![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2019 and 30 April 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Kitaferd.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 19:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Peterwells99.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I moved the tactical and strategic analysis to the bottom, as the initial part of the article deals with the direct reactions to the attack, whether it be declaration of war or investigation.
The major re-arrangement is necessarily, notice Cassin and Downes being mentioned in two separate instances for the same information. Also, notice how the Japanese strategy and "waking the sleeping giant" is mixed in with the material damage inflicted. GoldDragon ( talk) 03:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I can find no serious source for the whole non-Aryan allies thing. All the sources I find say quote him as saying "It is now impossible for us to lose the war… We now have an ally who has never been vanquished in three thousand years.” The article cited in the footnotes seem to have made the other reaction up, all other references to it cite that site. 212.159.71.116 ( talk) 14:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
By WWII none of the Queens, neither the rebuilts nor the others, could top 23 knots- not a significant difference from the US prewar fleet, and far too slow for carrier escorts. None of the WWI-era BBs had the speed save the Nagatos, and the battlecruisers. Solicitr ( talk) 18:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
The "dubious" tag is wrong. The 40mm didn't have the explosive weight to stop kamikaze, & the 5"/38cal was too slow-firing. It took the 3"/70cal & its hi ROF. The trouble is, IDK where I saw it... Blue Skies & Blood? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Most of the section Results of the attack on Pearl Harbor#perception of the attack today is actually on the reaction to the attack by the Japanese military commanders. Either that should be a new section, or it could possibly go in the section on Results of the attack on Pearl Harbor#Japanese views. J28 174.34.41.239 ( talk) 22:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
All - I am of the opinion that these lines:
He is rumored to have said, " I fear all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with terrible resolve". Even though this quote is unsubstantiated, the phrase seems to describe his feelings about the situation.
aren't scholarly. They're Hollywood hearsay. The section stands without them. I propose to delete. JMOprof ( talk) 13:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I recently edited this page to "fix" a quote from a source that read, "One reporter later reported that 'Seven of the two ships sunk at Pearl Harbor have now rejoined the fleet'"; I changed it to read "Two of the seven," as I assumed that this was the actual quote and that a typo had been made. It has since been removed, but is visible here, at the end of the section. Since then, I managed to find the book that this quote cites, and the book does indeed state "Seven of the two." However, the author quoted that text from a master's thesis entitled, "From Blackout at Pearl Harbor to Spotlight on Tokyo Bay." So far I haven't figured out a way to get a hold of that thesis; WorldCat says it's held at the University of Wisconsin, Madison and a few others, so maybe somebody else can get access to it. Until then, I'm not sure whether that quote was mistyped in the book or the thesis; either way, best not to use it until we're sure, I suppose. Robert Skyhawk ( T C) 01:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
The article states that Pearl Harbor was attacked without warning on Dec 7, 1941. What needs to be shown here instead is all the evidence that not only the Pacific Fleet, but Washington also had plenty of warning weeks in advance, but refused to act on these warnings plural. One widely held theory is that FDR allowed Pearl to be attacked to bring the United States into the World War with the American People's support behind it. 3000 US lives lost not too high a price to pay. This can be compared to George W. Bush allowing the Twin Towers to be attacked 9/11/2001 (similar nbr lives lost) to gain American People's support for waging a war in Iraq 2003. Erichansen1836 ( talk) 20:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Closing discussion by banned User:HarveyCarter. Binksternet ( talk) 15:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I removed the sentence about Hitler making a "blunder" by declaring war - he had no choice as the US had dropped its neutral stance in March 1941 with Lend Lease and he needed to start sinking American ships that were bringing the supplies that had kept Britain in the war. ( CharltonChiltern ( talk) 14:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC))
|
"...Japanese writers repeatedly contrast the thousands of U.S. non-combatants killed there with..."
Huh? There were thousands of non-combatants killed at Pearl Harbor? I don't see the reasoning behind this statement. Mark Froelich ( talk) 07:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I am looking to add a section discussing the general public opinion of the United States regarding World War II prior to Pearl Harbor. This will help provide more context in terms of the ramifications of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Some of the source information I will be using is listed below:
Peterwells99 ( talk) 19:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The subsection "Carriers" has a passage where the author speculates on possible reasons for Nagumo failing to search and destroy the three US carriers. The author concludes that "Nagumo's hesitation, and failure to find and destroy the American carriers, may have been a product of his lack of faith in the attack plan, and of the fact he was a gunnery officer, not an aviator."
It is my opinion that this sentence is of such low quality that it does not belong in an encyclopedia. What the author thinks "may have been" is simply conjecture, and does not belong. Moreover, this conjecture ignores simple factual inconsistencies with the conclusion such as the fact that the attack plan did not call for a search for carriers if none were found. Also pointless is the author's deliberations on Nagumo's background and its influence in his decision, if such was a decision for Nagumo to make.
Similarly of low, low quality is the following sentence: " In addition, Yamamoto's targeting priorities, placing battleships first in importance, reflected an out-of-date Mahanian doctrine, and an inability to extrapolate from history, given the damage German submarines did to British trade in World War I" First of all, it is contrary to fact, as battleships were not above carriers in priority. Second, the author's conclusion that the target priority reflects "Mahanian doctrine" is baseless and quite frankly perplexing. Lastly, the final bit about German submarines is....what the hell is he/she even trying to say? That the choice not to go after submarines was the result of Yamamoto's inability to extrapolate from history?
Even for a format like wikipedia, where pretty much anything can be published, it is absolutely embarrassing that these two sentences have been allowed to stand. They should be summarily deleted.
Pensiveneko ( talk) 19:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me that Churchill's reaction was deeply emotional and spot-on. He knew at once that Pearl Harbor was a fatal blunder for the all the enemies of the British Empire. The relief in the quote is palpable. This quote is NOT from a primary source, but rather from a respected historian, Michael Fullilove, in his book of analysis of the European diplomacy of President Roosevelt. Fullilove's comments on this quote say, "Churchill understood immediately Pearl Harbor's significance...", the Fullilove prints the quote. Thus it is validated by an independent historian. Nick Beeson ( talk) 15:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Consequences of the attack on Pearl Harbor's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "sturtivant":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2019 and 30 April 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Kitaferd.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 19:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Peterwells99.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I moved the tactical and strategic analysis to the bottom, as the initial part of the article deals with the direct reactions to the attack, whether it be declaration of war or investigation.
The major re-arrangement is necessarily, notice Cassin and Downes being mentioned in two separate instances for the same information. Also, notice how the Japanese strategy and "waking the sleeping giant" is mixed in with the material damage inflicted. GoldDragon ( talk) 03:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I can find no serious source for the whole non-Aryan allies thing. All the sources I find say quote him as saying "It is now impossible for us to lose the war… We now have an ally who has never been vanquished in three thousand years.” The article cited in the footnotes seem to have made the other reaction up, all other references to it cite that site. 212.159.71.116 ( talk) 14:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
By WWII none of the Queens, neither the rebuilts nor the others, could top 23 knots- not a significant difference from the US prewar fleet, and far too slow for carrier escorts. None of the WWI-era BBs had the speed save the Nagatos, and the battlecruisers. Solicitr ( talk) 18:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
The "dubious" tag is wrong. The 40mm didn't have the explosive weight to stop kamikaze, & the 5"/38cal was too slow-firing. It took the 3"/70cal & its hi ROF. The trouble is, IDK where I saw it... Blue Skies & Blood? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Most of the section Results of the attack on Pearl Harbor#perception of the attack today is actually on the reaction to the attack by the Japanese military commanders. Either that should be a new section, or it could possibly go in the section on Results of the attack on Pearl Harbor#Japanese views. J28 174.34.41.239 ( talk) 22:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
All - I am of the opinion that these lines:
He is rumored to have said, " I fear all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with terrible resolve". Even though this quote is unsubstantiated, the phrase seems to describe his feelings about the situation.
aren't scholarly. They're Hollywood hearsay. The section stands without them. I propose to delete. JMOprof ( talk) 13:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I recently edited this page to "fix" a quote from a source that read, "One reporter later reported that 'Seven of the two ships sunk at Pearl Harbor have now rejoined the fleet'"; I changed it to read "Two of the seven," as I assumed that this was the actual quote and that a typo had been made. It has since been removed, but is visible here, at the end of the section. Since then, I managed to find the book that this quote cites, and the book does indeed state "Seven of the two." However, the author quoted that text from a master's thesis entitled, "From Blackout at Pearl Harbor to Spotlight on Tokyo Bay." So far I haven't figured out a way to get a hold of that thesis; WorldCat says it's held at the University of Wisconsin, Madison and a few others, so maybe somebody else can get access to it. Until then, I'm not sure whether that quote was mistyped in the book or the thesis; either way, best not to use it until we're sure, I suppose. Robert Skyhawk ( T C) 01:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
The article states that Pearl Harbor was attacked without warning on Dec 7, 1941. What needs to be shown here instead is all the evidence that not only the Pacific Fleet, but Washington also had plenty of warning weeks in advance, but refused to act on these warnings plural. One widely held theory is that FDR allowed Pearl to be attacked to bring the United States into the World War with the American People's support behind it. 3000 US lives lost not too high a price to pay. This can be compared to George W. Bush allowing the Twin Towers to be attacked 9/11/2001 (similar nbr lives lost) to gain American People's support for waging a war in Iraq 2003. Erichansen1836 ( talk) 20:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Closing discussion by banned User:HarveyCarter. Binksternet ( talk) 15:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I removed the sentence about Hitler making a "blunder" by declaring war - he had no choice as the US had dropped its neutral stance in March 1941 with Lend Lease and he needed to start sinking American ships that were bringing the supplies that had kept Britain in the war. ( CharltonChiltern ( talk) 14:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC))
|
"...Japanese writers repeatedly contrast the thousands of U.S. non-combatants killed there with..."
Huh? There were thousands of non-combatants killed at Pearl Harbor? I don't see the reasoning behind this statement. Mark Froelich ( talk) 07:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I am looking to add a section discussing the general public opinion of the United States regarding World War II prior to Pearl Harbor. This will help provide more context in terms of the ramifications of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Some of the source information I will be using is listed below:
Peterwells99 ( talk) 19:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The subsection "Carriers" has a passage where the author speculates on possible reasons for Nagumo failing to search and destroy the three US carriers. The author concludes that "Nagumo's hesitation, and failure to find and destroy the American carriers, may have been a product of his lack of faith in the attack plan, and of the fact he was a gunnery officer, not an aviator."
It is my opinion that this sentence is of such low quality that it does not belong in an encyclopedia. What the author thinks "may have been" is simply conjecture, and does not belong. Moreover, this conjecture ignores simple factual inconsistencies with the conclusion such as the fact that the attack plan did not call for a search for carriers if none were found. Also pointless is the author's deliberations on Nagumo's background and its influence in his decision, if such was a decision for Nagumo to make.
Similarly of low, low quality is the following sentence: " In addition, Yamamoto's targeting priorities, placing battleships first in importance, reflected an out-of-date Mahanian doctrine, and an inability to extrapolate from history, given the damage German submarines did to British trade in World War I" First of all, it is contrary to fact, as battleships were not above carriers in priority. Second, the author's conclusion that the target priority reflects "Mahanian doctrine" is baseless and quite frankly perplexing. Lastly, the final bit about German submarines is....what the hell is he/she even trying to say? That the choice not to go after submarines was the result of Yamamoto's inability to extrapolate from history?
Even for a format like wikipedia, where pretty much anything can be published, it is absolutely embarrassing that these two sentences have been allowed to stand. They should be summarily deleted.
Pensiveneko ( talk) 19:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me that Churchill's reaction was deeply emotional and spot-on. He knew at once that Pearl Harbor was a fatal blunder for the all the enemies of the British Empire. The relief in the quote is palpable. This quote is NOT from a primary source, but rather from a respected historian, Michael Fullilove, in his book of analysis of the European diplomacy of President Roosevelt. Fullilove's comments on this quote say, "Churchill understood immediately Pearl Harbor's significance...", the Fullilove prints the quote. Thus it is validated by an independent historian. Nick Beeson ( talk) 15:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Consequences of the attack on Pearl Harbor's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "sturtivant":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)