→

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Attack on Pearl Harbor article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 1 months

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Attack on Pearl Harbor is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 23, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 15, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted May 9, 2007 Featured article review Demoted
	Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on December 7, 2004, December 7, 2005, December 7, 2006, December 7, 2007, December 7, 2010, December 7, 2012, December 7, 2015, and December 7, 2017.
Current status: Former featured article

This   level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Shipwrecks Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Shipwreck-related priority open tasks: history watch purge To Do Lady Elizabeth (1879) Clean up typos Currently working on it-----Completed! Improve grammar Add any additions if needed Still adding more information Discuss desired additions -None Hawaii High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Military history: Aviation / Maritime / Asian / Japanese / North America / United States / World War II / Operation Majestic Titan This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Maritime warfare task force Asian military history task force Japanese military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force World War II task force Operation Majestic Titan ( Phase III) United States: History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as High-importance). Japan: History / Military history High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 01:46, April 17, 2024 ( JST, Reiwa 6) ( Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the History task force. This article is supported by the joint Japanese military history task force. WikiProject Japan to do list: history watch purge Peer review: Kako River (Japan) A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Pure Japanese, Vinland Saga (TV series), Japanese destroyer Ume (1944), Mai Fujisawa, Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English. Assess unassessed articles Disaster management Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Pearl Harbor Day occurred 63 years ago today". The Eureka Reporter. December 7, 2004.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened: December 7 to 13, 2014 (17th) December 6 to 12, 2015 (6th) December 4 to 10, 2016 (9th)

There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Important".

I've removed mentions of this attack being classified as a war crime. I couldn't find evidence to support that in one of the sources given, didn't have access to the other, and our Tokyo Trials article implies that it was considered and dropped as a prosecutorial strategy. Does anyone have better sources to support this claim? Ed  ^{[talk]  [majestic titan]} 00:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Just noting that Pacific War contains the same claim with the same sources; not sure if it may have been copied anywhere else. Nikkimaria ( talk) 04:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Nikkimaria. I've removed it for now, at least. Ed  ^{[talk]  [majestic titan]} 17:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Agree with action taken. If the academic consensus was that it was a war crime, then ok (with appropriate discussion of the varying positions on it, and citations to the reliable sources), but absent that, it shouldn't be included. AFAIK, the Tokyo Charter that defined "crimes against peace" was retrospective, and retrospective criminal law is generally frowned upon in the West at least. Although some argue that customary international law makes aggression illegal. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

This is a very infamous event that teachers are teaching our students about, we should make this another good or featured article again, This deserves to be one and it should have semi protection to prevent some vandalism. 120.28.226.197 ( talk) 01:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply

There is a disagreement over whether the link to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel should be included in the "See also" section of not. I contend that because the Hamas attack was a surprise attack, the link is justified and should stay in the article. I am not contending that there are any other significant similarities between the two events other than that, but that the one overlap is sufficient for the link to be included. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 22:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply

If all surprise attacks in history were added, it would be quite a big list. I don't think it should be added, the two events are totally unrelated. Vpab15 ( talk) 13:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Which surprise attacks are you referring to? Beyond My Ken ( talk) 19:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Would you suggest September 11 attacks be added as well? The Battle of Trenton? Or maybe even the beginning of Six Day War? There is no reason to add that as a link in this article's see also section. Ed  ^{[talk]  [OMT]} 05:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I don't see the need for any links that are not representative of the literature. Are observers making the connection? If not, we shouldn't push it. Binksternet ( talk) 06:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Putting it there now has the potential to look political, whether that was intended or not. I'd say, ten years from now, if it still seems to make sense, go ahead and include it. For the moment I'd say no. -- Trovatore ( talk) 19:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

There are no significant similarities between these two; both being surprise attacks isn't significant or unique to only two conflicts. – Vipz ( talk) 03:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

The attack on Pearl Harbor and the murder of 2,403 people is an act of terrorism. The terrorists from Japan had not declared war on America before the attack began. The sneak attack and murder of innocent people was not surpassed until September 11,2001 when the terrorist attack on New York murdered 2,997 people. The terrorists from Japan later declared war after the attack began to start America into WW2. 75.192.97.126 ( talk) 14:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

You're certainly entitled to view it that way. However, the article reflects how the attack is described by multiple mainstream reliable sources. Schazjmd  (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This comment, on its face, seems to be simply arguing about the subject matter rather than discussing how the article should read. Per WP:TPG we're not supposed to do that.

Perhaps unwisely, I'm going to respond anyway. Terrorism, by definition, seeks to achieve its (varying) goals through psychological means, by inducing fear (hence the name) of random violence in its target population.

The Japanese war aims at Pearl Harbor, in contrast, were quite concrete and outside the mental realm. They wanted to degrade America's physical ability to interfere with their operations in the Pacific. In that they were highly, albeit temporarily, successful.

None of that speaks to the moral or legal content of the attack; you can certainly argue that it was a war crime or a crime against morality. But it wasn't "terrorism", a word that is much overused outside its correct area of application. -- Trovatore ( talk) 18:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply