Talk:Attack on Pearl Harbor/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Who declared war

The RfC resulting from this discussion has been withdrawn. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that Beyond My Ken is forcing a bit too much interpretation into a simple stylistic decision. There is really nothing wrong with saying that Germany declared war and the US declared war in response; that's something that I believe almost all reliable sources would agree on, independently of whether the German declaration was Hitler's unreviewable decision. On the other hand, if we're going to call it Hitler's declaration, then we should probably use Congress as the responding party, since Congress and only Congress is authorized to declare war. By the way, I have now learned by following a link from the article that the actual German declaration of war was signed by Ribbentrop. No other authority seems to be mentioned. We obviously aren't going to say Ribbentrop declared war (that would be sort of silly) so I think maybe the best solution is to go back to User:JackofOz's version, with Germany contraposed with the United States. --Trovatore (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC) The question is this: should Wikipedia accurately state historical fact, or should it not. In the United States, the Constitution gives to Congress alone the power to declare war. Roosevelt went to Congress, and asked them to declare war against Japan. Congress passed a declaration, the proper notifications were delivered to Japan, and the United States had declared war on Japan. The formulation "(COUNTRY) declared war on (COUNTRY)" is absolutely standard usage. The situation in Germany was not parallel at all. Every history says that Hitler made the decision to declare war himself, with very little input from anybody else, almost in an offhand manner, but certainly without going through what it would mean. Hitler then went to the Reichstag and announced that Germany was at war with the United States. This, while one could say "Germany declarwed war on the United States" (after the proper notifications were made), it is much more accurate and reflective of the historical situation to say "Hitler declared war on the United States." Because the two situation are far from parallel, forcing parallel construction on the words is not simply a stylistic choice, it's one that actually distorts the historical facts. The article as it stands is accurate. The changes promoted by JackofOz and Trovatore are less accurate, and are less useful to the reader. Grammatical considerations should never override historical fact. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC) Whether the situation is parallel or not, as you say "'(COUNTRY) declared war on (COUNTRY)' is absolutely standard". I agree with that statement. I do not agree that it does not apply for Germany. Even if the German state was personified by Hitler, it is still the case that the German state declared war on the United States. If you want to discuss the extent to which the German declaration was Hitler's personal unreviewable decision, then it would be better to do that in explicit text, ideally with citations. Merely contraposing "Hitler" with "the United States" doesn't explain that to the reader. It almost looks like an attempt to exculpate "Germany" (whatever that is). --Trovatore (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC) Well, all I can say is that your opinion is not reflective of the facts of the matter. While "(COUNTRY) declared war on (COUNTRY)" is standard usage, we're dealing with a democracy on one hand, and an authoritarian Fascist dictatorship on the other. Do you really think that the responsibility for declaring war is parallel in those two situations? I don't, and I don't think historians do. Roosevelt was not a dictator, but the democrtically-elected head of the administration, and the Congress consists of the democratically-elected representatives of the people, so their decision was made on behalf of the people. Hitler was a dictator, and his decision was made on behalf of his own purposes. The Reichstag played no part in the decision (not that it would have mattered, because they had no power or authority at that point), so it was Hitler who acted on the part of Germany. The personification of the actions of dictators to the dictator himself is also absolutely standard usage. "Stalin did such-and-such...", "Mao did so-and-so", even when it engaged the entire country in the resulting action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC) When we're presenting the "facts of the matter" in Wikipedia's voice, we're supposed to be able to attribute them to sources. I don't see how you can do that in this sentence. I think you need actual discussion somewhere of the claimed distinction, with a reference to sources that make the distinction. That's why I say you're trying to force too much interpretation into this choice. Using "Germany" would be quite neutral and standard, even if it fails to address the point you're making. You can make that point explicitly, rather than by word choice. --Trovatore (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC) That discussion is fully covered in the specific article on the declaration of war against the U.S., and discussing the details in this article would be inappropriate, since it's about another topic entirely. That doesn't allow us, in Wikipedia's voice, to distort historical facts. But if you want, I'll add references to it being Hitler's declaration. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)  Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC) (ec) It might well be too much of a digression in the text under discussion. In that case, the simple solution is to go back to "Germany". I'm sure you can find in lots of reliable sources that "Germany" declared war on the United States. I don't think this is a distortion. "Countries" really never declare war; they are not volitional entities. Using "Germany" is the standard shorthand, and does not really imply anything beyond that this was an official act of the German state, which it was, whoever decided it. --Trovatore (talk) I agree with Trovatore's impression that pawning off responsibility for this seems like an "attempt to exculpate Germany," and implies that their military-industrial country was a population of zombies. And note the similarity in the lead's first paragraph, shifting responsibility for Pearl Harbor onto both the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and the Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service. When it was suggested that we write that Japan attacked the U.S., that approach was also vehemently rejected by BMK.--Light show (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC) Light show, that is a massive mischaracterization of what happened, to the point that it may qualify as a personal attack. Anyone who wants to read what actually happened is invited to read the two sections above this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC) If we are discussing behavior, it may be worthy of note that BMK did unambiguously violate the three-revert rule on this article, and then removed my warning from his/her talk page, which I take as an acknowledgment that it was read and understood. --Trovatore (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC) If you're referring to this section, anyone can compare my suggested phrasing: The attack on Pearl Harbor was a surprise military strike by Japan against the United States, with with your strong preference for the text there now. --Light show (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC) You would need consensus for your suggested change. EtherealGate (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC) To say that writing "Hitler declared war on the United States" is an attempt to exculpate the responsibility of the German people is simply ridiculous. The German people bear significant responsibility for much of what Germany did in World War II: for the support that many of them gave to Hitler and other right-wing parties, which enabled Hitler to take power; for their devotion to and idolization of the Fuhrer; for what they did, personally, as members of the Wehrmacht, the SA and the SS; for willfully ignoring the Holocaust, even when it was taking place in their backyards; for many other actions for which "I was just following orders" is a wholly inadequate defense. But in the matter of declaring war on the United States, there was nothing anybody else in Germany could have done, no action they could have taken, short of assassinating Hitler, which would have prevented it once Hitler had made the decision. Here in the U.S., the decision to declare war on Japan was a corporate one, made by the representatives of the people on behalf on the people. Although it didn't happen, one can certainly imagine the possibility that Pearl Harbor could have provoked a massive wave of pacifism and isolationism which could have so influenced Congress that the declaration of war did not pass. However unlikely that is, it was not impossible. In Germany, however, no mass movement, no demonstrations, no newspaper editorials, no remonstrances from his top aides or generals, would have had any effect on Hitler. He was in personal control of the government, and once he made a decision, for his own personal reasons involving ideology, prejudice, ignorance and the conduct of the war, the only thing that could change that decision was Hitler changing his mind, again for his own reasons, not because others were disagreeing with him. (If anything, people disagreeing with him hardened Hitler's resolve to not change his opinion.) The German people bore little or no responsibility for the declaration of war against the United States, so there is nothing (in that particular instance) to exculpate them from. It remains an historically accurate statement to say that the United States declared war on Japan, and Adolf Hitler declared war on the United States. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC) And the 13,745,000 voters (37% of the population) who put him in power should obviously be ignored. They don't count.--Light show (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC) Did you not read where I wrote above about the German people's responsibility "for the support that many of them gave to Hitler and other right-wing parties"? In any case, no voters put Hitler into power. Hitler became Chancellor because the Reichstag couldn't come up with a Parliamentary-backed choice, because of the number of both Nazi and Communist and Socialist deputies. This deadlock sent the decision to the president, Hindenburg. This happened several times, and the Chancellorships lasted very short periods of time. Hitler at one point was offered the Vice Chancellorship, but turned it down. Finally Von Papen and Alfred Hugenberg convinced Hindenburg that if he made Hitler Chancellor, with a Cabinet that contained only two other Nazis (Goring and the finance minister), but with Von Pappen as Vice Chancellor, and other right-wingers rounding it out, Hitler could be "controlled". Hindenburg fought this up to the last minute, but finally acquiesced, and Hitler became Chancellor. Hinderburg's power as President to appoint a Chancellor if the Reichstag was deadlock was in the Weimar Constitution, so Hitler came to power legally and constitutionally (albeit the result of some pretty sleazy backroom dealing), but it no sense did anyone elect Hitler to power. (Any elections which took place after that were completely pro forma.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC) Re: "sleazy backroom dealing;" and maybe with help from some well-paid PR groups. --Light show (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Hitler had no need of hiring "well-paid PR groups", he had Goebbels and his in-house Nazi Party propaganda machine, who were very effective. Hitler was extremely aware of the value of political propaganda, and wrote at length about it in Mein Kampf. In fact, to a large extent, it can be said that Hitler invented modern political propaganda. He wouldn't have hired an outside PR firm, because his own operation was light years ahead of everyone else. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC) BMK, that may well be so. But it seems to me to be an irrelevant nicety in this context. The point we're trying to get across here is that, as a consequence of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Germany commenced a state of war with the USA, who responded in kind. The detail of exactly how these states of war came to be created/declared, and by whom, is for another place. Not here. As far as the American people were concerned, they were now enemies of Japan and Germany and all their peoples, including their leaders. Bringing it down to just Hitler's personal decision/declaration - accurate and all as it may be in the microcosm - really misses the point. If lede text isn't about the macrocosm rather than any microcosms (the bigger picture, not the fine details), what is it about? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC) It's not a "nicety", it's preserving an historical fact. The only "nicety" I see here is the desire to use parallel construction where it's actually not applicable. Rhetoric serves content, not vice versa. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC) In view of the Enabling Act of 1933, Adolf Hitler was the legislative power of Germany. So when he declared war, that was a declaration of war by Germany. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Far from it. The Enabling Act allowed Hitler to rule by edict, without needing the approval of the Reichstag. That didn't make him the "legislative power of Germany", it made him the dictator of Germany, which is why we say, with accuracy, that "Adolf Hitler declared war on the United States". Besides, the Enabling Act was for four years, then was renewed twice, but that was pro forma, since all other parties but the Nazi Party had been banned, and voters were presented with a single list of candidates who were to be voted in as Reichstag deputies. This veneer of democracy was an obvious sham, and the role of the Reichstag was purely ceremonial, so the "renewals" were simply window dressing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC) BMK, I have not denied the factuality of your preferred wording. But whether it's factual or not is beside the point, as per my explanation above. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Jack, we're an encyclopedia. Factuality is never "beside the point", it is the point. 02:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC) This is too silly for words. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Here's the point as I see it: "Hitler declared war" and "Germany declared war" are both factual. The former emphasizes Hitler's personal agency; the latter that it was an official act of the German state. Both of those things are true. However, the former is squeezing extra meaning into the words. That's generally a bad idea in this sort of writing. BMK has added, I think, four citations; none of them are immediately available to me so I can't check them, but I doubt it is obvious to the reader that they are there to back up, not the fact of the declaration of war, but the extra meaning that it came directly from Hitler. As I suggested earlier, text could be added to address that specific point, and then cited. The question is whether it is desirable to do so, or whether it is too far from the point of the article. I tend to agree with BMK that it is too far from the point of the article. But then I don't think it is necessary to emphasize Hitler's personal authority, which is also not the point of the article. We should go back to "Germany", which is every bit as factual, and does not raise these unnecessary issues. --Trovatore (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC: "Hitler" or "Germany"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Question: Should the lede say that Hitler declared war on the United States, or should it say that Germany declared war on the United States? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Hitler - For all the reasons given in the section above. Hitler was personally responsible for declaring war on the U.S. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• Neither: The lead is a summary of the article which says nothing about him. In any case, only Germany officially declared war, even if the voice on the radio was his. He wasn't a king; he was voted in. --Light show (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• You can repeat that misstatement of fact as often as you wish, it won't make it any more true. Hitler was not "voted in" to office. He was appointed as Chancellor by Paul von Hindenburg, the President of the Weimer Republic, who was re-elected to that position in 1932, beating out Hitler for the job by receiving 53% of the vote to Hitler's 37%, or 13,418,547 votes, in the run-off, which eliminated all but three of the candidates. So Hitler did indeed receive 13+ million votes, but he lost. This is the only time Hitler ran for office. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• The important fact is that he reached office by legal means within the democratic system of Germany at the time. --Khajidha (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Although it's (obviously) not a reliable source, you might like to read Adolf Hitler#Appointment as chancellor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Never been that interested in the man. Although I should be, considering I was born down the road from where he was imprisoned. --Light show (talk)

• Germany. It is probably useful to mention the official start of the war with Germany, given that it was a direct sequel and probable consequence of the attack, so I doubt we can avoid saying anything, but there is no need to address the question of Hitler's personal authority, which is not really related to the attack on Pearl Harbor. --Trovatore (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• Germany, essentially for the same reason that we don't say that Neville Chamberlain declared war on Germany just because it was his voice that announced that the ultimatum had expired and consequently "this nation is at war with Germany". The legalities behind Hitler's authority to alone decide a state of war between Germany and any other state have nothing to do with this article. He exercised his authority on behalf of the German Reich and the German people, and consequently Germany was at war with the US. It is sufficient to say that Germany declared war on the US - and no less accurate than saying Hitler declared war on the US. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• I promise not to WP:BLUDGEON, but are you saying that Neville Chamberlain sttod in relationship to the British government as Hitler stood in relation to the German government? That is, are you saying that Chamberlain was a dictator who could personally decide to declare war against Germany, as Hitler personally decided to declared war against the U.S.? If not, them once again, there is no parallel between the two situations, and your comparisons of "voices on the radio" is inapt and entirely superficial. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think you're focusing on the unimportant part of Jack's rationale, and ignoring the important part. Dictator or not, it was an official act of the German state, just as Chamberlain's was an official act of the British modulo NI, I guess, but there's no such word as UKish state. That part of the equation, at least, is parallel. You can find all the disanalogies you want in how the decision was reached, but I don't see that they matter here. They might be important in articles on topics more closely related to the declarations themselves, and then they could be stated explicitly, and cited. --Trovatore (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Of course it was an official act of the German state, because Hitler was the German state. Chamberlain was not the British state and could not declare war on his own initiative as his own personal choice, nor could Roosevelt. Hitler could, and did. That makes the circumstances very different, which is why (again) parallel construction distorts the facts. You are certainly right that the statement "Germany declared war on the United States" is factually correct, it's just that "Adolf Hitler declared war on the United States" is more correct, and takes into account everything we know about that action. Even in a passing mention, choosing a less correct fact instead of a more correct one, for the sake of what is, let's be honest, a very minor stylistic choice, is not the way an encyclopedia should operate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• But it is not less correct. It is perhaps less complete. That's kind of the point. The extra "completeness" is something that should be called out explicitly and cited. And you can't conveniently do that here. --Trovatore (talk) 07:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• If it is less complete, then it is less correct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• No, that's false. --Trovatore (talk) 09:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• It's quite a bold statement on your part to say that an encyclopedia shouldn't use a more complete fact over a less complete one when a more complete fact is available and can be utilized without any major effort or loss of comprehensibility. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• (e/c) If it is less complete, then it is less correct: Now that is a completely absurd statement. We don't mention in Queen Elizabeth's article what her favourite perfume is, or her favourite colour, or any number of other things about her that may well be publicly available. There surely exists some context for which that information would be very relevant and very desirable. But not the WP article on her. Likewise, there is some context for which the Hitler stuff you want here would be very germane, relevant and desirable. But not the WP article on the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. For this article, it's an unnecessary level of detail, and under the principle of economy, it doesn't belong here. I'm sure you could write quite a detailed article on all the exact circumstances, documents, announcements, legalities and so forth, surrounding Hitler's declaration. By omitting all these details and just stating the bald fact, are you not falling into exactly the same "inaccuracy" you accuse others of? Or a worse one? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• We're not talking about a situation where one would have to add a paragraph or two of information to be "more complete". As the RfC makes clear, we're essentially talking about a choice between "Adolf Hitler" and "Germany" in "X declared war on the United States". Both choices are factually correct, but one encompasses more information than the other one does. There is no need for any digression, no discussion of what aftershave Hitler was wearing when he made the decision, simply a choice between two proper nouns/noun phrases. Please stop trying to make this into something it is not. You chose the word you think is best, I disagree with your choice, but there's no need for rhetorical overkill which misrepresents the scope of the choices. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that you're conveying the "extra information", not explicitly, but by the use of loaded language. It's clear (in this discussion, not in the article text itself) that the language is intended to be loaded; that's the whole reason you want it, as you've made fairly explicit. But it is not clear to the reader whether this is intended, and it can't reasonably be cited. Therefore it would be better to use unloaded (or less loaded), but still accurate, language, and convey the "extra information" explicitly, with citations, in those articles where it is relevant enough to mention. Which you and I seem to agree does not include this article. --Trovatore (talk) 08:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Neutral pointers to this discussion have been placed on the talk pages of the following WikiProjects: European History, Military History, and Germany. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• Hitler; while seized of the risk that nominating Hitler night tend to exculpate his cronies, it is a fact that he was never elected to anything and the Nazi partei never won a national election. Unlike Britain, France and the USA, Weimar Germany was a democracy, which is why it was assassinated in 1930 and Hitler was manoeuvred into office in 1933 rather than allow the Reichstag to regain sovereignty. Hitler's Thirty Days to Power: January 1933 by Henry Ashby Turner is a good description of what and a fairly good explanation of how. Hitler declared war on the US to appease the Japanese and keep them in the war so that the catastrophic failure of Barbarossa might not mean the end for Germany and the regime. Keith-264 (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd recommend this as a RS too The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy (2007) Adam Tooze Keith-264 (talk) 07:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Having read a bit more of the talk page I think it might be better to start with a survey of the RS rather than comparing opinions, since that way OR and NPOV lie. Perhaps the debate is premature with so many uncontentious matters needing to be remedied to get the article out of C Class (unless you're enjoying yourselves); moonbeam and cucumber debates can wait. The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation 4th ed. (2000) by Ian Kershaw is also a RS I'd recommend. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Germany, or Nazi Germany Factually, it would be correct to say either 'Germany' or 'AH', just as factually it would be correct to say either 'USA' or 'Congress', the second in each case being the one(s) who had power/authority to actually make such a decision. In terms of the significance of the declaration, the importance was that thereafter, the two nations were at war and I think that outweighs the importance of the 'process' by which the decision was made, since 'Germany' is not factually incorrect nor misleading. A form of words could probably be found that avoids the problem, but I doubt if it matters sufficiently in the context of P. Harbour. Pincrete (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC) … … amended following suggestion below Pincrete (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• What do the RS say? Keith-264 (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• And we have: German declaration of war against the United States (1941). So "Nazi-Germany" would be my choice. Lectonar (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki isn't a source; what do the RS say?Keith-264 (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• No, Wikipedia isn't a source, but the sources on that page and on the German-Wikipedia counterpart say that it is Germany or Nazi Germany. Lectonar (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Germany. Both are true of course in this case, noting that an individual cannot declare war on a country unless s/he is the head of state anyway. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• I suppose it would vary according to each country's constitution, but the U.S. Constitution does not give that authority to the head of state/head of government (the President) but to the legislature (the Congresss), which has the explicit sole power to declare war. I believe that the (unwritten) British constitution also gives that power to Parliament, on the request of the Prime Minister as the head of the government. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

What do the RS say? This shouldn't be a matter of opinion. Keith-264 (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

It would be good to look that up, but I doubt the results will be satisfying. My prediction is that some will say Germany declared war and some will say Hitler declared war. Some will say both things, in different parts of the work. Probably none at all will make a point of explaining why they say one thing rather than the other. But go ahead and check; I could be wrong. If there's a solid consensus among the sources, then I suppose we should follow it. --Trovatore (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Keith-264: The RS's will support either choice, which is why we're asking for people's preferences. The book-length detailed studies will support "Hitler" – I've reffed three of them in the article and you've mentioned a number of others – but so will many popular sources. There will also be innumerable sources that say "Germany", because it, too, is correct - obviously so, since it wasn't Hitler out there at Dunkirk, the Battle of the Bulge, or Operation Barbarossa, it was the German Army, the Waffen-SS, the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine, the military forces of the German nation. For this reason, we cannot settle this by comparing reliable sources, so I don't think it's worthwhile to continue asking "What do the RS's say?" They say both, because both are correct. The question isn't which one is supported by RS's, nbut which one best conveys whatever it is we're trying to say, that's the locus of the disagreement here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Compromise: Hitler's Germany RYPJack (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment, I have no preference, both "Hitler or "Germany" is suitable (sorry!), but please do not use "Nazi Germany" or Hitler's Germany that like saying "Democratic America" or "Churchill's Britain". Since the FRG insist that it is the successor state to the German state(s) that came before it, "Germany" is always preferable to "Nazi Germany", both for legal and moral reasons. -- PBS (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment one further thought, the 7th Coalition Powers did not declare war on France in 1815, they declared war on Napoleon (See Declaration at the Congress of Vienna, 13 March 1815 and the Malplaquet proclamation 22 June 1815). So technically it can be argued that Hitler did not declare war on the US personally, because he was the internationally recognised head of his state and as such was representing his country (Unlike Napoleon in 1815). -- PBS (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• If this has been discussed before, add up the 2° sources in favour of Hitler, those in favour of Germany and accept a majority verdict. Notice that the fuhrerprinzip was the foundation of nazi political "theory" [1]. This really shouldn't be a matter of opinion but the article needs many practical improvements that aren't controversial, I say get them done then worry about minutiae. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• No, I don't think that sounds like a good plan. Appearances in sources are going to be colored by the specific context, surrounding words, lots of stuff that isn't the same as what appears here. I don't believe you're going to find any real signal to pull out of the noise. We are allowed to do our own writing; we're not just slavishly copying sources. How to do the writing is governed by consensus, and this is how you get to it. --Trovatore (talk) 08:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Sophistry, OR, NPOV, Synth etc blah.... add some missing citations instead. Keith-264 (talk) 08:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Germany - countries declare war, people simply announce such declarations. --Khajidha (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Germany - countries declare war (as Khajidha correctly says), & "Hitler" is a less-formal usage, inappropriate for encyclopedic content. (You or I might say it, among ourselves, but WP's voice should not.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Germany. And neither Hitler nor the Nazis need mentioning. Srnec (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

What do the RS say?Keith-264 (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Peremptory reverts

@Beyond all our Ken, would you mind not marring the article with illiterate prose, it's in enough trouble already. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Keith-264, it's not "illiterate, and, frankly, I'm annoyed that you would say so, and that you would accuse me (again) of being "peremptory" in my editing, which apparently means reverting an edit that you made.

"Preliminary planning" is a perfectly legitimate and understandable concept, meaningful to anyone who reads it. I've been involved in the planning of many, many projects, and it goes through phases as it progresses, the first being the preliminary stage, which many projects don't survive. "Planning" is not a unitary thing, and your insistence that it is flies in the face of reality. Please do not make edits such as this again, they are disruptive to the smooth operation of the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

You don't own your opinions, you parrot them as facts. Of course planning is a process, it has a beginning, a middle and an end; a preliminary happens before the fact, it is not part of it. You don't know your affixes from your elbow. Please resist the temptation to treat the article as your property and try to come to terms with the fact that you are an equal, not a judge. Perhaps you mean well but your appearances on the talk page, after unilaterally soliciting opinion, seem inversely proportional to the quality of your editing. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

"Perhaps you mean well". Well, how very kind of you to deign to say so, your worshipfulness.

Take me to AN/I if you don't like my reverting any of your edits which don't improve the article, in the meantime, I'll continue to edit as I see fit, bucko. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

So will I, perhaps when you calm down you might learn something. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead with non-summary details and unnecessary citations

There seem to be a number of problems with the lead:

• Per this restoration of details not in the main body, there are many aspects which do not meet guidelines for the lead, especially a first sentence. As implied in the MOS for leads, the first paragraph alone is loaded with off-topic minutia that are not mentioned in the body, such as all the aka names.

• Also per the MOS, there is no reason to have sources in the lead since none of the facts are quotes. The full lead section is overloaded with 14 citations, many used only once in the entire article. That implies they are not summary details or else shouldn't be cited in the lead.

• Another portion of reverted text aimed at simplifying the paragraph. Below are the before and after edits, showing that original text is verbose and loaded with unnecessary details, most of which are better explained in the main article. And why state branches of the their militaries, instead of just stating the countries involved, in the first paragraph?

Original first paragraph:

The attack on Pearl Harbor, also known as the Battle of Pearl Harbor,[9] the Hawaii Operation or Operation AI by the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters,[10][11] and Operation Z during planning,[12] was a surprise military strike by the Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service against the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii Territory, on the morning of December 7, 1941. The attack led to the United States' entry into World War II.

Simplified first paragraph:

The attack on Pearl Harbor was a surprise military strike by Japan against the United States on December 7, 1941. The attack, which took place at the Pearl Harbor Naval Base in Hawaii, led to the United States entering World War II.

For the reasons given, the simplified version is best IMO.--Light show (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Correction, MOS does not say that the lede can't have refs, it says that the lede is not required to have refs if the material is properly reffed in the body. Your suggested lede first graf is certainly simpler, but not necessarily better, and the original first graf is not so complex (or "run-on") that it's not completely understandable, as well as being informative. In my opinion, it's not in dire need of being drastically truncated. Recall also that many people don't read anything but the lede. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The MOS is fairly clear: Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead.... But the overly-cited lead is worse than that, since most of the cites are only used in the lead. And you ignored all the aka names which also cluttered first paragraph. Removing that string of aka trivia makes the "drastically truncated" paragraph nearly the same size.--Light show (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is quite clear, and the "balance" referred to is an 'editorial' matter, which on Wikipedia is determined by consensus when disputed. That is why we are having this discussion. Your personal decision that the alternate names are "trivial" is not shared by me. (BTW, you should bear in mind, always, that MOS is an editing guideline, and is neither policy nor mandatory. Hence arguments which boil down to "MOS says so" tend to be weak.) Let's see what other editors think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Regardless, you've yet to respond to the original three issues. And I'll add to the pot this non-leadworthy off-topic aka: the Hawaii Operation or Operation AI by the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters..., cited by some obscure military proceeding.

Yet Encyc. Britannica has no problem with conciseness and keeping out such irrelevant clutter: Pearl Harbor attack, (December 7, 1941), surprise aerial attack on the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor on Oahu Island, Hawaii, by the Japanese that precipitated the entry of the United States into World War II. Which, BTW, has even fewer words than the "drastically truncated" version.--Light show (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

You may not have noticed, but Wikipedia is not the Encyclopedia Britannica - and that's both good and bad. In any case, you've stated your case, now why don't you do what Wikipedia requires, which is to see what the consensus of editors is. If you want to do it the Encyclopedia Britannica way, I suggest you apply for a job writing for them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you implying that among the differences between WP and EB, is when WP editors violate rules, we first need to get group approval before correcting the violations? For example: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. --Light show (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Your misunderstanding is that MOS is not a "rule", and therefore cannot be "violated" the way a policy can. MOS is a group of editing guidelines. They are not mandatory, and do not have to be "corrected" automatically, they can be overridden by editorial judgment. See for instance this wording at the very top of the WP:MOS page:

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.

You would be well-advised to not only read and understand the above, but to read and understand the links within it. You do not have blanket permission to reinsert changes simply because of MoS if those changes are disputed, as they are here.

Now, for the third time, I suggest we allow a consensus to develop by allowing others editors to present their opinions about the change you have suggested. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

In addition, you misundertand the MOS guildeline, which says usually and so then to balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead. So even if the guildeline was policy (which it's not), nothing is being violated in the first place. And using one sentence from Encyc. Britannica to say it is shorter than two sentences here holds no water. The countries involved are also self-evident and already mentioned in the lead, so there is no problem with nuance here. Regardless, you need consensus for your suggested wording. EtherealGate (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC: list of "also known as" names in the lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does the list of "also known as" (aka) names belong in the lead? 20:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• No: They are off-topic trivia and not even mentioned in the article. The four citations with those only adds clutter to what should be a clear and descriptive first sentence. The lead should summarize the article's most important contents, not add new cited trivia. --Light show (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - per the discussion above: interesting, informative, and sourced. BTW, this RfC is totally unnecessary, a consensus could have formed in the normal way in the discussion above if the nominator had simply given it some time. Turning a talk page discussion into an RfC is a precipitous action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Yes per the discussion above. Trivia, in this case (an article on an historic event where lives were snuffed out and the world changed because of it), does not apply. This isn't an entertainment or celebrity article. The aka's aren't part of one of those inane "In popular culture" trivia lists. More information = better understanding of all aspects = more is more, not less. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, we normally include alternative names in the lead as long as they are sourced. A quick search also shows more references referring to the attack on Pearl Harbor. This is hardly what I would call off-topic. EtherealGate (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Question Is the argument that these aka names are actually used, in the way that 'Barbarossa' or 'Sea Lion', are used, or are they essentially 'historical' (particularly the 'Japanese' names)? If the answer is 'not presently used', I would say they belong in the body, not in the opening sentence of the lead. Pincrete (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Battle of Pearl Harbor" gets 347,000 Google hits, "Hawaii Operation" gets 15,600 hits, and "Operation AI" gets 31,900 hits. These are all good indicators that, to varying degrees, these names are still in current use.
  In any case, even if they hadn't gotten a substantial number of hits, this is an historical article, and one would expect the lede to contain elements which are almost exclusively historical in nature. Compare, for instance, the lede for the article on Robert Osborne, the former host of Turner Classic Movies, who just died today. It mentions that before he joined TCM he was a host on The Movie Channel and a columnist for The Hollywood Reporter. These are part of his history, and therefore rightfully a part of the lede, even though it would be exceedingly unlikely for someone to refer to him (before he died) as "Robert Osborne, the former Hollywood Reporter columnist" instead of "Robert Osborne, the TCM host". Neither Osborne's past engagements, nor the alternate names for the attack on Pearl Harbor, are in any way "trivial". They serve to flesh out the lede, and inform our readers of pertinent and interesting information. (And remember, many people only need a quick hit of information, and therefore only read the lede and not the body of the article.). Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Osborne's article had numerous mentions of the other networks in his article, with context. Whereas the string of akas in this one are not mentioned in the article body. And even if they were mentioned in the body, that wouldn't mean they automatically needed to be in the first sentence. But they're not, and factoids not important enough to be noted in the this 4,000-word article sort of implies they are probably trivial details.

But if you're that gung-ho to keep them in, I'd suggest a compromise: add them as a note. And you can even add "A Date Which Will Live in Infamy," which gets 50,000 more hits than even the title of this article.--Light show (talk) 06:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

"A date that will live in infamy" is not a name for the event, it's a description of the event, which is a somewhat different thing. I don;t object to adding it, but putting the names into a note seems to me like a non-starter. You're calling for a "compromise' when 4 editors are opposing you, and no one has come out in favor of your viewpoint. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

This is starting to sound more like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. EtherealGate (talk) 10:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

BMK, I appreciate that original Japanese code name etc. is worthy of mention somewhere, why I asked is that, if not a common alternative names, they don't IMO all need to be in the opening sentence and have the effect of getting in the way of the main narrative (what happened!). Pincrete (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see that POV, but in my opinion (1) They don't really "get in the way", (2) There's really nothing more to say about them except that they exist, so moving them to the body is going to, in effect, disappear them, and (3) My point above about many people only reading the lede. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

And some just read Google's infobox, which for "Attack on Pearl Harbor" gives them this: The attack on Pearl Harbor, also known as the Battle of Pearl Harbor, the Hawaii Operation or Operation AI by the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, and Operation Z during planning, was a surprise...

And since many people only read the lead, then why force them to read a string of irrelevant akas that aren't even important enough to be in the article? Isn't it logical that someone who went to this article wanted to get straight facts, not trivia? --Light show (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Please don't WP:BLUDGEON. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. They are not so numerous to be a problem (imho) and the name used by the attacking force, for example, certainly seems relevant in the lead. — OwenBlacker (talk) 06:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
• Suggestion, first of all, I think there is NO case for removing at least 4 of the 5 names, they are not trivia but valid historical info, though some of them are relatively unimportant for an opening sentence, given the significance of the event itself. 5 names does IMO, weaken the opening with info that is not essential AT THAT POINT in the narrative. In general, I think that more than 2, possibly 3 names starts becoming cumbersome, especially if 'qualified' (known to these people as this or that, initially known as the other). Could consideration be given to making 'Battle of PH' a redirect, or the sole aka name? I appreciate there may be sensibilities here, since 'Battle of PH' implies that this was not a wholly 'one-sided affair', though the 'hits' for that name mentioned by BMK above suggest it is a much less commonly used name. Could consideration also be given to working some of the 3 'Japanese' names into paras 2 or 3 of the lead or creating new text at the end of para 1 to give, for example the 'planning stage' name. Such would probably not need to be emboldened, since it does not seem to be claimed that the planning stage name is a current name. I'm not sure of precisely how, (since I don't know the full weight and significance of the 5 names), but nonetheless feel that the opening para would be much more readable if the number of aka's in the opening sentence was reduced. Pincrete (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

That might be a workable compromise. Do you want to be WP:BOLD and give it a try? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I would gladly 'give it a go', but is "Battle of Pearl Harbor" a significant alternative name? Or is it borderline self-evident (as "Pearl Harbor attack" or "Pearl Harbor battle" both might be?). Pincrete (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I would say that with 347,000 Googtle hits, the most of this set of names, it is significant. We use "D-Day", "the invasion of Normandy", "the re-invasion of Europe", "Operation Overlord" and other terms fairly interchangeably, even though there are subtle differences in meaning between them (and "D-Day" is a popularization to a specific instance of what was general military terminology -- D-day, H-hour, M-minute). I think if you're going to give your suggestion a try, of moving the alternative names farther down into the lede, you use all of the terms which are currently there, especially since consensus in the RfC is running towards leaving things as they are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

BMK, thanks, my own thinking went much the same way about 'placement'. I thought of working text into para 2 (Japanese intentions), but it becomes even more intrusive there. Suggestion below shortly. Pincrete (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yes - of course those names belong there. This is an encyclopedia, not someone's personal opinion. You cannot quash history. Many people only read the lede, and perhaps this is precisely the information they are seeking. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Possible re-ordering

OK guys, I came here for the RfC, I rarely edit military articles, and know no more about P Harbour than your average UK baby boomer, so don't 'put me up against a wall' too soon. Per the discussion above, I am putting this forward as an alternative Para 1 of the lead:

The attack on Pearl Harbor, also known as the Battle of Pearl Harbor, was a surprise military strike by the Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service against the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii Territory, on the morning of December 7, 1941. The attack led to the United States' entry into World War II. The Japanese military leadership referred to the attack as the "Hawaii Operation" or "Operation AI", and as "Operation Z" during its planning.

NBs

The 'strike-thru' is a possible omission. I've moved and un-boldened the Japanese names, though bold could return if norms require (I'm unsure about historical v currently used names). I've also 'piped' 'Imperial General Headquarters' to 'Japanese military leadership'. Now do your worst! Pincrete (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

References

• You should restore the bolding, as it's the general custom that alternative names which are redirects are bolded. You can move the "Battle" reference later too, I think, so it reads:

The attack on Pearl Harbor was a surprise military strike by the Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service against the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii Territory, on the morning of December 7, 1941. The attack, also known as the Battle of Pearl Harbor, led to the United States' entry into World War II. The Japanese military leadership referred to the attack as the Hawaii Operation and Operation AI, and as Operation Z during its planning.

References

Comments on that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I think Pincrete's version is better. Some aspects that could help, IMO, would be moving the akas further down within the lead, possibly giving them better context. The first paragraph with Pincrete's phrasing is 69 words; but it includes a last sentence of 22 words focused only on the other names, which still makes the akas a third of the first paragraph. So it ends what should be a clear and definitive description of a major historical event by digressing into a list of "also known as." It weakens the subject.

It's also distracting to include 4 citations in that paragraph. If those akas are worthy of being anywhere in the lead of a 4,000-word article, they should also be used within the main body. --Light show (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, here's the thing, the RfC is running against you, and you're just making the same kind of unhelpful comments here. If agreement can't be reached on an alternative version here, then the result of this RfC you started is going to be that the lede is going to stay exactly the way it is now. I prefer my version over Pincrete's (no offense to Pincrete), because it maintains all the information which the RfC shows that most people want to keep. If you want to dig in your heels and not agree to a re-write along these lines, fine, but you should look down the line to what the final result is going to be: not your preferred version, not your "compromise" version, but the lede exactly as it is right now. If you think being obstinate and obstructive is worth that, please feel free to continue. In the meantime, if enough if the other editors who have been involved in this RfC like my version (or Pincrete's) then I presume the closer of this RfC will institute that, and you'll be shit of out luck. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

BMK, I also prefer your version, so no offence taken. Pincrete (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@BMK. Here's another thing, FWIW: I was trying to agree with both of you. When Pincrete suggested "working some of the 3 'Japanese' names into paras 2 or 3 of the lead," you said his suggestions "might be a workable compromise," and he should just do it, " give it a try?" As for your relying on the fact that the RfC is running against me, give it a rest. Those two tag-teamers that supported your "Yes" within a few minutes after yours, don't impress me. If we rightly ignored them, then the RfC would be even. --Light show (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I actually have no clue what you're talking about. I have no "tag team", and I don't even know who responded after me (although obviously I can look up the page and find out). There is no reason whatsoever for the RfC closer to ignore anyone's !vote here, and I trust that they won't, so let's just assume that, as is obvious from the current status of the RfC, that you are in the minority here, and most editors have rejected your arguments. It's my assumption (although I could be wrong) that they will also reject them when you make the same arguments here as you did up above. I certainly do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

(@Winkelvi: and @EtherealGate: welcome to the the world-famous BMK tag-team. Your membership cards are on the way - remember they're good for a 0.005% discount at any still-existing RadioShack, and are accepted as valid ID by the Western State University College of Textiles and Aeronautics. Please believe that your continued contribution to the BMK program is highly valued. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC))

(@OwenBlacker: If you like to join, let me know. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC))

Hahahaha. @Light show: For what it's worth, I came from the Feedback request service; here is my notification to join the conversation. Perhaps you could do with reading less about tag-teams and more about assuming good faith. — OwenBlacker (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Does my membership card come with a free football phone, too? If so, I'm in! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

It does, but remember to specify which type of football! Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, except I wasn't referring to your comments at the RfC, which you made 4 days later. --Light show (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow, Light show is really reaching now. EtherealGate (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Light show, I came to the conclusion that aka's couldn't be 'slipped into' paras 2 or 3, there was no way I could see of them being un-obtrusive. It was a good idea, but didn't work AFAI could see. Please name or ping if my attention is needed, I'm not watching this page.Pincrete (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi all. I am here as a result of my first request from legobot to leave a comment, and after sorting through the lively discussion, I prefer the version BMK developed. The various names are all valid and BMK's version gracefully massages them into the lede, where they should be. I do not find the 4 citations as particularly distracting. This is a article with a scholarly bent, and when I read it from that perspective, the citations are fine. And I believe they are also necessary. I hope this adds to the discussion.Horst59 (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

U.S. code breakers

"U.S. code breakers had already deciphered and translated most of the message hours before he was scheduled to deliver it." - Who in the US had known of this translated message before the attack began? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.60.210.116 (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Not relevant to this article, because the broken code was a diplomatic one, and did not say anything on the order of "We are going to atack Pearl Harbor". The major Japanese military codes had been broken as well, but they were not deciphered and translated in time to warn about the imminent attack. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

"Broken" is a bit overstated. There were some cracks into JN-25 (the "5-num" or "5-digit" cypher), but OP-20G was nothing close to reading it clear yet. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, it's been a while since I read the sources. In any case, the point remains: the diplomatic decrypts did not have the information in them that would have given advance warning of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

You're right, there, & that's the common misconception among the uninitiated. (David Kahn has a great phrase; he called it a "purple herring". ;p ) There would never have been anything in PURPLE: the Navy didn't tell the diplomats what was in train.... And the U.S. didn't have the manpower to read all the lower-grade traffic. And nobody in the U.S. was doing anything resembling actual analysis... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost here. The US or Japanese navy? Which diplomats? What train? Sorry if these are dumb questions. --Trovatore (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding "in train"... It's used here to mean "in process", "on the way" or "coming", such that the sentence could read "the Navy didn't tell the diplomats what was coming." Hope that helps. Binksternet (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I might have figured that out, but my eyes corrected it to "in the train". Oh well.

Anyway, for curiosity's sake, I followed the trail from "Purple" to Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory, where it says that Rufus Bratton, who was some sort of high intelligence official, saw a decrypted message that Japan was breaking off diplomatic relations, and put two and two together, but wasn't able to get the message to the Pacific in time because of atmospheric conditions. So that seems sort of relevant to the article. Maybe it's already there; I haven't checked. (Or if that's an unfounded conspiracy theory, then someone should update the conspiracy-theory article.) --Trovatore (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Even the people who guessed Japan was about to start a war were mostly assuming that Japan would attack toward the South Pacific, to get control of oil and other critical supplies. Hardly anyone was thinking they would attack Pearl Harbor. Binksternet (talk) 07:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• "The US or Japanese navy? Which diplomats? What train? Sorry if these are dumb questions. " Nothing dumb about a question. I take a lot for granted (comes from knowing too much, maybe?), so I presumed it was clear I meant IJN wouldn't have told their diplomats (since we were talking about what was sent in PURPLE {the Japanese diplomatic cypher, to be clear :) }). And "in train" was a bit "off" as a way of phrasing it, I guess. :( (Thx to Bink for clearing up my mess. :) )
• As for Bratton, he was a bright guy, by all accounts, & was doing the nearest thing to analysis anybody in the U.S. intel establishment was doing. He had a famous map, charting all the reports of Japanese activity (IIRC), & he guessed right. Even then (& you'll see this even in "Tora! Tora! Tora!", where Hawaii is implied), he didn't know where. Recall the "war warning" message of 27 Nov: it mentions P.I. (the Philippines, sorry) prominently (where everybody in the U.S. expected the blow to fall, & why MacArthur had the PURPLE machine & codebook & the latest JN-25 codebook, & all the B-17s the AAF could spare). Bratton, & everybody else, expected the Thailand op because there'd been an IJN TF sighted headed south--& nobody, nobody, in DC believed, realized, IJN was capable of mounting two major operations at once... It bit them... Besides, everybody thought Hawaii was safely out of reach. (Bratton, BTW, was comparatively junior in the establishment; the Admirals in charge, like Wilkinson & Turner, were nothing like as sharp as he was, AFAICT... {The Redman brothers deserve a special ring of hell for how they treated Rochefort...} There were a few really bright lights, names you should associate with the major insights: Friedman, Bratton, & Rochefort. {There are others less well-known who do deserve credit, to be sure...})
• As for "couldn't get the message out", you're conflating the message Marshall tried to send 7 Dec, which was buggered by bad weather, & by his unwillingness to use a USN cable. (Huh? Yeah, win the war & get back to focus on the real enemy, the Navy...)
• Any other "dumb" questions? Feel free to ask. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

i dont think this article is completely accurate

Thread started by, and probably continued by, banned editor HarveyCarter (CheckUser blocked)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Because the attack happened without a declaration of war and without explicit warning, the attack on Pearl Harbor was later judged in the Tokyo Trials to be a war crime.[21][22] in some of the books i have read on WWII, it mentions that the Japanese sent the united states a declaration of war also, if i remember correctly, the japanese sent the declaration of war, it was just not processed by the US government fast enough for it to be of any use in the defense of pearl harbor another thing is that evidence shows at least part of the US government was aware of the attack beforehand (links below) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8932197/Pearl-Harbour-memo-shows-US-warned-of-Japanese-attack.html https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/4740-pearl-harbor-hawaii-was-surprised-fdr-was-not — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.10.22.198 (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC) The Japanese did declare war: https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/world-war-ii/resources/japan-declares-war-1941 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:6393:E500:996E:7831:73E0:FD88 (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC) ":The Japanese did declare war" Yeah, the day after the attack (or 2 days later, I don't recall which). TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC) The Japanese declared war as the attack began. Also it was not a surprise attack - Roosevelt had been warned 3 days earlier the Japanese were going to attack Hawaii. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:6393:E500:996E:7831:73E0:FD88 (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC) Garbage on all counts. The actual declaration of war was the next day; Japan broke negotiations after the attack. And FDR (& everybody else in DC) expected an attack everywhere except Hawaii. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC) The Japanese declared war on 7 December but there was a delay in its delivery. As the declassified files show, Roosevelt had been warned about an impending attack in Hawaii on 4 December. In any case war declarations were already a thing of the past - Hitler did not declare war when he invaded the Soviet Union, and the British and Soviets invaded Iran without any declaration of war. (Hentsonlasyl (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)) ♠"The Japanese declared war on 7 December but there was a delay in its delivery." That's a common misconception. The 14-Part message was breaking off negotiations, not declaring war. ♠"Roosevelt had been warned about an impending attack in Hawaii on 4 December." No, he hadn't, because the Japanese diplomats did not know about the attack, so nothing in PURPLE would have revealled it. (Whole books claiming otherwise are wrong.) ♠"declarations were already a thing of the past" Maybe so; not really the issue at hand, is it? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC) "Declarations were already a thing of the past" - Only if you accept that Mussolini and Hitler created an acceptable new paradigm in international relations by invading various countries without declaring war first. I don't, and neither did the world community at the time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC) The British did not declare war when they invaded Iceland in 1940 and Iran in 1941. The Soviets did not declare war when they invaded Poland and Finland in 1939 and the Baltic States in 1940. War declarations were obsolete. In any case the economic embargo was widely viewed as a war declaration by the US, which had already allied with the European colonial powers against Japan when it began giving Lend-Lease to the British Empire in March 1941. Anyway Japan had never declared war on any country before. (Hentsonlasyl (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)) Tell you what, show me a citation from a reliable source (not the fringe view of a single historian) that declarations of war were obsolete, and I'll believe you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Actually, don't bother. The IP hat started this thread is the banned editor HarveyCarter, and I assume you are two, since your views exactly mirror his. I'm hatting this discussion, and I've reported you to a CheckUser. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Japanese declaration of war

Sock of banned editor HarveyCarter
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Empire of Japan declared war on the United States and the British Empire on 7 December 1941, before the US declared war on Japan on the following day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_declaration_of_war_on_the_United_States_and_the_British_Empire (2A00:23C4:638C:D800:8CFE:4B42:297:84FE (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Attack on Pearl Harbor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/s/ships-present-at-pearl-harbor.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090525001721/http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/second_world_war/volume.asp?levelID=67910 to http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/second_world_war/volume.asp?levelID=67910
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/a15/aylwin-iii.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://history.navy.mil/danfs/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714190848/https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/59d3fa3c-3a53-49f6-9f28-6f0358389db8/-Winning--the-Pacific-War--The-Masterful-Strategy-.aspx to https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/59d3fa3c-3a53-49f6-9f28-6f0358389db8/-Winning--the-Pacific-War--The-Masterful-Strategy-.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

USS Nevada

Hello, I have found an error in this article. I noticed that when it mentioned the USS Nevada and it's movements, the article is not quite completely correct. " Lt. Commander F. J. Thomas commanded Nevada in the captain's absence and got her under way until the ship was grounded at 9:10 a.m." This is not correct. F. J. Thomas did command the Nevada for the battle, but when he left Battleship Row, he set course for the mouth of the bay in an attempt to save his ship. My arguments are also reinforced in the USS Nevadas article in the second paragraph, specifically ""Nevada was the only battleship to get underway during the attack, making the ship "the only bright spot in an otherwise dismal and depressing morning" for the United States.[13] Still, it was hit by one torpedo and at least six bombs while steaming away from Battleship Row, forcing the crew to beach the stricken ship."" Thomas had to beach Nevada to keep her from sinking, and by doing so, had blocked the harbor mostly. On the bright side, she could not be sunk. She could be blasted to shrapnel-not likely-and as such she became an Anti-Aircraft Pillbox, that is, if they could have gotten most if not all of the AA and AAA up. In fact, that could have repelled the Japanese aircraft. That is analysis, not summary. I hope to fix this article, because I value detail and analysis over summary. Nicholas McFeters(talk) 14:08, 14 May 2017 (PST)

I see that this talk page comment was your first edit. Welcome. I have relocated this comment to this talk page section which I have added at the bottom of the article; please see WP:TPG. I see that the assertion re LCDR Thomas and 9:10 a.m. which you say is incorrect is supported by a source citation. I found that the cited work and page are previewable in Google Books, so I sharpened the citation in the article; see [2]. Please take a look at WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:DUE before doing any substantial editing of this article. Thanks & Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

You should bear in mind the title of the page is "Attack on Pearl Harbor", not "USS Nevada", & so that much detail about her is off-point. On Nevada's page, maybe; there, the detail in Wtmitchell's source is absent & wouldn't be unwelcome (tho the tone would need fixing). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:23 & 01:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

"damages"

Since there is no "Edit" section for the main article, I'm commenting here in the hope that someone else can make the necessary changes: the word "damages" is incorrectly used twice (in the list of contents and a heading) as if it meant "damage", whereas in fact it always means "financial compensation for damage".213.127.210.95 (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Done (Actually only one instance, since the ToC listing is picked up from the section header.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Attack on Pearl Harbor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111201005141/http://www.pearlharboroahu.com/after.htm to http://www.pearlharboroahu.com/after.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2017

"official warning" should be "official notice" since a warning is not an absolute action but a cautionary action. You do not caution someone that you might declare war then bomb them and Japan declared war when they bombed. 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: Edited for clarity to: "...first formally breaking diplomatic relations..." Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I reverted, but then restored. The issue is two fold:

• The Japanese did not break off diplomatic relations with the US; and
• The Japanese did not declare war on the US before the attack on Pearl Harbor

One can do the first and not do the second. The first does not necessarily lead to the second (i.e. one can be left in a state of no diplomatic relations, but also no war). The second is almost always done simultaneously with the first, as part of the same declaration (i.e. "we find these actions so heinous that we are forced to break off relations and declare that a state of war exists"), but it's the actual failure to declare war before the attack which was the violation of international law, not the failure to break off relations.

My understanding is that even if the multi-part message from Tokyo to Washington had been decoded and presented on time, it did not declare a state of war, it merely broke off relations between the two countries, so that its timely delivery would not have been the declaration of war which was required by international law before the attack. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it's worse than that. Here's the language of the past two paragraphs of the 14-part message:

Thus the earnest hope of the Japanese Government to adjust Japanese-American relations and to preserve and promote the peace of the Pacific through cooperation with the American Government has finally been lost.

The Japanese Government regrets to have to notify hereby the American Government that in view of the attitude of the American Government it cannot but consider that it is impossible to reach an agreement through further negotiations.[3]

So this document not only did not declare war, it did not formally break off relations, and if it had been delivered on time, the Japanese would still have attacked Pearl Harbor without a declaration of war. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken's beaten me to it. It was neither "notice" nor "warning" of impending war. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Japan declared war on the United States on 7 December 1941: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_declaration_of_war_on_the_United_States_and_the_British_Empire (RollingWhitmore (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC))

American casualties

The section 'American casualties and damage' states the U.S. suffered 3,478 military casualties (2,335 killed and 1,143 wounded) and 103 civilian casualties (68 killed and 35 wounded)—"2,008 sailors were killed and 710 others wounded; 218 soldiers and airmen ... were killed and 364 wounded; 109 marines were killed and 69 wounded; and 68 civilians were killed and 35 wounded"—for a total of 3,581 casualties (2,403 killed and 1,178 wounded). The infobox double-counts the civilian casualties by including them in the military section as part of the totals of 2,403 killed and 1,178 wounded. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Fixed in the absence of any comments/objections. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Footnote about time zones

@Beyond My Ken: In this edit, did you intend to remove the footnote from both locations, or just the one? If the latter, then why is it unnecessary in one location but necessary at the other? Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 15:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

It may be that I was confused -- I'll take a look, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about third wave

In the part about a potential 3rd wave (possible third wave), I find the comment:

"At a conference aboard Yamato the following morning, Yamamoto initially supported Nagumo."

This is supported by a reference to Gailey, Harry A. (1997), War in the Pacific: From Pearl Harbor to Tokyo Bay, P.97. But it doesn't add up to me; my understanding of the structure of the IJN at the time would not have included an after-action conference at that level the day after the attack. More, the Yamato wasn't Yamamoto's flagship until Feb. 1942. Can someone who has access to Gailey check this comment, please? Tarl N. (discuss) 02:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

So, are you saying that your understanding of the IJN is superior to the understanding of the IJN of the authors who are cited? Or are you doubting whether the sources cited support the statement made? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm asking for someone with access to the source in question to verify that what the source says is properly reflected in this article. I suspect a misunderstanding, because the comment does not agree with documented history I can find elsewhere. What I can find elsewhere is that Yamamoto was aboard the Nagato in port at the time, not aboard the Yamato. So I suspect the timeline is incorrect in the wikipedia article. Tarl N. (discuss) 14:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying. The book is on Google Books, but without page numbers, and with numerous excisions, so this particular passage doesn't seem to be there. Someone with access to the book will have to check. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I flagged the phrase describing the timing as dubious, pointing to this section for discussion. The Yamato wasn't even commissioned at that time. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, the page numbers are different - probably because I have access to the 1995 edition of Gailey's book, not the 1997 edition which is cited, but this is what he writes:

Later [Nagumo] would rendezvous with Admiral Yamamoto near Midway Island. At a conference on board Yamamoto's flagship the morning following the attack, the Combined Fleet commander decided to support Nagumo's decision to withdraw. In retrospect, what Nagumo and Yamaoto did at this early date was to hasten the defeat of their nation. Had the United States lost its oil tank farms and maintenance facilities, serious operations in the Pacific would have been postponed for more than a year. Yamamoto later stated categorically that he had made a great mistake by not ordering a follow-up strike. {Gailey 1995, p.85)

So the only error in what's in the article I can see is the assumption that "Yamamoto's flagship" was referring to the Yamato. Otherwise, the information is accurate, according to the source cited. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2017

In the right sidebar the date December 7, 1941 is noted as occurring 75 years ago; it actually occurred 76 years ago. 98.210.120.3 (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Done Purging the page updated the number. Gulumeemee (talk) 07:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

UTC versus GMT

The attack is said to have started at "18:18 UTC". But UTC (Coordinated Universal Time) did not exist until many years after WW2. The closest contemporary equivalent was GMT (Greenwich Mean Time). Because of the unpredictability of leap seconds, it is not even possible to concoct a proleptic UTC exactly, although the error would be small at the 1-minute resolution implied. But GMT was in use and was the time scale to which the local Hawaiian time was aligned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.122.49.58 (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Fixed. --Trovatore (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

5"/38 guns used during the attack (proposed correction)

The article states that:

"(none of the Navy's 5"/38s, only a quarter of its machine guns, and only four of 31 Army batteries got in action).[88]"

However, according to the deck log of the USS Helm (DD-388), (which was underway at the time of the attack) they expended 90 rounds of 5"/38 cal.

Roadkill6 (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2018

change 4 battleships sank to 5 battleships sunk and change 4 battleships damaged to 3 battleships damaged. Cam023 (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Not done. I count four; Arizona, Oklahoma, West Virginia, California. Perhaps that book is counting the Nevada, which was beached, but not sunk? Tarl N. (discuss) 03:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

References