Talk:Mitsuo Fuchida - Knowledge (XXG)

2103:. Mr. Bennett feels that he has a vested financial outcome in how Fuchida is portrayed, and admitted as much to me during a phone call he made to me on 14 March, 2012. He likewise admitted his frustration with how Mr. Fuchida is portrayed on Knowledge (XXG), describing it as a game of "whackamole." The second point I'd raise is that, whether you agree with Tully and my conclusions regarding the veracity of Fuchida's various accounts, the fact that they are disputed is not in question. A dispute clearly exists. Therefore, it is right and proper for such a section to be present under Fuchida's entry in this encyclopedia. Removal is not congruent with either current scholarship on the matter, or Knowledge (XXG)'s intent to provide NPOV on matters relating to its content. So, any attempts to remove it would be unfounded. Likewise, attempts to remove it for reasons of financial interest would not only be unfounded, but also unethical. In light of the attempts to expurgate this section from the record, I intend to monitor this page rather closely from now on. -jon parshall- 2179:

trying to conceal my identity, I wouldn't have linked to a blog with my own name on it or spoken directly to Jon Parshall, and if I were trying to present a falsely positive image of Fuchida, again, I wouldn't have gone to Parshall for that, and I think he knows that. But in the name of fairness and honesty, I believed if anyone could dispute the facts I'd come up with, it would be him, so I contacted him to have him fact-check my article, which he did and which I appreciate. I've made revisions accordingly and will repost at a future date. Regarding a possible conflict of interest, I don't think having spent seven years studying his life is a disqualifier for commenting on this Knowledge (XXG) entry and as far as being motivated by making money, Parshall knows full well that I told him that I was offered a six-figure sum from a studio to sell my script, but I declined the offer, fearing the studio would rewrite it and distort the story. The money doesn't motivate me. I want to tell the story, but I want to do it right.

2427:

Bennett was trying to "substantiate" his deletions by disingenuously citing an anonymous web blog that later turned out to have been authored by himself (which doesn't speak very highly of the transparency of his motives). Now, Bennett has moved to a position wherein he is apparently saying "Hey, I just got published in the NWCR, which makes me a "Real Historian(tm)", so now I can put an entry into this article attacking Parshall's scholarship." Ironically, I personally don't have an issue with this, so long as Bennett does not try removing the entire Historical Controversy section again. That is to say, I judge my level of scholarship to be pretty good, and Mr. Bennett's to be pretty weak, and if he wants to skate on dangerous ice with his article, by all means feel free. I will continue providing additional evidence regarding Fuchida's misstatements, however, and will feel free to cite those as appropriate.

1435:(the two signers from the Foreign Ministry and the IGHQ and three each from the Foreign Ministry, the Army, and the Navy). The names of the eleven are well known. There were no others. We have thousands of still and motion picture images taken by Army Signal Corps photographers, Navy photographers, and civilian correspondents. These images document every phase of the movements of the Japanese representatives from their boarding the USS Landsdowne at Yokohama to their arrival at the USS Missouri. We have the oral history statements of such individuals as Admiral Stuart Murray, who at the time was the captain of the Missouri and who was responsible for coordinating many aspects of the ceremony. We have the deck log of the USS Landsdowne. Nowhere in any of this is there any mention or image of Fuchida. I would be very interested in seeing what proof there might be that he was present at the surrender. 3353:

account. Everything. No fewer than 7 WWII experts have read both articles and reject Parhall's assertions. The "oil tank" charge is equially spurious as others were well-aware of their value as targets at the time and said so. There is no evidence, none at all, that Fuchida ever claimed to be involved in an argument on the bridge of the Akagi on the day of the Pearl Harbor Attack regarding a third wave. Parshall relies on hearsay and movies. The timing of the Japanese Midway counter-attack is ambiguous with even Parshall's book stating much contradictory evidence. Genda's completely independent account affirms Fuchida's testimony. I will tell the story as accurately as possible regardless of the opinions of others, but speculation and conjecture can never be a substitute for well-corroborated hard evidence, the things Parshall continues to lack.

1799:

whatsoever for launching / recovering CAP without having a clear deck. It was a dangerous nightmare to try and manhandle aircraft (in hangars or on decks) while the carriers were manouvering radically at high speed to avoid air attacks. Even once you spotted the planes it still would have taken at least 30 minutes to warm up and launch all of them, during which the task force would be restricted to steering more or less directly into the wind. The Midway strike takeoff ended around 0440; the Japanese began to augment their CAP at 0600. It makes no sense that the Japanese would have spotted an antiship strike with no indication of any ships around, while they were within attack range of a powerful land-based air force -- they would have had to de-spot it immediately to handle CAP issues.

1620:

perhaps THE most authoritative expert on Pearl Harbor, Parshall isn't an expert in any way on the event. Even Fuchida's account of being on the USS Missouri is fully plausible by many standards. No one has refuted them. There is no complete roster of all those aboard the ship that day and Fuchida never claimed or even intimated he was a part of any official boarding party, only as an aid to facilitate transportation. He was already highly trusted by the Allies as he was responsible for disarming and securing all air bases in the area before the ceremonies. It's not pertinent to the article or worth the hassle so I've left out trying to fix that. If you are of a different opinion, that's fine, but a Knowledge (XXG) article isn't the forum to voice an opinion.

3135:

2016 article in Naval History magazine. As such, it is incorrect for Bennett to claim that he "responded at length to these criticisms in the Naval War College Review." In fact, Bennett responded only to *my* criticisms (and inadequately at that). He did not refute Senshi Sosho. Nor Wilmott. Nor Zimm, or Symonds, or Stille. This illustrates, again, the fundamental hopelessness of Martin Bennett's quixotic need to defend all things Fuchida as if they were gospel. Attacking Parshall in isolation will not actually further this cause, because the criticisms of Fuchida's credibility are multi-faceted, and multi-authored. They must be addressed in toto. And Mr. Bennett cannot do that, because his actual scholarship in the field is minimal at best.

3047:

all information and I have all of the backing documents even for the "Letters" section which you mistakenly believe is not credible. In attempting to quash opposing opinions, this page is becoming a propaganda piece, the very reason people don't trust Knowledge (XXG). I have never met Fuchida or any in his family. Being an expert on his life story is hardly a disqualification as already mentioned earlier, any more than an expert on Lincoln should be disqualified from editing a page on Lincoln. Dr. Don Goldstein considers me highly qualified. What is Binksternet's qualifications? I don't have time for this kind of trolling. This deleted content needs to be restored:--

3028:

to say the same thing. You said Parshall made "claims", that he made "errors based on conjecture and theories, not facts." This is mere gainsaying, not a reasoned argument. I reject your source "Fireside Chats and Chasing Rabbits" because it is a letter to the editor written by you. In it, you quote Dan King but this King quote is not published anywhere except in your letter. The same with Don Goldstein who you quote, but this quote is found nowhere but your letter. I cannot accept that this article about Fuchida may be made into your personal cage match against Parshall, with poorly referenced and very negative opinions thrown around. Knowledge (XXG)'s guideline at

2127:

amused that he lists Jon Parshall as a consultant or reviewer for his project, while simultaneously hosting the attack page "Jon Parshall's Whoppers Examined". That blog is no more useful to Knowledge (XXG) with a signature on it than it was before. It's a self-published source from a non-topic-expert person who has financial reasons to make Fuchida appear as an upright and truthful man, otherwise he is a flawed evangelist. Say, Bennett, why not rewrite the script to make Fuchida a flawed evangelist? I would go see that movie but I would pointedly stay home from a rah-rah film celebrating Fuchida's conversion to Christianity as a solution to all his problems.

3156:

Arizona, Oklahoma, West Virginia, California and Nevada were sunk." This is incorrect. Fuchida initially reported two battleships sunk and four battleships with severe damage. Nagumo's preliminary action report by radio estimated four battleships sunk, two battleships with heavy damage, and two battleships with small damage. The Pearl Harbor battle damage assessment which Fuchida presented to the Emperor was as follows (battleships only): Minor damage: Pennsylvania; Moderate damage: Nevada, California; Serious damage: Arizona, Maryland; Sunk: Oklahoma, West Virginia, Tennessee. (source: Prange, Dillon and Goldstein as reported in Zimm).

3021:

websites by individuals, which I believe will be useful to any serious inquirers on the subject. Alan Zim relied on Parshall for the nearly word-for-word repetition of his claims and failed to vet the information, like Fuchida being an adviser on "Tora, Tora, Tora," (false), that Fuchida claimed to be in a heated argument on the bridge in Hawaii (false), etc. His Monday morning quarterback review of the Pearl Harbor Attack shows the weakness of the Japanese style of meticulous planning unable to dynamically respond to the changing circumstances in actual battle, which was a problem for the Japanese at Midway and elsewhere.

2442:

willing to take your position, so where's the controversy? The controversy is supposedly about Fuchida, but now it's come back to haunt Parshall, which is of his own doing. Since Knowledge (XXG) is still in a "Wild West" stage where those who shout the loudest and longest control the content, I expect this section to remain, but I will continue to point to the facts, or lack thereof, regarding the issue. Regarding the strength of my research, Carnes Lord, Professor of Strategic Leadership and Director of the Naval War College Press, called my article "a very cogent and justified critique."

2813:

by yourself perfectly demonstrates your true colors. That said, I don't have a problem with the editorial hold coming off. As long as Mr. Bennett pledges to play nice and not attempt a wholesale deletion of the Historical Controversy section *again,* for a *fifth* time, then I don't really care if he notes his article against me in the NWC Review. I think in the long term, his preference for the state of scholarship as it existed in roughly the 1970s, coupled with his blanket dismissal of Japanese sources he doesn't understand anyway isn't going to hold up particularly well.

2759: 2501:

account. H.P. Willmott and Haruo Tohmatsu discredited Fuchida's fuel tank narrative in their book on Pearl Harbor. Likewise, Alan Zimm's new Pearl Harbor book accuses Fuchida of essentially "cooking the books" on the post-attack battle damage assessment, not to mention calling him a rather poor combat leader. So, while you seem to reserve a special ire for my work, there are many other people who are actively bringing Fuchida's statements under scrutiny. Attacking me isn't going to make your problem go away. Incidentally, Michael Wenger and I were just named

3119:

the "no surprise" version of the attack all along. Thus, "Fuchida was not telling the truth when he claimed that he intended to signal for a surprise attack. From the outset, he wanted to fire two flares, and did so just about as fast as possible."(p. 21 of Zimm 2016) Fuchida subsequently blamed the somewhat ragged tactical execution of the first-wave attack (which saw the Americans putting up much heavier AA fire, much earlier than the Japanese had anticipated) on "that blockhead" Lieutenant Commander Takahashi Kakuichi, the first wave dive bomber commander.

1760:"Fuchida’s account of the spotting of the second attack wave on the flight decks must be given credence. He obviously was familiar with Japanese carrier operations doctrine. Although there are details in his account of the morning’s activities that are questionable (he was in sick bay much of that time and learned of some of them secondhand)..." ... "Parshall and Tully say, essentially, that lied. Fuchida did stretch the truth about some things—such as the 'fateful five minutes'—but this does not mean that he lied about everything." 200: 1910:

is still common in the military. It was more like twenty minutes. He was wrong to have stretched it, but he did. That doesn't make his entire book on Midway unreliable. Far from it. Hundreds of details are spot on. Two or three are disputed. I'm not about protecting Fuchida's reputation against reality, but against those with an ax to grind without facts to back it up. Knowledge (XXG) is about facts, not conjecture. Try to keep it all in perspective. This is a brief summary article.

2836:

Parshall's argument, whereas it's actually the other way around. I'd like to add a sentence beginning "However...", with a reference to Parshall's "BennettRebuttal" page referred to above. Alternatively, the last sentence could be deleted and the previous paragraph extended by something in the nature of: "Martin Bennett has attempted a refutation of these criticisms of Fuchida; Parshall has, however, rebutted his points in detail" (where links to Parshall's BennettRebuttal page.

1227: 2099:

production company, Hungry Kitty) is working on selling a screenplay based on Mr. Fuchida's life and conversion to Christianity. Mr. Bennett has a financial interest in seeing his film project through to completion. This accounts for his rather heated reactions to any assertions that Fuchida's various WWII accounts are in any way flawed, because he feels that it undermines his ability to obtain funding for his movie project. As such, his comments clearly fail

1163: 1289:

onto the ship's superstructure to witness the show. If there were, don't you think they would have been photographed as well? The ship was absolutely crawling with photographers--Fuchida couldn't have helped being photographed if he were there. No, it's quite clear that the Japanese came on as a single group, and from a single ship. They did their thing, and then were immediately escorted off the ship. Fuchida was never there. It's complete nonsense.

595: 564: 2081:, which now has a link to my article in the Naval War College Review. When fact-checked, virtually every claim Parshall makes is false. A friend sent me an e-mail with the response of Don Goldstein, co-author of "Miracle at Midway" who also found my article accurate. Knowledge (XXG) is not a place for speculation and Parshall's piece is not credible, therefore the last section was removed. Read the article thoroughly before future revisions. 1924:. To override people who were extremely familiar with military protocol or who were in Japan during the surrender ceremonies you need facts, not conjecture. If someone had a credible roster of all on board the USS Missouri during the ceremony, that would be conclusive. Would an entry in Knowledge (XXG) be allowed if one man had a theory that someone else invented the light bulb and that Edison was therefore a liar? With no facts? Re: 725: 3338:. The battleship was completely packed with Allied sailors when the Japanese dignitaries arrived, so there was no opportunity for Fuchida (supposing he was allowed aboard the USN vessel) to make his way to some upper deck where he could view the scene. Photos show all of the stairways packed, the upper decks packed, men hanging from guns and radio gear, there being many more American sailors present than there was room for them. 1285:

be present at these ceremonies, in *any* capacity whatsoever? Why? Why him, when the IJN has literally hundreds of Japanese *admirals* to choose from instead? And from the American perspective, why would Admiral Halsey (whose flagship this is) have even the *slightest* interest in giving up precious deck real-estate for some no-name guy like Fuchida? It doesn't make any sense. It simply doesn't pass the sniff test.

3214:

2009. I'm not the one edit-warring here. You are. And you are also the one that seems to be having credibility problems with the other Knowledge (XXG) editors, which I don't find all that surprising. I know you'd probably prefer to characterize this in terms of some sort of grand conspiracy against you; it's not. You have an inherent conflict of interest in the goal of your edits: others are not blind to that.

233: 776: 707: 1195: 470: 2027:. When fact-checked, virtually every claim Parshall makes is false. A friend sent me an e-mail with this and showed me the response of Don Goldstein, co-author of "Miracle at Midway" who also found the new article accurate. Knowledge (XXG) is not a place for speculation and Parshall's piece is not credible, therefore the last section was removed. Read the article thoroughly before future revisions. 446: 1147: 3069:

sources of criticisms regarding Fuchida. In so doing, I hoped to illustrate a couple points. First, I am hardly Fuchida's only critic. I wasn't even the first one: that was the Midway volume of the Japanese official war history series ("Senshi Sosho"), which was published in Japan in 1971. Second, the majority of the criticism leveled against Fuchida in the Western historical literature is aimed

191: 1179: 1016: 323: 3181:

King, also considers Parshall’s arguments faulty and rejects Parshall’s claims stating that, “Jon Parshall simply isn’t a reliable source of information,” and Dr. Don Goldstein, professor and author of many acclaimed Pacific War books likewise rejects Parshall’s conjecture. Regarding “Shattered Sword,” Goldstein states that Parshall, “makes many claims in his introduction that are not true.”

2893: 2674: 1131: 257: 418: 1585:

print the book has proven to be overwhelmingly accurate by those other than Fuchida (see introductions). Parshall's theories prove interesting, but were not conclusive. Far from discrediting Fuchida, Parshall's conclusions regarding the "fateful five minutes" at Midway are rejected by perhaps a more astute researcher and writer, Dallas Woodbury Isom, author of "Midway Inquest."

605: 1088: 1077: 1066: 395: 384: 373: 267: 2164:. The bottom line is that I wasn't really interested in getting into a pissing match regarding this whole thing. I'm actually not all that interested in Fuchida's post-war career, as it pertains not at all to my research interests. But I do take offense at having "inconvenient" history deleted or shoveled under the rug for the sake of getting a movie script sold. 3186:

Binksternet is mistaken when he considers an article in the "Letters" section of the NWCR to be unvetted like a "Dear Abbey" letter. Both Parshall's and my rebuttal articles could have appeared in any number of sections in the NWCR and are vetted and appropriately edited for source material and accuracy. I had to demonstrate written references for all quotes.

2956:

Goldstein are upstanding and truthful men in comparison. There are many more details in Bennett's argument, but I do not wish to elaborate on them as the essence of Bennett's stance is one of authority; whose version is more probably correct. Another reason for not arguing Bennett's details is that Bennett would in that case get too much weight, violating

532: 974: 2798:. I simply annotated them for ease of use by Western readers. So, the question becomes, do you allow someone to cite a record from the U.S. National Archives? Because if you do, then Japanese records from their national archives are similarly credible; they're just in a different language, is all. Frankly, from my perspective, the inclusion of 934: 1055: 1044: 480: 362: 351: 3653:

legitimate relevant work by the author is no violation of COI. Deleting the reference amounts to harassment, forcing me to get someone else to do it. I asked you to relist it personally, but you have declined. It is the most simple and logical way for a book to be listed. Please refrain from deleting legitimate works.

3084:

hardly the the first, nor the only author to have pointed out Fuchida's misstatements. More have since arisen, and the process likely will continue as his statements continue to be examined. Any attempt to defend Fuchida's reputation, therefore, has to deal with the corpus of criticism, and its multitude of sources,

2279:

arguments. Casual Knowledge (XXG) readers need to be able understand what the general contentions are on both sides. Those who want to dig deeper can read the articles. Parshall's statements could be summarized simply that he doesn't trust some of Fuchida's accounts, but that's too slim. Leave it alone, please.

3717:

as well as other good pix, so a worthy reference to replace #22. Plus, the map was big: "The map is incredibly accurate in terms of the positions of the 60 ships and Lt Cmdr Fushida was about 80 per cent correct in his results... He gave the document, that measures 2ft 7in by 23ins, to the historian

3672:

So to examine the actual book: Your book is a fictionalized novel about Fuchida, so it cannot serve as a reference. The reader will not be able to tell the difference between the things Fuchida really did, and the things you have fictionalized. Furthermore, the book is not in libraries, so the reader

3668:

You have a conflict of interest because this is your new book. That means you cannot insist that the book be put into the article. You have put it in twice and you have been reverted twice. This is one more time than you should have been allowed. Your next action must be to work toward consensus here

2998:

states that the book is the new definitive study of the Battle of Midway. The book won the distinguished John Lyman prize for U.S. Naval History in 2005. Additionally, many well known naval historians, for example, Norman Polmar, have praised the book. Finally, Parshall is not alone in his assessment

1909:

so they have to go. If you want to list all the people, then footnote it. All I see is Parshall ... I, too, have questioned a couple of Fuchida's statements, but over time have found most corroborated with other facts. The "fateful five minutes" was standard CYA (saving face in Japanese culture) that

1519:

and Fuchida. Mr. Prange was a history professor and the chief historian of General Douglas MacArthur's staff and extremely knowledgeable about the Pacific War. The book was edited by Dr. Donald Goldstein, former professor of the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of

1409:

I was quite correct in supposing that Mr. Bennett's publication in the NWCR would be a springboard for more attempts to expurgate the record on Fuchida's misstatements here on Knowledge (XXG). My formal reply to his NWCR article will be published in the next issue. In the meantime, I have published

3538:

Here's the current wording: "Writer T. Martin Bennett rebutted Parshall's arguments in two articles in the Naval War College Review. He believes Parshall has no case for any of his charges." Thargor's suggested wording is pretty good, here is a tweeked version: "T. Martin Bennett, whose research on

3333:

battleship. Fuchida's launch was not used—the US Navy insisted on using its own vessel to convey the Japanese dignitaries. The only source for Fuchida's assertion that he was at the surrender ceremony is Fuchida himself... There are no photographs, no personal stories, no official accounts, no lists

3155:

As written the article states, "Fuchida remained over the target in order to assess damage and to observe the second wave attack. He returned to his carrier after the second wave successfully completed its mission. With great pride, he announced that the U.S. battleship fleet had been destroyed; USS

3134:

As expected, Martin Bennett tried reverting previous changes to this article under the veneer of his somehow having created a blanket refutation when he penned his 2013 NWC article. However, that one article addressed none of the criticisms Alan Zimm leveled in both his 2011 book, or his more recent

3046:

To all readers of the conflict section, be advised that I, T Martin Bennett, have nothing to do with the opinion attributed to me by others. What I previously wrote was an excerpt and summmary of what was reviewed and vetted in the Naval War College Review by highly qualified experts. They fully vet

2812:

Again, my fundamental complaints about Mr. Bennett's behavior, which have been encapsulated nicely by Binksternet are: 1) You're not allowed to cleanse history to suit your need to sell a screenplay, and 2) citing an anonymous web blog in those efforts that then later turns out to have been authored

2485:

Jon, unfortunately, most of these experts don't want mud slung at them, so I have to respect their privacy. Lord Carnes would know several. You know several and should have asked for their peer review before you went with your theories. And no, I won't be chasing any more of Alice's rabbits down new

2259:

In your article surprisingly published by usnwc.edu (must have been a slow month) you do not provide much argument beyond "everybody else is more established". The emptiness of the argument is evident by your difficulty in summarizing it. You used wordiness to substitute for depth, which prompted me

2141:

Mr. Bennett is right to list me as a reviewer for his manuscript--he hired me several years ago to do just that, and I pointed out a number of areas where I felt he should be wary of Fuchida's statements. As a result of that review, and having become aware of Fuchida's statements regarding being on

1916:

includes a quote from someone who supposedly knew "Reverend" Fuchida, a title he never had (not ordained) and with which he was never called. The anecdote is obviously fake, making Parshall the "whopper" teller. Not good enough for Knowledge (XXG). Again, Dr. Prange, who personally knew both General

1434:

Among other things, the issue of who would be allowed from the Japanese side to attend the surrender was discussed in "Requirements of the Supreme Commander presented to the Japanese Representatives at Manila, P.I. dated 19 August 45." The Japanese were permitted to bring a total of eleven personnel

1284:

2) Pretty clearly, the *only* Japanese "invited" to this party were the eleven individuals who were required to be there. And from the faces of the Japanese delegation, they all look like they've just eaten toads. Ask yourself the following questions: why would a mid-level staff officer like Fuchida

3083:

s strike aircraft were still in the hangars. In its totality, this section revision should also illustrate that Mr. Bennett's attempts to attack my scholarship are 1) misguided, and 2) bound to be ultimately fruitless. Trying to defend Fuchida's reputation is somewhat akin to fighting a hydra. I am

3068:

Today I made a substantial revision to the Historical Controversy section. My intent was to re-frame the argument away from being between myself and Martin Bennett, and instead to expand the source material cited, and then create a more accurate, comprehensive, and roughly chronological view of the

3027:

Bennett, your conflict of interest prevents you from making controversial edits to the article. I have mostly reverted your changes because a) you are not as respected a source as Parshall and therefore cannot be given such a broad platform for your views, and b) your version was just a wordier way

2470:

Mr. Bennett, I'd be fascinated to know who, exactly, these "seven highly credentialed and qualified experts" are; I find it interesting that they apparently don't care to be named. Donald Goldstein is a given, of course, but who are the other six? Likewise, I do hope you will eventually venture a

2379:

Your comments were already dumbed-down, with a thesaurus apparently used to help you repeat the same complaint but with different words. I am shooting for spare, trim English. I don't like repetition as it does not help the reader. I am ignoring your query about my qualifications. I am not ignoring

2278:

No surprise that the NWCR published the research as both Parshall's and my article were submitted to no fewer than seven high-level experts, none of whom were willing to take Parshall's position. None. Parshall's three arguments are summarized in this section, plus he quotes himself. I summarize my

2178:

This has gotten much more complicated than it needs to be. To avoid possible harassment I've always used Theleopard and in this case had hoped the conversation would focus on facts. Unfortunately, it has devolved into more of a personal dispute, which I had hoped it wouldn't. If I was serious about

2126:

at the blog, pointing to guy listed as "heynotsofast" at Gravatar. At the Gravatar link, Bennett's Fuchida film project is "now under development". So, yes, it looks like Martin Bennett, whether or not he contributes here as Theleopard, is financially tied to the story of Mitsuo Fuchida. I'm grimly

1844:

The essence of Fuchida's account was that the IJN was preparing to launch an attack but that the Americans hit them first, which is totally true. Did he exaggerate? Probably. If a baseball runner tries to steal second and is tagged out at 15 feet and he tells people it seemed more like 10 feet, who

1288:

This is further supported by the description of the ceremony, which was (not surprisingly) very well documented. The Japanese party came on board for half an hour. There is no mention whatsoever of any group of supernumerary Japanese who were allowed to come aboard beforehand and were then escorted

3523:

criticising Parshall's research and conclusions; believing them to be based on conjecture and speculation." People with better knowledge of the claim can word it more appropriately, but to try and say he's "not known for his writing" reads more as an attempt to diminish a voice that is considered

3279:

Neither Parshall's rebuttal nor mine was a "letter to the editor" as the U.S. Naval War College Review has no "Letters to the Editor" section. The NWCR is a highly academic journal and not easy to be published in. They accepted Parshall's first article, then my response. It is their policy to then

3264:

If you're going to say that Goldstein and King support your view, you're going to need better sources. "Fireside Chats and Chasing Rabbits" is not a peer-reviewed article, it's a letter to the editor. Have you got any material written by Goldstein and King? Journal articles, books, or the like? --

3213:

I would like to note that I haven't tried to suppress anything, Mr. Bennett. A simple perusal of the edit history of the article will demonstrate that it is *you* that has something of a penchant for deleting comments that you don't like, not me. I haven't touched the main article since January,

3180:

T. Martin Bennett, author and screenwriter who spent eight years researching Fuchida's life, rejects Parshall's claims and explains in the Naval War College Review that Parshall's errors are based on conjecture and theories, not facts.. Pacific War expert and author of "The Last Zero Fighter," Dan

3118:

Alan Zimm published this month a new article in Naval History magazine, which digs into the supposed signal flare mishandling during the minutes immediately prior to the attack. In his article, Zimm states that there actually was no mishandling of the flares at all--that Fuchida intended to signal

2364:

Parshall's comments are as he desires with his case summarized. You have continued to dumb down my comments, although you haven't shown any qualifications for doing so. Parshall's spent years researching the Pacific War and Midway, I've spent years researching Fuchida and the Pacific War. What are

2008:

We are getting closer to agreement here but I do not agree that Fuchida's account of the surrender ceremony should not be mentioned, since it is actually Parshall's most damning example of a Fuchida "whopper." It is the best documented of the three examples of unsupportable statements, and the one

1915:

That said, I know there is an open question regarding the "Third wave" so that's fine to leave in. The five minute deal has factual evidence to make a case, so I left that as well. Fuchida not being on the USS Missouri is pure speculation. Parshall's "whopper" diatribe is deep with speculation and

1776:

Hmmm, for some strange reason you forgot to complete Isom's quote. Right after "...secondhand)" it reads, "... the fact that he assumed that the second-wave planes were raised to the flight deck immediately after the Midway strike force departed indicates that such an operation would not have been

1619:

None of the three so-called "whoppers" Parshall theorizes about (is TitaniumCarbide really Parshall or Tully?) have ever been disproved. None. All of them are deemed viable by the three authors/editors of "God's Samurai." Goldstein accepts Fuchida's testimony regarding the "third attack" and he is

1280:

1) This was a standing-room only party, and all the guests were either American crewman of the Missouri (on the turrets and in the superstructure), or else very important representatives from the Allied nations (on the quarterdeck). I see *no* Japanese uniforms in *any* of those photos--just white

3652:

are quite clear and have to do with editorial, not with the simple addition of reference material into the bibliography. My published work, "Wounded Tiger," is endorsed by many including one of the premier historians in the world on Mitsuo Fuchida and Pearl Harbor, Dr. Donald Goldstein. Listing a

3495:

Should we say T. Martin Bennett is a writer? He is not known for his writing. Should we say he's a screenwriter? Such a calling is relevant to this biography but difficult attach to Bennett unless he has already seen some success as a screenwriter. Should we call him an entrepreneur or successful

3175:

Due to some editors bent on a lopsided "Controversy" section, I am posting here for those interested in balance to read my contributions that are being constantly deleted. I DO NOT endorse statements on the Fuchda page attributed to me and cannot correct the error without engaging in an edit war.

2955:

featuring the story of Fuchida's life. Parshall is widely cited for his military histories. Bennett's paper turns on the argument that the reliability of four people must be compared: Parshall, Fuchida, Prange and Goldstein. Bennett says Parshall researched poorly, and he says Fuchida, Prange and

2159:

published on his blog. Suffice to say that I disagree with Mr. Bennett's blog post, and feel much of it to be based on poor usage of the available Japanese source material, as well as poor historiographical technique. It also contains rather personal (and clumsy) ad hominem attacks on me and my

1584:

Knowledge (XXG) articles aren't appropriate opinion forums. Fuchida's book on Midway was co-authored by Masatake Okumiya (another BSer?) with introductions by four other respected American and Japanese experts (also BSers?) who affirmed the book passing the test of time. After decades of being in

1457:

This "biography" of Fuchida is a Hagiography ! This is not history, in any sense. To take acritically the words of the late biographed don’t serves the purposes of Knowledge (XXG). Fuchida is today regarded by serious historians in West and in Japan as a falsifier of events. So, it’s necessary to

3518:

We should insert the information most relevant to his relationship to this topic. If we're going to include his information (I was approached by Bennett and I need to review the data before I offer any opinion on the content, assuming I offer any opinion at all), my personal suggestion would be

3352:

At first I accepted Parshall's USS Missouri charge without investigating, but after hearing everything, Parshall has to date produced not one piece of evidence contradicting Fuchida's consistent description of his experience. Nothing. Every piece of information that I find corroborates Fuchida's

3328:

The latter two letters to the editor are not worthy of our attention in this biography of Fuchida. They are instead the product of the Bennett/Parshall dispute: Bennett's dissatisfaction with Parshall's dismissal of Fuchida's assertion that he was present at the Japanese surrender, this presence

3078:

the most comprehensive, wide-ranging, and damaging in its criticisms of Fuchida's misstatements regarding that battle. Third, with respect to Midway, it is important to note that Dallas Isom independently came to the same conclusion that Anthony Tully and I did regarding the (un)readiness of the

3020:

Thanks for your attempts at summarizing my views, but it wasn't quite accurate. I've clarified my position with new references and also added links below the main article to the four relevant articles in the NWCR, which have been reviewed and critically screened by war historians, unlike managed

2835:

Having read Parshall's original Woppers article, Bennet's refutation, Parshall's reply on his website and his "A further trip to the drive thru" (also on his website), my concern is that a reader of the Knowledge (XXG) article will be left with the mistaken impression that Bennett has demolished

2441:

Hi Jon. Yes, the main Knowledge (XXG) pages aren't for op-ed pieces as I've always maintained and Fuchida's page should be no exception. As stated above in this talk section, my article (and yours) were submitted to no fewer than seven highly credentialed and qualifited experts, none of whom was

2328:

There is no conflict of interest any more than Parshall's reference to his own work. He described it as he saw fit, I've described my own work accurately. You seem to have a problem with bonafide facts as earlier this year on this talk page you said, "Find me someone who cuts Parshall down in an

3284:

each from the authors. The titles of the rebuttal articles and their location in the journal was up to the editor of the journal, not the authors. All NWCR articles are scrutinized, edited, fact-checked and revised before being accepted (if at all) for publication. The references to quotes from

2500:

Sadly, Mr. Bennett, that's not how the game is played. You've anointed yourself Fuchida's champion: he's all yours, and all his statements. You've staked out that territory; you may now defend it in its entirety. Also, please note that I'm hardly the only historian that has called Fuchida to

2301:

In this case you have a conflict of interest, per Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines. You are the author of the article that is being discussed. You are not eligible to revert to your preferred version simply because you believe it to be more complete. Instead, you must use this talk page to gather a

1559:

At the time they wrote, Prange and Goldstein believed the things that Fuchida said. Since then, Parshall and Tully conclusively discredited Fuchida. Their work was published in a major and well-received book and in a paper for the US Naval War College Review, which were cited in the section you

3385:

is simply, "... 'the person who originated or gave existence to anything' and whose authorship determines responsibility for what was created. Narrowly defined, an author is the originator of any written work.'" My screenplay and book are both copyrighted and have been read by hundreds. I have

2426:

Martin Bennett's original intent in his edits, back in December 2011, was to completely delete any mention of there being a controversy around Fuchida's wartime statements. The edit history on the article clearly shows this. Binksternet correctly noted that 1) that wasn't cricket, and 2) that

1708:

by telling the reader which authors hold which opinions. We do not have to sort through the opinions to determine which ones are right (whatever that is), we just tell the reader all of the prominent opinions that have been published. Parshall and Tully are prominent. So is Mark R. Peattie and

3360:, he is fund-raising money to self-publish a historical novel about Fuchida. I'm not sure any more that his opinion warrants inclusion in the encyclopedia at all, as the only material he has published on this topic is the one article and one rebuttal piece in the Naval War College Review. -- 2098:

I'm just going to chime in here, since it's my work, and that of Anthony Tully, that's caused this interchange. First off, I'm not TitaniumCarbide. I sign all my posts jparshall. There are two points I'd like to raise. First, Theleopard, I'm fairly sure, is Martin Bennett, who (under his

1798:

For Gods sake. Parshall and Tully have a detailed tabular record of all of the Mobile Force's CAP launching and landing activities. They fully document that it took the Japanese carriers at least 30 minutes to spot or de-spot a strike force on deck, and that they had no doctrine or equipment

3185:

Next is the reference to the four articles that appeared in the U.S. Naval War College review that are also being cut off by Parshall and others, even though two of the articles were penned by Parshall himself. These are highly academic articles completely worthy of a Knowledge (XXG) entry.

1458:

point legitimate sources, lest this text will fall in simple self-glorification of the late Mitsuo Fuchida. Worse : the conversion “Damascus Road” is cited as history (remember : Knowledge (XXG) is an Encyclopedia !), but is only the romanticized version from Fuchida. (from carlos.cleto,

2243:

To Binksternet re: 12/4/12 addition to "controversy" - Parshall has 145 words and I edited my response to a concise 45. No need to chop further. There's much, much more I could have said but left it out. Parshall's section is much longer than it needs to be, but I'm trying to be

3003:. It has been thirty one years since Prange's "Miracle at Midway" was published. I think Prange would be the first to admit that in that length of time new information and new approaches are bound to appear which change and challenge our previous assessments of the battle. 3557:

That's a good start. However, is "based on conjecture and speculation" an accurate assesment of Bennett's rebuttal? I think the less run-on sentence "Writer T. Martin Bennett, whose research on Fuchida led to a screenplay on Fuchida's life, wrote a rebuttal published in

2607:

We need to clarify the statement. Does it mean, "last surviving officer who participated in the attack", ie, "who flew in the attack", or "last surviving officer who participated in any aspect of the attack, including planning"? Genda did not fly on the mission. Best

1805:

that Nagumo had a second-strike force on deck at any time between the launch of the Midway strike and the 1020 dive-bombing attack that destroyed 3 out of 4 Japanese carriers. Isom's lawyerly rationalization is completely outweighed by the detailed technical evidence in

204: 2571:

I read in a day-by-day Advent pamphlet today that at the end of the war, Fuchida realized he was the last surviving officer of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Are there any other sources that corroborate this? It would be worth including in the article, if it were true.

2146:

for the surrender ceremony, I then published my article in the Naval War College Review. It would appear that that aggravated Mr. Bennett. I hadn't heard from him until 14 March, 2012 (a day after Theleopard deleted the Disputed section in Fuchida's article for the

3329:

serving Bennett as a critical scene in his screenplay. Bennett does not wish to rewrite the screenplay to put Fuchida in proper place at some distance to the surrender ceremony, serving as commander of a launch which he thought would take the surrender party to the

2950:

The reason I offer for this request is that Bennett is given far too much weight with regard to Parshall, who is the greater military authority. Bennett is a successful small businessman/entrepreneur who has turned to writing film scripts, especially one called

2929:, Martin Bennett contends that Parshall’s article against Fuchida is riddled with errors, is based primarily on conjecture and speculation, and contains misplaced confidence in unreliable sources, and that his charges are groundless and without credibility. 1268:

The reasons I placed caveats around Fuchida's statement that he attended the surrender ceremony on board U.S.S. Missouri are detailed below. Frankly, this is such a whopper I can't understand why someone else hasn't trashed it years ago. Please go here:

1637:

To cast a pall over a man's entire career based on a few unresolved controversies while ignoring the hundreds of pieces of totally accurate and reliable information he sourced is extremely unfair. Dead people can't respond, so others have to do it for

3576:

My assumption, in putting it in there, was that it was an accurate assessment based on previous edits and discussion. Simply saying the research was criticized doesn't really give much relevant information, as all research is criticized by someone.

2626:

Zenji Abe, who was a lieutenant during the attack (a dive-bomber pilot), didn't die until April, 2007. I met him briefly at the 65th Pearl Harbor symposium in 2006. I do not know if Abe was the last Pearl Harbor aviation officer still surviving,

2211:

This has gotten much more complicated than it needs to be. To avoid possible harassment I've always used the name Theleopard as per Knowledge (XXG) recommendations. I've made revisions accordingly; it is live now at the Naval War College Review

1845:

really cares? Does this make him a bald-faced liar? If so, everyone is a liar. The Japanese tried but didn't make it. No one in the general public cares a rat's ass about this kind of military minutia, especially in a brief summary article.

2394:

Even without qualifications to participate on this page, you are free to have all the opinions you want, but not to insert them in the article or try to shape it to your own liking, which you've been doing and which is a direct violation of

1322:. As far as the event being "very well documented," Parshall is quite wrong on this as well. See the article. This is simply an error on Parshall's part. All said, no need to restore the entry as it wasn't a huge event in Fuchida's life. 2765:

There needs to be more time left for discussion so that we can see whether this edit has consensus or not. This could be controversial, as these are primary sources and the recent edit warring was about the Parshall/Bennet controversy. —

1672:

I would be happy to have this go through dispute resolution or mediation to ensure this article meets Knowledge (XXG)'s standards for NPOV, Verifiability, and Reliable Sources. Referring to the opinions in another source do not qualify.

1555:

Excuse me. Prange and Goldstein's personal qualifications are not in dispute. (And I wonder why you wave around their credentials like a flag while blithely discounting Parshall and Tully's work as " opinion piece," " properly sourced,"

1186: 956: 733: 578: 2793:

might be interpreted as containing original research, in that it utilizes the Japanese air group records. Those records are freely available from the Japan Center for Asian Historical Records from the National Archives of Japan at

3400:

Diannaa, you have a good point about whether Bennett's opinion merits a mention here in the Fuchida bio. Even though Bennett is not known as a writer or a filmmaker, Parshall responded to his criticism. That counts for something.

1170: 952: 1560:

removed. To my knowledge no-one has since risen to defend Fuchida (how could they, the evidence against him is overwhelming, especially in his surrender ceremony whopper where his lies can be exposed with forensic thoroughness.)

1317:

See entry at end of "Disputed" section. Parshall is mistaken in many ways and did very poor research to reach his conclusions. Someone fact-checked his "whopper speech" and showed it to be highly unprofessional and simply wrong

1777:

considered unusual, given the circumstances of that morning. I conclude that it was done." Looks like TitaniumCarbide could be a modern-day journalist by editing to present the exact opposite meaning of the truth. Nice work.

1395:. There no doubt that Fuchida was, in fact, very much present on the USS Missouri that day, but it isn't neccessary to include it in this brief overview article. Hopefully this further research will bring light to the subject. 1954:

You're calling Parshall the whopper teller? That's not how it works. Parshall's viewpoint has gained wide notice, so we reproduce it here. You have cut Parshall's part of the article by half. I don't agree with that.

1138: 944: 3073:

at Midway, but rather at Pearl Harbor. I am only one of at least five different historians to have independently called into question Fuchida's statements regarding Pearl Harbor. By any measure, Alan Zimm's work is

153: 1709:

others. This cannot be the article that says all previous scholarship has been rendered obsolete by Isom. In fact, Tully responds to the Isom book by pointing out that the Midway battle still could not be won

3625:

were made with the intention of improving the flow of the writing. If any of them resulted in a change in meaning, then the originals can simply be copied and pasted back in with no damage done. Sincerely,

1202: 960: 2802:

as a citation in the Knowledge (XXG) article isn't vital: if a reader goes to my primary rebuttal article (which *is* both germane and citation-worthy), they're going to run across the follow-on article

427: 243: 3796: 1928:, you seem to be on a mission to totally discredit Fuchida far beyond reason. He was a flawed man, like all men, but for the most part his overall record has proven amazingly accurate and reliable. 1377:. Find me someone who cuts Parshall down in an equally respected publication and you'll have a point. Without backing from a reliable source, your assertions are useless for improving the article. 2789:

contains no original research, and is worth citing. That article simply points out Bennett's errors in technique and interpretation, using the existing published source materials on the battle.

1704:, we should describe all notable scholarship on Fuchida's life, including the very negative aspect shown by Parshall and Tully, and any other well respected opinion, too. We should always follow 2721:

simply as "Parshall's reply, however, makes detailed reference to IJN logbooks, which recorded carrier operations as they occurred, showing that they are inconsistent with Fuchida's account "

1391:

I submitted my full article to the Naval War College Review who submitted it to several "highly credentialed experts" and approved it for publication with minor edits. You can read it here:

2151:

time--what interesting timing), during which conversation Mr. Bennett expressed his frustrations regarding Knowledge (XXG), and advised me that he wanted my feedback on a blog post he was

3714: 3079:

Japanese counterstrike before the American dive-bomber attack. This was re-confirmed by the eminent naval historian Craig Symond noting in his 2013 book that at the time of the attack,

2260:

to reduce it to the kernel. I repeat my actions because we do not use a quantity of empty words to try and artificially balance a dispute. Rather, we use specific arguments to refute.

4035: 4040: 3940: 3103:

I agree with the changes you made. The challenges to Fuchida's veracity are strong, and mounting. It's a reactionary position to defend his words when those words are unsupported.

3980: 546: 4025: 4055: 1029: 986: 863: 4030: 3732:

That photo coincidentally makes a circle back to the similar Pearl Harbor photograph included at bottom of the Daily Mail article, both apparently taken very close together.

715: 574: 3975: 2456:

In that "cogent" comment did he also include your wholly inadequate photographic "evidence" in support of Fuchida being aboard the surrender battleship? That was painful.

2343:

Re: COI, "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies, particularly WP:SELFPUB."

2471:

response to the latest three Fuchida misstatements that I posted on my web site, and preferably something more concrete than "the Japanese unit records can't be trusted."

3955: 3776: 147: 3828: 3824: 3810: 3960: 2505:

magazine's Authors of the Year for our 2012 article on Pearl Harbor. That was kind of a nice Christmas present, particularly after having to deal with this silliness.

3797:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131010061111/http://usnwc.edu/getattachment/87757f16-a19f-45d2-a606-057a6999d699/Download-the-entire-issue-in-pdf-for-your-e-reader.aspx

2650:

template to ask an administrator to make an edit if it is supported by consensus. You may also request that this page be unprotected once consensus has been reached.

1563:

There is absolutely nothing NPOV about removing well-documented criticisms of Fuchida's statements. The guy bullshitted, a lot. He got caught. His bio should say so.

1015: 336: 322: 2329:

equally respected publication and you'll have a point," but now you want to dumb down any balance of opinion on this issue. I may flesh out my section later tonight.

4015: 4000: 3985: 1757:

I don't see a need to reply to most of what Theleopard has said, but Isom is worth mentioning. Here is what he has to say specifically about Fuchida's credibility:

687: 3800: 3786: 3479: 3468: 3457: 3258: 3252: 3240: 871: 4020: 4010: 2732:

as "Parshall also discusses other incidents where Fuchida is allegedly unreliable, leading to his being widely distrusted as a source by historians of the IJN ."

3930: 3945: 3285:

Parshall and myself in the material in the NWCR were vetted by no fewer than three academic historians, thereby giving it full peer review before publication.--

3325:

I have looked extensively for the Golstein and King writings that Bennett quotes, but they do not exist. It appears that he is quoting personal correspondence.

2590:

survived the end of the war. However, I'm curious now as to how many Japanese Pearl Harbor vets from the officer corps actually made it to the end of the war.

792: 79: 3299:

Have you got any material written by Goldstein and King that support your claim? Journal articles, books, or the like? We can't include it unless you do. --

2646:

This page has been protected but note this protection is not an endorsement of the current version. Please discuss any changes on this page; you may use the

1370: 3925: 3995: 3935: 1369:

What a rotten jab at Parshall. His research is that of a historian, a reliable source per Knowledge (XXG). Parshall describes his research at the article,

1154: 948: 541: 456: 4045: 3901: 909: 784: 498: 4050: 3715:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2541293/Chilling-diagram-damage-Pearl-Harbor-drawn-Lieutenant-Commander-led-mission-sells-427-000-auction.html

981: 939: 697: 3257:

4. “In My View” section, “Fireside Chats and Chasing Rabbits,” Martin Bennett, 2013, Summer, Naval War College Review, Vol. 66, No.3, pp. 155-157.

2999:

of Fuchida. Retired U.S. naval officer, Ph.D., and expert on naval operational analysis, Alan D. Zimm demolishes Fuchida's record in his 2011 book,

2365:

your qualifications to shape the discussion to your own liking? I seek a honest balance of opinion. You want a one-sided picture, which is not fair.

1765:

So Isom's position is "sure he confabulated or made up details, and okay maybe he did lie, but SOMETIMES he told the truth." A ringing endorsement!

3239:

1. “Reflecting on Fuchida, or ‘A Tale of Three Whoppers,’” Jonathan Parshall, 2010, Spring, Naval War College Review, Vol. 63, No.2, pp. 127-138.

822: 815: 85: 3990: 3970: 1700:

Parshall and Tully's opinions are prominent and notable. The article absolutely must include their criticism and accusations against Fuchida. Per

3519:

something along the lines of "T. Martin Bennett, whose research on Fuchida lead to a screenplay on Fuchida's life, wrote a rebuttal published in

502: 2934:

Screenwriter Martin Bennett contends that Parshall is mistaken about Fuchida because Fuchida, Prange and Goldstein should be trusted as sources.

3965: 3950: 44: 3738: 3356:

My attempt to research on writer T Martin Bennett online has drawn a blank. There's no third-party coverage of this author, and according to

990: 888: 842: 829: 2077:

I showed that Parshall's claims were unfounded in my highly researched and footnoted article entitled "Jon Parshall's Whoppers Examined" -

1784: 1468: 30: 497:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge (XXG)'s articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 4005: 3920: 3251:

3. “In My View” section, “Fuchida’s Whoppers,” Jonathan Parshall, 2013, Spring, Naval War College Review, Vol. 66, No.2, pp. 136-138.

2023:

Parshall's claims were shown to be unfounded by a highly researched and footnoted article entitled "Jon Parshall's Whoppers Examined" -

3780: 3721:

I came to wikipedia after seeing a photograph captioned "the first plane drops the first bomb on pearl harbor" attributed to Fuchida:

2862:

I'm with Anslem; the article as currently written gives the extremely misleading impression that Bennett won the debate with Parshall.

1655:

Lastly, these opinions are not pertinent to the article. None of the three supposed areas of dispute are a part of the summary article.

1520:

Pittsburgh, author of several acclaimed books on Pearl Harbor and the Pacific War, and one of the top experts in that area of history.

638: 630: 3777:

https://archive.is/20131213162635/http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/3594821d531e44f79e10b8a3a4dc05d1/NY--Pearl-Harbor-Japanese-Map

506: 897: 493: 451: 99: 3806:

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

297: 279: 238: 104: 20: 3202: 2415: 2043: 1989: 1944: 1861: 1689: 1536: 1338: 1262: 3801:

https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/87757f16-a19f-45d2-a606-057a6999d699/Download-the-entire-issue-in-pdf-for-your-e-reader.aspx

3787:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130331225346/http://usnwc.edu/getattachment/292914a3-bbf7-4418-bc52-2b482f6466db/Book-Reviews.aspx

3480:

https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/87757f16-a19f-45d2-a606-057a6999d699/Download-the-entire-issue-in-pdf-for-your-e-reader.aspx

3259:

https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/87757f16-a19f-45d2-a606-057a6999d699/Download-the-entire-issue-in-pdf-for-your-e-reader.aspx

3253:

https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/04286a6c-c1a5-46d1-b82d-56a59cefe6d2/Download-the-entire-issue-in-pdf-for-your-e-reader.aspx

3241:

https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/612aa0c4-47a1-4107-afbb-17fa992adf59/Reflecting-on-Fuchida,-or--A-Tale-of-Three-Whopper.aspx

74: 1305: 3497: 213: 3246: 2920:

I request that the present section of text, shown below in red, be replaced by the suggested text shown under that in green:

1973:

Knowledge (XXG) isn't a forum for pontificating, it's for facts. Parshall's viewpoint is just that, a viewpoint. No op-eds.

168: 3790: 3478:

Bennett, Martin, 2013, Summer, “Fireside Chats and Chasing Rabbits,” Naval War College Review, Vol. 66, No.3, pp. 155-157.

2940: 2213: 1392: 642: 634: 618: 569: 65: 3467:

Bennett, Martin, 2013, Summer, “Fireside Chats and Chasing Rabbits,” Naval War College Review, Vol. 66, No.3, pp. 155-157.

3245:

2. “Parshall’s ‘Whoppers’ Examined,” Martin Bennett, 2013, Winter, Naval War College Review, Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 110-125.

3176:

Here is my counterpoint paragraph that belongs in the Controversy section that Parshall and others are trying to suppress:

135: 1710: 1281:

American sailor suits and guys wearing *our* officers' hats. All the spots in the rafters are taken by American sailors.

3871: 3456:

Bennett, Martin, 2013, Winter, “Parshall’s ‘Whoppers’ Examined,” Naval War College Review, Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 110-125.

3897: 1507:

I encourage any who dispute facts on this page to provide specific information instead of generalized criticisms or

2350:

Parshall is not edit warring to keep his preferred version. You are! Please abide by Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines.

1495: 284:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of 3543:

criticising Parshall's research and conclusions, which he believes to be based on conjecture and speculation." --

3357: 2899: 2680: 109: 3893: 3746: 3582: 3529: 1722: 3827:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

3691:

And your publisher, Onstad Press, has no reputation at all, good or bad. The book appears to be self-published.

1705: 129: 3742: 847: 285: 1788: 1472: 1233: 219: 190: 3862: 3768: 3161: 3008: 1443: 985:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a 3889: 3190: 2403: 2031: 1977: 1932: 1849: 1780: 1677: 1524: 1464: 1326: 1293: 125: 3764: 3673:

will not be able to find it. There is no reason why Knowledge (XXG) should list this book in the article.

3567: 3415:

That sounds reasonable. Please see the section below and we will try to figure out a specific wording. --

2867: 2647: 2613: 1237: 3595:

book or screenplay. We should not credit Bennett with having published something he is still working on.

55: 3846:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3834: 3696: 3678: 3631: 3600: 3508: 3406: 3343: 3157: 3108: 3037: 3004: 2980: 2965: 2769: 2655: 2461: 2385: 2355: 2307: 2265: 2132: 2064: 1960: 1730: 1492: 1439: 1382: 3767:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 1272: 70: 2841: 175: 3658: 3578: 3525: 3391: 3373: 3290: 3198: 3052: 2491: 2447: 2411: 2370: 2334: 2284: 2249: 2221: 2184: 2086: 2039: 2010: 1985: 1940: 1896: 1857: 1810: 1766: 1714: 1685: 1564: 1532: 1400: 1354: 1334: 879: 3781:

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/3594821d531e44f79e10b8a3a4dc05d1/NY--Pearl-Harbor-Japanese-Map

3496:

small businessman? That would be a summary of the sort of prior career Bennett had as described in

3219: 3140: 3124: 3093: 2818: 2743: 2735: 2632: 2510: 2476: 2432: 2169: 2108: 1419: 1301: 646: 161: 2975:"Answering" my own request... The article is now unprotected which makes the request unnecessary. 1226: 3562:

criticising Parshall's research and conclusions." would serve as well or better in either event.

2837: 2747: 2739: 2712:..It's Parshall's response to Bennet's attempt at defending Fuchida and is of very high quality. 855: 3831:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

3669:

on the talk page. If you can rally other editors to your viewpoint, then the book can be listed.

2957: 291: 3847: 3548: 3420: 3365: 3304: 3270: 2609: 2055:

Wow, you're using an unsigned blog post to discredit Parshall? That's pretty low, and against

1917: 51: 2799: 2790: 2727: 2396: 2100: 1925: 1888: 1701: 1512: 3692: 3674: 3645: 3627: 3596: 3504: 3402: 3339: 3104: 3088:, not just attacking my writings alone. That's going to be a rather tall order, I'm afraid. 3033: 2976: 2961: 2651: 2595: 2577: 2457: 2381: 2351: 2303: 2261: 2128: 2060: 1956: 1921: 1726: 1378: 1162: 485: 141: 3854: 3649: 3029: 2545: 1892: 1488: 3654: 3563: 3387: 3369: 3286: 3247:

https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/292914a3-bbf7-4418-bc52-2b482f6466db/Book-Reviews.aspx

3235:

The Four Naval War College Review Exchanges Between Parshall and Bennett Regarding Fuchida

3194: 3048: 3022: 2863: 2487: 2443: 2407: 2366: 2330: 2280: 2245: 2217: 2180: 2082: 2035: 1981: 1936: 1884: 1853: 1681: 1528: 1396: 1350: 1330: 272: 3791:

http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/292914a3-bbf7-4418-bc52-2b482f6466db/Book-Reviews.aspx

2056: 594: 563: 3813:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 3760: 3215: 3136: 3120: 3089: 2814: 2628: 2553: 2506: 2472: 2428: 2165: 2104: 1484: 1415: 1412:"Another Trip to the Drive-Thru: Three More Wartime Whoppers Courtesy of Mitsuo Fuchida 1297: 775: 24: 3853:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

3820: 724: 3914: 1516: 1411: 3512: 1920:

and Fuchida considered it totally plausible, as did Dr. Donald Goldstein, author of

3544: 3416: 3361: 3300: 3266: 2924: 2786: 2707: 2587: 650: 610: 3722: 1349:

I have added a link in the wordpress site to the Naval War College Review article.

256: 232: 2933: 3905: 3713:

The link in #22 is dead, but the Daily Mail has a good photo of Fuchida's map:

2591: 2573: 1906: 1508: 1459: 706: 3735:

Interesting to compare, best wishes to all. Hope this is useful to an editor.

2704:

With reference to the Parshall-Bennet controversy, I think this needs linking:

1602:

I have always respected the work in "Shattered Sword" but it is not infallible.

1194: 1146: 469: 445: 3819:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 600: 475: 262: 3539:

Fuchida led to a screenplay on Fuchida's life, wrote a rebuttal published in

2122:

was not signed, it sprouted a signature: Martin Bennett. There's now even an

2795: 2549: 2548:

to elicit further comments and evaluation of the disputed statements. FWiW

2160:

co-author. Tully and I will be publishing our refutation at some point on

1178: 3726: 417: 1130: 3876: 3700: 3682: 3662: 3635: 3604: 3586: 3571: 3552: 3533: 3424: 3410: 3395: 3377: 3347: 3308: 3294: 3274: 3223: 3165: 3144: 3128: 3112: 3097: 3056: 3041: 3012: 2984: 2969: 2871: 2845: 2822: 2776: 2751: 2659: 2636: 2617: 2599: 2581: 2557: 2514: 2495: 2480: 2465: 2451: 2436: 2419: 2389: 2374: 2359: 2338: 2311: 2288: 2269: 2253: 2225: 2188: 2173: 2136: 2112: 2090: 2068: 2047: 2013: 1993: 1964: 1899: 1887:'s concerns are more about protecting Fuchida Mitsuo's reputation than 1865: 1813: 1792: 1769: 1734: 1693: 1567: 1540: 1498: 1476: 1447: 1423: 1404: 1386: 1358: 1342: 1309: 2344: 2123: 3524:

important enough to be published in a journal, intentionally or not.

3382: 2119: 1319: 2078: 2024: 1273:

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/japansur/js-8.htm

1515:. Fuchida's biography was based in part on many interviews between 973: 933: 505:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the 624: 531: 2347:

Both Parshall's and my edits clearly fall within the guidelines.

1891:. I will restore the disputed section (in a toned-down form) per 2380:

your wish that Fuchida be treated as someone who could not lie.

2718:"and that his charges are groundless and without credibility." 2161: 2887: 2668: 1414:. They come complete with annotated Japanese primary sources. 1221: 184: 15: 3725:(linked to from paragraph four photo credit in article here: 2009:

least explicable as result of confusion or errors of memory.

1277:

The photos of the ceremony make two things abundantly clear:

2155:

of publishing. The next day, he sent me the article he had

1193: 1177: 1161: 1145: 1129: 1014: 774: 723: 705: 530: 416: 321: 3001:

Attack on Pearl Harbor: Strategy, Combat, Myths, Deceptions

1410:

another set of Fuchida misstatements on my web site, here:

3771:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

2800:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/fuchida/ThreeMoreWhoppers.htm

2791:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/fuchida/ThreeMoreWhoppers.htm

2728:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/fuchida/ThreeMoreWhoppers.htm

2118:

Subsequent to my writing above that the blog entry titled

2939:

Both of these sentences are based on the same reference:

902: 2884:

Edit request about balance with regard to Martin Bennett

1905:"Some of Fuchida's statements have been challenged" are 1711:"because the operational plan itself was fatally flawed" 1511:

and edit with properly sourced material and maintain an

3718:

Gordon Prange when he was interviewed by him in 1947."

3708: 3622: 2302:

consensus of editor opinion to establish your wording.

1247: 768: 763: 758: 753: 658: 3591:

Tricericon, the Bennett research has not yet led to a

1371:"Reflecting on Fuchida, or a 'Tale of Three Whoppers'" 160: 1027:

This article has been checked against the following

875:: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. 645:. Current time in Japan: 07:57, September 25, 2024 ( 622:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 334:

This article has been checked against the following

3823:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 2947:. Winter 2013, volume 66, number 1, pages 110–125. 1112: 1026: 333: 174: 3709:Fuchida's map and Fuchida Pearl Harbor photograph 637:, where you can join the project, participate in 3941:Knowledge (XXG) level-5 vital articles in People 2787:http://www.combinedfleet.com/BennettRebuttal.htm 2708:http://www.combinedfleet.com/BennettRebuttal.htm 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 3723:http://www.usncva.org/clog/pearlharbor-pix.html 4056:Pages translated from Japanese Knowledge (XXG) 4036:Start-Class Japanese military history articles 3809:This message was posted before February 2018. 3386:revised the term to simply "writer" for you.-- 2544:At this point, this may be a time to accept a 4041:Japanese military history task force articles 2990:Parshall has some substantial accolades. The 1241: 8: 3981:Mid-importance biography (military) articles 999:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Military history 4026:Start-Class Asian military history articles 188: 4031:Asian military history task force articles 3887: 3334:of Japanese people showing Fuchida on the 1109: 1023: 928: 741: 558: 440: 330: 227: 3976:Start-Class biography (military) articles 3759:I have just modified 3 external links on 2796:http://www.jacar.go.jp/english/index.html 629:on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to 3956:Start-Class aerospace biography articles 3931:Knowledge (XXG) vital articles in People 979:This article is within the scope of the 278:This article is within the scope of the 3961:Aerospace biography task force articles 3752:External links modified (February 2018) 3727:http://www.usncva.org/clog/pearl1.shtml 3449: 1883:(outdent) IMO it has become clear that 1721:that Isom's conclusion about Midway is 930: 732:This article is supported by the joint 659: 560: 442: 229: 4016:Start-Class military aviation articles 4001:High-importance Japan-related articles 3986:Military biography work group articles 3926:Knowledge (XXG) level-5 vital articles 2564:Last surviving officer of Pearl Harbor 989:. To use this banner, please see the 296:. To use this banner, please see the 4021:Military aviation task force articles 4011:Start-Class military history articles 1002:Template:WikiProject Military history 515:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Biography 7: 3946:Start-Class vital articles in People 2586:Edit: This appears to be untrue, as 2486:holes. Three strikes and you're out. 1187:Japanese military history task force 734:Japanese military history task force 616:This article is within the scope of 491:This article is within the scope of 306:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Aviation 3886:Where is Mitsuo Fuchida's Burial? 2724:And this should possibly be added: 218:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 3996:Start-Class Japan-related articles 3936:Start-Class level-5 vital articles 2785:Just as a point of clarification, 2120:"Jon Parshall's Whoppers Examined" 2059:. We cannot use that blog at all. 1320:http://heynotsofast.wordpress.com/ 14: 4046:Start-Class World War II articles 3763:. Please take a moment to review 2715:It should probably go just after 2079:http://heynotsofast.wordpress.com 2025:http://heynotsofast.wordpress.com 1171:Asian military history task force 714:This article is supported by the 672:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Japan 542:the military biography work group 50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome! 4051:World War II task force articles 2941:"Parshall's 'Whoppers' Examined" 2891: 2757: 2742:) 00:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC) 2672: 2665:Edit request on 15 December 2012 1263:Japanese Instrument of Surrender 1225: 1086: 1075: 1064: 1053: 1042: 972: 932: 603: 593: 562: 478: 468: 444: 393: 382: 371: 360: 349: 265: 255: 231: 198: 189: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 692:This article has been rated as 428:the aerospace biography project 3991:WikiProject Biography articles 3971:Start-Class biography articles 2214:Parshall's "Whoppers" Examined 1393:Parshall's "Whoppers" Examined 518:Template:WikiProject Biography 1: 3966:WikiProject Aviation articles 3951:Start-Class aviation articles 3906:10:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC) 3641:Adding a Book to Bibliography 3368:) 15:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)-- 3171:Controversy Section Integrity 2777:10:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 2752:00:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC) 2515:13:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC) 2496:00:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC) 2481:04:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC) 2466:20:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC) 2452:20:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC) 2437:20:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC) 2014:06:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC) 1994:17:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC) 1965:15:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC) 1900:06:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC) 1477:23:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC) 1424:15:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC) 1155:Military biography task force 745:WikiProject Japan to do list: 539:This article is supported by 425:This article is supported by 309:Template:WikiProject Aviation 42:Put new text under old text. 3877:22:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC) 3145:07:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC) 3129:20:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC) 2660:20:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC) 2618:16:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC) 2600:17:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC) 2582:17:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC) 2558:20:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC) 2420:15:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC) 2390:22:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC) 2375:21:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC) 2360:19:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC) 2339:19:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC) 2312:08:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC) 2289:01:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC) 2270:00:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC) 2254:23:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC) 2226:20:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC) 2091:20:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC) 1866:23:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC) 1770:06:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC) 1735:05:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC) 1694:01:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC) 1568:23:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC) 1541:05:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC) 1405:20:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC) 1359:20:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC) 1139:Military aviation task force 982:Military history WikiProject 503:contribute to the discussion 3113:03:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC) 3098:20:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC) 2914:to reactivate your request. 2902:has been answered. Set the 2823:21:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC) 2695:to reactivate your request. 2683:has been answered. Set the 1814:08:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC) 1793:07:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC) 1310:22:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC) 867:to articles that need them. 806:Featured content candidates 4072: 4006:WikiProject Japan articles 3921:Start-Class vital articles 3840:(last update: 5 June 2024) 3756:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 3701:00:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC) 3683:23:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC) 3663:23:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC) 3490: 2925:On the other hand, in the 2174:18:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC) 2137:17:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC) 2113:16:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC) 2069:16:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 2048:13:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 1387:17:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC) 1343:13:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 1047:Referencing and citation: 801: 698:project's importance scale 675:Template:WikiProject Japan 354:Referencing and citation: 3636:05:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC) 3605:17:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC) 3587:16:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC) 3572:16:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC) 3553:01:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC) 3534:00:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC) 3513:22:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC) 3425:01:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC) 3411:22:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC) 3396:19:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC) 3378:19:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC) 3348:14:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC) 3309:18:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC) 3295:16:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC) 3275:14:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC) 3224:21:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC) 1448:00:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC) 1201: 1185: 1169: 1153: 1137: 1108: 1005:military history articles 967: 740: 731: 713: 691: 588: 538: 463: 424: 250: 226: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 3747:20:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC) 3560:Naval War College Review 3541:Naval War College Review 3521:Naval War College Review 3166:07:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC) 3151:Battle Damage Assessment 3057:21:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC) 3042:02:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC) 3013:04:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC) 2992:Naval War College Review 2985:17:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC) 2970:22:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC) 2945:Naval War College Review 2927:Naval War College Review 2872:21:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC) 2846:11:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 2637:14:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC) 2189:16:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC) 1375:Naval War College Review 1232:This article contains a 903:Japanese Knowledge (XXG) 843:Good article nominations 3882:Mitsuo Fuchida's Burial 1725:Just a few thoughts... 1499:19:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC) 1203:World War II task force 1113:Associated task forces: 1058:Coverage and accuracy: 365:Coverage and accuracy: 3881: 2648:Template:editprotected 1487:may help, if they are 1198: 1182: 1166: 1150: 1134: 1091:Supporting materials: 1019: 779: 728: 710: 678:Japan-related articles 535: 421: 398:Supporting materials: 326: 75:avoid personal attacks 3648:, the guidelines for 2162:www.combinedfleet.com 2124:author biography link 1489:sufficiently reliable 1197: 1181: 1165: 1149: 1133: 1018: 778: 727: 709: 534: 494:WikiProject Biography 420: 325: 212:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 205:level-5 vital article 100:Neutral point of view 3894:Akhtar Hussain Samoo 3821:regular verification 3491:Bennett's profession 1803:There is just no way 1715:James D. Hornfischer 901:an article from the 883:Japan-related stubs. 716:Biography task force 639:relevant discussions 281:Aviation WikiProject 105:No original research 3811:After February 2018 3500:Stars & Stripes 3032:will not allow it. 2568:Hello wikipedians, 1719:Wall Street Journal 1373:, published in the 1080:Grammar and style: 1033:for B-class status: 913:unassessed articles 643:lists of open tasks 633:, please visit the 387:Grammar and style: 340:for B-class status: 3865:InternetArchiveBot 3816:InternetArchiveBot 1199: 1183: 1167: 1151: 1135: 1020: 987:list of open tasks 889:requested articles 880:Improve and expand 872:Pages for Deletion 856:Godzilla Minus One 780: 729: 711: 536: 521:biography articles 422: 327: 214:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 3908: 3892:comment added by 3841: 3623:recent copy edits 3207: 3193:comment added by 2994:in its review of 2918: 2917: 2763:Not done for now: 2699: 2698: 2423: 2406:comment added by 2051: 2034:comment added by 1997: 1980:comment added by 1949: 1935:comment added by 1918:Douglas MacArthur 1869: 1852:comment added by 1783:comment added by 1697: 1680:comment added by 1544: 1527:comment added by 1467:comment added by 1346: 1329:comment added by 1313: 1296:comment added by 1258: 1257: 1254: 1220: 1219: 1216: 1215: 1212: 1211: 1208: 1207: 1104: 1103: 1060:criterion not met 1049:criterion not met 991:full instructions 927: 926: 923: 922: 919: 918: 838: 837: 666: 627:-related articles 619:WikiProject Japan 557: 556: 553: 552: 439: 438: 435: 434: 411: 410: 367:criterion not met 356:criterion not met 312:aviation articles 298:full instructions 183: 182: 66:Assume good faith 43: 4063: 3875: 3866: 3839: 3838: 3817: 3646:User:Binksternet 3483: 3476: 3470: 3465: 3459: 3454: 3282:rebuttal article 3206: 3187: 2935: 2930: 2909: 2905: 2895: 2894: 2888: 2772: 2771:Mr. Stradivarius 2761: 2760: 2690: 2686: 2676: 2675: 2669: 2422: 2400: 2050: 2028: 1996: 1974: 1948: 1929: 1922:At Dawn We Slept 1868: 1846: 1808:Shattered Sword. 1795: 1723:"hard to prove". 1696: 1674: 1543: 1521: 1479: 1345: 1323: 1312: 1290: 1245: 1229: 1222: 1120: 1110: 1094: 1090: 1089: 1083: 1079: 1078: 1072: 1068: 1067: 1061: 1057: 1056: 1050: 1046: 1045: 1024: 1007: 1006: 1003: 1000: 997: 996:Military history 976: 969: 968: 963: 940:Military history 936: 929: 864:requested images 800: 799: 742: 680: 679: 676: 673: 670: 663: 661: 654: 613: 608: 607: 606: 597: 590: 589: 584: 581: 579:Military history 566: 559: 523: 522: 519: 516: 513: 499:join the project 488: 486:Biography portal 483: 482: 481: 472: 465: 464: 459: 448: 441: 401: 397: 396: 390: 386: 385: 379: 375: 374: 368: 364: 363: 357: 353: 352: 331: 314: 313: 310: 307: 304: 275: 270: 269: 268: 259: 252: 251: 246: 235: 228: 211: 202: 201: 194: 193: 185: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 4071: 4070: 4066: 4065: 4064: 4062: 4061: 4060: 3911: 3910: 3884: 3869: 3864: 3832: 3825:have permission 3815: 3769:this simple FaQ 3754: 3739:108.193.227.112 3711: 3643: 3619: 3579:Thargor Orlando 3526:Thargor Orlando 3493: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3477: 3473: 3466: 3462: 3455: 3451: 3237: 3188: 3173: 3153: 3086:in its entirety 2996:Shattered Sword 2907: 2903: 2892: 2886: 2770: 2758: 2688: 2684: 2673: 2667: 2644: 2566: 2401: 2029: 1975: 1930: 1885:User:Theleopard 1847: 1778: 1706:WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV 1675: 1522: 1462: 1455: 1324: 1291: 1266: 1261:Signing of the 1118: 1092: 1087: 1081: 1076: 1070: 1065: 1059: 1054: 1048: 1043: 1004: 1001: 998: 995: 994: 942: 773: 694:High-importance 677: 674: 671: 668: 667: 657: 609: 604: 602: 583:High‑importance 582: 572: 520: 517: 514: 511: 510: 484: 479: 477: 454: 399: 394: 388: 383: 377: 372: 366: 361: 355: 350: 311: 308: 305: 302: 301: 273:Aviation portal 271: 266: 264: 241: 209: 199: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 4069: 4067: 4059: 4058: 4053: 4048: 4043: 4038: 4033: 4028: 4023: 4018: 4013: 4008: 4003: 3998: 3993: 3988: 3983: 3978: 3973: 3968: 3963: 3958: 3953: 3948: 3943: 3938: 3933: 3928: 3923: 3913: 3912: 3883: 3880: 3859: 3858: 3851: 3804: 3803: 3795:Added archive 3793: 3785:Added archive 3783: 3775:Added archive 3761:Mitsuo Fuchida 3753: 3750: 3710: 3707: 3706: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3686: 3685: 3670: 3655:TMartinBennett 3642: 3639: 3618: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3612: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3589: 3498:December 2008 3492: 3489: 3485: 3484: 3471: 3460: 3448: 3447: 3443: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3439: 3438: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3432: 3431: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3398: 3388:TMartinBennett 3370:TMartinBennett 3326: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3287:TMartinBennett 3236: 3233: 3231: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3183: 3182: 3172: 3169: 3152: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3116: 3115: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3049:TMartinBennett 3023:TMartinBennett 2988: 2987: 2937: 2936: 2931: 2916: 2915: 2896: 2885: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2780: 2779: 2697: 2696: 2677: 2666: 2663: 2643: 2642:Page protected 2640: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2565: 2562: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2488:TMartinBennett 2444:TMartinBennett 2367:TMartinBennett 2362: 2341: 2331:TMartinBennett 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2281:TMartinBennett 2273: 2272: 2246:TMartinBennett 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2218:TMartinBennett 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2181:TMartinBennett 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2083:TMartinBennett 2072: 2071: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1968: 1967: 1951: 1950: 1912: 1911: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1800: 1785:174.30.142.107 1763: 1762: 1761: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1717:writes in the 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1561: 1557: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1502: 1501: 1485:Jacob DeShazer 1483:Sources about 1469:189.106.71.196 1454: 1451: 1437: 1436: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1397:TMartinBennett 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1351:TMartinBennett 1265: 1259: 1256: 1255: 1230: 1218: 1217: 1214: 1213: 1210: 1209: 1206: 1205: 1200: 1190: 1189: 1184: 1174: 1173: 1168: 1158: 1157: 1152: 1142: 1141: 1136: 1126: 1125: 1123: 1121: 1115: 1114: 1106: 1105: 1102: 1101: 1099: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1084: 1073: 1062: 1051: 1037: 1036: 1034: 1021: 1011: 1010: 1008: 977: 965: 964: 937: 925: 924: 921: 920: 917: 916: 915: 914: 906: 893: 884: 876: 868: 859: 836: 835: 827: 820: 811: 810: 809: 798: 797: 793:A-class review 789: 772: 771: 766: 761: 756: 750: 747: 746: 738: 737: 730: 720: 719: 712: 702: 701: 690: 684: 683: 681: 615: 614: 598: 586: 585: 567: 555: 554: 551: 550: 547:Mid-importance 537: 527: 526: 524: 490: 489: 473: 461: 460: 449: 437: 436: 433: 432: 423: 413: 412: 409: 408: 406: 404: 403: 402: 391: 380: 369: 358: 344: 343: 341: 328: 318: 317: 315: 277: 276: 260: 248: 247: 236: 224: 223: 217: 195: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 25:Mitsuo Fuchida 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4068: 4057: 4054: 4052: 4049: 4047: 4044: 4042: 4039: 4037: 4034: 4032: 4029: 4027: 4024: 4022: 4019: 4017: 4014: 4012: 4009: 4007: 4004: 4002: 3999: 3997: 3994: 3992: 3989: 3987: 3984: 3982: 3979: 3977: 3974: 3972: 3969: 3967: 3964: 3962: 3959: 3957: 3954: 3952: 3949: 3947: 3944: 3942: 3939: 3937: 3934: 3932: 3929: 3927: 3924: 3922: 3919: 3918: 3916: 3909: 3907: 3903: 3899: 3895: 3891: 3879: 3878: 3873: 3868: 3867: 3856: 3852: 3849: 3845: 3844: 3843: 3836: 3830: 3826: 3822: 3818: 3812: 3807: 3802: 3798: 3794: 3792: 3788: 3784: 3782: 3778: 3774: 3773: 3772: 3770: 3766: 3762: 3757: 3751: 3749: 3748: 3744: 3740: 3736: 3733: 3730: 3728: 3724: 3719: 3716: 3702: 3698: 3694: 3690: 3689: 3688: 3687: 3684: 3680: 3676: 3671: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3660: 3656: 3651: 3647: 3640: 3638: 3637: 3633: 3629: 3624: 3616: 3606: 3602: 3598: 3594: 3590: 3588: 3584: 3580: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3569: 3565: 3561: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3550: 3546: 3542: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3531: 3527: 3522: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3510: 3506: 3502: 3501: 3481: 3475: 3472: 3469: 3464: 3461: 3458: 3453: 3450: 3446: 3426: 3422: 3418: 3414: 3413: 3412: 3408: 3404: 3399: 3397: 3393: 3389: 3384: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3375: 3371: 3367: 3363: 3359: 3355: 3354: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3345: 3341: 3337: 3332: 3327: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3310: 3306: 3302: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3292: 3288: 3283: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3272: 3268: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3255: 3254: 3249: 3248: 3243: 3242: 3234: 3232: 3225: 3221: 3217: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3204: 3200: 3196: 3192: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3170: 3168: 3167: 3163: 3159: 3158:Oldbubblehead 3150: 3146: 3142: 3138: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3126: 3122: 3114: 3110: 3106: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3095: 3091: 3087: 3082: 3077: 3072: 3058: 3054: 3050: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3039: 3035: 3031: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3010: 3006: 3005:Oldbubblehead 3002: 2997: 2993: 2986: 2982: 2978: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2967: 2963: 2959: 2954: 2953:Wounded Tiger 2948: 2946: 2942: 2932: 2928: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2913: 2910:parameter to 2901: 2897: 2890: 2889: 2883: 2873: 2869: 2865: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2847: 2843: 2839: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2824: 2820: 2816: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2801: 2797: 2792: 2788: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2778: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2764: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2749: 2745: 2741: 2737: 2733: 2730: 2729: 2725: 2722: 2719: 2716: 2713: 2710: 2709: 2705: 2702: 2694: 2691:parameter to 2682: 2678: 2671: 2670: 2664: 2662: 2661: 2657: 2653: 2649: 2641: 2639: 2638: 2634: 2630: 2619: 2615: 2611: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2597: 2593: 2589: 2584: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2569: 2563: 2561: 2559: 2555: 2551: 2547: 2516: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2503:Naval History 2499: 2498: 2497: 2493: 2489: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2478: 2474: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2463: 2459: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2449: 2445: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2434: 2430: 2425: 2424: 2421: 2417: 2413: 2409: 2405: 2398: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2387: 2383: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2372: 2368: 2363: 2361: 2357: 2353: 2349: 2348: 2346: 2342: 2340: 2336: 2332: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2313: 2309: 2305: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2290: 2286: 2282: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2227: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2171: 2167: 2163: 2158: 2154: 2150: 2145: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2049: 2045: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2026: 2015: 2012: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 1995: 1991: 1987: 1983: 1979: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1953: 1952: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1934: 1927: 1923: 1919: 1914: 1913: 1908: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1898: 1894: 1890: 1886: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1815: 1812: 1809: 1804: 1801: 1797: 1796: 1794: 1790: 1786: 1782: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1768: 1764: 1759: 1758: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1736: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1712: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1698: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1683: 1679: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1569: 1566: 1562: 1558: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1542: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1518: 1517:Gordon Prange 1514: 1510: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1500: 1497: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1460: 1452: 1450: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1440:Oldbubblehead 1433: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1347: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1321: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1295: 1286: 1282: 1278: 1275: 1274: 1270: 1264: 1260: 1252: 1249: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1228: 1224: 1223: 1204: 1196: 1192: 1191: 1188: 1180: 1176: 1175: 1172: 1164: 1160: 1159: 1156: 1148: 1144: 1143: 1140: 1132: 1128: 1127: 1124: 1122: 1117: 1116: 1111: 1107: 1100: 1098: 1093:criterion met 1085: 1082:criterion met 1074: 1071:criterion met 1063: 1052: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1035: 1032: 1031: 1025: 1022: 1017: 1013: 1012: 1009: 992: 988: 984: 983: 978: 975: 971: 970: 966: 962: 958: 954: 950: 946: 941: 938: 935: 931: 912: 911: 907: 905:into English. 904: 900: 899: 894: 891: 890: 885: 882: 881: 877: 874: 873: 869: 866: 865: 860: 858: 857: 852: 850: 845: 844: 840: 839: 834: 832: 831: 825: 824: 818: 817: 812: 807: 804: 803: 802: 795: 794: 790: 787: 786: 782: 781: 777: 770: 767: 765: 762: 760: 757: 755: 752: 751: 749: 748: 744: 743: 739: 735: 726: 722: 721: 717: 708: 704: 703: 699: 695: 689: 686: 685: 682: 665: 662: 652: 648: 644: 640: 636: 632: 628: 626: 621: 620: 612: 601: 599: 596: 592: 591: 587: 580: 576: 571: 568: 565: 561: 548: 545:(assessed as 544: 543: 533: 529: 528: 525: 508: 507:documentation 504: 500: 496: 495: 487: 476: 474: 471: 467: 466: 462: 458: 453: 450: 447: 443: 430: 429: 419: 415: 414: 407: 405: 400:criterion met 392: 389:criterion met 381: 378:criterion met 370: 359: 348: 347: 346: 345: 342: 339: 338: 332: 329: 324: 320: 319: 316: 299: 295: 294: 289: 288: 283: 282: 274: 263: 261: 258: 254: 253: 249: 245: 240: 237: 234: 230: 225: 221: 215: 207: 206: 196: 192: 187: 186: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 3888:— Preceding 3885: 3863: 3860: 3835:source check 3814: 3808: 3805: 3758: 3755: 3737: 3734: 3731: 3720: 3712: 3644: 3620: 3592: 3559: 3540: 3520: 3503:. Thoughts? 3499: 3494: 3474: 3463: 3452: 3444: 3358:this website 3335: 3330: 3281: 3256: 3250: 3244: 3238: 3230: 3189:— Preceding 3184: 3174: 3154: 3117: 3085: 3080: 3075: 3070: 3067: 3000: 2995: 2991: 2989: 2952: 2949: 2944: 2938: 2926: 2919: 2911: 2900:edit request 2768: 2767: 2762: 2734: 2731: 2726: 2723: 2720: 2717: 2714: 2711: 2706: 2703: 2700: 2692: 2681:edit request 2645: 2625: 2620:theBaron0530 2610:TheBaron0530 2588:Minoru Genda 2585: 2570: 2567: 2543: 2502: 2402:— Preceding 2242: 2156: 2152: 2148: 2143: 2097: 2030:— Preceding 2022: 1976:— Preceding 1931:— Preceding 1907:weasel words 1882: 1848:— Preceding 1807: 1802: 1779:— Preceding 1718: 1676:— Preceding 1523:— Preceding 1509:weasel words 1456: 1438: 1374: 1325:— Preceding 1287: 1283: 1279: 1276: 1271: 1267: 1250: 1242:ja.wikipedia 1028: 980: 961:World War II 908: 896: 887: 886:Create some 878: 870: 862: 854: 849:Vinland Saga 848: 841: 828: 821: 814: 813: 805: 791: 783: 693: 655: 635:project page 623: 617: 611:Japan portal 540: 492: 426: 335: 292: 286: 280: 220:WikiProjects 203: 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 3693:Binksternet 3675:Binksternet 3628:GeorgeLouis 3597:Binksternet 3505:Binksternet 3403:Binksternet 3340:Binksternet 3105:Binksternet 3034:Binksternet 2977:Binksternet 2962:Binksternet 2652:MilborneOne 2458:Binksternet 2382:Binksternet 2352:Binksternet 2345:WP:CONFLICT 2304:Binksternet 2262:Binksternet 2129:Binksternet 2061:Binksternet 1957:Binksternet 1727:Binksternet 1463:—Preceding 1379:Binksternet 1292:—Preceding 1234:translation 1069:Structure: 851:(TV series) 785:Peer review 631:participate 376:Structure: 293:task forces 210:Start-class 148:free images 31:not a forum 3915:Categories 3872:Report bug 3617:Copy edits 3564:Tricericon 3445:References 3280:allow one 3195:Theleopard 2904:|answered= 2864:Tricericon 2685:|answered= 2408:Theleopard 2142:board the 2036:Theleopard 1982:Theleopard 1937:Theleopard 1854:Theleopard 1682:Theleopard 1529:Theleopard 1331:Theleopard 641:, and see 287:open tasks 3855:this tool 3848:this tool 3593:published 3216:Jparshall 3137:Jparshall 3121:Jparshall 3090:Jparshall 2815:Jparshall 2629:Jparshall 2507:Jparshall 2473:Jparshall 2429:Jparshall 2166:Jparshall 2105:Jparshall 1493:Fayenatic 1416:Jparshall 1298:Jparshall 949:Biography 898:translate 575:Biography 512:Biography 452:Biography 244:Biography 208:is rated 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 3902:contribs 3890:unsigned 3861:Cheers.— 3336:Missouri 3331:Missouri 3203:contribs 3191:unsigned 2958:WP:UNDUE 2744:Umptious 2736:Umptious 2627:however. 2416:contribs 2404:unsigned 2153:thinking 2144:Missouri 2044:contribs 2032:unsigned 1990:contribs 1978:unsigned 1945:contribs 1933:unsigned 1862:contribs 1850:unsigned 1781:unsigned 1690:contribs 1678:unsigned 1537:contribs 1525:unsigned 1465:unsigned 1453:Disputed 1339:contribs 1327:unsigned 1306:contribs 1294:unsigned 1248:48824147 1030:criteria 957:Japanese 945:Aviation 823:Pictures 816:Articles 457:Military 337:criteria 303:Aviation 239:Aviation 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 3765:my edit 3545:Diannaa 3417:Diannaa 3362:Diannaa 3301:Diannaa 3267:Diannaa 2803:anyway. 2608:regards 2397:WP:NPOV 2157:already 2101:WP:NPOV 1926:WP:NPOV 1889:WP:NPOV 1702:WP:NPOV 833:: None 826:: None 819:: None 759:history 696:on the 660:Refresh 154:WP refs 142:scholar 3650:WP:COI 3383:Author 3081:Akagi' 3076:by far 3030:WP:BLP 2838:Anselm 2592:GrimmC 2574:GrimmC 2546:WP:RFC 2149:fourth 1893:WP:BRD 1496:(talk) 1251:et seq 910:Assess 796:: None 788:: None 216:scale. 126:Google 2908:|ans= 2898:This 2701:Hi - 2689:|ans= 2679:This 2550:FWiW 2244:fair. 2057:WP:RS 1638:them. 1556:etc.) 1240:from 1238:淵田美津雄 953:Asian 895:Help 830:Lists 769:purge 764:watch 669:Japan 651:Reiwa 625:Japan 570:Japan 197:This 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 3898:talk 3743:talk 3697:talk 3679:talk 3659:talk 3632:talk 3601:talk 3583:talk 3568:talk 3549:talk 3530:talk 3509:talk 3421:talk 3407:talk 3392:talk 3374:talk 3366:talk 3344:talk 3305:talk 3291:talk 3271:talk 3220:talk 3199:talk 3162:talk 3141:talk 3125:talk 3109:talk 3094:talk 3053:talk 3038:talk 3009:talk 2981:talk 2966:talk 2868:talk 2842:talk 2819:talk 2748:talk 2740:talk 2656:talk 2633:talk 2614:talk 2596:talk 2578:talk 2554:talk 2511:talk 2492:talk 2477:talk 2462:talk 2448:talk 2433:talk 2412:talk 2386:talk 2371:talk 2356:talk 2335:talk 2308:talk 2285:talk 2266:talk 2250:talk 2222:talk 2185:talk 2170:talk 2133:talk 2109:talk 2087:talk 2065:talk 2040:talk 1986:talk 1961:talk 1941:talk 1858:talk 1789:talk 1731:talk 1686:talk 1533:talk 1513:NPOV 1491:. - 1473:talk 1444:talk 1420:talk 1401:talk 1383:talk 1355:talk 1335:talk 1302:talk 861:Add 754:edit 688:High 501:and 290:and 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 3829:RfC 3799:to 3789:to 3779:to 3621:My 3071:not 2906:or 2687:or 2399:. 2011:TiC 1897:TiC 1811:TiC 1767:TiC 1565:TiC 1461:) 1253:.) 1236:of 653:6) 647:JST 176:TWL 3917:: 3904:) 3900:• 3842:. 3837:}} 3833:{{ 3745:) 3729:) 3699:) 3681:) 3661:) 3634:) 3603:) 3585:) 3570:) 3551:) 3532:) 3511:) 3423:) 3409:) 3394:) 3376:) 3346:) 3307:) 3293:) 3273:) 3222:) 3205:) 3201:• 3164:) 3143:) 3127:) 3111:) 3096:) 3055:) 3040:) 3011:) 2983:) 2968:) 2960:. 2943:, 2912:no 2870:) 2844:) 2821:) 2750:) 2693:no 2658:) 2635:) 2616:) 2598:) 2580:) 2560:. 2556:) 2513:) 2494:) 2479:) 2464:) 2450:) 2435:) 2418:) 2414:• 2388:) 2373:) 2358:) 2337:) 2310:) 2287:) 2268:) 2252:) 2224:) 2216:. 2187:) 2172:) 2135:) 2111:) 2089:) 2067:) 2046:) 2042:• 1992:) 1988:• 1963:) 1947:) 1943:• 1895:. 1864:) 1860:• 1791:) 1733:) 1713:. 1692:) 1688:• 1539:) 1535:• 1475:) 1446:) 1422:) 1403:) 1385:) 1357:) 1341:) 1337:• 1308:) 1304:• 1244:. 1119:/ 959:/ 955:/ 951:/ 947:/ 943:: 853:, 846:: 808:– 649:, 577:/ 573:: 549:). 455:: 242:: 156:) 54:; 3896:( 3874:) 3870:( 3857:. 3850:. 3741:( 3695:( 3677:( 3657:( 3630:( 3599:( 3581:( 3566:( 3547:( 3528:( 3507:( 3482:] 3419:( 3405:( 3390:( 3372:( 3364:( 3342:( 3303:( 3289:( 3269:( 3218:( 3197:( 3160:( 3139:( 3123:( 3107:( 3092:( 3051:( 3036:( 3007:( 2979:( 2964:( 2866:( 2840:( 2817:( 2746:( 2738:( 2654:( 2631:( 2612:( 2594:( 2576:( 2552:( 2509:( 2490:( 2475:( 2460:( 2446:( 2431:( 2410:( 2384:( 2369:( 2354:( 2333:( 2306:( 2283:( 2264:( 2248:( 2220:( 2183:( 2168:( 2131:( 2107:( 2085:( 2063:( 2038:( 1984:( 1959:( 1939:( 1856:( 1787:( 1729:( 1684:( 1531:( 1471:( 1442:( 1418:( 1399:( 1381:( 1353:( 1333:( 1300:( 1246:( 993:. 892:. 736:. 718:. 700:. 664:) 656:( 509:. 431:. 300:. 222:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index