Misplaced Pages

Attack on Pearl Harbor: Revision history

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
View logs for this page (view filter log)
Filter revisionsshowhide
External tools:

For any version listed below, click on its date to view it. For more help, see Help:Page history and Help:Edit summary. (cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary

(newest | oldest) View ( | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

21 April 2022

11 April 2022

1 April 2022

30 March 2022

27 March 2022

9 March 2022

6 March 2022

24 February 2022

  • curprev 22:4822:48, 24 February 2022 Citation bot talk contribs 139,981 bytes +371 Alter: url. URLs might have been anonymized. Add: jstor, archive-date, archive-url, page, issue, volume, chapter-url, isbn, s2cid, doi, authors 1-1. Removed or converted URL. Removed parameters. Some additions/deletions were parameter name changes. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Abductive | #UCB_toolbar

22 February 2022

6 February 2022

23 January 2022

21 January 2022

20 January 2022

  • curprev 19:0219:02, 20 January 2022 ThoughtIdRetired talk contribs 139,624 bytes +343 Undid revision 1066876643 by UrielAcosta (talk) No - the word "fortunately" is simply a "word to watch". In this context it is entirely appropriate: the article makes clear that the lack of damage to the aircraft carriers was fortunate. This is a fact that is discussed in just about every history of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Removing this on a misread of "rules" makes this a poorer encyclopaedia. Tag: Undo
  • curprev 15:3615:36, 20 January 2022 UrielAcosta talk contribs 139,281 bytes −343 →Aftermath: Removed text clearly violating Misplaced Pages's rules, e.g. editorializing ("fortunately" & "notably" are specifically listed in the rule as words not to use) & unsourced interpretative commentary. I did this before; an editor reverted it on grounds NOT allowed by Misplaced Pages: the editor's personal unsourced claim that it's the "consensus" of unspecified "historians" & the length of time the material had been up (sorry, there's no statue of limitations allowing viola... Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
  • curprev 14:0914:09, 20 January 2022 OgamD218 talk contribs 139,624 bytes +242 Undid revision 1064386188 by UrielAcosta (talk) removal of long standing content that in fact aligns much more closely with historical consensus than npov Tag: Undo
  • curprev 13:5913:59, 20 January 2022 OgamD218 talk contribs 139,382 bytes +473 Undid revision 1060163761 by Sbb (talk) you can't delete a cite and then simultaneously add a cn tag, the appropriate edit here is a "better source needed" Tag: Undo

8 January 2022

6 January 2022

5 January 2022

4 January 2022

30 December 2021

28 December 2021

25 December 2021

17 December 2021

16 December 2021

14 December 2021

13 December 2021

12 December 2021

(newest | oldest) View ( | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)