Talk:Mitsuo Fuchida

Signing of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender

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:

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

The photos of the ceremony make two things abundantly clear:

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

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 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.

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 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jparshall (talk • contribs) 22:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

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 http://heynotsofast.wordpress.com/. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theleopard (talk • contribs) 13:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I have added a link in the wordpress site to the Naval War College Review article.TMartinBennett (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

What a rotten jab at Parshall. His research is that of a historian, a reliable source per Wikipedia. Parshall describes his research at the article, "Reflecting on Fuchida, or a 'Tale of Three Whoppers'", published in the Naval War College Review. 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. Binksternet (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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: Parshall's "Whoppers" Examined. 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.TMartinBennett (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia. My formal reply to his NWCR article will be published in the next issue. In the meantime, I have published another set of Fuchida misstatements on my web site, here: "Another Trip to the Drive-Thru: Three More Wartime Whoppers Courtesy of Mitsuo Fuchida. They come complete with annotated Japanese primary sources.Jparshall (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

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 (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.

Oldbubblehead (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Disputed

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 Wikipedia. Fuchida is today regarded by serious historians in West and in Japan as a falsifier of events. So, it’s necessary to 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 : Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia !), but is only the romanticized version from Fuchida. (from carlos.cleto,adv@uol.com.br) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.106.71.196 (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources about Jacob DeShazer may help, if they are sufficiently reliable. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I encourage any who dispute facts on this page to provide specific information instead of generalized criticisms or weasel words and edit with properly sourced material and maintain an NPOV. Fuchida's biography was based in part on many interviews between Gordon Prange 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 Pittsburgh, author of several acclaimed books on Pearl Harbor and the Pacific War, and one of the top experts in that area of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theleopard (talk • contribs) 05:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

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 "[an] opinion piece," "[not] properly sourced," etc.)

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 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.)

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. TiC ^(talk) 23:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia 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 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."

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

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 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 Wikipedia article isn't the forum to voice an opinion.

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 them.

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

I would be happy to have this go through dispute resolution or mediation to ensure this article meets Wikipedia's standards for NPOV, Verifiability, and Reliable Sources. Referring to the opinions in another source do not qualify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theleopard (talk • contribs) 01:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Parshall and Tully's opinions are prominent and notable. The article absolutely must include their criticism and accusations against Fuchida. Per WP:NPOV, 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 WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV 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 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 "because the operational plan itself was fatally flawed". James D. Hornfischer writes in the Wall Street Journal that Isom's conclusion about Midway is "hard to prove". Just a few thoughts... Binksternet (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

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:

"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 [Fuchida] 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."

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! TiC ^(talk) 06:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

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 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.30.142.107 (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

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 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.

There is just no way 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 Shattered Sword. TiC ^(talk) 08:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theleopard (talk • contribs) 23:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) IMO it has become clear that User:Theleopard's concerns are more about protecting Fuchida Mitsuo's reputation than WP:NPOV. I will restore the disputed section (in a toned-down form) per WP:BRD. TiC ^(talk) 06:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"Some of Fuchida's statements have been challenged" are weasel words 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 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. Wikipedia is about facts, not conjecture. Try to keep it all in perspective. This is a brief summary article.

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 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 Wikipedia. Again, Dr. Prange, who personally knew both General Douglas MacArthur and Fuchida considered it totally plausible, as did Dr. Donald Goldstein, author of At Dawn We Slept. 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 Wikipedia 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: WP:NPOV, 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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Theleopard (talk • contribs)

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. Binksternet (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a forum for pontificating, it's for facts. Parshall's viewpoint is just that, a viewpoint. No op-eds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theleopard (talk • contribs) 17:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

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 least explicable as result of confusion or errors of memory. TiC ^(talk) 06:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Parshall's claims were shown to be unfounded by a highly researched and footnoted article entitled "Jon Parshall's Whoppers Examined" - http://heynotsofast.wordpress.com. 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. Wikipedia 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theleopard (talk • contribs) 13:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you're using an unsigned blog post to discredit Parshall? That's pretty low, and against WP:RS. We cannot use that blog at all. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I showed that Parshall's claims were unfounded in my highly researched and footnoted article entitled "Jon Parshall's Whoppers Examined" - http://heynotsofast.wordpress.com, 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. Wikipedia 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.TMartinBennett (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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 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 WP:NPOV. 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia'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- Jparshall (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Subsequent to my writing above that the blog entry titled "Jon Parshall's Whoppers Examined" was not signed, it sprouted a signature: Martin Bennett. There's now even an author biography link 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 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 Wikipedia 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. Binksternet (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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 board the Missouri 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 fourth time--what interesting timing), during which conversation Mr. Bennett expressed his frustrations regarding Wikipedia, and advised me that he wanted my feedback on a blog post he was thinking of publishing. The next day, he sent me the article he had already 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 co-author. Tully and I will be publishing our refutation at some point on www.combinedfleet.com. 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.Jparshall (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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 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 Wikipedia 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.TMartinBennett (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This has gotten much more complicated than it needs to be. To avoid possible harassment I've always used the name Theleopard as per Wikipedia recommendations. I've made revisions accordingly; it is live now at the Naval War College Review Parshall's "Whoppers" Examined. TMartinBennett (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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 fair.TMartinBennett (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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 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. Binksternet (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

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 arguments. Casual Wikipedia 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.TMartinBennett (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

In this case you have a conflict of interest, per Wikipedia'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 consensus of editor opinion to establish your wording. Binksternet (talk) 08:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

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 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.TMartinBennett (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

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."WP:CONFLICT Both Parshall's and my edits clearly fall within the guidelines.

Parshall is not edit warring to keep his preferred version. You are! Please abide by Wikipedia's guidelines. Binksternet (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

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 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.TMartinBennett (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

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 your wish that Fuchida be treated as someone who could not lie. Binksternet (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

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 WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theleopard (talk • contribs) 15:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

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 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.Jparshall (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jon. Yes, the main Wikipedia 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 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 Wikipedia 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."TMartinBennett (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

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. Binksternet (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

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 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."Jparshall (talk) 04:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

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 holes. Three strikes and you're out.TMartinBennett (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

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 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 Naval History 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. Jparshall (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

At this point, this may be a time to accept a WP:RFC to elicit further comments and evaluation of the disputed statements. FWiW FWiW (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC).

Last surviving officer of Pearl Harbor

Hello wikipedians,

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. GrimmC (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit: This appears to be untrue, as Minoru Genda 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. GrimmC (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

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 regardsTheBaron0530 (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)theBaron0530

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, however.Jparshall (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Page protected

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 Template:editprotected 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. MilborneOne (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 December 2012

Hi -

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

http://www.combinedfleet.com/BennettRebuttal.htm

..It's Parshall's response to Bennet's attempt at defending Fuchida and is of very high quality.

It should probably go just after

"and that his charges are groundless and without credibility.[]"

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 [link]"

And this should possibly be added:

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

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 [link]."

Umptious (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Umptious (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Just as a point of clarification, http://www.combinedfleet.com/BennettRebuttal.htm 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. http://www.combinedfleet.com/fuchida/ThreeMoreWhoppers.htm 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 http://www.jacar.go.jp/english/index.html. 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 http://www.combinedfleet.com/fuchida/ThreeMoreWhoppers.htm as a citation in the Wikipedia 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 anyway.

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 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. Jparshall (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia article will be left with the mistaken impression that Bennett has demolished 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[14]; Parshall has, however, rebutted his points in detail[15]" (where [15] links to Parshall's BennettRebuttal page. Anselm (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Anslem; the article as currently written gives the extremely misleading impression that Bennett won the debate with Parshall. Tricericon (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request about balance with regard to Martin Bennett

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

• On the other hand, in the Naval War College Review, 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.
• Screenwriter Martin Bennett contends that Parshall is mistaken about Fuchida because Fuchida, Prange and Goldstein should be trusted as sources.

Both of these sentences are based on the same reference: "Parshall's 'Whoppers' Examined", Naval War College Review. Winter 2013, volume 66, number 1, pages 110–125.

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 Wounded Tiger 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 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 WP:UNDUE. Binksternet (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

"Answering" my own request... The article is now unprotected which makes the request unnecessary. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Parshall has some substantial accolades. The Naval War College Review in its review of Shattered Sword 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 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, Attack on Pearl Harbor: Strategy, Combat, Myths, Deceptions. 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. Oldbubblehead (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

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 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.TMartinBennett

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 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. Wikipedia's guideline at WP:BLP will not allow it. Binksternet (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

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 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 Wikipedia. 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:--TMartinBennett (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

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 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 not 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 by far 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 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, Akagi'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 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, in its entirety, not just attacking my writings alone. That's going to be a rather tall order, I'm afraid. Jparshall (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

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. Binksternet (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

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 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.Jparshall (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

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 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.Jparshall (talk) 07:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Battle Damage Assessment

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 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). Oldbubblehead (talk) 07:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Controversy Section Integrity

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

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 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.”

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 Wikipedia entry. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theleopard (talk • contribs)

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, 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 Wikipedia 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. Jparshall (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

2. “Parshall’s ‘Whoppers’ Examined,” Martin Bennett, 2013, Winter, Naval War College Review, Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 110-125. https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/292914a3-bbf7-4418-bc52-2b482f6466db/Book-Reviews.aspx

3. “In My View” section, “Fuchida’s Whoppers,” Jonathan Parshall, 2013, Spring, Naval War College Review, Vol. 66, No.2, pp. 136-138. https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/04286a6c-c1a5-46d1-b82d-56a59cefe6d2/Download-the-entire-issue-in-pdf-for-your-e-reader.aspx

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

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? -- Diannaa (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

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 allow one rebuttal article 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 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.--TMartinBennett (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

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. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

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.

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 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 Missouri 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 of Japanese people showing Fuchida on the Missouri. 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. Binksternet (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

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 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.

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 this website, 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. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)--TMartinBennett (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Author 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 revised the term to simply "writer" for you.--TMartinBennett (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

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. Binksternet (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Please see the section below and we will try to figure out a specific wording. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

References

Bennett's profession

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 small businessman? That would be a summary of the sort of prior career Bennett had as described in December 2008 Stars & Stripes. Thoughts? Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

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 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 Naval War College Review 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 important enough to be published in a journal, intentionally or not. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

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 Fuchida led to a screenplay on Fuchida's life, wrote a rebuttal published in Naval War College Review criticising Parshall's research and conclusions, which he believes to be based on conjecture and speculation." -- Diannaa (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

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 Naval War College Review criticising Parshall's research and conclusions." would serve as well or better in either event. Tricericon (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

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. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Tricericon, the Bennett research has not yet led to a published book or screenplay. We should not credit Bennett with having published something he is still working on. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Copy edits

My recent copy edits 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, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding a Book to Bibliography

User:Binksternet, the guidelines for WP:COI 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 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.TMartinBennett (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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 will not be able to find it. There is no reason why Wikipedia should list this book in the article. Binksternet (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

And your publisher, Onstad Press, has no reputation at all, good or bad. The book appears to be self-published. Binksternet (talk) 00:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Fuchida's map and Fuchida Pearl Harbor photograph

The link in #22 is dead, but the Daily Mail has a good photo of Fuchida's map: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2541293/Chilling-diagram-damage-Pearl-Harbor-drawn-Lieutenant-Commander-led-mission-sells-427-000-auction.html 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 Gordon Prange when he was interviewed by him in 1947."

I came to wikipedia after seeing a photograph captioned "the first plane drops the first bomb on pearl harbor" attributed to Fuchida: http://www.usncva.org/clog/pearlharbor-pix.html (linked to from paragraph four photo credit in article here: http://www.usncva.org/clog/pearl1.shtml)

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.

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

108.193.227.112 (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mitsuo Fuchida. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20131213162635/http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/3594821d531e44f79e10b8a3a4dc05d1/NY--Pearl-Harbor-Japanese-Map to http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/3594821d531e44f79e10b8a3a4dc05d1/NY--Pearl-Harbor-Japanese-Map
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130331225346/http://usnwc.edu/getattachment/292914a3-bbf7-4418-bc52-2b482f6466db/Book-Reviews.aspx to http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/292914a3-bbf7-4418-bc52-2b482f6466db/Book-Reviews.aspx
• Added archive 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 to https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/87757f16-a19f-45d2-a606-057a6999d699/Download-the-entire-issue-in-pdf-for-your-e-reader.aspx

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Mitsuo Fuchida's Burial

Where is Mitsuo Fuchida's Burial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhtar Hussain Samoo (talk • contribs) 10:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)