocking you from editing for a while. However, if you can just leave this relatively trivial issue along I won't do so... The Land (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year! And I'm grateful for small mercies. I do wish I understood why so much detail on Miller belongs here, rather than on his own page, tho. Did he stop the attack? Did he sink a major warship? Did he move a major (minor!) fleet unit? How is Miller notable? Notice, I also deleted Kidd & Van Valkenberg, who got the Medal of Honor, which is notable of itself (tho just getting killed doesn't make it, IMO), & getting a Navy Cross at the beginning of the war was no great accomplishment; sub skippers would get 'em just for surviving patrols. (Talk about cheapening the currency.) I don't suggest Miller wasn't worthy of award or notice, just not here. And if I could delete it without risking a ban, I'd do it. Can you explain why it's worth inclusion? So far, I've seen no rationale for it. Trekphiler (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC) (As for the film, I'm not sure where it is. Wasn't there a biopic recently? I've seen clips of Cuba Gooding at a .50... 11:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

I looked it up on IMDB -- it was indeed "Pearl Harbor" in which Cuba Gooding Jr. plays Dorie Miller. As I said, I haven't seen the film, but I imagine the filmmakers were attracted to the story because films aren't about facts and figures, they're about people and what happens to them, and they recognized in the Dorie Miller story a very good human interest story. So I agree with you, Miller didn't do any of the things you list -- if he had, he'd deserve a place in the main article. Instead, what we have in the Dorie Miller story is, essentially, a sidebar, a piece of factual, relevant, interesting, informative and notable material that doesn't qualify to be highlighted in the body of the article, but is certainly deserving of a single sentence in a footnote. That's where it belongs, and that's where it is.

If an argument was being made that the material should be featured, I'd be right behind you in arguing against that; but to fight this hard to remove from the article -- no, from a footnote to the article -- a piece of information that's as clearly worthy of inclusion of this one is... well, it just confounds me, I really don't understand it at all, Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 16:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen "Pearl Harbor", just the clip. (I agree with Roper, "surprise attack on an American love triangle" & "release date that will live in infamy".) We disagree on "notable", obviously. And "only a footnote"? The band members are a footnote, Buzz Wagner (I think) making ace in a day is a footnote, Kimmel getting hit by shrapnel & wishing he'd been killed is a footnote. How many of them deserve to be included as "good human interest"? Don't start, or you'll end up with all of them. My point isn't that it isn't "good human interest", just that it needs to be moved. I'm not going to take on an awards page, but if you really think this should be preserved, create one & put it there, because I really don't get why leaving it in is so important. Gone, do you fail to understand anything about the attack? Included, do you understand anything new about the attack? Human interest doesn't get it; it's no more important than any other AA gunner's going above & beyond. If a white sailor had done it, even earning a Navy Cross, would it be notable? No. Was he the only one? I doubt it. Trekphiler (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, I know 'just' what you mean. On the way in here to post this, I had to sidle my way through a long line of people waiting to post the exploits of their uncle's mailman's cousin's father, and what he did in Pearl Harbor. They all heard about the Dorie Miller footnote and rushed over here to force their stories on an unwilling public. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 10:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope you're joking. I do. Considering some of the trivial cruft I've seen on WP... Trekphiler (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This ain't that. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 10:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The story of Dorie Miller is notable because he was a black man who wasn't trained on the machine gun he fired, but was still credited with downing a Japanese aircraft. He was also the first black man to be awarded the Navy Cross. Whether its notable to the basic outline of the story is my only question, and as part of it, I think not. But he could be included in the history of the West Virginia (which he is) or under an article on the heroism of the day. This article is a basic outline of the Attack on Pearl Harbor, not a detailed study. That's what the sub-articles are for. Leobold1 (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In & of itself, yes. As biography, yes. As part of black history, yes. As part of the attack on Pearl Harbor, no. Which is exactly why I removed it in the first place. Trekphiler (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Act of war

However you want to phrase it depending on your POV, Japan committed an act of war on the US, whether it was "unprovoked", "preemptive" or "preventative" are conclusions that should be supported by references in the body of the article and not part of the lead.Awotter (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if POV can actually change was the act was in the end though. Jmlk17 06:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"Were"???

Come on, folks, it's fine just as it is. Leave it alone and move on to serious stuff, this is silly. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 09:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you are saying but, if you are referring to the removal of the word "were", then my view is strongly that it is a necessary word ... sentences need verbs, were should be in. Abtract (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't be coy. The verb is "to launch". I really don't much care one way or the other, the sentence works just fine both ways, I simply have a inherent philosophical objection to rewarding unnecessary pedanticism. But, it's really not worth even these few words I'm writing, so enjoy your glorious victory! (The parade should be splendid, indeed! I hope they'll have elephants!) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 10:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm interesting but there are two possible uses of launch: active "to launch" which requires a subject (the person/group doing the launching) and an object (the thing that was launched), and passive "to be launched" which requires only one noun (the thing being launched) - the passive is the one being used here. "Two aerial attack waves, totaling 353[4] aircraft, were launched from six Japanese aircraft carriers, intending to reduce or eliminate United States' military power in the Pacific." If we remove the word "were" "two aerial waves" becomes the subject and there is no object (what did they launch). This is not pedantry but simply good grammar, which seemed to be what was sought by the edit summary that removed "there" in the first place. Or was it pedantry that removed it? Having said all that, I won't go to the barricades on it. Abtract (talk) 11:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You're misreading, it seems to me; the "2 waves" launched (a perfectly servicable verb on its own) from the deck. Moreover, & my complaint, by adding "were", you've bungled the remaining grammar: by using "were launched", "intending" is the wrong gerund (I think). And I'm not going to go rewrite it to fix that when removing "were" was EZr (which is why I did it; yes, I'm lazy). Trekphiler (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC) (Remember the 3-revert rule... =D)

My goodness -- you're right, I didn't even notice that "were" makes a hash of the sentence as written. You'd have to break it into two sentences and say something like.... "They were intended to...." Good work. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really, since I think I originally wrote it... =D Trekphiler (talk) 09:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

404

Pearl Harbor Day? Not here, anymore... Trekphiler (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

change "Two aerial attack waves, totaling 353[4] aircraft, launched from six Japanese aircraft carriers, intending to reduce or eliminate United States' military power in the Pacific."

to "Two aerial attack waves, totaling 353[4] aircraft, launched from six Japanese aircraft carriers, intended to reduce or eliminate United States' military power in the Pacific."

Nvm, good as is, my bad.