Talk:Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Monograph No. 97

Japanese Monograph No. 97

PEARL HARBOR OPERATIONS:

General Outline of Orders and Plans

Prepared by: Military History Section Headquarters, Army Forces Far East

Distributed by: Office of the Chief of Military History Department of the Army

[Page ii blank]

[Page iii]

FOREWORD

This monograph is a collection of pertinent Navy Orders and Directives, Combined Fleet Orders, and Carrier Striking Task Force Orders concerning the Pearl Harbor operation. Since all copies of these orders were destroyed prior to the end of the war, they have been reconstructed from personal notes and memory.

In editing, explanatory footnotes were added when deemed necessary.

19 February 1953

[Page iv blank]

[Page v]

Preface

Through Instructions No. 126 to the Japanese Government, 12 October 1945, subject: Institution for War Records Investigation, steps were initiated to exploit military historical records and official reports of the Japanese War Ministry and Japanese General Staff, and the transfer of their former functions to the Demobilization Bureau, research and compilation continued and developed into a series of historical monographs.

The paucity of original orders, plans and unit journals, which are normally essential in the preparation of this type of record, most of which were lost or destroyed during field operations or bombing raids rendered the task of compilation most difficult; particularly distressing has been the complete lack of official strength reports, normal in AG or G3 records. However, while many of the important orders, plans and estimates have been reconstructed form memory and therefore are not textually identical with the originals, they are believed to be generally accurate and reliable.

Under the supervision of the Demobilization Bureau, the basic material contained in this monograph was compiled and written in Japanese by former officers, on duty in command and staff units within major units curing the period of operations. Translation was effected through the facilities of Military Intelligence Group, G2, Headquarters, Far East Command.

[Page vi]

This Japanese Operational Monograph was rewritten in English by the Japanese Research Division, Military History Section, Headquarters, Army Forces Far East and is based on the translation of the Japanese original. Editorial corrections are limited to those necessary for coherence and accuracy.

[Page vii]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                          Page

Navy Order No. 1 ......................................... 1

Navy Directive No. 1 ..................................... 1

Combined Fleet Operations Order No. 2 .................... 4

Navy Order No. 5 ......................................... 5

Navy Directive No. 5 ..................................... 6

Carrier Striking Task Force Operations Order No. 1 ....... 7

Carrier Striking Task Force Operations Order No. 3 ....... 13

Combined Fleet, Operations Order No. 5 ................... 21

Navy Order No. 9 ......................................... 22

Navy Directive No. 9 ..................................... 23

Navy Order No. 12 ........................................ 24

Verbal Directive of the Chief of the Naval General Staff . 25

Combined Fleet Telegraphic Operations Order No. 021730 ... 25

CHARTS

Chart No. 1. Disposition of Forces ....................... 9

Chart No. 2. Organization of the Air Attack Units ........ 15

APPENDIX

Appendix I. Imperial Navy's Course of Action in Operations

           Against United States, Great Britain and the 
           Netherlands ...................................  27

MAP

Planned Track of Carrier Striking Task Force for Pearl

   Harbor Attack .........................................   8

[Page 1]

Navy Order No. 1

5 November 1941 Order to: Yamamoto, C in C, Combined Fleet

1. In view of the great possibility of being compelled to go to war against the United States, Great Britain and the Netherlands in the cause of self-existence and self-defense, Japan has decided to complete various operational preparations within the first ten days of December.

2. The Commander-in-Chief of the Combined Fleet will make the necessary operational preparations.

3. The details of the operation shall be directed by the Chief of the Naval General Staff.

By Imperial Order Chief of the Naval General Staff Nagano, Osami

Navy Directive No. 1

5 November 1941 Directive to: Yamamoto, C in C, Combined Fleet

1. The Combined Fleet will advance necessary forces at a suitable time to their preparatory points to stand by for the start of operations in the event of unavoidable hostilities against America,

[Page 2]

Great Britain and the Netherlands, in the first ten days of December. [1]

2. During the above-mentioned advance, strict watch will be kept against unexpected attacks.

3. The operational policy against America, Great Britain, and the Netherlands, in case of hostilities, is scheduled as cited in the separate volume. [2]

Chief of the Naval General Staff Nagano, Osami

Note:

Combined Fleet Operations Order No. 1 issued on 5 November 1941 and titled "Preparations for War and Commencement of Hostilities" was an 89-page volume covering all phases of war preparations. In general this order stated the following:

a. The Empire is expecting war to break out with the United States, Great Britain and the Netherlands. When the decision is made to complete all operational preparations, orders will be issued es-

[1]. Preparatory Points

Carrier Striking Task Force Hitokappu Bay Philippine Invasion Force Bako (Formosa) Malay Invasion Force Camranh Bay Main Body, Southern Force Samah (Hainan Island) Submarine Force Kwajalein

[2]. All copies of "The Separate Volume" were destroyed prior to the end of the war. Attached as appendix I is a reconstructed version prepared from personal notes and memory by Capt. T. Ohmae, former Chief, Plans Section, Naval General Staff.

[Page 3]

tablishing the approximate date (Y Day) for commencement of hostilities and announcing "First Preparations for War."

When these orders are issued, the forces will act as follows:

(1) All fleets and forces, without special orders, will organize and complete battle preparations for operations in accordance with "the Allocation of Forces for First Period Operations of First Phase Operations." When directed by respective commanding officers, they will proceed at a proper time to the pre-operation rendezvous points and wait in readiness.

(2) All forces will be on strict look-out for unexpected attacks by the U.S., British, and Netherlands forces.

(3) The commanding officers of various forces may carry out such secret reconnaissance as is necessary for the operations.

[Page 4]

Combined Fleet Operations Order No. 2

7 November 1941 Order to: Combined Fleet

First Preparations for War Y Day 8 December. [3]

C in C, Combined Fleet Yamamoto, Isoroku

[3]. This order was issued by C in C, Combined Fleet, after he had received verbal notification from Chief, Naval General Staff, that 8 December had been tentatively selected as "Y" Day.

[Page 5]

Navy Order No. 5

21 November 1941 Order to: Yamamoto, C in C, Combined Fleet

1. The Commander-in-Chief of the Combined Fleet will dispatch at an appropriate time the necessary forces for the execution of operations to positions of readiness. [4]

2. The Commander-in-Chief of the Combined Fleet is empowered to use force in self-defense in case his fleet is challenged by American, British or Dutch forces during the process of carrying out military preparations.

3. The details concerned will be directed by the Chief of the Naval General Staff. [5]

By Imperial Order Chief of the Naval General Staff Nagano Osami

[4]. So-called positions of readiness were designated operational sea areas. They were as follows:

Southern Force (2nd, 3rd and South China Sea Southern Expeditionary Fleets) (Elements in Western

                                           Caroline Area)

South Seas Force (4th Fleet) Inner South Seas Area Northern Force (5th Fleet) Kurile Area Submarine Force (6th Fleet) Hawaiian Sea Area Carrier Striking Task Force Hawaiian Sea Area (1st Air Fleet) Commerce Destruction Force Indian Ocean Land Based Air Force (11th Air Fleet) Formosa, French Indo-

                                           China and Palau

[5]. On the same day C in C, Combined Fleet, issued the necessary orders for dispatch of forces to the designated operational sea areas. Time of departure was left to the discretion of respective force commanders.

[Page 6]

Navy Directive No. 5

21 November 1941 Directive to: Yamamoto, C in C, Combined Fleet

1. The Commander-in-Chief of the Combined Fleet will immediately assemble and call back the operational units if the Japanese-American negotiation is successful.

2. The exercise of military authority cited in the Imperial General Headquarters Navy Order No. 5 will be effected in the event the American, British, or Dutch naval forces invade our territorial waters and carry out reconnaissance, or approach our territorial waters and their move is recognized to be threatening, or an aggressive act is taken to endanger us even beyond our territorial waters.

Chief of the Naval General Staff Nagano, Osami

[Page 7]

Carrier Striking Task Force Operations Order No. 1 [6]

23 November 1941 To: Carrier Striking Task Force

1. The Carrier Striking Task Force will proceed to the Hawaiian Area with utmost secrecy and, at the outbreak of the war, will launch a resolute surprise attack on and deal a fatal blow to the enemy fleet in the Hawaiian Area. The initial air attack is scheduled at 0330 hours, X Day. Upon completion of the air attacks, the Task Force will immediately withdraw and return to Japan and, after taking on new supplies, take its position for Second Period Operations. In the event that, during this operation, an enemy fleet attempts to intercept our force or a powerful enemy force is encountered and there is danger of attack, the Task Force will launch a counterattack.

2. The disposition of Force will be as shown on Chart 1.

3. The Operation of Each Force.

a. General

While exercising strict antiaircraft and antisubmarine measures and making every effort to conceal its position and movements, the entire force (except the Midway Bombardment Unit) in accordance with special orders will depart as a group from Hitokappu Bay at a speed of 12-14 knots. The force refueling en route whenever possible will arrive at the standby point (42 N, 165 W). In the event bad weather prevents refueling en route to the standby point, the screening unit will be

[6]. General outline.

[Page 8]

MAP: Planned Track of Carrier Striking Force For Pearl Harbor Attack.

[Page 9]

CHART: Chart 1, Disposition of Forces.

Task Force

Classification: Air Attack Force

Commander: 1st Air Fleet Commander

Strength: 1st Air Fleet

           1st Carrier Division
               CV Akagi
               CV Kaga 
           2nd Carrier Division
               CV Hiryu        
               CV Soryu 
           3rd Carrier Division
               CV Zuikaku 
               CV Shokaku

Duties: Air Attacks

Classification: Screening Unit

Commander: 1st Destroyer Squadron Commander

Strength: 17th Destroyer Division

           (Nagara Flagship)
         18th Destroyer Division
           (Akigumo Flagship)

Duties: Screening and escort

Classification: Support Force

Commander: 3rd Battleship Division Commander

Strength: 3rd Battleship Division

            (less the 2nd section)
         8th Cruiser Division

Duties: Screen and support

Classification: Patrol Unit

Commander: 2nd Submarine Division Commander

Strength: I-19 (Flagship)

         I-21
         I-23

Duties: Patrol

Classification: Midway Bombardment Unit

Commander: 7th Destroyer Division Commander

Strength: 7th Destroyer Division

            (less the 2nd section)

Duties: Midway air base attack

Classification: Supply Force

Overall Commander: Kyokuto Maru Commander

Classification: Supply Force (1st Supply Unit)

Commander: Kyokuto Maru Commander

Strength: Kenyo Maru

         Kyokuto Maru
         Kokuyo Maru
         Shinkoku Maru
         Akebono Maru

Duties: Supply

Classification: Supply Force (2nd Supply Unit)

Commander: Toho Maru Inspector

Strength: Toho Maru

         Toei Maru
         Nippon Maru

Duties: Supply

[Page 10]

ordered to return to the home base. Subsequent to the issuance of the order designating X Day (the day of the outbreak of hostilities), the force will proceed to the approaching point (32 N, 157 W).

[Page 11]

Around 0700 hours, X-1 Day the Task Force will turn southward at high speed (approximately 24 knots) from the vicinity of the approaching point. It will arrive at the take-off point (200 nautical miles north of the enemy fleet anchorage) at 0100 hours X Day (0530 Honolulu time) and commit the entire air strength to attack the enemy fleet and important airfields on Oahu.

Upon completion of the air attacks, the Task Force will assemble the aircraft, skirt 800 nautical miles north of Midway, return about X + 15 Day to the western part of the Inland Sea via the assembly point (30 N, 165 E) and prepare for Second Period Operations. In the event of a fuel shortage the Task Force will proceed to Truk via the assembly point.

The force may skirt near Midway in the event that consideration of an enemy counter-attack is unnecessary due to successful air attacks or if such action is necessitated by fuel shortage.

In this event, the 5th Carrier Division with the support of the Kirishima from the 3rd Battleship Division will leave the Task Force on the night of X Day or the early morning of X + 1 Day and carry out air attacks on Midway in the early morning of X + 2 Day.

If a powerful enemy force intercepts our return route, the Task Force will break through the Hawaiian Islands area southward and proceed to the Marshall Islands.

b. Patrol unit

The patrol unit will accompany the main force. In the event the screening unit is returned to the home base, the patrol unit

[Page 12]

will screen the advance of the main force and the launching and the landing of aircraft. After the air attacks, the patrol unit will station itself between the flank of the main force and the enemy. In the event of an enemy fleet sortie, the patrol unit will shadow the enemy and in a favorable situation attack him.

c. The Midway Bombardment Unit

The Midway Bombardment Unit will depart from Tokyo Bay around X-6 Day and, after refueling, secretly approach Midway. It will arrive on the night of X Day and shell the air base. The unit will then withdraw and, after refueling, return to the western part of the Inland Sea. The oiler Shiriya will accompany the bombardment unit on this mission and will be responsible for the refueling operation.

d. Supply Force

The supply force will accompany the main force to the approaching point, carrying out refuelings, separate from the main force, skirt 800 nautical miles north of Midway, return to the assembly point by 0800 hours, X +6 Day, and stand by.

4. The Task Force may suspend operations en route to the Hawaiian area and return to Hitokappu Bay, Hokkaido or Mutsu Bay, depending upon the situation.

Commander Carrier Striking Task Force Nagumo, Chuichi

[Page 13]

Carrier Striking Task Force Operations Order No. 3 [7]

23 November 1941 To: Carrier Striking Task Force

The Hawaiian operations air attack plan has been decided as follows:

1. The Operation of the Air Attack Forces

The force will be 700 nautical miles due north of point Z (set at the western extremity of the Island of Lanai) at 0600 hours X-1 Day and advance on a course of 180 degrees from 0700 hours X-1 Day at an increased speed of 24 knots.

Air attacks will be carried out by launching the first attack units 230 nautical miles due north of Z point at 0130 hours X Day, and the second attack unit at 200 nautical miles due north of Z point at 0245 hours.

After the launching of the second attack units is completed, the task force will withdraw northward at a speed of about 24 knots. The first attack units are scheduled to return between 0530 and 0600 hours and the second attack units are scheduled to return between 0645 and 0715 hours.

Immediately after the return of the first and second attack units, preparations for the next attack will be completed. At this time, carrier attack planes capable of carrying torpedoes will be armed with such as long as the supply lasts.

[7]. General outline.

[Page 14]

If the destruction of enemy land-based air strength progresses favorably, repeated attacks will be made immediately and thus decisive results will be achieved.

In the event that a powerful enemy surface fleet appears, it will be attacked.

2. Organization of the Air Attack Units

(see Chart 2)

3. Targets

a. The First Attack Units

The targets for the first group will be limited to about four battleships and four aircraft carriers; the order of targets will be battleships and then aircraft carriers.

The second group will attack the enemy land-based air strength according to the following assignment:

The 15 Attack Unit: Hangars and aircraft on Ford Island

The 16 Attack Unit: Hangars and aircraft on Wheeler Field

The targets of Fighter Combat Units will be enemy aircraft in the air and on the ground.

b. The Second Attack Units

The first group will attack the enemy air bases according to the following assignment:

The 5 Attack Unit: Aircraft and hangars on Kaneohe, Ford Island and Barbers Point.

The 6 Attack Unit: Hangars and aircraft on Hickam Field.

The targets for the second group will be limited to four

[Page 15]

Chart 2

Organization of the Air Attack Units

1st Attack Units CO Commander Fuchida

 1st Group                                   CO    do

   1st Attack Unit                           CO    do
     15 Kates each fitted with a 800-kg Armor Piercing Bomb for
     level (high altitude) bombing.
   2nd Attack Unit                           CO Lt Cmdr Hashiguchi
     15 Kates-Same bombs as 1st Attack Unit.
   3rd Attack Unit                           CO Lt Abe
     10 Kates-Same bombs as 1st Attack Unit.
   4th Attack Unit                           CO Lt Cmdr Kusmi
     10 Kates-Same bombs as 1st Attack Unit.
   1st Torpedo Attack Unit                   CO Lt Cmdr Murata
     12 Kates each fitted with an Aerial Torpedo, Mark 91.
   2nd Torpedo Attack Unit                   CO Lt Kitajima
     12 Kates-Same torpedoes as 1st Torpedo Attack Unit.
   3rd Torpedo Attack Unit                   CO Lt Nagai
      8 Kates-Same torpedoes as 1st Torpedo Attack Unit.
   4th Torpedo Attack Unit                   CO Lt Matsumura
      8 Kates-Same torpedoes as 1st Torpedo Attack Unit.

 2nd Group                                   CO Lt Cmdr Takahashi

   15th Attack Unit                          CO    do
      27 Vals each fitted with a 250-kg Anti-ground (general purpose)
      bomb for dive bombing.
   16th Attack Unit                          CO Lt Sakamoto
      27 Vals-Same bomb as 15th Attack Unit.

 3rd Group                                   CO Lt Cmdr Itaya

    1st Fighter Combat Unit                  CO   do
      9 Zekes for air control and strafing
    2nd Fighter Combat Unit                  CO Lt Shiga
      9 Zekes-Same Mission
    3rd Fighter Combat Unit                  CO Lt Suganami
      9 Zekes-Same Mission
    4th Fighter Combat Unit                  CO Lt Okajima
      6 Zekes-Same Mission
    5th Fighter Combat Unit                  CO Lt Sato
      6 Zekes-Same Mission
    6th Fighter Combat Unit                  CO Lt Kaneko
      6 Zekes-Same Mission

2nd Attack Units

 1st Group                                   CO Lt Cmdr Shimazaki

    6th Attack Unit                          CO   do
      27 Kates each fitted with a 250-kg Anti-ground (general purpose
      bomb and six 60-kg Ordinary bombs for level (high altitude)
      bombing.
    5th Attack Unit                          CO Lt Ichihara
      27 Kates-Same bombs as 6th Attack Unit

[Page 16]

Chart 2 (Cont'd)

 2nd Group                                  CO Lt Cmdr Egusa

   13th Attack Unit                         CO   do
     18 Vals each fitted with a 250-kg Ordinary bomb for dive bombing.
   14th Attack Unit                         CO Lt Kobayashi
     18 Vals-Same bombs as 13th Attack Unit
   11th Attack Unit                         CO Lt Chihaya
     18 Vals-Same bombs as 13th Attack Unit
   12th Attack Unit                         CO Lt Makino
     18 Vals-Same bombs as 13th Attack Unit

 3rd Group                                  CO Lt Shindo

    1st Fighter Combat Unit                 CO   do
      9 Zekes for air control and strafing
    2nd Fighter Combat Unit                 CO Lt Nikaido
      9 Zekes-Same Mission
    3rd Fighter Combat Unit                 CO Lt Iida
      9 Zekes-Same Mission
    4th Fighter Combat Unit                 CO Lt Kumano
      9 Zekes-Same Mission

[Page 17]

or five enemy aircraft carriers. If the number of targets is insufficient, they will select targets in the order of cruisers and battleships.

The Fighter Combat Units will attack the enemy aircraft in the air and on the ground.

4. Attack Procedure

a. The First Attack Units

(1) With the element of surprise as the principle, attacks will be carried out by the torpedo unit and bomber unit of the First Group, and then the Second Group.

(2) During the initial phase of the attack, the Fighter Combat Units will, in one formation, storm the enemy skies about the same time as the First Group, and contact and destroy chiefly the enemy interceptor planes.

In the event that no enemy aircraft are encountered in the air, the units will immediately shift to the strafing of parked aircraft as follows:

1st and 2nd Fighter Combat Units: Ford Island and Hickam Field.

3rd and 4th Fighter Combat Units: Wheeler Field and Barbers Point.

5th and 6th Fighter Combat Units: Kaneohe

(3) In the event that the advantage of surprise attack cannot be expected due to strict enemy security, the

[Page 18]

approach and attack will be made in the order of the Fighter Combat Units, Dive Bombing Units, Horizontal Bombing Units and the Torpedo Attacking Units.

b. The Second Attack Units

All units will storm the enemy skies almost simultaneously and launch the attacks.

Although the general outline of the operations of the Fighter Combat Units corresponds to that of the First Attack Units, the strafing will be carried out according to the following in case there are no enemy aircraft in the air.

1st and 2nd Fighter Combat Units: Ford Island and Hickam Field

3rd and 4th Fighter Combat Units: Wheeler Field and Kaneohe

c. The general outline of attack in the event that enemy aircraft carriers and the main body of the U.S. Fleet are in anchorages outside Pearl Harbor are:

(1) The organization and targets are the same as mentioned above. The First Attack Units of the First Group, however, will increase the number of torpedo bombers as much as possible.

(2) Escorted by the Fighter Combat Units, the Air Attack Units will proceed in a group and attack the designated targets in the order of the enemy fleet anchorages and the Island of Oahu. If attacks on

[Page 19]

the enemy fleet anchorages progress favorably, however, the Fighter Combat Units and the 2nd Group of the First Air Attack Unit will immediately proceed to the Island of Oahu. Upon completion of the attacks, the anchorage attack unit will return directly to the carriers.

d. Rendezvous for Return to Carriers

(1) The rendezvous point will be 20 nautical miles at 340 degrees from the western extremity (Kaena Point) of the Island of Oahu. The rendezvous altitude will be 1,000 meters. (If this vicinity is covered with clouds, it will be below the cloud ceiling.)

(2) The Attack Units will wait at the rendezvous point for about 30 minutes and return to their carriers, after being joined by the Fighter Combat Units.

(3) While returning to carriers, the Fighter Combat Unit will become the rear guards for the whole unit and intercept any enemy pursuit.

5. Reconnaissance

a. Pre-operation Reconnaissance

Pre-operation reconnaissance will not be carried out unless otherwise ordered.

[Page 20]

b. Immediate Pre-attack Reconnaissance

Two reconnaissance seaplanes of the 8th Cruiser Division will take off at 0030 hours, X Day, secretly reconnoiter Pearl Harbor and Lahaina Anchorage and report the presence of the enemy fleet (chiefly carriers and the main body of the fleet).

c. Scouting Patrol

The reconnaissance seaplanes of the 8th Cruiser Division will take off at 0300 hours and will carry out an extensive search of the waters between the enemy and the friendly forces and the waters adjacent to the two channels situated to the east and west of the Island of Oahu. They will observe and report the presence and activities of the enemy sortie force and enemy aircraft on counter-attack missions.

d. Before returning to its carrier, after the attack, an element of fighters designated by the Fighter Combat Unit Commander will fly as low and as fast as circumstances permit and observe and determine the extent of damage inflicted upon the enemy aircraft and ships.

Air Security Disposition No. 1 Method B will be followed from one hour before sunrise until 45 minutes after sunset on the day of the air attack. [8]

Commander

Carrier Striking Task Force

Nagumo, Chuichi

[8] This Security Disposition called for combat air cover over the carriers.

[Page 21]

Combined Fleet, Operations Order No. 5 (General Outline)

25 November 1941 Order to: Carrier Striking Task Force

The Carrier Striking Task Force will immediately complete taking on supplies and depart with utmost secrecy from Hitokappu Bay on 26 November and advance to the standby point (42 N, 170 W) by the evening of 3 December.

Commander-in-Chief, Combined Fleet

Yamamoto, Isoroku

[Page 22]

Navy Order No. 9

1 December 1941 Order to: Yamamoto, C in C, Combined Fleet

1. Japan has decided to open hostilities against the United States, Great Britain, and the Netherlands early in December.

2. The Commander-in-Chief of the Combined Fleet will smash the enemy fleets and air forces in the Orient and at the same time will intercept and annihilate enemy fleets should they come to attack us.

3. The Commander-in-Chief of the Combined fleet will occupy immediately the key bases of the United States, Great Britain, and the Netherlands in East Asia in close cooperation with the Commander-in-Chief of the Southern Army and will capture and secure the key areas of the southern regions.

4. The Commander-in-Chief of the Combined fleet will cooperate with the operations of the China Area Fleet, if necessary.

5. The time of the start of operations based on the aforementioned items will be made known later.

6. The Chief of the Naval General Staff will issue instructions concerning particulars.

By Imperial Order Chief of the Naval General Staff Nagano, Osami

[Page 23]

Navy Directive No. 9

1 December 1941 Directive to: Yamamoto, C in C, Combined Fleet

Operations of the Combined Fleet against American, England and Holland will be conducted in accordance with the Separate Volume, Imperial Navy's Course of Action in Operations against United States, Great Britain and the Netherlands.

Chief of the Naval General Staff Nagano, Osami

[Page 24]

Navy Order No. 12

2 December 1941 Order to: Yamamoto, C in C, Combined Fleet

1. As of 8 December the Commander-in-Chief of the Combined Fleet will start military operations in accordance with Imperial General Headquarters Navy Order No. 9.

2. Military operations will be launched against the Netherlands at an opportune time after attacking the United States and Great Britain.

By Imperial Order Chief of the Naval General Staff Nagano, Osami

[Page 25]

Verbal Directive of the Chief of the Naval General Staff

2 December 1941 Verbal Directive to: Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief, Combined Fleet (in Tokyo at the time)

Should it appear certain that Japanese-American negotiations will reach an amicable settlement prior to the commencement of hostilities, it is understood that all elements of the Combined Fleet are to be assembled and returned to their bases in accordance with separate orders.

Chief of the Naval General Staff Nagano, Osami

Combined Fleet Telegraphic Operations Order No. 021730 (Date and time of dispatch)

8th December designated as X Day.

Commander-in-Chief, Combined Fleet Yamamoto, Isoroku

[Page 26 blank]

[Page 27]

APPENDIX I

Imperial Navy's Course of Action in Operations Against

United States, Great Britain, and the Netherlands

(Attached to Navy Directives No. 1 and No. 9)

I. Outline of Operations

Continue control over China Coast and Yangtze River.

Quickly destroy enemy fleet and air power in East Asia.

Occupy and hold strategic points in Southern Area.

Destroy enemy fleet.

Consolidate strength to hold out for a long time and destroy enemy's will to fight.

II. Combined Fleet Course of Action

(a) The First Phase of Operations

1. With the forces of the Second Fleet, Third Fleet, First Expeditionary Fleet and Eleventh Air Fleet as a nucleus destroy enemy fleets and air forces in the Philippines, British Malay, and Netherlands Indies. In cooperation with the Army, take the initiative in attacks on air forces and fleets in the Philippines and Malaya. Push forward our bases by landing advance troops. Then with main body of invasion forces occupy the Philippines and Malaya.

In early stages of operations, first occupy British Borneo and then as quickly as possible occupy Dutch Borneo, Celebes and Southern Sumatra. The above to be followed by occupation of Molucca Islands and Timor. Established air bases in all of

[Page 28]

the above-mentioned places. Utilize the air bases for subjugation of Java and then occupy Java. After capture of Singapore, occupy northern Sumatra and then at an opportune time commence operations in Burma. Cut supply routes to China.

2. Forces of the Fourth Fleet.

Patrol, maintain surface communications, and defend the South Sea Islands. Capture Wake. At opportune time attack and destroy enemy advance bases in the South Pacific Area. In cooperation with Army capture Guam and then at an opportune time Bismarck Area.

3. Forces of the Fifth Fleet.

Patrol the area east of the home islands. Make preparations against surprise attacks by enemy. Make reconnaissance of Aleutians and defend Bonin Islands. Maintain surface communications. Be on guard against Soviet Russia.

4. Forces of the Sixth Fleet. (Submarines)

Make reconnaissance of American Fleet in Hawaii and West Coast areas and, by surprise attacks on shipping, destroy lines of communications.

5. Forces of First Air Fleet. (Carriers)

Hawaiian attack. Thereafter support Fourth Fleet operations and assist in capture of Southern areas.

6. Main Body of Combined Fleet.

Support operations in general. Operate according to the situation.

[Page 29]

7. Part of Combined Fleet. (24th Commercial Destruction Unit)

Destroy enemy lines of communication in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

(b) Second Phase of Operations.

1. Forces of Sixth Fleet. (Submarines)

Make reconnaissance and surprise attacks on main forces of enemy fleet. Destroy enemy surface communications in cooperation with a part of Combined Fleet. At opportune time make surprise attacks on enemy advanced bases.

2. Forces of First and Eleventh Air Fleets. (Carriers and Land-Based Air Forces)

Search for and attack enemy forces. Destroy enemy advanced bases.

3. Forces of Third Fleet, First Expeditionary Fleet and Other Forces as Necessary.

Defend occupied key areas in Southern area. Operate patrols, maintain surface communications, search for and destroy enemy shipping in Southern Area, attack and destroy enemy advanced bases on our perimeter.

4. Forces of Fourth Fleet.

Defend and patrol points in South Seas Islands and Bismarcks. Maintain surface communications. Search for and attack enemy shipping. Make surprise attacks and destroy enemy bases on our perimeter.

[Page 30]

5. Forces of Fifth Fleet

Defend Bonin Islands and patrol area to north of those islands and east of home islands. Maintain surface communications. Search for and attack enemy fleet should it appear in the area. Attack and destroy enemy bases in the Aleutians.

6. Part of Combined Fleet. (24th Commercial Destruction Unit)

Destroy enemy surface communications in Pacific and Indian Oceans.

7. Main Body of Combined Fleet.

Support all operations. Operate as required.

8. In case of attack by strong American Force.

A part of the Sixth Fleet will maintain contact with the enemy. Reduce enemy strength by air and submarine attacks. At suitable opportunity assemble major portion of Combined Fleet and destroy enemy.

9. In case of attack by strong British Force.

By movement the Third Fleet, Fourth Fleet, First Expeditionary Fleet, Air Force, and Submarine Squadrons will maintain contact with enemy force and destroy it by concerted attacks. The main body of Combined Fleet, depending upon the strength, movement and location of American Fleet, will also be used in destruction of the British Fleet.

10. The important places to be defended among the points which were to be occupied were as follows:

[Page 31]

Manila*, Hong Kong, Davao, Singapore, Batavia, Surabaya* Tarakan, Balikpapan, Mendao, Makassar, Ambon, Penang, Rabaul. (Asterisk indicates advanced bases.)

III. China Area Fleet Operations

Continue operations against China. Cooperate with the Army in destruction of United States and British forces in China. Second China Fleet cooperate with Army in capture of Hong Kong and destruction of enemy forces there. Maintain surface communications along China coast. Prevent enemy from using China coast. Cooperate with Combined Fleet and Army in operations. (Escort of surface transport and defense of assembly points.)

IV. Operations of Naval District and Auxiliary Naval Station Forces

Defend assigned areas. Maintain surface communications in assigned areas. Cooperate with Combined Fleet and China Area Fleet in operations affecting assigned areas.

" ... why don't you look at Yamamoto's own orders. He told Nagumo losing half the task force's carriers was an acceptable loss rate."

Where is that " ... losing half ..." exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.23.38 (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Take it up with, oh, Willmott, I think (without it in front of me, I can't say for sure), not with me. And don't forget Nagumo'd've gotten verbal orders, too. Trekphiler (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

H. P. Willmott did not post. You did. You did not provide a citation. So, " ... why don't you look at Yamamoto's own orders." yourself - including your now infantile dodge of those "verbal". Is this another of your "I think ..." stellar contributions being plainly demonstrated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.23.38 (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Coverups

From The Week Before Pearl Harbor by A. A. Hoehling (W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., New York, NY, 1963), in the Epilogue is to be found on Page 200:

“... That panic gripped the second deck of the Navy Department immediately after the attack on Pearl Harbor is beyond reasonable dispute. One officer, then in intelligence, now in a high post in the Navy, told this writer that he went to his office safe one morning to find that a number of ‘magic’ dispatches were mysteriously missing. He never retrieved them. ONI, in fact, had done such a thorough housecleaning of its top-secret and secret as well as not-so-secret files, that, according to another officer on duty at the time, not even a departmental organization chart of November and December, 1941, could ever be found. ...”

And, on Page 204:

“ ... There are a few specialists, circa 1941, who insist that their memories as well must bear the ‘secret’ tag. A leading cryptanalyst, in retirement, hinting at a kind of passive brain-washing, with his pension as a lever, maintains he has been ordered not to discuss those long-ago codes and ciphers. However, the National Security Council, which he indirectly accused, has denied not only the allegations but any interest in the World War II period. ...”

Perhaps of note in passing, within Hoehling’s text (released some 22 years after the Pearl Harbor attack) are interviews with several principals, e.g.,Stark, Kimmel, Bicknell, McCollum, Rochefort, ..., etc. JN25 in any of its variants is not mentioned, while Safford is quoted only using “Operations Code” at the top of Page 76.

From the Knox Report, released on December 15, 1941, one of the early reportings on the damage done at Pearl Harbor.

"... Neither Short nor Kimmel, at the time of the attack, had any knowledge of the plain intimations of some surprise move, made clear in Washington, through the interception of Japanese instructions to Nomura, in which a surprise move of some kind was clearly indicated by the insistence upon the precise time of Nomura's reply to Hull, at one o'clock on Sunday.

A general war warning had been sent out from the Navy Department on November 27th, to Admiral Kimmel. General Short told me that a message of warning sent from the War Department on Saturday night at midnight, before the attack, failed to reach him until four or five hours after the attack had been made. ..."

A. "Neither Short nor Kimmel, ... had any knowledge of the plain intimations of some surprise move, made clear in Washington, ..." [Who knew what and when?]

B. "A general war warning had been sent out from the Navy Department on November 27th, ..." [Not a full alert, but a 'general war warning' - the so called "Do/Don't" message.]

C. "... message of warning sent from the War Department on Saturday night at midnight, before the attack, ..." This message has never been found, and is assumed destroyed. [It is also often confused with the storied Marshall message delivered by RCA messenger after the attack.]

What if this midnight message had been sent as Knox believes it had been when he arrived at Pearl Harbor and asked about it. Imagine if this "... Saturday night at midnight, before the attack, ..." - that is, midnight, December 6, 1941, Washington local time - had been sent and received by Kimmel. The two IJN O-type seaplanes doing their pre-attack fly-over - see and report what?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.132.176.50 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 13 December 2007

This is so incredibly ignorant, I should just ignore it.

"A general war warning had been sent out from the Navy Department on November 27th" Did you bother to read it? It warns of possible attacks in the Philippines, Russia, Borneo, & Thailand; it makes no mention whatever of Pearl Harbor, contrary to what's usually implied by conspiracy loons.

"plain intimations of some surprise move," Ditto. Not against Pearl.

"Imagine" Yes, do. Kimmel sorties the fleet to meet Nagumo, rdv w Halsey en route. Nagumo delivers a crushing blow to the Battle Line. 8 BBs & 1 (perhaps both?) US CVs sunk; Halsey, Kimmel, Spruance, Burke?, Fletcher KIA. Losses top 20000. Nagumo approaches Hawaii & savages the shore installations. Rochefort, Davenport, Jacobs, English KIA. Hawaii is incapable of serving as a repair & replenishment station for a year. US subs congregate in Australia & San Francisco. Japan wins at the Coral Sea, fight to a draw around Fiji. The Soviets enter the war in August 1945, just as the Marines assault Saipan. The Soviets (with reason) insist on joint occupation of Japan & control of all of Korea. MacArthur takes sides in the Chinese Civil War. The Soviets object. LeMay suggests boming them back to the Stone Age with atomic bombs. Truman agrees. The world goes up in flames. Trekphiler (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Or - the China-Japanese war continues; China without aid from US and USSR. Germany and USSR (without Lend-Lease aid) bleed each other to death, Britain is on "Cash-and-Carry" basis ... British Empire falls. Britain, French, and Dutch lose colonies. No communist inspired Korean War, Viet Nam War. No Cold War. ... United States is not policeman of the world. A geo-political world with a re-ordered set of "spheres of influence" with dollar/mark/yen economies ... [No Clear and Present Danger: A Skeptical View of the US Entry into WWII Bruce M. Russett] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.23.47 (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"China without aid from US and USSR" What fantasy world are you living in? The ChiComs had been getting aid since the '30s.

"No communist inspired Korean War"? On what basis? CCP losing the Civil War when Chiang rolls a six & pillages Beijing? Or does the U.S. just hammer Japan & ignore China? The China she'd been helping for a decade & been trying to open as a market (of about 500 million people) for longer than that, BTW. Fat chance. Can't have it both ways. (Oh, wait, this is your fantasy. I guess you can.)

"Germany and USSR (without Lend-Lease aid) bleed each other to death"? Only in the fantasies of the ill-informed. The Soviets would have won regardless; the question was, how long would it take? With Germany gone, & no really strong power in WEur, there'd be nothing to keep the Red Army off the Biscay coast. (Especially if "British Empire falls", which "Britain is on "Cash-and-Carry" basis" ensures, which would bring more than a little ruin to the U.S. banking system, which is one reason the U.S. joined WW1...never mind WW2.)

"Britain is on "Cash-and-Carry" basis". Well, no, as noted. Also, Hitler was acknowledged as more dangerous than Tojo. And SU's growing power would worry US as much as Hitler, if (when) Hitler attacked SU & brought his own destruction, so propping up Britain made sense in any case. (Why no greater effort was made to resuscitate France is unclear.)

Lose colonies? As I recall, they did anyway; the difference was, how willingly? The U.S. had the power postwar to ensure it was peaceful, & failed to use it in Vietnam, while misjudging the need for SU aid against Japan, whence occupied Korea. "policeman of the world"? No, bad judgement by FDR & his senior advisors.

I'm guessing you'll answer this with more insults, too, seeing how reluctant you are to deal with facts. Gerry Orville 15:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Another of those Trek "I'm guessing ..." remarks - reminiscent of W. H. Auden's O Where Are you Going and its last stanza, which half-thimble no doubt knows to be: "As he left them there, as he left them there." [But perhaps not, as half-thimble admits to an aversion to "researching" ... and struggles with his own and very public errors of fact.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.23.47 (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

<--I see I was right about you again. So much for "half-thimble". Trekphiler (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Should we merge this with Attack on Pearl Harbor? It seems to cover much of the same ground, and both sides of the coin could be shown in that one article...what actually happened--i.e. an account of what happened--on top and the conspiracy theories after(?) Just a suggestion. the_ed 17 15:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The article seems like it is one big statement that 'Pearl Harbor was orchestrated', and Wikipedia is not a place for debate, only to state facts objectively....it just sounds like the people who say that the Halocaust never happened to me..... no matter how bad that sounds. the_ed 17 15:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No we shouldn't merge. This question was debated at talk Pearl Harbor in the breakup of that article into the current two. The decision was that there was sufficient material of the alternative type that attempting to include it with the plain article would be too awkward. See the 1st (or 2nd) archive on the Pearl Harbor page for the details. ww (talk) 05:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, it was just an idea. Thanks for replying! the_ed 17 01:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that objective facts start to seem not so objective, after all. History is unveiled step by step as time passes (and winner and looser of a war become something different); further the period, better the knowledge of what happened. Maybe Pearl Harbour is still too close to be sure of every details. So maybe, we should not talk about it (or any other so close happening)? When facts seem to be still behind clouds, historicians should try to give a "vision" of likely facts from the known points of view. And here it seems they exist reasonable different points of view. Those people are not saying it did not happen (a bomb against ships is a fact); they (hopely) are just saying that we are not sure of the background.

So after all having this page of discussion is not a bad idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takezou (talk • contribs) 15:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Imperialism

76.173.230.15 (talk) 09:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)this is the only wikipedia entry in which the primary author condescends the reader by phrasing the section titles as rhetorical and seemingly intuitive questions for the sake of manipulating the reader in to a conspiracy belief (despite my shared view of the likelihood) and thus diverges from the high integrity sharing of information the venue aspires to.

Secondarily, there is no mention of the regret the Japanese displayed by mass suicides in the high(er) ranking military personnel when they discovered that the US was attacked UNAWARE of the intention of the Japanese to attack. They were humiliated to have attacked an unaware nation.76.173.230.15 (talk) 09:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Suicides? Never heard of any. Trekphiler (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Same here.

Internal Japanese opposition to the 'Japan rampant' viewpoint lost quite a few to assassination, career sabotage, etc and lots more or less retired after noting same. Beginning after WW1, but with roots rather earlier. A very large number of the leading political and military figures in tween Wars Japan had no particiular trouble with the view that it was japan's destiny to expand and take over in East Asia. The line that it was in emulaiton of Western colonialism of an earlier era strikes me as post-facto rationalization, as Japanese behavior during its expansion was not of the run the locals responsibly type (however honored in the breach), but much more exploitation for the benefit of Japan or some militaristic perspective on Japanese benefit. Some of that was supported at the highest levels back in Tokyo -- Gen Isshi's long-running bioweapon operation at Harbin in china, for instance.

So, not only have I not heard much about suicides in these circumstances, but I suspect there was little reluctance or regret about the Pearl Harbor attack. Justification of it, in a prematurely Post Modern deconstructionist way, began early and has continued to present times. Much of it organizationally supported. I suspect that most of the regret about the attack was baased in apprehension about its tactical and strategic good sense. Yamamoto is an example of this kind of reaction, and he's the one who got the planning started and fought for the gambit.

I'd like to see some documentation for the claimed wave of suicides. Just doesn't seem reasonable on many grounds. Should not go into either Pearl Harbor attack article without. ww (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

My own sense is, not sorry for doing it, but for getting caught & hammered into the ground. Even those opposed to the Army initiatives (notably Yamamoto) made small effort to stop it. I do wonder what effect his hara kiri in protest might have had; no Japanese could have failed to get the message. (That, however, is very OR.)

It there's justification, I've never seen it from Japanese POV, just apologists (Toland comes immediately to mind), calling it no different (& with reason); what he & the other apologists miss is, it wasn't 20yr earlier. (Now, if Matthew Perry'd gotten there in 1833...) Trekphiler (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

MacArthur unpreparedness

The statement about MacArthur's unpreparedness doesn't seem to be directly from Clausen, but a summary of the situation. Mac abandoned earlier contingency planning, since he had a better idea: fight them when and where they land. That he reverted to the prior plan after losing considerable prepared supplies and food, isn't much of a recommendation. As for the initial attacks, he had been screaming for advanced aircraft for a long time before Pearl, actually got some of them, in preference to other needs. But he lost them all, about 9 hours after the attack at Pearl. With all that warning, he still managed to lose all his planes to the Japanese flying in from Taiwan. Unprepared would seem to be an understatement, both on the immediate tactical level and on a longer term strategic perspective. Both disastrous judgments. The statement should stay, if not necessarily in that paragraph. ww (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem I had with the recent edit was not anything to do with MacArthur's massive and infamous foul up. It was in the way the paragraph was originally written such that everything stated was assumed to have come from Clausen. If we rewrite the paragraph so that it is universally sourced, or if Clausen specifically said MacArthur was the only one unprepared, then we can leave the new addition. Here in the Clausen report, MacArthur simply reports that he began implementing a war preparedness prior to 7 Dec 1941. Basic CYA stuff. o_O I didn't find an objective assessment from Clausen himself saying that MacArthur's was the only command that failed to prepare itself adequately. I'm re-reverting the edit until somebody wants to add a new paragraph about Mac or until the current paragraph is rewritten to step beyond Clausen. Binksternet (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

B, The Clausen report you linked to is Stimson's public report to Congress. It contains only some of Clausen's own conclusions about culpability. Quite a lot of what Clausen was doing was very highly classified, involving as it did very secret crypto issues. Stimson says things in passing which, from todays' perspective, reference some of that, but he does so only in passing.

In any case, my memory of Clausen's opinion of MacArthur, as stated in his book, is that he thought him a fine fellow as they were both Masons and serous about it. I was nonplussed to say the least at Clausen's sentiment.

I agree the comment can be confusing where it was and will attempt to find a way to separate it out. ww (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Clausen wasn't just friendly to MacArthur, he was positively fawning, from his recent account, which also pillories Kimmel & Stark (per the usual "DC was innocent" line). If he even said MacArthur was unprepared, let alone criticised him for it, I'd be very surprised. Trekphiler (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. With appropriate citations and references, this article would easily qualify as B class if not higher. A few more images would be nice as well. --dashiellx (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your spellcheckers

So this doesn't keep getting reverted (...), let me make myself clear. It's not the Roman alpha in play at the height of the Roman Empire that's in issue. It's the technical term for what English uses as an alpha, which is "Roman alpha", as oppo to Cyrillic or Arabic or something, that's being ref to. If you'll kindly leave it alone, now? Thank you. TREKphiler 04:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

T, Perhaps folks might be less agitated by this conventional use of the term if "modern Roman" were substituted?

But you are correct. That collection of characters in termed, in language studies, the Roman alphabet and no distinction is made (because it is usually irrelevant anyway) between the Classical one, and the modern one with some additional letters. Indeed, even the Germans and French use the Roman alphabet in this sense, though German has some characters which the others don't and both Spanish and French do the same. The Poles likewise, and likewise.

In computer science (not well known for its language studies perspective, having a particular and limited view of such things), the Roman character collection is most often referred to as Latin (in one or another slightly different versions). Indeed, there are several ISO standards for those character sets. The newer Unicode and UCS standards have, essentially, subsumed the previously existing ones. There's some justification for this since the language people have on occasion used "Latin" to refer to that collection of characters.

Kudos should perhaps go to Apple, one of whose non-standard extended ASCII character set was called MacRoman.

I agree, Roman it should stay. ww (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I confess I'd never heard it called Latin (tho I can understand the derivation). If that's in play in computing, I'd argue against it here, if only because it's an even narrower term & less likely to be broadly familiar than "Roman" (tho this may be generational, & the younger & more computer-literate, who may make up the bulk of WP's audience, may know it better as Latin). If I'm right about the generational issue, I would then argue "Roman" (being the linguist's usage) should pertain, because it is the correct descriptive for the subject (where Latin is a computing term) & because it has priority. Now that I've bored everyone who came here to learn about Pearl Harbor, I'll stop. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 15:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC) (I'd have answered this sooner, if I hadn't mistakenly taken this page off my watchlist...)

Links

Official government reports, anyone?

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/invest.html <---Joint Congressional Investigation

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/army/chap_0.html <---Top Secret Army Board Report

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/narrative/index.html <---Navy Inquiry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firenationprincess (talk • contribs) 10:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

There is an extensive comment re this entry at Talk:Attack on Pearl Harbor. ww (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Proving even an unreliable informant can find something useful, this reveals 2 Sov freighters were on their radios in the NPac, which probably accounts for "tracking" Kido Butai. The same source also notes the "smoking gun" signals "were not decoded and translated until September 1945-May 1946", so when they were intercepted (on which the conspiracy loons rely) is of no moment. TREKphiler ^{hit me ?} 13:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Proving actually nothing. SRN-116667 says nothing about transmissions. As to a "smoking gun" - if these Russian vessels were in transit (may wish to check that), they were moving eastward. Found "true" SRN-116741 yet?[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.23.47 (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You want to be careful saying "true". Watch out for those lightning bolts.

From here: "2 Dec From: NavMinister To: All ND CINCS All GD CINCS All Fleet CINCS 'Starting 4 December 1941, system #8 of Naval Code D will be used and system #7 discontinued. (List 7 will still be used with some Japanese stations.)' SRN-116741"

From here: "2 Dec From: NavMinister To: All ND CINCS All GD CINCS All Fleet CINCS 'Starting 4 December 1941, system #8 of Naval Code will be used and system #7 discontinued. (List 7 will still be used with some Japanese stations.)' SRN-116741"

Care to point out the glaring differences in the "true" copy? Oh, wait, "D". Which was the system in use at the time, also known (except by Stinnett & the conspiracy loons) as JN-25, & which the cryppies would have presumed was meant.... And this is of earth-shattering importance how, exactly? TREKphiler ^{hit me ?} 16:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This I'm sure is very interesting stuff. Care to point out the context of your discussion? And what part of the article you are referring to and how it would improve the article if what you are talking about were added. The article continues to have the same problems with organization I mentioned previously. I'm going to cut and past a piece I wrote on my user page about balanced POV, etc. The reason is that I think in this case multiple perspectives are necessary for the Attack on Pearl Harbor site, not simply the one view "surprise" that is stated as if it were 100% certain and correct and the only possible interpretation.--David Tornheim (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This is cut & pasted from my recently updated DT user page: [I will remove it and refer back to my page after you've all had a chance to review it and know where to find it. I have italicized the portion most relevant.]

"It is important to recognise [sic] that everybody has bias. Whether it is the systemic bias of demographics or a political opinion, few people will edit subjects in which they have no interest. Bias is not in and of itself a problem in editors, only in articles." Wikipedia Policy

"There's no such thing as objectivity...Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that." WP:NPOV

I believe when Wikipedia uses the word "neutral", these things are meant:

(1) "non-judgmental" (and lacking harshness, nastiness and strongly slanted language)

(2) statement of facts established by evidence

(3) opinions, interpretations, theories, etc. are attributed to experts (or VIPs) or groups of experts; their opinions are either described or put in well chosen quotes. This is done instead of stating the theory in the text as a fact (e.g. "The universe was the result of the big bang." That would be attributed to an adherent of the theory.)

(4) striving for the inclusion of and ideally a balance of multiple perspectives.

Webster defines the adj. neutral as:

"not engaged on either side; specifically : not aligned with a political or ideological grouping " [2]

These are all good goals. The challenge is (4) especially "balance". Creationists would be unlikely to present Darwin's theory on "neutral" terms in church (or probably anywhere else). Scientists have objected strongly to having creationism taught side by side with Darwin. The adherents to either theory believe so strongly their method for finding truth is the only reliable method (one the bible, the other the scientific method), it is an outrage to have the other view--which for them is undeniably FALSE--presented on equal footing. In fact, they would prefer to have the other view put in the category, "the tiny majority", the flat-earth category. That's when there's a problem.

The problem is that putting two theories side by side is actually not neutral--an attitude, assessment, bias, etc. is implicit: It suggests the two theories are worth roughly equal consideration. Some will be deeply offended and vehemently disagree with that, and insist one view should not be considered AT ALL. Take a look at the Attack on Pearl Harbor page and whether it was a "surprise" or not. To put on an additional view that experts have established advanced-knowledge is as heretical to certain maintainers of the page as the players in the Darwin/Creationism dispute above.

Ultimately, balance is so subjective, I do not think there is any way to have an article be balanced for everyone, and the more controversial the fewer percent of people will believe the article is fair or balanced. My suggestion for dealing with this conundrum is that especially with controversial subjects, it is better to be more inclusive of multiple perspectives, giving each camp a real opportunity to state their case and provide their evidence, rather than using the "flat earth" censorship method. Copernicus was in the Flat Earth camp. Nearly all the experts agreed he was dead wrong.

--David Tornheim (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm struggling to comprehend whether you do or you don't want two theories put side by side here such that there's a suggestion that both have equal worth. I feel it's my role as editor here to make sure that each presented theory is given the weight it deserves based upon the quality of its foundational research and hard evidence. So far, "surprise" is ahead by a mile. Binksternet (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
<--Neutral? On the article page, absolutely. Here, less neutral is a given, 'cause this is where the problems get ironed out, so (if I understand you) "neutral" doesn't apply.
Context? That's the claim by Mulder (sorry, Fox) there's some special "smoking gun" significance to the named signal. I reproduced both, so people can judge for themselves the degree to which his claim is justified.
Balance? Binksternet gets it right (thank you), give it the weight & credibility it deserves. Or, in this instance, the ridicule. Mulder's offering a claim for startling significance. Let's see him show it to us. My money's on more insults & more charges, but few actual answers. TREKphiler ^{hit me ?} 22:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
This is my main point above:
Ultimately, balance is so subjective, I do not think there is any way to have an article be balanced for everyone, and the more controversial the fewer percent of people will believe the article is fair or balanced.

Basically there is no objective way to determine if the article is balanced, since different people will have a different idea of what "balanced" means. The only solution I see is to give the two camps, if they can be identified as two camps (that's another possible problem), equal space. So, yes, I advocate for the solution that would offend both the creationists and the Darwinists. I briefly looked at how Wikipedia handled it, and I think it has done an exceptional job there! Surprise, surprise. Without calling the Creationists "conspiracy loons", they are indeed referred to in a neutral tone on the evolution page:
Although many religions and denominations have reconciled their beliefs with evolution through various concepts of theistic evolution, there are many creationists who believe that evolution is contradicted by the creation myths found in their respective religions.[ref omitted] As Darwin recognized early on, the most controversial aspect of evolutionary thought is its implications for human origins. In some countries—notably the United States—these tensions between scientific and religious teachings have fueled the ongoing creation–evolution controversy, a religious conflict focusing on politics and public education.[ref omitted]While other scientific fields such as cosmology[ref. omitted] and earth science[ref. omitted] also conflict with literal interpretations of many religious texts, evolutionary biology experiences significantly more opposition from many religious believers.
You can see that this is neatly divided up and the evolution page points you to the Creation page and also the page that is the the debate between the two, so you can decide for yourself. The debate between the two appears to give each side equal weight. But, unfortunately it is not evenly divided between the two camps. Both pages, are mostly written and dominated, I believe, by the Evolution camp. In fact, the Creationists more or less get put in the Flat Earth category. But, I must confess, it is so well written and appears to be so well researched, that I would hate to see what the Creationists might do to it if they got exactly one half the space to write in it.
I think a lot can probably be learned from the "evolution" (pun intended) of those pages, and how the creationists reacted as they were marginalized. I believe this may be a good place for learning some lessons of the past when dealing with the Pearl Harbor issue. There is one key difference between the two I see: Evolution is a scientific theory and Creation is a story. These are completely different theories of knowledge (epistemology). I do not believe this is a fundamental difference with PHAKD--it is about the evidence. However, there is an issue regarding power and abuse therefore, that is power and knowledge (e.g. Foucault)(See power-knowledge--good luck understanding this article! This quote does help, "According to this understanding, knowledge is never neutral, as it determines force relations.")
I do think the Attack page should refer to this article, just like the evolution page referred to the creation-evolution debate, and the creation page. It was this that got my attention originally when Pokipsy76 asked about it.
Earlier I copied a bunch of material from my user page under the topic of "Epistemology" with regard to the problem of assessing experts, but let me defer that discussion until I see what you all have to say about the above...
With regard to balance, Let me throw in the introduction I have regarding this problem of balance. I wrote a lot more on my user page...
Style question: what's the best way to add emphasis? [If there is a style guide, please point me to it.] Trekphiler said that using CAPS to provide EMPHASIS is shouting and no good--although I do that in e-mail all the time, but only with phrases & words, not the entire e-mail. But italics seems too mild. Bold seems a bit much. Maybe underline? I used bold and underline above. What do you guys tend to do stylistically what do you prefer? Do you agree that using ALL CAPS for even a one word or a phrase is not emphasis but actually a bit rude?

--David Tornheim (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
That comes back to giving undue weight to one side. A fringe theory with flimsy evidence, be it creationism/Intelligent Design, Ferengi landing at Roswell, or Elvis not being dead, does not deserve equal weight under any circumstances. Mention, yes; reference to how absurd it is, yes; equal weight, not a chance. And the only people on WP who will actually advocate for equal weight are members of the fringe community promoting a fringe POV. Take a look at this. As far as I can tell, the conspiracy theory is getting well within its due (more than, I'd say)

"I do think the Attack page should refer to this article" Unless something's changed, it explicitly does, with a link here.

Did I miss anything? TREKphiler ^{hit me ?} 04:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
No. It's nowhere in the article as far as I can see--the discussion doesn't count--most people don't know about the discussion page. The first word surprise has no reference. I searched for Advanced (i.e. advanced knowledge and nothing came up). But if you see it, please tell me the section it is in. Also the "Pearl Harbor (disambiguation)" page does not reference it.

"Take a look at this." Yes, as I said above, I thought that was well written, with respect and in a neutral tone, and that model should be used with the Pearl Harbor Attack page. The attack article neglects and censors a legitimate defensible alternative opinion entirely--it makes no reference at all to it. Again I totally disagree with the Ferengi landing at Roswell. Is anyone really arguing that? I don't see it and I seriously doubt. If they are, it's probably just a joke!--David Tornheim (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
<--The link to PHAND is there; I just took out a duplicate of it. Start at the bottom of the page; it's easier to find that way (under "See also"). (You're getting in the same trouble other people have, searching "advanced"; it's not how advanced the knowledge was, it's was it "in advance". Somebody even moved this page on the error...)
And maybe I should have said this. The article does a good job, but the talk page is full of complaints of unfair treatment & demands for equal space & equal weight. (You may have to look at the archive; i haven't checked lately.)
"The attack article neglects and censors a legitimate defensible alternative". It's neither, it's a fringe minority building a house of cards on claims of hidden documents & ignoring actual evidence when it's inconvenient (including from their own sources; notice the recent hero, Stinnett, ignoring Whitlock, who he quotes in his endnotes). And it's not censored at all. It's given its own page (which I would delete, but that's another story). If anything, it's given undue weight compared to how seriously it deserves to be taken, which is, as I've said, up there with Elvis sightings.
Yeah, maybe that's not calculated to gain the respect of the conspiracy nuts. It's not them I'm after. It's the uninformed. If the conspiracy claims are taken seriously, treated seriously, they gain credibility they simply don't deserve. They deserve ridicule. And when the other side resorts to insults rather than answers (as Mulder, there, repeatedly has), I refuse to dignify them with serious comment. Elvis & Franco are both still dead. TREKphiler ^{hit me ?} 06:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
And Santa Clause and Generalissimo Christ are still fairy tales. The way this page is put together is almost as ridiculous as the arguments going on in here. BillyTFried (talk) 07:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
BTW,
This is an INSULT: gain the respect of the conspiracy nuts.

This is not CIVIL: the conspiracy claims... deserve ridicule.

This is not ASSUMING GOOD FAITH: I refuse to dignify them with serious comment.

This is just LAUGHABLE: Elvis & Franco are both still dead.

BillyTFried (talk) 07:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
DT, I'm going to come down pretty strongly on Trek's side of this, but will have a somewhat different background for it, I think. Your position is a Post-Modernist / deconstructionist one, on which effectively denies that there are or can be objective criteria for judging between differing accounts of this or that. These folks, and you, put great weight in others' evaluations, and hold that a position deserves to be discussed and included in any balanced account or <whatever> simply by virtue of being held. On this line of argument, an account is of no further significance in discussion when it has no supporters. Unfortunately, this approach neglects the inventiveness (and credulousness) of human beings. I'll throw in a couple of not very usual examples, to avoid previously prepared responses. We have some reason to believe we know just who developed the world view of the Aztecs, which required frequent human sacrifice (living hearts carved from chests and so on), and on the other hand we certainly do know the chief proponents of the witch hunting insanity in Europe (Kramer and Springer in Malleus Malefircum). Just why either should have been taken seriously by anyone is a more difficult and far more serious question; neither's line of reasoning had any actual evidence for it. Just testimonials at most, kind of like those from the before and after success (weight loss, wrinkle eradication, buffing triumph, ... in late night television documercials on US TV (perhaps the rest of the world is spared this particular flavor of inanity?) Likewise, the Earth-centric conviction congealed into dogma (which caused Bruno famously to be burned for it), had even less evidence in its support. And had been known to have less for thousands of years. But many humans, and organizations, took it very seriously. Though why remains obscure, perhaps opaque. Examples of equivalent non-thought abound, from East, West, South, and so on. A common characteristic of human "reasoning", or of something, anyway.
But many of these can be distinguished from argument which actually deserves consideration by those who think by applying any of several tests. Among which is primary reliance on belief by x or y or all those z folks, in support. And a lack of reliance on evidence, whoever believes it dognatically. And, being discovered to have been claiming this or that, while this or that wasn't actually so, should cause a revaluation of one's position. In these cases, it generally does not; instead, some alternative line of attack (often personal attack) is resorted to as a "reply". And in every case in which this happens, it is absolutely fair for observers to conclude that the position being defended has more emotional or personal meaning than is compatible with reasoned evaluation. Propaganda techniques have no place in such discussions, regardless of the quality, quantity, or color or history of the underlying evidence. They are political and inherently and inescapably, NPOV in WP terms. The proper place for them on WP is in articles discussing urban myths or popular delusions or psychological oddities (Charles MacKay's Victorian book recounts many episodes, many of them economic; many, at this distance, amusing).
Your suggestion that the existence of a controversy shows both sides (there are actually many more than 2 in this case) should get equal weight is a kind of intellectual nihilism, itself suggesting there is no way to distinguish between viewpoints (this an urban myth, that possibly true) and so we should abandon the attempt. There are many snake oil salesmen who endeavor to inculcate just such an attitude for their commercial advantage -- a shallow (but conscious) whiff of the advertising atmosphere should make that clear. The last time any advertising actually made a coherent argument from evidence (not from supposed or claimed evidence, that's somewhat common) may have been when dinosaurs roamed Madison Avenue. What's less clear, I suspect, is that there are at least as many snake oil salesmen attempting to distort people's minds in other respects as well.
In my view, the entire deconstructionist crowd is a shining exemplar of this, a disreputable return to intellectual barbarism. Consider the entire Sokal Hoax business, in particular the response of the journal's proprietors long after the Hoax was revealed. For those insufficiently versed in the arcana of advanced physics, particularity the conjectured field of quantum gravity, the more ordinarily sordid snake oil purveyors regularly exposed by James Randi may be helpful. There's essentially no intellectual difference, just a miasmic cloud of high flown words surrounding the guff. Intimidation by vocabulary isn't evidence of ability to think, in case anyone doubted. But it's taken that way often; they get away with it far too often for the health of the human intellectual milieu.
I remember the Sokal Hoax. I thought it was cute. It in no way made me think any less of [post-modernism] than I would of physics or mathematics. It is just a reminder that people are fallible and gullible and often think they know more than they do--Sokal included! It also brings home the importance of clear and concise writing, that despite English 101 classes, is 'unfashionable' in trying to get published in academic journals. This problem is nothing new. Read Kant and Hegel and you'll know what I mean. Their works have had lasting impacts on academia, Kant's especially on science. Kant may sound like gibberish to the lay person, but it is not. My philosophy professor said that then, like today, she believes obfuscation and using fancy words helped you get published, so Kant and Hegel played ball, just as academics due today. I don't know who is to blame for it. It may be a human limitation on editors who don't have time to read everything that comes in, who may see something complicated, and instead of scrutinizing it more closely, either are afraid to admit it's over their head, or are lazy and simply trust this person knows what they are talking about and that it was sincere. Sokal called their bluff and that's fine with me. I hope most of the editors laughed at their folly. Maybe they will take their job more seriously.
Another good example of this happened in San Francisco: JT Leroy. An adult woman impersonated a homeless teenage prostitute. For years this went on and they even had someone as a stand in who did the book reading! I think that is just fabulous and shows real talent. Apparently, the literary community was up in arms and felt they had been betrayed and taken advantage of.
Or take that movie, "Catch Me if You Can" Catch Me If You Can. Some people just know how to take advantage of other people's arrogance and gullibility. Or how about Johnathan Swift's A Modest Proposal. The last three examples don't show that all literature should be burned, pilots don't know how to fly airplanes or that the parliamentary system of government is completely useless. I think it's funny. And if you read through the Sokal materials, you can see that Sokal himself admitted he didn't understand postmodernism, just like most literary critics probably think that advanced set theory and the Schrödinger equation sounds like gibberish. Please tell me if this does not look like anything but a nearly random and meaningless combination of fancy Greek symbols:
$i\hbar {d\Psi \over dt}={\hat {H}}\Psi$

$i\hbar {\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\psi =-{\frac {\hbar ^{2}}{2m}}\nabla ^{2}\psi +V(x,y,z)\psi$

$i{\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\psi =-{\frac {1}{2m}}\nabla ^{2}\psi +V(x)\psi$

$(E+{e^{2} \over r})^{2}\psi =-\nabla ^{2}\psi +m^{2}\psi$
Can any of you honestly say you understand anything on this page: Nonlinear Schrödinger equation

It has an equally compelling and artistic use of Greek Symbols:
$i\partial _{t}\psi =-{1 \over 2}\partial _{x}^{2}\psi +\kappa |\psi |^{2}\psi$

$H=\int dx\left[{1 \over 2}|\partial _{x}\psi |^{2}+{\kappa \over 2}|\psi |^{4}\right]$

$\{\psi (x),\psi (y)\}=\{\psi ^{*}(x),\psi ^{*}(y)\}=0\,$

$\{\psi ^{*}(x),\psi (y)\}=i\delta (x-y).\,$

$[\psi (x),\psi (y)]=[\psi ^{*}(x),\psi ^{*}(y)]=0\,$

$[\psi ^{*}(x),\psi (y)]=-\delta (x-y)\,$

$H=\int dx\left[{1 \over 2}\partial _{x}\psi ^{\dagger }\partial _{x}\psi +{\kappa \over 2}\psi ^{\dagger }\psi ^{\dagger }\psi \psi \right].$
I studied the Schrödinger equation and I can tell you, it was almost completely inscrutable, but it is at the foundation of quantum physics. I barely understood it then. I trust this wasn't a big hoax by my physics teachers that their students believe anything spoon fed them--but it easily could have been! Because it is very difficult to understand and uses terminology and symbols you are not familiar does not make it meaningless. It suggests instead, Time to do some homework and figure out what all that means or be forever left in the dark!.--David Tornheim (talk) 03:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

All of this waxing philosophical sounds like a masterbatory lecture of gibberish that has nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. BillyTFried (talk) 02:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, to the lay person, that's exactly what it sounds like. ;-)

--David Tornheim (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Says the "intellectual" who can't even spell the word gibberish, let alone recognize when he's spewing it. BillyTFried (talk) 05:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I corrected it. Sorry for the travesty; I won't let it happen again! I mistakenly thought people would know what word I meant. I really need to be more careful. By the way, is there a spell checker on this thing? I knew the word was misspelled but was too lazy to cut & paste it to a word processor to find the right spelling. I was sure I had too many or too few b's. Thanks to Billy for pointing me in the right direction before I tried adding a third 'b' out of desparation--oh God, now that word is misspelled!--The Horror! The Horror!--David Tornheim (talk) 05:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Oh. Now I see there was smiley face after your comment. I already put too much time into this response to delete it...
I use Google toolbar which has a spell checker button. BillyTFried (talk) 05:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Once ww has had an opportunity to read my response above, I would be happy to move all of the discussion starting with ww's paragraph about Sokal Hoax as proof of "intellectual barbarism" to the Sokahl discussion page, where I think it is more appropriate and relevant. And then put a pointer here saying that is where it can be found something like this:
ww suggested that postmodernism is a kind of "intellectual barbarism" using the Sokal Hoax as evidence. DT strongly disputed that as evidence of any problem with postmodernism. The discussion can be found on the discussion page of Sokal Hoax.

Question: When I make changes, I hit preview to see what it will look like. If I want to continue making changes, is it better to:
(1) hit the back arrow on my browser to the original page.

(2) make further edits on the new page just below where the preview.

I've been using (1), but sometimes I think it has problems and confuses it.--David Tornheim (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
First of all try not to post out of order. As you see I fixed that just now. You've also posted a bunch without being signed in or signing your name as noted above where only your IP is shown by signbot. The preview feature provides an editing window for a reason, and it isn't so you can click back on your browser. BillyTFried (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
So, minus some of the charged terms, Trek (and Binks and many others), and I are opposed to your proposed program of "balance" in this context. The existence of this article (however disorganized) is WP's acknowledgment of the assorted multi-dimensional controversies in and around the Attack. It's about as much balance as is possible. It is not possible, for the structural reason that there are so many controversies (many more or less mutually exclusive), to be neat about it. To the regret of all of us who prefer a higher degree of intellectual tidiness. ww (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
ww, I had no idea it was so complicated. At bottom, I can't help think pages like this, or books like Prange & Co's Verdict, are only encouraging this junk. When rumor & innuendo become news (networks & newspapers quoting The Drudge Report as a source!), we have reached a level of intellectual barbarism. The more I read, the more I think Damon Knight & Robert Sawyer were right: we're genetically programmed to faith as a survival characteristic, which means strict rationalism is actually a genetic aberration. (Ooops, I think that's not WP:C. Sorry. ;D) *Sigh*. Hand me my shield, 'maze; it's time to go back to the front. TREKphiler ^{hit me ?} 22:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
ww, you are right. Postmodernism has had a significant effect on the views I expressed above. I'm not so sure about Deconstructionism & Derrida has impacted what I have said (since I'm still a bit unclear on what Derrida was arguing and I don't always trust the critics to interpret someone like him correctly--maybe the Wikipedia entry will help), although post-structuralism is certainly part of it and the whole concept of Truth with a capital "T"--that understanding heavily influenced by Nietzsche in his work "On the Geaneology of Morals" (trans. Walter Kaufmann). I haven't had a chance to read what you wrote yet above. Will do at lunch.
"we're genetically programmed to faith as a survival characteristic, which means strict rationalism is actually a genetic aberration." "strict rationalism" is a kind of faith as well! Same with science. It gets tricky, because stories/fiction/myth have truth, truth that can penetrate more deeply and be more moving that rationalism and science. Science is really just another kind story--which unlike say the bible--we are told, unlike a good story, is TRUE. Although science, unlike literature, is based on hypothesis testing, proofs, etc., and may be internally consistent, it is a story told from a certain perspective, one that I think people often find boring and stale. Science seems to presume that everything alive is composed of dead things, and acts on mathematically formulas that can all be found with sufficient work, making us into nothing but automatons. Here we are talking about history, and I don't see alot of science going on. History is a story or compilation of stories. And what stories get told and which ones don't? It gets complicated.--David Tornheim (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I read what ww wrote. He covers a lot of group. I will respond to "Sokal Hoax" above.
DT's responses above are just exactly what I was trying to get at. Unlike him and the post-Modernist crowd, I think that mathematics has nothing of story in it, based on it is on more or less freely chosen assumed axioms. It is, strictly, connection free from reality and is purely a construct of human reason. Recall Russell's comment that it is the very close study of something we actually understand nothing about. Begun from the same perspective, little green men (whose stories are necessarily vary different than any human one given the different perspective which will be claimed to underlay them) will reach the same conclusion. The connection between maths and physics/science is a mysterious one, in my view. Adn Eugene Wigner's as well; he wrote an excellent paper on the subject, The Unreasonable Effectiveness... to which I refer any reading along.

As for the "stories science tells" (those who mistake Kuhn's sociology of science account (Structure of Scientific Revolutions) for actual science are often confused about this), the post-modern position fails to even notice the connection between engineering (experiment with no expectation of being surprised, though there has been the odd Tacoma Narrows Bridge or two) and science, which is the crucial difference between science and everything else humans do or have done. Would you trust your life to an intellectual construct by Dali or Glass or even Bach, or to a bridge or aircraft or elevator design by a licensed and fully anonymous engineer. In the Popperian account, science is different -- for real -- than other human endeavor. It actually goes back to reality to test its speculations about causation, and has abandoned any pretense at an ultimate account of anything. This narrowing of ambition has produced a surprisingly new enterprise in human history which has brought many a benefit to our species, all of which are the background to objectors to the nature of science by such folks as Feyerabend or Lakos or other less well-informed observers, such as the post-modern folk. Philosophy is still trying for the truth science has abondoned for "best available" and subject to improvement when needed. As such, little green man science must be very much like our own, for any little green man rocket to the moon won't work if their idea of what's going on is at variance from Newton's account. If the post-modern really do think differently, then there is no prospect for peaceful intellectual coexistence; we must agree to inhabit vastly different intellectual worlds until the little green men arrive and we can conduct the scientific experiment of asking them.

As for moving my comment or part of it to the Sokal Hoax article, please don't. The WP convention is that comment is left as it was entered, mispelllings and all. Anyone who wonders why there's a pointer here to that article can chase it down when they look at the what points here list. By all means include a note there to reference this discussion if you'd like. ww (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll take up this matter with you later, but honestly I would rather reply somewhere else. (proposals?) I think I agree with the others that it is not really appropriate here, but per your request I won't move it. I don't think anyone without some real exposure to postmodernism will know what we are talking about or why this is so important and will simply ridicule it as did Billy and Trek, and I agree with Billy it is not really that relevant to Pearl Harbor debate. I will take some responsibility for this, however, as I introduced a perspective about ways of treating various diverse voices, i.e. "discourses" that you picked up on. I can hear you cringing with that word "discourse"; I didn't use that word before because I suspected no one would know what it meant, and frankly I had forgotten about it, but alas now that I am revisiting this stuff & Foucault, it is still just as meaningful and pertinent as ever regardless of the Sokal prank. Math is indeed a discourse and as a former math teacher with quite a bit of high level college math courses under my belt, I saw excellent proof of this in an article I read. I should dig that up. I hope you are prepared for my lecture on discourses. :-) If you prefer I could point you to some outstanding writing on the subject, as I claim to be no expert on the subject--others have no doubt said it better than me. Sokal is certainly not one of them! I just looked at the Wikipedia page on discourse--it explains it well. Now tell me, is mathematics not a discourse per that definition?--David Tornheim (talk) 08:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Get a room. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Yo brah! It's just like, dude, you get the best barrels ever, dude. Just like you pull in and you just get spit right out of them. And you just drop in and just smack the lip, hoopa. Drop in. Baaa. And then just after that you drop in and just ride the barrel and get pitted, so pitted like that. BillyTFried (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"[Math] is, strictly, connection free from reality and is purely a construct of human reason."If so, why study something that has no connection whatsoever to "reality"? I'm not clear what your definition of "real" is. Is language, which is a collection of symbols, not unlike math, "connection free from reality and is purely a construct of human reason"? What about a story entirely fictional? What about moral precepts, like "thou shallt not kill."
What I find so fascinating about science is that there is no way to prove that most criminal acts are "wrong." As long as matter and energy are conserved, Newton's laws are obeyed, etc., no laws have been broken. In fact, the same goes for whether the bridge was or was not designed well and people died because of it, as long as the law of gravity is carefully and rigidly adhered to. The whole concept of right and wrong, life and death, and others things that to me seem both more interesting and more important than bridge building don't seem to me to be provable in science. The only strong ethics seems to be that of following the scientific method, which we are expected to rely on by faith, because the laws derived therefrom are supposed to always and forever be followed by nature, despite the fact we have no proof even for that. See David Hume.
As for building a bridge without science or engineering, I wouldn't want to see a movie done by an engineer who had no experience in film or storytelling. My point is, they focus on one aspect of life, others focus on other aspects. Because they can build bridges doesn't make them superior to good storytellers or movie makers in my mind. Bridge building seems rather boring to me. I'd much rather have an artist than an engineer around me.

Also, you suggest that the work of scientists and mathematicians make life safe. I couldn't disagree more. Who invented the a-bomb that could at any time kill virtually all life on the planet? What kind of lunatic would create such a thing? Why is the environment going down the tubes? I give credit to scientists, inventors and engineers for being blind to what their strange approach to life focusing only on matter, energy, laws of motion & the like.
As for your "green men". I don't know why they would want to go to the moon (or build bombs or bridges), learn math or science. They might not be interested in storytelling or history either. They may have more important matters to attend to. Or they may just be content with being, something humans seem to have some real trouble with...--David Tornheim (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
"If the post-modern really do think differently," I don't think this means people who study post-modernism think differently, only that they acknowledge the many perspectives out there and also the relationship between power & knowledge, among other things. Postmodernism is an observation of the serious problems with modernism or modernity, which I consider a very rigid way to view the world, not unlike math or science. I see postmodernism is recognizing the voices that have been suppressed by those in power--not voices of crazy people, but voices of ordinary people or people from different cultures, women, gays, etc. Consider for example how when we hear about the War in Iraq, we virtually never hear the voices of Iraqis, especially regular civilians. Why is their voice suppressed in the our media? Because Americans know better and dark-skinned people's opinions don't count? That's the modernist approach.
"then there is no prospect for peaceful intellectual coexistence;" I hear the voice of an elitist warrior in an ivory tower backed by the King's army who is threatened by ordinary people. It sounds like you would use violence to protect modernism. quite troubling. Why are you so opposed to "peaceful intellectual coexistence"? Are people from other cultures, classes, backgrounds so scary you would have to do battle with them if they made some attempt to explain their view of the world to you? Can't these voices be heard, listened to, respected and appreciated? That's what postmodernism is all about.
"we must agree to inhabit vastly different intellectual worlds" I think people often do. postmodernism recognizes that rather than trying to sweep it under the rug as does modernism. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
For fook's sake, talk somewhere else. This discursion on the nature of discourse touches the present article's content no more strongly than that of any other controversial subject. Using Keep on topic as my sword, I've a mind to delete all such discussion entries that appear on this page. Binksternet (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you 100% about moving the discussion. Unfortunately, my colleague opposed my proposal to move it:
As for moving my comment or part of it to the Sokal Hoax article, please don't. The WP convention is that comment is left as it was entered, mispelllings and all. Anyone who wonders why there's a pointer here to that article can chase it down when they look at the what points here list. By all means include a note there to reference this discussion if you'd like. ww (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I won't risk doing any deleting when it is clear he opposes it. I do prefer to respond to what he says if I feel he has misunderstood what I have said, and he has proposed no other place to continue the discussion. So, I feel disempowered to help with your entirely reasonable request. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)