Talk:Japanese air raids on Australia

Assessment

This is little more than a list of data. Needs major prose expansion. Could be more like Bombing of Darwin, February 19, 1942 or Belfast Blitz. LordAmeth 09:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Question on scope

Should this article include the overflights of Australian east coast cities by Japanese submarine-based float planes during 1942 and 1943? Dates and references for these overflights are easily available in the Axis naval activity in Australian waters article. --Nick Dowling 06:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that since they were reconnaissance flights rather than offensive operations (i.e. "raids") they are better dealt with in the naval activity article. Grant | Talk 06:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, that sounds good to me. Do we know whether this article excludes reconnaissance flights over northern Australia? --Nick Dowling 06:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not 100%, but I doubt there are any. I mean I'm aware of some other purely reconnaissance flights that aren't listed here, such as the one over Broome before the first air raid there. I think we should weed them out if we find them. Grant | Talk 06:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --Nick Dowling 07:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Raid on Cairns

I've removed the reference to Cairns being attacks as this isn't supported on the AWM website or in the RAAF official histories. While it is referenced at the Oz@War website, this site has limited quality control and I don't think that it should be considered a reliable source by itself. --Nick Dowling 10:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Northern Territory defence

I've just removed the following text from Military history of Australia during World War II. It might one day be suitable for inclusion in this article, or a related article. --Nick Dowling 07:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Following the bombing of Darwin on 19 February 1942, an initial response was to create dispersed airstrips down the main road. In order southward were the airfields known as:

• Sattler
• Strauss
• Hughes
• Livingstone

Just north of Adelaide River were:

• Coomalie
• Pell
• Batchelor
• Gould

with Adelaide River being a headquarters, communications, stores, hospital, ammunition and war graves centre. South of it were airfields:

• Fenton
• Long
• McDonald

and the Brocks Creek Bulk Issue Petrol and Oil Depot (BIPOD).

Katherine had a major hospital and was a railway headquarters. In addition to the "old airport" (located near the hospital towards the town center; target of at least one bombing raid), Katherine had satellite airfields to its south:

• Tindal (bomber base)
• Munbulloo (also a major military abattoir)
• Venn

A good suggestion. Each of these strips would be worthy of articles, I think, especially given the historical significance. Grant | Talk 12:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Air raids on Australia, 1942–43. 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://web.archive.org/web/20080410160254/http://www.awm.gov.au/wartime/8/articles/warships.pdf to http://www.awm.gov.au/wartime/8/articles/warships.pdf

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) 19:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Some stats

There are 113 raids (or attacks) on the list; 83 NT, 18 WA, 12 Qld. Some of the 113 are 2 locations.

There are 53 for Darwin (incl 1 Parap, 1 Vesteys).

Not counted in the 53; from Darwin (by air); Fenton Airfield (Long) 140km, Batchelor Airfield 70km, Coomalie Creek Airfield 70km, Pell Airfield 80km, Hughes 40km, Livingstone 40km.

MBG02 (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for tantalizing article

Knowing next to nothing about Australia but somewhat acquainted with Pacific War, the following questions that crossed my mind: (1) What was the greatest "penetration" (e.g. southernmost point attacked)? (2) Were the raids launched from Rabaul, or from Lae? Bombers from Rabaul & fighter cover from Lae & Salamaua? Coming from Lae, how much flying time did they have (left in their gas tanks) over Australia? (3) What units did the Japanese raiders belong to? (4) During this period, were there any changes in Australian command structure that resulted in a different response to the attacks? It would be nice if a brief statement about (1) were included in the lede or, possibly, to have a "Scope of attacks" section, maybe even the first section after the lede. I remember reading Saburō Sakai's book, in which he talks of the many raids on Port Moresby; but I can't remember if he ever overflew Australia. For the interest of readers from USA, it would be interesting to know the extent of Douglas MacArthur's involvement in planning the response, even if none; as a man given to grandiose statements, did he have anything to say about once he arrived in Australia? According to Douglas MacArthur's escape from the Philippines, he arrived in Darwin the middle of a Japanese raid on 17 March, forcing his flight to land at Batchelor Airfield. Fascinating subject. Thanks to all who have worked on this page. Vagabond nanoda (talk) 05:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment.

Requested move 25 July 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Japanese air raids on Australia. This is a no-good-options close: consensus is clearly in support of moving, but less clear about what the target should be. The use of the year was disputed. The degree to which WP:NCWWW actually requires a year was also disputed. The lack of other air raids to disambiguate was argued. Air raids on Australia was felt to be potentially imprecise and opening the door to random other events. This option side-steps the discussion of the year whilst adding at least one disambiguator to avoid the feared door-opening. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 09:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Air raids on Australia, 1942–1943 → Air raids on Australia – There was only one, see "Air raids on Japan" as format. Gryffindor (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support This seems totally sensible. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• Move to 1942–1943 Australia air raids per WP:NCWWW, as I initially commented on the technical request. Bensci54 (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: I want to get a consensus on whether to move to one of the following; Air raids on Australia or 1942–1943 Australia air raids. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Japanese air raids on Australia seems most natural to me, but otherwise would support air raids on Australia. I T B F 💬 13:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relist to try to get a clear consensus for one of the three proposed options BilledMammal (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be a mistake to make it only Air raids on Australia . It is too general, even if this only happene din WW2. I prefer Japanese air raids on Australia if you want it to be more general. I think it is good to show the years it happened. Japanese air raids on Australia in WW2. If we say WW2, we don't say specific years but people know it was in WW2 and not confused. O.maximov (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

That seems unnecessary given that the only air raids ever made against Australia were conducted by Japanese forces. Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting for same reason as previous BilledMammal (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Prefer "1942–1943 air raids on Australia" per the spirit of WP:NCWWW. I don't see this as meeting the exception standard laid out at WP:NOYEAR, but I could also deal with "1942–1943 Australia air raids". I would propose deviating from the when->where->what standard because "Australia air raids" could be construed as air raids carried out by Australia. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support There is only one collection of events that were "air raids on Australia". These were conducted by the Japanese between 1942 and 1943. Reading WP:AT in full, where the WP:CRITERIA are expanded upon, concision is preferred over unnecessary precision (see WP:OVERPRECISION and WP:TITLEDAB). There is no issue of disambiguation to be resolved here that requires the addition of the years. NOYEAR is require here for disambiguation. That section specifically addresses when years are used for disambiguation. There is no inconsistency with WP:NCWWW and, even if an inconsistency were perceived, policy (WP:AT) takes precedence over that guidance. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: I'm sorry, but that argument is enormously confusing. Taken to its logical conclusion, we would delete NCWWW because AT would always take precedence. But that's not the case. There's a reason OVERPRECISION says "Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines [...]," and there's a reason we have a whole set of naming conventions that complement AT.

NCWWW has received consensus to exist as its own naming criteria/guideline that complements AT, and as we're dealing with the title of an event, it is the guideline we are bound to follow. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

1. Per WP:POLCON: If policy and/or guideline pages conflict ... As a temporary measure, if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume the policy takes precedence.
2. As stated, I do not see an apparent conflict between WP:AT (read in full) and WP:NOYEAR, which refers to the use of years to resolve ambiguity. There is no ambiguity to resolve; therefore there is no necessity to use years. WP:NCWWW does not prescribe the use of years but it does indicate situations where that might be appropriate (but this is not such a case).
3. OVERPRECISION states: Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines, such as Primary topic, Geographic names, or Names of royals and nobles. No, this list is not exhaustive but it (along with the examples that follow) serve to illustrate the type of exceptions being referred to. Except for WP:PTOPIC, the naming conventions exampled prescribe a degree of overprecision for CONSISTENCY. [Incidentally, WP:NCROY is not prescriptive in its present iteration, though subject to the outcome at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Titles of European monarchs]. However, WP:NCWWW does not prescribe OVERPRECISION. Therefore, the quoted text is not pertinent to the proposal before us.
4. I only referred to the primacy of policy over guideline because of the assertion that WP:NCWWW was prescribing OVERPRECISION ie the assertion of an inconsistency that doesn't actually exist. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I still think you've completely misunderstood the purpose of the naming conventions. NCWWW does indeed effectively mandate the use of years unless "when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it" (and I'm not seeing this article measuring up to the subsequent examples given). That quote—and the first half of that section, in fact—would not exist if AT took precedence in these situations, as you believe. E.g. 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami would actually be at "Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami", and 1993 Russian constitutional crisis would be at "Russian constitutional crisis". Nevertheless, you're entitled to your own opinion so I'll butt out. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support as per the sources. Mention of the year is not needed. Lorstaking (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.