Talk:Pearl Harbor/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Minor Edit

Fixed "U.S. Atlantc Bold Text Fleet" by changing it to U.S. Pacific Fleet, deleting the words "Bold Text", and bolding the text. Capedude2005 (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

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))

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)

We cannot leave this article to semiprotection for over two-years straight. I am removing semiprotection for now. If vandalism persists to a high degree, that will warrant reintroducing semiprotection at a future date. This will only last a few days but there is a need for reassessing the need for semiprotection at least every few months. As it is, it remains unfair to those who legitimately want to make improvements but have been blocked from doing so. --Gerald Farinas (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm an insignificant member here on Wikipedia, and that I rarely edit anything and so am unknown to the regular contributors, but as someone who's just had to correct some obviously deliberate changes to this page (changing Pearl Harbor to being the HQ of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet, changing the date of the attack to roughly one year later than it happened, and changing FDR's quote to "a date which will live in happiness") I would humbly request that some level of protection is re-instituted for this page. In fact, particularly for those sections which are purely historical and therefore cannot and will not change, perhaps there should be a permanent restriction on editing unless some new and verified addition to history is discovered and determined appropriate for inclusion. Capedude2005 (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

A quick follow-up to my previous comment... As a college student, I am forever having it shoved down my throat by professors and others, "Never use Wikipedia! It's not authoritative, and it's frequently wrong and filled with errors!" Now, I "get" that Wikipedia still has a use as a general source of information, but then again so would a blog. I'm feeling really frustrated at Wikipedia management's seeming unwillingness to directly deal with those elements which make Wikipedia non-authoritative, or at least something that professors seem to universally decry as being worthless or otherwise academically dangerous. The corrections I had to make on March 25, as well as the removal of this article's previous protection which allowed for the partial defacing which I had to correct seem to give credence to this view and my concerns. Why won't management and the senior contributors here do anything about it? Capedude2005 (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

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))

It remained a still relatively shallow harbor at least through the attack on it, because the Japanese had to heavily modify their torpedoes to operate in its shallow waters. The use of these relative terms "shallow" and "deep" leads to ambiguity. Perhaps someone with actual naval experience could clarify? Davidgjohnson (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked into this matter earlier when working on the attack article. IIRC, the harbor was deep in comparison to the drafts of naval ships, but shallow in compariosn to the depth needed for torpedoes dropped from planes. While the sources never quite spelled it out, I presumed that after being dropped the torpedoes would dive or sink to some relatively great depth before levelling out at a shallow depth on their run towards their target. The Japanese innovation, based on work by the British, was to add some type of planes or vanes on the sides of the torpedoes to prevent them from sinking so far initially. Their design was essentially a "secret weapon" because the US Navy thought that the harbor was too shallow for plane-launched torpedoes to work. There's more information in Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#Planning.   Will Beback  talk  02:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

I agree. The entries are all about the attack, not the harbor. I'll merge them into what we have in Attack on Pearl Harbor. There may be enough for a spinoff. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

The United States was a afraid that the Japanese and the Major European Countries where going move into their "backyard" and that they wanted to have colonies like the other Major Powers of the World at the Time. That is why we did not give the Philippines their independence until after WW2. So Pearl Harbor was set up out of fear of other countries moving into their "backyard" and with the United States wanting to become a major power by Colonization.Jobes23 (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If my reading/understanding of the textbook I have for my American History 1865-Present class is correct, what you're describing was a part of our Open Door Policy at that time. Capedude2005 (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

As near as I can tell, all ships and submarines of the U.S. Pacific Fleet have their home ports in San Diego, Bremerton, Washington, Bangor, Washington (strictly for Trident submarines, Pearl Harbor, Guam, and one seaport on the east coast of Japan. This is particularly true since the Naval Bases at San Francisco Bay and Subic Bay, Philippines have been close for years now. All of the Aircraft Carrier Battle Groups in the Pacific have their home ports at either San Diego, Bremerton, or Japan (now, that is the USS George Washington, the first nuclear-powered ship to be based in Japan - a necessity since the last conventionally-powered one, the USS Kitty Hawk was retired from service in January 2009).

The Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet (CINCPAC) is based at Pearl Harbor, and he is also the big joint-forces commander of all U.S. Armed Forces in the Pacific Ocean area and the Indian Ocean: Navy, Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps - everybody. That post is always held by a four-star Admiral. [Also, the U.S. Air Force in the Pacific has its headquarters on Oahu.] The only comparable four-star posts in the U.S. Military are the Commander, U.S. Atlantic Fleet (CINCLANT), the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (SACEUR) near Brussels, Belgium, the General in charge of the Southern Command, the General in charge of the Central Command, the Commander of the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD), and the Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command. The SACEUR has usually come from the U.S. Army, but there have been two U.S. Air Force generals and one U.S. Marine Corps general. (Nobody but an American) The commander of NORAD is usually - or always - an Air Force General. His Deputy is always a Canadian Forces officer. (It is possible that a U.S. admiral has commanded NORAD a few times.) The commander of the strategic forces can either be an Air Force general or a Navy admiral.
Thus, you can see that given just a few other ones, the CINCPAC is an extremely important officer, with an important staff, and very important forces at his command. 98.67.111.148 (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

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))

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)

Redeploying of the Pacific Fleet in 1940

Perhaps the article should discuss the issues and events leading to the US Navy Pacific Fleet moving to Pearl Harbor from San Diego in 1940? --James4v8 (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, this article need to discuss the moving of the main body of the U.S. Fleet from California to Oahu during 1940 - 41. By the way the name of that fleet was the United States Fleet. Back then, the U.S. Navy did not have an Atlantic Fleet and a Pacific Fleet - there was just one fleet. The U.S. kept this fleet in the Pacific ocean for decades in 1918 - 1941, with the concept being to leave the North Atlantic mostly to the Royal Navy, the French Navy, and the Italian Navy.

Besides its Fleet in the Pacific, the Navy kept a "patrol squadron" in the northwestern Atlantic, and a small "Asiatic squadron" based at Manila in the Philippines. That squadron usually had only one heavy cruiser as its heaviest armament, and at the time of the Attack on Pearl Harbor, that heavy cruiser was the U.S.S. Houston. Besides this, the Asiatic Squadron had an assorment of destroyers and submarines.
At the time of the Attack on Pearl Harbor, besides the main fleet at Oahu, the Navy had the battleship U.S.S. Colorado and the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Saratoga, and assorted smaller warships at San Diego, San Francisco, etc.
Also at the time of the Attack, the Navy's aircraft carriers U.S.S. Enterprise (CV-6) and U.S.S. Lexington (CV-3), and their escort ships, were away on missions to deliver two squadrons of Marine Corps F4F Wildcat fighter planes to Wake Island and Midway Island. That was what saved the American carriers in the Pacific - all three of them were gone away.
With the patrol squadron in the Atlantic were the carriers U.S.S. Ranger (CV-4), U.S.S. Yorktown (CV-5), U.S.S. Wasp (CV-7), and the U.S.S. Hornet (CV-8) which was nearly complete at the shipyard at Newport News. 98.67.111.148 (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

POV

It is highly disturbing that this article is has been protected and unamenable to revision as long as it has been. This is contrary to Wikipedean policy and smacks of censorship. Its removal from peer review raises suspicion that this article has been sanitized, hijacked and is being held 'without bond' as it were indefinitely in the hands of interested editorial parties. There are a long lists of complaints regarding the neutrality of this article and in the interest of fair and unbiased reporting, especially in light of important information that has only recently come to light about the events concerning the attack on Pearl Harbor, this article is in desperate need of editing. If Wikipedia is still free, this aticle should be re-released to the public domain (ie restored to the free domain of the WIKIPEDIA PROPER!) for peer review. (like yesterday) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirley Locks (talk • contribs) 10:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Shirley, I'm sorry, but I have to take issue with this. I totally agree that Wikipedia articles need to be accurate, and if there are errors, then anyone recognizing them should be able to report them. But what I have a major problem with is letting anyone and everyone edit articles directly, at random, with no (or little) protection. That's precisely why colleges and universities think of this site as not just a joke, but also a threat to serious academic research. What's the point of Wikipedia if it can't or won't be taken serious in its primary function as an online encyclopedia? Capedude2005 (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I found the articles PoV pathetic. It doesn't even mention the 'possibility' of USAs intent to provoke the Japanese. It's well known the Americans were in need of a casus belli. 79.223.166.73 (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Unbalanced history

The article gives a wonderfully detailed history of Pearl Harbor for the years 1820—1941. But the history stops there, aside from an explosion in 1944 and a landmark designation in 1964. Considering the minutiae that is included in earlier periods, there must have been similarly important events in the last 65 years. To begin with, the base must have been a hub of activity from 1941—1945. And in light of the Korean, Vietnam, and Cold Wars, all of which involved the Pacific Fleet, the base must have played a key logistical role in subsequent decades. Can anyone contribute at least a few more paragraphs on post-1941 Pearl Harbor? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

POV|date=September 2008

Why is this flag at the top of the article? I don't see any ongoing discussions? If no one is pursuing this, then I would like to remove the flag. I do see a blurb under "old comments", with many WP:WTA. Are there proposals that I am just not seeing, that are disputed?
For myself, I would have {Fact}-flagged the lead-in for Pearl Harbor bringing the US into WWII... but... that should be easily sourced (newspapers of 8 Dec, for example).sinneed (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It was added by user:Shirley Locks here: [1]. Her next edit was here, [2], with the edit summary: The article reads as if it was written by an apologist for the American Military. Removed 3 phrases comprising neutrality (cf. American policy being governed by "the principle by virtue") etc. (I think she meant "compromising neutrality"). In any case, the editor who added the tag seems to have fixed the issue she was complaining about. Since much of the history comes from a U.S. Navy webpage, we do have to watch out for bias. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed the POV tag, though there is still much work needed on refs and post WWII content. Pjbflynn (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

PoV, heck...

The main thing I see wrong with this is that it isn't encyclopedic at all. There are few citations and many unsourced statements of intent, motivation, probability, comparability (2nd worst incident), etc. It *IS* written by an apologist for the American Military, as I read it. sinneed (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It also reads like a novel or a tour guide "... the islands were irresistibly drawn into the whirlpool of expansion." *cough cough* sinneed (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am going to add a refimprove. If no one objects over the next few days I am going to kill the PoV flag.sinneed (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure any work on this article would be an improvement. While you're at it, you might trim some of the history. There seems to be too much discussion of a water well, for starters. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day is December 7th

Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day is December 7th. If somebody wants, they can add a section on this, thanks! Dragonblades (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

add external link

Hi, I would like to add an external link to a lesson plan on Pearl Harbor from EDSITEment, National Endowment for the Humanities. EDSITEment is a long-standing reputable web resource for the humanities with over 400 high-quality lessons for K-12 teachers and students. All our lesson plans are written by either scholars or very experienced teachers and educators. EDSITEment is part of the Verizon Foundation Thinkfinity partnership along with the Smithsonian Museum of American History, National Geographic, and the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. The lesson is The Road to Pearl Harbor: The United States and East Asia 1915-1941and is a great resource for those interested in information and contemporary documents on the rise of animosity between the U.S. and Japan that led to Pearl Harbor. Please take a look at the lesson plan and let me know what you think about adding it to this page. Thank you.

• EDSITEment Lesson Plan: The Road to Pearl Harbor: The United States and East Asia 1915-1941(from the National Endowment for the Humanities)

Hquon19 (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for inquiring before adding the link. It appears that this would be the wrong article anyway. This article is about the harbor. That material appears to concern the Attack on Pearl Harbor. From a quick look, the site appears to be good, and probably complies with WP:EL. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandal magnet?

Since this article has been the target of very low-rate vandalism over the past four years, would it make sense to try the new Wikipedia:Pending changes mechanism on it? My guess is that vandals would be less persistent if they knew their "work" would not be visible to most readers, but as discucssed back then the rate is too low to justify permanent semi-protection. W Nowicki (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Remember the Maine"

"Remember the Maine" was one of the battle-cries when Pearl Harbour was attacked. Rightly, as the Maine exploded from inside and Pearl Harbour was the bait Roosevelt had prepared to get his war. Put all ships together in Pearl Harbour, but not the air-carriers which could be vital to the war, park the planes so that they cant take off readily, pack the ammunition and even loose some keys – this makes sure that the losses are sufficiently important to declare war and rally the public behind him – half of the Americans were against the war and Roosevelt had declared in the last election that he wouldn’t send the boys into a foreign war. This satisfaction to have made the coup figures in Stimson's diaries and Eleanor Roosevelt informs that the night after the Japanese attack was the first Roosevelt slept well.

These Stimson diaries inform that on the 25 of November Roosevelt informed “that we were likely to be attacked perhaps next Monday, for the Japanese are notorious for making an attack without warning … The question was how we should manoeuvre them into the position of firing the first shot ...” Roosevelt solved this difficulty. Stimson diaries were printed in 1976, but disappeared from all libraries in the world and the book is nowhere to find. (These criminals forgot the microfilms in Yale.)

Roosevelt wanted the war desperately. The only and handwritten correction of the text of the proposed election platform in 1940 were he declared not to sent the boys to foreign wars was to add “except in case of attack”. After eight years of New Deal there was still 10% of unemployment and Congress blocked Roosevelt's “communist” and sometimes unconstitutional recovery programs. So war was his only solution. And as the Germans didn’t shot back in the Atlantic, he blocked oil to Japan to force them to war. The many practically unconditional offers of peace from Japan (see Trachtenberg, Marc, 2006, The Craft of International History – A Guide to Method, Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford.) are nowhere mentioned in theses Wikipedia articles. "Remember the Maine"!Cuauti (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank heavens this comment is all factual and so carefully-cited, with absolutely no POV statements! Remember your Meds! T-bonham (talk) 07:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This part does not make sense:

"The United States and the Hawaiian Kingdom signed the Reciprocity Treaty of 1875 as supplemented by Convention on December 6, 1884 and ratified in 1887. On January 20, 1887, the United States Senate allowed the Navy to lease Pearl Harbor as a naval base[6] (the US took possession on November 9 that year). The Spanish-American War of 1898 and the desire for the United States to have a permanent presence in the Pacific both contributed to the decision."

How can the Spanish-American war that took place in 1898 have "contributed to the decision" that was made in 1887?? Did they have time machines back then?

Can some edit that, so that it makes sense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.211.132.70 (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The first state and Pearl Harbor

Delaware (the first state) ratified the constitution on December 7, 1787. Pearl harbor also occurred on December 7th. Is this a coincidence or was this deliberate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.109.93 (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Two days ago, October 16, I ate at The Old Spaghetti Factory. October 16 is also the day on which the Walt Disney Company was founded in 1923. Clearly, this entered into my decision to order spaghetti with meatballs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.13.102 (talk) 01:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed some extraneous material

There were some references, but the article blathered on at some length about elements in the history of Hawaii while Pearl Harbor itself was just a quiet body of water. Ships sailing into the port of Honolulu (not Pearl Harbor!) demanding to sell liquor are interesting, and perhaps worth mention in a different article, but the relevance to THIS article is quite remote. If someone wants to save the material, it's this edit. SnowFire (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)