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 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
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
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:
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.
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: 18:16, February 6, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
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
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.
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[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[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[reply]
Good or featured article, and recommended semi protection[edit]
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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]