Talk:Pearl Harbor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pearl Harbor article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Hawaii Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaiʻi, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Hawaiʻi. Please participate by editing the article Pearl Harbor, or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a brief summary at comments to explain the ratings.)

The link to the site that reports history of the period before the attack of Pearl Harbour, does not remember ,any important informations. Certainly these fact are important to understand the right context of this fact: I think that this article is extremely truthful and eye opening

1)in semptember 1940 japan occupied the part of India that was settlement of French. Japan was a territory with no raw materials; contrarily, French settlement in India was rich of petroleum and with an inefficient military defence. Japan was used to import the 100% of its oil from USA by ships and wanted to become independent for its energy production from the USA.

2)as a reaction roosvelt decided the embargo to steel an iron exportations to Japan. The naval army of the United Stated had the order to hit ships of any coutry that tried to export iron or steel in Japan.

3)25 july 1941 roosvelt forbid oil exportations to japan. there was an economic crisis in japan and local army, navy and air force (like any other country) were totally dependent from oil supplying.

Look at [[1]]

I find the following sentences, which conclude the overview introduction, misleading and not NPOV.

"American dead numbered 2,403. That figure included 68 civilians, and there were 1,178 military and civilian wounded. On August 6 and 9 1945 the USA took revenge for this and drops the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing at least 100,000 japanese civilians outright and many more over time."

Describing wartime action against Japan by the US as "revenge" seems rather juvenile, and these two sentences together seem like an attempt to convince readers that they should doubt the iniquity of the Pearl harbor attack by attempting to illustrate with casualty figures that the attack pales in comparison to the atomic bombings. One stike made by one opponent in war, however devastating, surely does not retroactively justify a previous act of the other. And what is the use of appending the "and many more over time" to the atomic casualties? The same is true of victims of the Pearl harbor attack, not all of whom died instantly or during the same day.

The last sentence should be deleted.


Jump in! Wikipedia means you can contribute! Tell us about the Sugar Industry.


you folks seriously need to talk about the Sugar industry and how it influenced the US invasion of hawaii.

this article is completely biased.

why Pearl harbor instead of Pearl Harbor? Susan Mason

Just so, Susan. It's a proper noun, the same as (e.g.) Mexico City. Tannin

Dead right. We of the CLOP (Capital Letters On Proper nouns) strike again. (Its an in-joke, Susan, Oliver & Tannin will explain it.) JtdIrL 05:34 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

Finish the article, you lazy people. :) --Dissipate 20:53, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)


---

I'd like to see the link to the attack on pearl harbor easier to find on this page. More than half the visitors to this page probably meant the attack, not the actual harbor


Many people think kamikaze were used at Pearl Harbor, but I think it is false (hey were used only at the end of the war when the Japanese were desperate) could somebody confirm this and add it to the article?

         Japanese Suicide Attacks
         Kamikaze


Contents

[edit] okina

okina is confusing for english speakers-Gillean666 10:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dates wrong????

The block that gives dates on the attack is confusing:

"On the morning of December 18, 1941," then goes on to say December 7th.. 11 days earlier?

Should "18" actually be "7" ?


A vandal changed the date. It has been fixed. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The pearls?

The article gives no reason as to why there stopped being pearl-producing oysters...is there one? If you read this and you don't know the answer, could you tell me please? thanks, I would like to know how many people out there read this but don't know the answer Vimescarrot 22:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question here is a website you might be interested in www.susanscott.net/OceanWatch1998/dec07-98.html (Talberna (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] The Battleships

The battleships at Pearl Harbor at the time of the attack on December 7, 1941 included:

USS Arizona (BB-39), USS California (BB-44), USS Maryland (BB-46)(not sunk), USS Nevada (BB-36), USS Oklahoma (BB-37), USS Pennsylvania (BB-38)(not sunk), USS Tennessee (BB-43)(not sunk), USS Utah (BB-31), and the USS West Virginia (BB-48)

Of these, a few were raised, and saw action later in World War II.


USS California (raised on March 25, 1942), USS Nevada (raised on February 12, 1942), USS Oklahoma (entered drydock on December 28, 1943; saw no further action and was decommissioned on September 1, 1944), USS West Virginia (raised on May 17, 1942)

Now, the USS Missouri (BB-63) is the only battleship afloat at Pearl Harbor. The USS Utah and USS Arizona remain in the harbor, where they were sunk, to this day. The USS ARIZONA MEMORIAL is directly above the Arizona's wreck, where the ship's superstructure should be. The Utah is near the northern side of Ford Island.

I added the names of the ships sunk during the battle. I needed it for a paper and could not find it, so i put it in for everyone else! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.36.194 (talk) 04:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

This must be the most vandalised article in Wikipedia-Gillean666 19:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Nothing could possible be more vandalised than the RuneScape article. Vimescarrot 21:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History - West Loch disaster?

I'm wondering if it'd be worth mentioning the West Loch explosion of 1944 in this article. A series of transport ships were docked in West Loch when an explosion destroyed several ships, and could be heard for miles. The reason not many people know about it is because the military kept the details quiet since it was in the middle of World War II. 72.235.84.114 11:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think West Loch needs to be in here. Further, the section is not quite properly named. Everything in the article is about Pearl Harbor. The section should be "December 7, 1941" or "History," with appropriate subsections. Maybe the December 7 section should be shorter since another article covers the attack in depth.Student7 17:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Added West Loch. This is only slightly more than a stub if someone wants to elaborate on it. May I suggest that the expansion be less than the December 7 summary just above? If it exceeds it, maybe it, too, like the Dec7 article, can be moved out separately. Just a thought.Student7 21:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foreknowledge

Can i have comments on this:

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=103

--Striver 00:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the foreknowledge section. First off, given that it is related to the attack on Pearl Harbor there is always the argument to be made that it's better placed there. Secondly, given the controversial/sensitive claim, it will require extensive and delicate writing to accomodate all/most and it's therefore more suitable to have it in an article where it can be discussed more extensively. Thirdly, given that the whole foreknowledge debate has its very own article in connection with the article on the attack on Pearl Harbor, it doesn't seem suitable to give it a section of its own in this general Pearl Harbor article. Given all these together, I found it prudent to remove the section.--83.219.194.117 16:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Didn't notice that I were logged out. I wrote the above and removed the section.--kissekatt 16:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism protection

I want to request semi-protection for this article against IP and new (<4 edits) user "contributions." The edit history for weeks now is nothing but rvv's. Any comments/objections? - Emt147 Burninate! 13:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No; semiprotection should only be used in cases of severe or frequent vandalism. Even though, as you point out, the percentage of "good" edits has dropped recently, there has been no influx of vandalism to justify semiprotection. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What people are ACTUALLY searching for

I'm willing to wager (a sum of zero USD) that more people are searching for the attack on Pearl Harbor than Pearl Harbor itself, and the redirects should be modified accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobodymk2 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 7 June 2006

I agree, but encyclopedically (if that is a word), it should be directed to Pearl Harbor, the place. The attack is mentioned at the very top of the article, and no offence to our readers, but I think they can manage one more click. Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 00:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] simple embayment

What does this mean? Can it be reworded or at least linked to its meaning? Kernow 22:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, so an embayment is a bay, but in what way is it simple? Kernow 22:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] At Dawn We Slept

The bit on "At Dawn We Slept" is very POV - it reads like a publisher's blurb. I'm not an expert on this, but someone who knows more should replace this with more neutral text. JLeander 23:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

As I understand it, listing items in External Links does not constitute a reference. I added the unreferenced tag. MikeMullins 12:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shallow vs Deep

It is described in the opening paragraph as a "deep water harbor", but then in the historical section notes James Cook deemed it too shallow for use as a harbor. Assuming draughts of naval vessels were not greater in those days than now, was it at some point dredged or deepened somehow? Aapold 01:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


Pearl was dredged sometime shortly after the U.S. became interested in foward deploying the Pacific Fleet there. I can't remember where I heard it, probably the video I watched just prior to going to the Arizona memorial, that the harbor was cleared using dynamite. (Talberna (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Funny. Wisconsin...

Should probably get this fixed, unless of course Wisconsin really did attack Pearl Harbor in World War IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII- or whatever. 24.18.22.53 06:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see what you're talking about. Wikipedia pages are subject to vandalism alot. If you see something wrong, feel free to fix it!--Jeff 12:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese flag

Instead of Japan's current flag (), shouldn't this article use the War Ensign – ? JGHowes 02:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you're referring to? I don't see any flags in the article; perhaps you're referring to Attack on Pearl Harbor? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] zh links

the is right one: zh:珍珠港. 219.78.87.228 12:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

i think you mean to say "japanese devils" when you say "japan". please do not let this happen again. let tolerance reign supreme, friends —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.47.8 (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] extent of US knowledge of the attack in other sources

I can't see any references in this article to discussions by some historians ( John Toland, Edward Beach) that the information re the imminent attack was obtained via intercepts. But that the intercepts were not acted upon...surely even if they are only conspiracy theories there should be a mention of them somewhere.... there is also a book by Robert B. Stinnett ' Day of Deceit' ISBN 0-09-480320 about this. is this somewhere else in Wikipedia?Dionysosreborn 11:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Dionysosreborn

[edit] Substantial omission from pre-WW 2 years

Having read Prange's books on the subject, I seem to remember (don't have them with me now) that PH was a minor facility from its construction through the interwar years. The fleet elements, including battleships and aircraft carriers, were not permanently moved to PH until 1940. That year also saw the start of a massive construction program at PH, which was still underway when the war started. Someone with more time than I needs to fix this big hole in the record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.225.22 (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USS O'Kane (DDG-77)

USS O'Kane (DDG-77) is homeported at Pearl but is not listed under Surface ships presently homeported at Pearl Harbor. --ProdigySportsman 03:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Films and books - shouldn't be here

There is a big section on 'films and books', but every single one is about the attack, for which we have a separate article. This section should be moved, but the 'attack' page is proected and I can't. Could someone else do it? 199.71.183.2 (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical perspective

The following quotation: "security concerns caused the U.S. to begin taking defensive measures." is deemed biased. Japanese actions in China can hardly be classified as posing a security threat to US (unless, someone can provide a reference to a politically neutral source, confirming "security concerns" theory). Indeed, US industrialization of the Western states "cried out" for the expansion of the US trading in the Pacific. Japan's centuries long dominance along the "Pacific vertical" effectively precluded US from becoming a recognized player in the game. Therefore, by annexing Hawaii and moving its Navy Base there, US solidified its presence on the Pacific.

User: AR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.69.160.1 (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Post WW2

If one were to draw a conclusion from this article, one would be lead to believe that Pearl no longer exists. It would be useful for the page to contain history younger then 1944. Alyeska (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree, I came here looking for the current and more recent use(s) of Pearl Harbor. I imagine there has to be something to be said for its involvement in the Korean and Vietnam conflicts? Other than establishing in the first paragraph that it is still an active naval base (in fact, the home of the U.S. Pacific Fleet), the only other thing mentioned is the list of homeported ships. Wuputah (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] USS Tucson

Just wanted to let ya'll know that the Tucson is currently stationed in Norfolk VA for a DMP and won't be back out to Pearl until later this year early next. (Talberna (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] kapituce

I doubt that kapituce is a Hawaiian goddess. The Hawaiian alphabet has no "C" in it. At any rate, a proper name should be capitalized. Rwflammang (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)