Talk:Attack on Sydney Harbour/Archive 1

older entries
"Start class"?! I feel insulted :-) Grant65 | Talk 04:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Does anyone know why this article is not referred or linked to in the Pacific War article? In other words, is the "Attack on Sydney Harbour" not recognised as part of the Pacific War? Does it need to go through some sort of official process in order to be included? Who on earth has the power to make that decision and where? Is the Start Class thing a barrier delibrately placed upon this article so as to bar it from entering the Pacific War article? I feel extremely confused and disappointed.Wilfred Pau 10:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Wilfred, I guess the attack is not considered that significant in the context of the broader Pacific War. It was more a symbolic act by the Japanese Navy than a major strategic blow. Grant65 | Talk 14:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Granted. It is only in the past ten years that more light has come on the matter. But hey, by the same token, a year ago, we weren't expecting Pluto to be thrown out as a planet either, were we? History is alive and it has a funny way of showing itself.

Wilfred Pau 16:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Expand to A or FA status?
I think that this article could pretty easily be upgraded to A class or even FA status - it's clearly B-class and the only reason I haven't reclassified it myself is that I've probably edited the article too much to be objective. It's currently very well written and illustrated and provides a good and factually correct overview of the attack. There's heaps of written material on the attack to draw on to improve the article and much of this is recent and easily available. I'd suggest that an expansion cover the following points: Thoughts? --Nick Dowling 11:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why the Japanese chose to attack Sydney
 * Why the attack failed
 * The submarine attacks on merchant ships during this period
 * The Australian public and military reactions to the attack
 * The discovery of Midget "A" and its current status

A heavy rewrite and expansion along these lines is underway at User:Saberwyn/Attack on Sydney Harbour, which will on completion be moved here in stages. Comments and indications of useful, reliable sources will be appreciated. -- saberwyn 09:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Refs, external links
I'm moving the old References and External links sections here. Someone should look through these and decide which ones are relevant and should (a) be used as sources for the article, or (b) moved into the new external links section. -- saberwyn 01:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've culled out all the ones currently in use within the article, either a references or as exlinks


 * "Fact Sheet 192 Japanese midget submarine attacks on Sydney, 1942" (National Archives of Australia)
 * Peter Dunn, 2005, "Sydney, NSW Shelled by a Japanese Submarine on 8 June 1942" (ozatwar.com)
 * Peter Dunn, 2005, "Newcastle, NSW Shelled by a Japanese Submarine on 8 June 1942" (ozatwar.com)
 * Bob Hackett & Sander Kingsepp, 2002, "HIJMS Submarine I-29: Tabular Record of Movement" (combinedfleet.com)
 * Tanaka Hiromi, 1997, "The Japanese Navy's operations against Australia in the Second World War, with a commentary on Japanese sources" (Australian War Memorial)
 * Lt Cdr Mick Gallagher, 2002, "Australia honours gallantry of Kuttabul" (Navy News)
 * Damien Lay, 2005, He's Coming South (The History Channel)

Further expansion
The mergeover from my rewrite is complete. However, a few more things need to be addressed.
 * Someone needs to find a reliable source for the death of the pilot by crashing during the Sydney bombardment. Its not in any of the texts I have accessed, and none of the few websites I've come across are what I'd personally consider reliable sources
 * At the top of the Aftermath section, I'd like a specific cite for the statement regarding this being the only attack ever on Sydney/Newcastle/NSW. Modify the statement as needed.
 * Not done. Fair call, Nick. -- saberwyn 10:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Section on HMAS Kuttabul needs to be expanded, detailing how/when the wreck was raised, how long it took to recover all the bodies, and where/when people were buried.
 * Merged back into the "Aftermath" section until such a time as this information is found. -- saberwyn 10:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A map of Sydney harbour, showing where major ships were located and maybe the final resting positions of the submarines, would be nice. This map would go into the Allies Forces section, moving the Chicago image into the text on the attack.
 * Photograph(s) of the composite midget and/or the conning tower. Modern photos, not old AWM ones to show they still exist.
 * Midget sub acquired. -- saberwyn 10:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

When we get these under control, this'll be ready for the Peer Review wringer, then Featured Article! -- saberwyn 10:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fantastic work! I live in Canberra, and I'll take some photos of the display at the AWM sometime in the next week or so. However, should the para on Damien Lay's claim to have found M-24 be removed? - his claim didn't stand up to any scrutiny (I belive that the NSW Government disproved it the day after the documentary aired by performing some pretty basic tests on the site), so it isn't really any more notable than any of the other 50-odd claims. --Nick Dowling 07:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove the information about the claim, but keep the theory of the submarine heading north as a decoy and drifting along the Hawkesbury. I'll have a fiddle, and see how it can be done. -- saberwyn 09:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Howzat? -- saberwyn 09:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I've removed the mention to the 'spottings' in the Hawksbury as these clearly were false alarms, something which occured along the entire east coast throughout much of the war. --Nick Dowling 08:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys. It's a really great article. I just had a look at some sentence smoothing, and changed some stuff to a more militarily correct (it's the oppposite to politically correct) terminology. Let me know if you want me to continue. Rumiton 11:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Can anyone point me towards a map that shows the relative positions of all the vessels during this attack? It is hard to work out from the written accounts, which are vague and perhaps speculative. At least the correct mooring position of Chicago would be a good start. (I see someone else has asked for this.) Also, the mother sub's firing on the Russian vessel, though Japan and Russia were not at war, is interesting, and perhaps might be expanded? Were there repercussions? Rumiton 08:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As you were! I found most of the positions here http://www.combinedfleet.com/Tully/sydney42.html
 * It's still a bit contradictory. The attacking sub apparently went to the west of Fort Denison, then went back to Bradley's Head to make the attack, while Chicago apparently chipped a few bits off the Fort trying to hit her. It is falling into place though. Thanks. Rumiton 09:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I went to the AWM today and took some photos of the sub, which I've uploaded to wikicommons (see the new Commons link at the bottom of the article). Unfortunetly, the sub is in a large and dark room and my camera's flash isn't very powerful so they didn't come out very well. --Nick Dowling 07:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

M24
I am thinking we should rewrite the theories. Now that the wreck is found most of them are irrelevant. Comments? Rumiton 11:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The theories were a major influence on efforts to find the submarine over the past sixty years, which I think makes their encyclopedic "worthiness" enough to merit inclusion. Also, we only know where the submarine ended up, not why the submarine ended up there (Although I would not be adverse to the rephrasing of the latter two theories to emphasise this). -- saberwyn 10:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Renaming?
One of the points brought up in the recent (and as of this post still ongoing) peer review of this article is that the name does not entirely encompass the subject.

Although I am personally comfortable with the article name as it is, I'd like to throw out into the open the possibility of a more holistic title. The most logical rename I can think of is to Attacks on Sydney and Newcastle.

Thoughts? Comments? Am I wasting time? -- saberwyn 11:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the current name works pretty well. It leaves the reader in no uncertainty about what is meant. Rumiton 12:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the name's fine. The focus of this operation was on Sydney Harbour, and the related attacks on coastal shipping and brief bombardment of Newcastle are less significant. --Nick Dowling 03:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)