Jump to content

Talk:Attack on Sydney Harbour: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Reverted edits by 142.68.166.185 to last version by Unpopular Opinion (HG)
←Replaced content with 'hagger'
Line 1: Line 1:
hagger
{{talkheader}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=WPR
|action1date=08:57, 3 July 2007
|action1link=Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Attack on Sydney Harbour
|action1oldid=142204671

|action2=GAN
|action2date=04:40, 26 July 2007
|action2link=Talk:Attack on Sydney Harbour#GA passed
|action2result=listed
|action2oldid=147158470

|action3=WAR
|action3date=21:49, 2 August 2007
|action3link=Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Attack on Sydney Harbour
|action3result=approved
|action3oldid=148806651

|action4=FAC
|action4date=15:06, 14 August 2007
|action4link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Attack on Sydney Harbour
|action4result=promoted
|action4oldid=151152255

|topic=History
|currentstatus=FA
|maindate=November 2, 2008
}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPMILHIST
|nested=yes
|old-peer-review=yes
|A-Class=pass
|class=FA
<!-- B-Class checklist -->
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all
major points are appropriately cited. -->
|B-Class-1=yes
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and
does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2=
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including
a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-3=yes
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4=yes
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials,
such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5=yes
|Australian-task-force=yes
|British-task-force=yes
|US-task-force=yes
|Japanese-task-force=yes
|Maritime-task-force=yes
|WWII-task-force=yes
}}
{{WP Australia
|old-peer-review=yes
|nested=yes
|military=yes
|Sydney=yes
|Sydney-importance=high
|Sydney-class=FA
|maritime=yes
|history=yes
|class=FA
|importance=Mid}}
}}

== older entries ==
"[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment|Start class]]"?! I feel insulted :-) [[User:Grant65|Grant65]] | [[User talk:Grant65|Talk]] 04:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

:*Does anyone know why this article is not referred or linked to in the [[en: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 [[en:Pacific War]] article? I feel extremely confused and disappointed.[[User:Wilfred Pau|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. [[User:Grant65|Grant65]] | [[User talk: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.
[[User:Wilfred Pau|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:
*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
Thoughts? --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] 11:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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. -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 09:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

==Rewrite==
===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. -- [[User:Saberwyn|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

*[http://www.naa.gov.au/Publications/fact_sheets/fs192.html "Fact Sheet 192 Japanese midget submarine attacks on Sydney, 1942" (National Archives of Australia)]
*[http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/japsubs/japsshell01.htm Peter Dunn, 2005, "Sydney, NSW Shelled by a Japanese Submarine on 8 June 1942" (ozatwar.com)]
*[http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/japsubs/japsshell03.htm Peter Dunn, 2005, "Newcastle, NSW Shelled by a Japanese Submarine on 8 June 1942" (ozatwar.com)]
*[http://www.combinedfleet.com/I-29.htm Bob Hackett & Sander Kingsepp, 2002, "HIJMS Submarine I-29: Tabular Record of Movement" (combinedfleet.com)]
*[http://www.awm.gov.au/journal/j30/tanaka.htm Tanaka Hiromi, 1997, "The Japanese Navy's operations against Australia in the Second World War, with a commentary on Japanese sources" (Australian War Memorial)]
*[http://www.defence.gov.au/news/navynews/editions/4512/story08.htm Lt Cdr Mick Gallagher, 2002, "Australia honours gallantry of Kuttabul" (Navy News)]
*[http://www.historychannel.com.au/attack.html Damien Lay, 2005, ''He's Coming South'' (The History Channel)]
*{{cite web | last = Kennedy | first = David | year = 2003 | url = http://www.combinedfleet.com/Tully/sydney42.html | title = The Midget Submarine Attack against Sydney: May 1942 | work = Mysteries/Untold Sagas of the Imperial Japanese Navy | publisher = CombinedFleet.com | accessdate= 2006-11-06}}
* {{cite book |last=McKernan |first=Michael |authorlink= |coauthors= |title=All In! Australia During the Second World War |year=1983 |publisher=Thomas Nelson Australia |location=Melbourne |isbn=0170059464 }}

==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. -- [[User:Saberwyn|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. -- [[User:Saberwyn|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. -- [[User:Saberwyn|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! -- [[User:Saberwyn|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. --[[User:Nick Dowling|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. -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 09:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
::Howzat? -- [[User:Saberwyn|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. --[[User:Nick Dowling|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. [[User:Rumiton|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? [[User:Rumiton|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. [[User:Rumiton|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. --[[User:Nick Dowling|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? [[User:Rumiton|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). -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 10:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

== Renaming? ==

One of the points brought up in the recent (and as of this post still ongoing) [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Attack on Sydney Harbour|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? -- [[User:Saberwyn|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. [[User:Rumiton|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. --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] 03:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

==Names of harbour defence vessels==
Well done with the re-vamping of the article, particularly to Saberwyn. But is there a reason why the auxiliary anti-submarine vessels, auxiliary minesweepers and channel patrol boats are no longer referred to as "HMAS" and no longer [[redlink]]ed in the article? I have seen all of these vessels referred to as "HMAS _______" in various sources. And any commissioned ship of the RAN is worthy of its own article. [[User:Grant65|<span style="color:black">Grant</span>]] | [[User talk:Grant65|<span style="color:black">Talk</span>]] 03:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
*During the rewrite, I saw both HMAS and no-HMAS attached to the vessels, although I will admit the former was more common. I de-linked them because although they were all commissioned vessels, they were all auxiliary ships, and their only "claim to fame" would be that they were in Sydney Harbour at the same time as the attack. I've re-added the prefix, but left them delinked as I personally doubt that any of these vessels will receive an article. If someone else wants to go through and redlink them again, there will be no complaints from me. -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 05:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

:During my RAN time I served on vessels that will never merit an article (some of them in fact best forgotten by all concerned.) I agree, put in the honorific by all means, but the article isn't helped by splashes of [[red.]] [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] 09:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

:Incidentally, a common convention is to list a warship as eg HMAS Warspite on first mention, then revert to Warspite (without a "the") if the name comes up again. [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] 10:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

:It's unlikely that articles will ever be created about the RAN's harbour patrol boats, so I don't think that they need a red link. HMAS should be added where correct and appropriate. --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] 10:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

==Run for A-class?==
We've done a lot of good work on this article over the past few weeks, both in the realms of content and quality. Many of the concerns raised on this page and at the Peer Review have been taken into consideration and acted upon. Is there anything else this article ''needs'' before it makes a run at A-class review? -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 10:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:I think that the article would - and should - pass an A-class review. However, it might benefit from an additional section analysing the results of the attack - eg, the mixed performance of Sydney's defences and whether the results justified the Japanese efforts (Jenkins thinks that one ferry and several small merchant ships didn't justify the deployment of 5 subs, and I tend to agree). --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] 11:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
::I've got the books for a few more days, I'll see what I can dredge for an "Analysis" section. -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 11:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Jenkins and Gill both have good analysis of the battle - I can't get my hands on a copy of Jenkins, but I can help with Gill. By the way, this sentance: "Lt George Cantello of the 41st PS took off from Bankstown, but suffered mechanical failure soon afterwards, crashed and was killed" still has a citation needed tag. If it's from Peter Dunn's Australia @ War website I'd argue that it should be removed - that site is very unreliable. --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] 11:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
::::I've reworked it using the Pacific Wreck Database as a source [http://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/p-400/cantello.html], but will not shed any tears if it is stripped until such a time as a relaible source concerning the subject can be found. -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 11:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Great work. I think that it should stay - it illustrates the contribution the US was making to Australia's defence at the time and 1st Lt Cantello was essentially a casualty of the battle. --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] 11:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

::::Regarding the question Was it worth it? I think you could argue either way. The toll in shipping was in favour of the allies, but in the perverted logic of wartime, it was worth it if it demoralised the enemy. I think it left many Australians feeling pretty vulnerable, but that may have just increased their fighting spirit. It's probably a subject better left for someone's PhD. [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] 12:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

===Analysis===
<s>I've started a run-up of material for an Analysis section at [[User:Saberwyn/Attack on Sydney harbour]], per the discussion above. Its in point form at the moment, and any additional material or help weaving this into a couple of coherent paragraphs would be appreciated. -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 07:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)</s>
:Analysis is now in the main article. Play with it there. -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 05:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
::Thank you! Now, do we need anything else before we run for A-class review? -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 09:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

==Midget attacks after Sydney==
Does Carruthers specify the US ships which were sunk by midget submarines in December 1942 and early 1945 or provide a source for his information on these sinkings? These sinkings are not mentioned in [[Samuel Eliot Morison]]'s definitive [[History of United States Naval Operations in World War II]], and I don't think that it's likely that he'd not mention the loss of so many ships to such an unusual weapon. The slaughter off Mindanao seems particularly questionable. --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] 08:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
:Carruthers does ''not'' specify the ships sunk, and does not specify the source(s) used to make this claim. Based on your lack of information, I'm removing the paragraph until it can be confirmed in a second text. -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 10:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

== GA passed ==
This article clearly satisfies all criteria easily, and in terms of comprehensiveness and style would have a very good chance at FAC as it stands. Well done. '''[[User:Blnguyen|<font color="GoldenRod">Blnguyen</font>]]''' (''[[User talk:Blnguyen|<font color="#FA8605">bananabucket</font>]]'') 03:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

== Flag of Japan ==

That's not the rising sun, is it? --[[User:Anittas|Thus Spake Anittas]] 13:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
*I don't understand. If you mean the [[Rising Sun Flag]] used by the Japanese military, no it isn't. None of the nation flags in the infobox use military flags. -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 23:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

==Help==

I tried to add the interesting link http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/underattack/sydharbour.html to the para on m-24's passage through the Man of War anchorage, but I have done something wrong. The first line of the para..."Midget submarine M-24 was the second to enter the harbour, crossing the indicator loop at 9:48 p.m. without being detected, and at approximately 10 p.m. it passed through the anti-submarine net by following a Manly ferry" has also gone into the ref section. Something is clearly amiss.[[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] 10:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:You forgot to close off the ref tags.
::You had <nowiki> <ref yadda yadda yadda /ref> </nowiki>
::You needed <nowiki> <ref> yadda yadda yadda </ref> </nowiki> -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 10:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

::Ah. ''Mea culpa.'' I knew it must be something simple. Ta. [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] 12:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

==She or it==

Hi Saberwyn, I notice you reverted my mention of ''her torpedos'' to ''its torpedos'' and wondered why. Surely ships deserve honor as females. Then I thought you are right. These things were not ships, they were objects, devices, contraptions even. There was nothing of the homeliness and dignity of a vessel about them, and they must have been a hell to operate. Yep. Its. [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] 16:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
*I've taken the personal stance of ''it'' for the midget submarines as they were meant to be one-use-only weapons, not vessels. Everything else is ''she''. -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 21:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

::The one-use-only thing is interesting. What would have happened if they had made it back to the mother subs? Would they have been bolted back on and taken elsewhere, or just scuttled? [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] 15:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
:::They would have recovered the crew and scuttled the sub. I'll try to find a specific cite if you're interested, but the books are all back at the various libraries and it will take some time. -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 11:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
::::No, don't bother thanks, unless one comes to hand. They would have been quite expensive items to build, with all those batteries and huge electric motors. I wonder why they didn't arrange for reuse? Or maybe they never seriously anticipated that they would get back? [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] 12:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::The latter. -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 21:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::I've read somewhere that the Japanese didn't consider the midget submarines to be suicide weapons in 1942 - as was demonstrated by the mother subs hanging around off Sydney at great risk to themselves in an attempt to recover any surviving midgets. However, the use of such fragile craft in well defended waters was incredibly risky, and the similar British X Craft also suffered very high losses - though the British crews surrendered rather than committed suicide when their sub recieved sevre damage. --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] 10:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
:::The Sydney midgets were not suicide weapons, but it was accepted that the chances of the midgets returning was slim to none. -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 11:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

== FAC ==
Alright, A-class has been awarded. The question is now do we run for Featured Article status? Or, if we are not ready for it, what needs to be done to push us to the mark? -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 11:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
*Following Nick's assertion that the article is FAC-ready, I am notifying the mob that the article will be listed as a Featured Article Candidate within the next 24 hours. -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 11:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
::It starts... -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 06:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

==Whoops!==

I just added spaces between dots and refs as advised by an admin on another article. Saberwyn has taken them out again, and now I see the admin has realised he was wrong. Sorry! (At least it was a quick job reverting them. It took me about an hour to put them there, and I still think it looked better that way. Never mind.) [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] 16:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

== Article name ==

I just have to ask - why the discrepancy between the name of the article and the section of text bolded in the first line? An "Attack on Sydney Harbour" and "attacks on the cities of Sydney and Newcastle" are different things. Why isn't Newcastle mentioned in the title whatsoever? [[User:Seegoon|Seegoon]] 13:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:I think it is appropriate, the Sydney attacks were the ones carried out by the midgets, and they were by far the more significant. Newcastle seemed to be an afterthought for the mother subs, and the damage done there was minimal. A lot more damage was done to lives and property in the Australian Merchant Navy when the BHP ships were sunk off the coast, which for some reason has not attracted much attention at all. The operation is generally known as the attack on Sydney Harbour. [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] 13:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

::The whole operation is commonly known as the attack on Sydney harbour, so this name best meets the criteria at [[WP:NAME]]. It's also easier to remember and search for than [[Japanese submarine offensive against Australia (May - June 1942)]], which would probably be the most accurate name. --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] 23:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

== New text - heads up ==

I've just acquired a new text on the subject. ''A Very Rude Awakening'' by Peter Grouse, published early-mid 2007 (so its all new and shiny). Over the next week or so I will be going though this and adding/editing any new material presented in this book. I'm just posting here as a heads up, and when I do the actual edits, warning tags will be palced on the article. -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 10:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

:I think I've done all I can with the new text. -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 03:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

::Lots of good stuff to work with there. A couple of questions. ''"On the day of the attack the six outer indicator loops were not functioning, as two were not functioning, and there were not enough trained personnel to man both the inner and outer loop monitoring stations."'' Does this mean that two were faulty and the rest unmanned? Also the description of the torpedo that missed ''Chicago'' "passing along the port side" seems strange. I thought the torpedo passed across the bow of ''Chicago'' from starboard to port. Perhaps there is confusion from the fact that the midget initially motored through the anchorage, passing along the port side of ''Chicago.'' [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] 13:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
:::On the indicator loop point, I've fiddled with it a little. The fact that one third of the loops didn't work plus the lack of trained operators meant the Powers That Be considered manning the outer station a waste of resources.
:::As for the torpedoes, and positions relative to Chicago, I'm going to try and check ''Battle Surface'' before I continue with that. ''Rude Awakening'' says the Chicago was bow to the west, sub passed on the starboard, torpedo 1 passed between Chicago and Perkins (Chicago starboard), and torpedo 2 passed to Chicago's port. I shall return on this one. -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 03:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
:::'''UPDATE''' - Won;t be able to get my hands on Battle Surface until next weekend, as it is out of the local library. Sorry. -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 04:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

::No hurry, it's just that "Rude Awakening"'s torpedo tracks don't make much sense to me. According to sketches I have seen, both torpedos were fired from a position nearly abeam of ''Chicago'' on her starboard side, and both passed ahead of her to hit ''Kuttabul''. Though it did raise a flag for me when I read that the sub motored right through the Man-of-War Anchorage, passing along the port side of ''Chicago'', as that would have meant passing dangerously and unnecessarily close to the cruiser and other moored warships. I also can't see how this could have been proven. Let's see what "Battle Surface" says. [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] 12:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

::You have no doubt seen this animation put together by the Australian War Museum. http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/underattack/sub18.html As I said, the only jangling note for me is the unnecessary closeness of Ban's craft to the moored ''Chicago'' and ''Dobbin.'' But he might well have been lost. [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] 13:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

===Tracks and passes===
After reviewing the abovementioned animation, ''Battle Surface'' by David Jenkins, ''A Very Rude Awakening'' by Peter Grose, and ''Japanese Submarine Raiders'' by Stever Carruthers, I've come to a few conclusions, and have included relevant page numbers so someone interested can check my methodology.
*First off the rank, the animation, while serving as a useful guide, has several inconsistencies with the printed facts in all of these sources.
*On the matter of M-24's interaction with Chicago on the first pass, the animation depicts the midget coming up to ''port''. The various accounts in all three texts state that M-24 was spotted to ''starboard'', approximately 500 metres out, and in the aft quarter. (Jenkins 210-212, Grose 123, Carruthers 133) Chicago's bow was facing west, towards the Harbour Bridge. This also accounts for the damage to Fort Denison, the shell fragments found in Mosman, all to starboard.
*On the torpedoes, there is no consistent information on the positioning of the torpedoes.
**Jenkins has M-24 "off Bradleys Head", approximately 800 m from and at right angles to Chicago (p 214). Grose claims that the midget was "south of Bradleys Head", 500m from Chicago (pp 138-139). Carruthers gives a generic "off Bradleys Head" with no other data. (p 136)
**Torpedo 1 (Kuttabul-sinker) variously "passed well in front" of Chicago (Jenkins 214), "passed between Perkins and Chicago, about 25 m of Perkins' starboard bow" (Grose 139), or "passed narrowly ahead" of Chicago (Carruthers 136). Only Grose gives the direction of the torpedo's path in relation to Chicago. <small>''The Coffin Boats'' by Warner and Seno supports the also-near-miss of Perkins, p 130. -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 13:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)</small>
**Torpedo 2 (the dud) variously "went wide" while also "missing by four metres" (Jenkins 215), "appeared on Chicago's starboard side... crossing Chicago's bow from starboard to port" (Grose 142), or "passed astern" (Carruthers 137). Again, only Grose gives a direction in relation to Chicago.
*Because Grose gives the most information on the torpedoes, I've chosed to use him to source the information, but I would not disagree to the adding of something along the lines of "Sources disagree on the placement of the two torpedoes..."
*As for the relative positions, I agree that the illustration in the official War History by George Gill shows a more-or-less right-angle position, the textual information tends to disagree, which makes it all the more confusing. I've done a little thought exercise based on the information and a street directory. All three books agree Chicago was at the No. 2 buoy, which was 400 metres east of the north-east corner of Gardn Island. M-24 was roughly south of Bradley's Head. M-24 was also between 500m and 1km from Chicago. No matter where I place the submarine, I can't get anything better than a deflection shot. Bo aware, this is guesswork based on educated guesswork, as only the two submariners themselves knew where they were that night.

Please review and comment. I have the assocated texts for a little less than a month. -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 03:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks for your diligence. A couple of points. I don't want to come the old sea-dog, but I have seen in many a classroom that this arcane seafaring business of port and starboard baffles many an otherwise learned historian. Court accounts of collision cases can become unintelligible, and the true situation becomes indecipherable. I would also contest with you that the submariners necessarily knew where they were at the time. From what I have seen of the fog of peace, it can be hard enough to penetrate, and I can only imagine that the fog of war would be 100 times as bad. It is quite possible that Lieutenant Ban was disoriented and unsure of his position in the harbour, and may, as has been suggested, have mistaken ''Chicago'' for a ship under way and heading west. The truth of the relative positions of the vessels and torpedo tracks may today be simply unknowable, and all the "information" we have may be based on wartime conjecture. The exact tracks must be so. Perhaps that is what the article should say. Cheers. [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] 12:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
::I've had a stab at [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Saberwyn/Attack_on_Sydney_Harbour&oldid=162006392 rewriting the torpedo paragraph]. -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 13:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

==Was Muirhead-Gould a total turkey?==
He is starting to look that way. I feel the need to remind all that a Wikipedia article is not a historic novel, and such (albeit mild) sensationalism has no place here. If the confusion in the minds of commanders requires emphasis, perhaps we could explain the embryonic state of communications in the harbour (no VHF of course, apparently no morselight stations) and point out that M-G had received only fragmented and contradictory reports. [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] 12:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
:The claim that he was drunk during the attack probably needs to be fleshed out more, as this is a serious allegation. Is this backed by other sources, and did it matter? (eg, given the state of Sydney's defences, could he have done much more if he'd rushed back to his command centre stone-cold sober?). More generally, I think that the article is fair to Muirhead-Gould - while it's clear that he had a bad night, the article also describes the problems with Sydney's defences which were beyond his control (eg, a shortage of materials to complete the boom), describes the defenders' success in sinking two of the three midget subs and descibes his courageous treatment of the remains of the Japanese submariners. I read the article to mean that M-G was a mediocre officer, and not really a turkey. --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] 10:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

:::I take your point Nick, but still feel there is a bit of gloating when M-G's words (which can only have been reported from memory days later by a subordinate) are quoted in such detail, especially if they were spoken while under the influence. [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] 10:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
::::If they were spoken under the influence then...? It's a moderately well-known quotation, and that's why I included it.

::::I agree with Nick &mdash; the article is not suggesting that M-G's actions were totally inadequate, merely that that were adequate, rather than brilliant. [[User:Grant65|<span style="color:black">Grant</span>]] | [[User talk:Grant65|<span style="color:black">Talk</span>]] 12:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

:::No problem, or rather just one of emphasis. In the military culture of the day (and still today) there is no requirement for a Commanding Officer to remain sober at all times. He is entitled to his recreation, and also entitled to not be unsympatheticly quoted years later by people with hindsight. But I don't oppose the inclusion. [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] 12:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

::I guess if Muirhead-Guild was a living person I would oppose these quotes strongly. Since he is long gone I am opposing them mildly and waveringly. [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] 12:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

:::I am getting interested in this M-G. If you Google Muirhead-Gould Lithuania you get an interesting article on his shore posting to Berlin in the 30's as a captain. A representative of the Lithuanian government approached him about British assistance for armaments, specifically a submarine, and he stated his low opinion of undersea warfare: "One submarine isn't much use, and two submarines aren't much better." Apart from being a highly quotable source his opinion of subs appears to have been set much earlier in life, perhaps even in the First War, and being an Englishman of a certain type he saw no need to change it. Funny how things work out. [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] 04:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

:Its probably too late to add my two cents on the matter, but I don't feel that the material surrounding the quote really fits well where it is. In an already overly-long section detailing the basic actions of the night we pause the narrative to have the officer commanding blow up at a ship's crew. Perhaps it could be better incorporated into the paragraph on M-G's and Bode's sceptecism of the attack in "Failures of Allied defences" (para 2)? -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 12:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

==Graphic showing positions of key ships and torpedo tracks==
[[Image:Garden Island attack graphic attempt.JPG|thumb]]
I have created this image by editing a 1946 photo of Garden Island from the AWM database. It shows the positions of the key ships and torpedo tracks based on the map on page 69 of Royal Australian Navy, 1942–1945 by G. Herman Gill. I'm reluctant to include in the article, however, as a) I'm not 100% sure that I've interpreted the photo and map correctly and placed ''Chicago'' and the torpedo tracks in the right place and b) it's not very attractive - someone with a better images editor than MS Paint should create a clearer alternate from AWM image 304223. If you think that this kind of illustration is a good idea, the AWM has lots of photos of Sydney Harbour which would be edited for use as maps in this article. --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] 00:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
:This photo by Saberwyn showing Garden Island in 2007 might be even better: --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] 01:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC) [[Image:Fleet Base East crop2.jpg|thumb]]

::I think that is pretty nice work, Nick. I don't think there can be any serious doubt that the midget on firing was not far from Bradley's Head, that ''Chicago'' was the target, and that the torpedos passed narrowly ahead of her. Your illustration shows this quite well, it seems to me. It is the midget's movements prior to firing that are muddled. Looking at all the evidence, I would vote for the inclusion of your illustration with a statement to the effect that this seems to be the only sure information we have. [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] 12:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

:::I'm going to have to disagree on a few counts. First, the problem with using an image like this is that we have to insert ships that aren't there, and remove attention form ships that are there but shouldn't be. Would it be easier on the readers (although I will concede harder on the creators) to create a new image and place all the relevant ships from the scene in the image?
:::Second, although we are certain roughly where the submarine was, we are ''not'' sure of where the torpedoes travelled. I've got three differet books on the subject giving me three different sets of torpedo tracks, [[#Tracks and passes|as detailed above]]. Which set of tracks do we use? Do we ignore the other claims, or detail them as well? This will probably require the rewriting of the related paragraph as well. -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 12:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
::::I've had a stab at [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Saberwyn/Attack_on_Sydney_Harbour&oldid=162006392 rewriting the torpedo paragraph]. -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 13:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::As historians differ on M-24's movements and the torpedo tracks any maps would need to be clearly labeled as being based on a single source. That said, I think that this article would really benefit from some maps as the Harbour's geography was very important. That new wording is good, but I don't think that "although all agree both torpedoes missed their intended target, USS Chicago" is necessary as this seems to be implying that there's an unfounded conspiracy theory that Chicago was torpedoed, when, AFAIK, there is no such theory. --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] 08:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
::::More maps and illustrative images would be good. My worry is that adapting photographs would result in confusion between what is in the image and what information the image is trying to represent. As for the phrasing, I've had a bit of a fiddle with it, and I'm not sure if its any better now. What I'm trying to convey in that that part of the paragraph is the combination of three facts - (1) Chicago was the target. (2) Both torpedoes missed. (3) Beyond that, there is little consistency between historians on what happened until Kuttabul was blown up. Suggestions? -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 11:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

:::I think that sums up the known facts rather well. We are not omniscient and our sources are imperfect. The mystery is in itself quite fascinating and should be mentioned. [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] 12:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

== List of Allied Combatants ==
The list of allied combatants listed India but the flag that was provided alongside was the flag of Independent India{{flagicon|India}} ... India was a British colony during the second world war so I have replaced it with the flag of British India {{flagicon|India|British}}<br />
This is the image used in other WW2 articles (for eg. [[Battle of Singapore]]) that mention Indian forces fighting alongside the allies.<br />
--[[User:Saggod|Saggod]] 10:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
*Thanks :). I didn't know... I just plugged in the template to represent the presence of HMIS Bombay. -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 12:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

== Congratulations ==

A few days ago, I received an email via my user page from Peter Grose (author of ''A Very Rude Awakening''). He congratulated me on the superior quality of this article, and after I pointed out that I was not the sole contributor responsible, asked that I pass these congratulations on to Nick, Rumiton, Grant, and everybody else who has contributed to this article over the past few months. -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 12:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
:That's very nice of him. I note that his book has been getting positive reviews and looks like a good read. --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] 08:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

::Very nice indeed, and it means a lot. Please thank him from me also. [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] 12:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

==Deflection==
A 60 degree LEFT deflection? Surely, wherever the midget was, the deflection must have been to the right. And how could anyone estimate the amount so confidently when the position (and therefore range from ''Chicago'') of the midget has never been accurately established? [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] 12:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Plus if you look at the map of Sydney Harbour, a 60 degree "lead" would have them aiming for North Sydney somewhere. I think we have a clear responsibilty to look intelligently at the statements of academics, however impressively qualified. [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] 13:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
*Removed. -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 10:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

==Reinstatement of deleted material==

Hello Grant, I won't strongly oppose and certainly won't revert these reinsertions (which I did not delete) but I still consider the sentences to be too close to tabloid style for an encyclopedia. (And I do take your point about colourful writing having its place in the history books.) M-G, being long dead, cannot defend himself, but if he could I am sure he would say something like: "Do you know how many false alarms were raised in the month prior to the attack, all caused by nervous and inexperienced lookouts and faulty instruments and indicator loops? And how much expense they caused our already underfunded operations?" When things go badly wrong it's tempting to criticise commanders, and it's one of our endearing national habits. I hope we might not. [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] 13:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
:I deleted them, and reworked and reinserted the material in the Analysis section based on the opinions expressed above in [[Talk:Attack_on_Sydney_Harbour#Was_Muirhead-Gould_a_total_turkey.3F|the 'total turkey?' section]]. It is too in-depth and specific for a section that is already struggling under its own weight. It is the only time in the article someone is quoted. And, its the only time a specific reactiona and counter-reaction is demonstrated in the article. Sure, history needs its crunchy bits, but I'm sure we could do better than to pick on a stressed (and possibly a little tipsy) officer for blowing up at an equally stressed patrol crew? -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 11:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
::Sorry, but I don't see any of the above as strong reasons for removing it. The fact that it "is the only time in the article someone is quoted" is a reason for retaining it to me!

As I said in my edit summary: (1) military history is not just a dry litany of events; (2) it is highly relevant that Muirhead-Gould was on the harbour during the attack and that (3) he didn't believe the reports. (4) The "beard" comment is moderately famous, e.g. it was quoted by Matt Price in an article in the ''Weekend Australian''.[http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/Letters/RearAdmiralMuirhead-Gould.html] [[User:Grant65|<span style="color:black">Grant</span>]] | [[User talk:Grant65|<span style="color:black">Talk</span>]] 04:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
:I don't disagree that the facts shouldn't be in the article, but I am just not comfortable with this level of detail on a relatively minor incident compared to the rest of the night being uncomfortably wedged in the middle of an already-large section trying to deal with the facts and chronology of the attack. As I tried to do when I removed it, I reworked the information and placed it in the Analysis section, along with a similar incident involving Chicago's senior officer.
:In reply to your points... (1) there are several crunchy bits in the article - the Chicago sailor left on the mooring buoy, the Yellow Submarine prank on the composite. However, this bit of 'colourful history' doesn't sit right with me... it seems like taking a stab at someone who cannot defend himself and was possibly justified in his actions. (2) It ''is'' highly relevant that he was out on the harbour, I agree. But is it highly relevant that he flipped out at a ship's crew for whatever reason? Is it highly relevant that we quote him flipping out? (3) Don't blame him. A lot of people were, and even more people were clueless as to what was going on. (4) I don't have a response for this one. -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 11:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

::I concur with the above, and to (4) I would say: It may be exactly the sort of memorable and "moderately famous" quote that the Weekend Australian would snatch at, but that does not make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] 14:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The ''Weekend Australian'' is not an encyclopedia, but WP is exactly the kind of place that people would go to verify something they read in a newspaper.

Removal of the incident/quote from the main section strips it of its context and a true refection of Muirhead-Gould's approach on the night.

I don't understand the squeamishness about MG's reputation. There are many Wikipedia articles featuring criticism of people who can't "defend themselves" and were "possibly justified". In any case, history shows that his attitude was not justified(!) Sensitivity about "officer bashing", "pommie bashing" or whatever is reasonable, but I think you are both going too far.

Last but not least, and in reference to the issue of detail, I need only refer you to [[WP:NOTPAPER]]. This sort of detail is extremely common is milhist articles, because it adds life, colour and fresh air to them. See, for example, the main section of [[Battle of Waterloo]]: "Napoleon breakfasted off silver at Le Caillou, the house where he had spent the night. When Soult suggested that Grouchy should be recalled to join the main force, Napoleon said, "Just because you have all been beaten by Wellington, you think he's a good general. I tell you Wellington is a bad general, the English are bad troops, and this affair is nothing more than eating breakfast." Some striking similarities there, ''non''? I don't think Napoleon's reputation is any the worse for it.

[[User:Grant65|<span style="color:black">Grant</span>]] | [[User talk:Grant65|<span style="color:black">Talk</span>]] 05:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

:I think people should go to Wikipedia not to "verify something they read in a newspaper" but to get a more full, more balanced and mature view of the subject, not more of the same. You say M-G's attitude was "not justified" but that is with our glorious 20-20 hindsight. At the time it probably was a very logical stance. Some inexperienced people thought they might have seen something that was statistically most unlikely. I think a simple statement that the initial reports were disbelieved does the job.

:Your accusations of my reluctance to "officer bash" strikes a nerve, as I once was one, but I hope I am being neutral here. But as an Australian, any suggestion that I might not want to go in for "pommy bashing" offends me. Show me the Pommy and I will bash, joyfully and effectively. But I don't think that is the issue here. [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] 10:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


::Slight problem with the metaphor is that the Battle of Waterloo quote is taken from a screen-length section detailing what both commanders did on the morning of the battle, while the rest of the order and events of the battle is spread over nine following sections of a size roughly similar to this section. The MG incident and quote is sandwiched in to the middle of a 1 to 2 screenlength section detailing the entire order and events of the battle, meaning that this is a drastic over-representation of the particular incident in relation to the events of the night, highlighted and therefore empahsised (at least in my reading of the article) by the sole use of quotations throughout the entire article. I am not in disagreement that more detail is better, but I think that the level of detail required for this treatment of the incident should also require an equevilant level of detail (preferrably) throughtout the entire article, although in bits and pieces would better suit the likely development of the article. A simple solution until an equivelant level of detail is achieved througout the article (or at least in other sections) would be to tweak the paragraph so it could work without both of MG's quotes, or at the very least remove "what are you all playing at..." and leave the "black beard".
::But we've all got better things to do than argue over whether to quote or paraphrase. I think I may be having some [[WP:OWN]] issues with this article, and I don't have the time to fight that and/or anyone else, so I am going to acknowledge that I have done the best I can for this article and step away. -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 11:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

:I think you've done a great job, including NOT owning the article. Grant, how about we go ahead with the above? [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] 12:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
::I would prefer that the material in question be kept, even if it is not in that section.

::If consensus is against its inclusion in the main section, so be it, but I woujld like to hear from people othre than the three of us before I am convinced. [[User:Grant65|<span style="color:black">Grant</span>]] | [[User talk:Grant65|<span style="color:black">Talk</span>]] 12:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

:::OK. Let's wait. Waiting...waiting... [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] 13:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

::Hi Grant. I have taken the liberty of inviting [[user:Vassyana]] in for his opinion. He is a very experienced admin, whom I have seen working effectively in other areas. Mil Hist isn't his area, but he might have something good to add. [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] 12:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

==Category==
Can this article be categorized Military history of Sydney during World War II. I have just start a new category for Sydney suburban articles with military history of that period which is a sub category for military history of Australia[[User:Adam.J.W.C.|. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C.]] 08:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

==Footnote==

It seems both text footnotes, I and II, lead to the same footnote (I), and reverse searching from the notes to the text also leads both to number I. The notes appear to be properly formulated. Any ideas? [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] ([[User talk:Rumiton|talk]]) 01:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
:The same name parameter ('name') is used in both templates. Read http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Template:Ref#Simple I'm not correcting it 'cause i'm only a reader usually... and given your question and the complicated structure of ref's here:) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/83.237.110.155|83.237.110.155]] ([[User talk:83.237.110.155|talk]]) 10:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:: I see. Thanks. It might be better to change both footnotes to refs. I'll look at it later. [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] ([[User talk:Rumiton|talk]]) 10:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

==Maritime metrics==

I am not sure nautical measurements should be metricated. Nautical miles are still used at sea, and are different from land miles, which I suspect this Bot uses. I will change back if no discussion. [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] ([[User talk:Rumiton|talk]]) 03:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

== Eye Witness Account ==

Hello, I'm new to this but found the cumulative Attack on Sydney Harbour entry to be greatly informative. I was browsing the entry because my father was on watch that night as a Marine Corps guard aboard the Chicago when one of the subs surfaced. He helped sound General Quarters and actually fired at the sub. His account of the episode is included in a 40,000 word memoir he wrote in the 1990s about his three-plus years in combat experience in the Pacific. I would be happy to share that part it with this site if it seems helpful or appropriate. I think his details pretty much mesh with the pertinent parts of the account here, although in one fairly major difference he described the sub as being so close to the Chicago that he could have beaned it with a baseball. Dad passed away in 2000 and I've been delving into his memoir as part of a long postponed project to edit it and publish it for my family. I was reading this entry as a way of cross-checking the basic facts and dates of his stories.[[User:Jaxnandy|Jaxnandy]] ([[User talk:Jaxnandy|talk]]) 21:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

:Interesting! As it is a self-published account, the article probably cannot use it, but we editors would sure like to see some of it. My father was on a train going to work over the bridge next morning and saw the salvage going on. Have a look at this [[http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/underattack/sub18.html]]. I think it gets closest to accurately describing what happened, and does indeed show the sub getting very close to ''Chicago''. [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] ([[User talk:Rumiton|talk]]) 09:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Incidentally, the wreck is described as "showing bullet damage". The sub's presumed track after being forced to submerge shows (I think) that the commander was at least disoriented by the attack. Your father's actions may well have helped prevent a lot more damage. On behalf of Australia, thank you! [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] ([[User talk:Rumiton|talk]]) 09:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

== Proposal to remove date-autoformatting ==

Dear fellow contributors

[[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Date_autoformatting|MOSNUM]] no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Full_date_formatting|rules for the raw formatting]], irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28links%29#Overlinking_and_underlinking|MOSLINK]] and [[Wikipedia:Context#What_generally_should_not_be_linked|CONTEXT]] are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
{{hide|bg1= #C0C0C0|contentcss=border:1px #C0C0C0solid; |headercss=color:black; |header= Disadvantages of date-autoformatting|content=</br>

*'''(1) In-house only'''
:*(a) It works only for the WP "elite".
:*(b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
:*(c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

*'''(2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences'''
:*(a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling ([[WP:ENGVAR]]) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

*'''(3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates'''
:*(a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
:*(b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
:*(c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

*'''(4) Typos and misunderstood coding'''
:*(a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
:*(b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
:*(c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

*'''(5) Edit-mode clutter'''
:*(a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

*'''(6) Limited application'''
:*(a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
:*(b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.}}

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 12:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
**I have never liked it. As long as no ambiguity follows, do it! [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] ([[User talk:Rumiton|talk]]) 16:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

== Wording missing from article ==

Some wording is missing. At ref 47 and 49.

It passed within 500 metres (1640 ft) to the starboard of USS Chicago's moored position off Garden Island, and was heading on a course roughly parallel to the ship when a Chicago searchlight operator spotted it at 10:52 pm by .[47][49]

[[User:Boylo|Boylo]] ([[User talk:Boylo|talk]]) 01:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks for spotting that. I think that the problem was that the word 'by' isn't needed, so I've removed it. [[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] ([[User talk:Nick Dowling|talk]]) 01:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:54, 2 November 2008

hagger

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attack_on_Sydney_Harbour&oldid=249141600"