![]() | Battle of Los Angeles was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Someone apparently inserted a section of an official government document en toto to replace a section talking about making a FOIA request. I'm not clear on how I should have gone about cleaning it up to look right. I think someone who knew what they were doing could make a big difference in a couple of minutes just by fixing the source citation at the end of the section "Historical Account From the Office of Air Force History" Kencomer 07:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
So, who is disputing the content on this page?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimv ( talk • contribs) 20:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
From the edit history, it looks like the POV issue had to do with whether there really were UFOs and/or a cover-up. I think the wording is ok now, although it could use more fact sources. If someone see the article still not neutral, please do use this talk section to point out where. Lisamh 23:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
It couldn`t have been a Japanese Fire balloon as the first one was launched in 1944. Hence removed. A remote possibility exists that it was a floatplane from a Japanese submarine (a few of those aircraft-carrying submarines lurked around the US West Coast at the time), though the Japanese records show no such flight took place that day.
Veljko Stevanovich 2. Dec 2006. 12:07 UTC+1
I'm curious, has anyone tried to match the apparent spot light sources with the actual recorded AA sites? I presume there still exists a map of some sort to locate where the lights should have been. If the apparent positions match the photo positions, its probable the photo is real, as a "faker" would most probably not have invested the time in matching the light sources to real ones. - Doug, 20:09, 28 Jan 2007 UTC
Further, how advanced was the "science" of photo editing in that time frame (1942)? Would it have been possible to "create" the apparent object on a night time shot of the area? - Doug, 20:17, 28 Jan 2007 UTC
I think it would be worthwhile to try and get a copy of the original unretouched photo and include it in the article.
70.190.214.167 (
talk)
13:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The article should be renamed "Battle of Los Angeles"; true description or not, it is what the event is most commonly known as. Plus: "West Coast"? West coast of what? There are many
west coasts.
Ichormosquito
05:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
-Well it's not necessarily you that has to be convinced. It should be known by its common name and that would reflect by the consensus. So far its 2 to 1. Reginmund 08:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
-Wikipedia hasn't had the honour of practising heresy just yet. The "common name" apparently gets 76 more hits than the current name which is too close to call as to whether or not it is more common. Battle of Los Angeles is also ambiguous considering other events that have occured. With how close the numbers are, "Battle of Los Angeles" isn't necessarily more "common". Again, "Battle of Los Angeles" is also ambiguous. Reginmund 01:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd do with Los Angeles Air Alarm if it were even moderately popular, as the other candidates seem confusing and ambiguous (owing to their inherent innaccuracy - it was neither a battle nor an air raid). But 5 Google hits? I can't understand why the article even mentions it! Is there something I've missed, or another possible title? Andrewa 00:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be general agreement that the term used by historians and other sources for this event is "Battle of Los Angeles". This article has been renamed from West Coast air raid to Battle of Los Angeles as the result of a move request. -- Stemonitis 07:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal#Rename request for West Coast air raid:
Although it's too late to affect the closed debate, it further supports the outcome, and I think it's good to note it here for future reference. Andrewa 14:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Wish I had come across this earlier. Check our Battle article. In this incident, there were a hell of a lot of people on the ground firing all sorts of stuff into the air, but there was no-one firing back. Like our article says, you need "two or more parties wherein each group will seek to defeat the others" to constitute a battle. So, we've had a name change, but it's still no more accurate than before. Moriori 08:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm currently unaware of who to go to to nominate the article for GA-status, but I say it calls for it, now; rather detailed for an individual UFO case. -- Chr.K. 11:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
And now a full review - major objections are MOS breaches... references are dreadful, and mostly lacking; see above points for more on reference problems; prose is poor; fair use newspaper image has no fair use rationale; punctuation isn't great.
I notice the above discussion and consensus on the article title, but I still find the idea of calling this a 'battle' ridiculous, but that has nothing to do with this fail. There needs to be a huge amount of work done on this article before, in my opinion, it approaches GA standards. I'd suggest you take it to MILHIST peer review before renominating. Carre 21:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Rumor has it the US army captured one of the supposed aircraft sighted in the "Battle of Los Angeles" as they pursued it crash land in the San Gabriel or San Bernardino mountains east of L.A. The US government might already possessed an "alien aircraft" prior to the 1947 Roswell and 1948 Socorro, N.M. UFO crashes. The incident took place during the midst of World War II when the US west coast feared a Japanese invasion (despite it never occurred) and other theories abound on this was meteorological phenomena since there was high cloudiness that night. The Battle of Los Angeles is an interesting pre-modern UFO era event, but what I heard on the "captured aircraft" rumor relating to the battle of L.A. is something I wish to add and get the sources to include them. + Mike D 26 ( talk) 01:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
"<copyrighted sources redacted>" WTF does that mean? You can't copyright a source title. Psychicattorney ( talk) 18:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
You obviously don't understand Copyright law. This is obviously censorship, what are the cited materials? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychicattorney ( talk • contribs) 19:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
"copyrighted sources redacted" on 24 January 2009 by the person who contributed them originally (Xtraeme) from these publications THE NIGHT L.A. BOMBED by Jack Smith (Los Angeles Times), Tuesday 04-08-1975 L.A. THEN AND NOW by Cecilia Rasmussen (Los Angeles Times), Sunday 12-17-2000 Battle of Los Angeles 1942: The Mystery Air Raid, 60th Anniversary Edition, (Sword, Terrenz) (2002) https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Battle_of_Los_Angeles&oldid=266042186 Waptek ( talk) 02:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
There's a reference at the end of the article that says "The incident appears to have inspired the plot for author Roger Conlee's novel Counterclockwise in which a couple from 1988 find themselves displaced into an alternate history in which the attack actually took place, shortly before the event occurs."
Neither the novel nor the author have articles on Wikipedia, is this notable enough to matter? Taniwha ( talk) 21:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that the three civilians killed by friendly fire justify a bit more mention in the article. E. M. M-R. ( talk) 03:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Late father saw this object skowly cruseing over Los Angeles! Whatever it was it was real! Yet, still no documents relating to this "LA.Air Raid" have been released to public I understand after more then 60 years! Why? Teslaedsonfan ( talk) 15:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Did that newspaper use that font? I doubt it very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.214.78.116 ( talk) 15:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding recent edits [5] with the edit summary: "The comment regarding photo retouching is a fabrication and should be omitted. The LA Times citations are irrelevant obfuscation": how are the LA Times stories not relevant, and how are they obfuscatory? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 22:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I am curious to know what the guns were firing at for an hour. Gunners should not be firing unless there is a target. What was reported in the brigades diary? Royalcourtier ( talk) 07:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Jim Maars writer on the paranormal and UFOS claoms US army NEVER has revealed full account of the "UFO" Battle of Los Angles?! 75 years this year after this event! Mortedik ( talk) 06:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
77th anniversary of this "battle of Los Angeles"! The same question "What was it" that caused anti aircaft guns to fire that night?! 107.184.16.48 ( talk) 03:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Wonder if there is to be an explantion for the "Battle of Los Angeles"? 77th anniversary of this event! Themoime ( talk) 03:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
77th anniversary of this event1 Stll no answers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theavengingone ( talk • contribs) 03:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
This infobox [7] is intended for actual battles or military conflicts, not false alarms. The WP:RS cited clearly say no Japanese forces were present, and it was later recorded in military historical records as a false alarm. The US military never designated it as a "battle". Rather, the term was used derisively, and only by newspapers and pop culture. Since it is not appropriate for this article, I will remove it. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Just got this on a promotion, and I'm seeing the version in the Microsoft Store proclaims "Over 24 minutes of bonus footage!" with a runtime of 2:21. Surprisingly, couldn't find anything on the internets about this, and the regular home media releases don't include any deleted scenes (that might've simply been reinserted for this version) nor any mention of an extended or director's cut. Does anyone know anything about this? Wondering if anyone watched the whole thing twice just to find all the differences.. Impasse ( talk) 04:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I propose this page about this event be reverted to its other, more descriptive name to avoid confusion with the far more historically significant 1846 event, given that this page describes an event in which no actual combat between opposing military forces occurred and the word "battle" in reference to the 1942 event is clearly satirical in nature.
It was not an air raid of course either, having been a weather balloon, but this is a more widely known name for the event and will avoid confusing readers looking for information about the three or more consequential events "Battle of Los Angeles" could refer to.
The actual battle of Los Angeles occurring in 1846, The Siege of Los Angeles, while oft-overlooked, is a far more geopolitically consequential event out of them and ought be the page returned automatically by searching 'Battle of Los Angeles' on EN Wikipedia. Alexbarbershop ( talk) 06:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think anyone disagrees that the analysis of the false alarm incident by the U.S. Office of Air Force History, although greatly detailed, is of significant importance to understanding the subject. The quoted text is a US Government document, and I assume it is in the public domain, so it may be simplified to summarize this huge wall of text with some close paraphrasing. I'm not familiar with licensing for text, and I think one of the templates at Help:Adding_open-license_text_to_Wikipedia may apply. Perhaps someone can help clarify. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Battle of Los Angeles was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Someone apparently inserted a section of an official government document en toto to replace a section talking about making a FOIA request. I'm not clear on how I should have gone about cleaning it up to look right. I think someone who knew what they were doing could make a big difference in a couple of minutes just by fixing the source citation at the end of the section "Historical Account From the Office of Air Force History" Kencomer 07:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
So, who is disputing the content on this page?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimv ( talk • contribs) 20:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
From the edit history, it looks like the POV issue had to do with whether there really were UFOs and/or a cover-up. I think the wording is ok now, although it could use more fact sources. If someone see the article still not neutral, please do use this talk section to point out where. Lisamh 23:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
It couldn`t have been a Japanese Fire balloon as the first one was launched in 1944. Hence removed. A remote possibility exists that it was a floatplane from a Japanese submarine (a few of those aircraft-carrying submarines lurked around the US West Coast at the time), though the Japanese records show no such flight took place that day.
Veljko Stevanovich 2. Dec 2006. 12:07 UTC+1
I'm curious, has anyone tried to match the apparent spot light sources with the actual recorded AA sites? I presume there still exists a map of some sort to locate where the lights should have been. If the apparent positions match the photo positions, its probable the photo is real, as a "faker" would most probably not have invested the time in matching the light sources to real ones. - Doug, 20:09, 28 Jan 2007 UTC
Further, how advanced was the "science" of photo editing in that time frame (1942)? Would it have been possible to "create" the apparent object on a night time shot of the area? - Doug, 20:17, 28 Jan 2007 UTC
I think it would be worthwhile to try and get a copy of the original unretouched photo and include it in the article.
70.190.214.167 (
talk)
13:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The article should be renamed "Battle of Los Angeles"; true description or not, it is what the event is most commonly known as. Plus: "West Coast"? West coast of what? There are many
west coasts.
Ichormosquito
05:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
-Well it's not necessarily you that has to be convinced. It should be known by its common name and that would reflect by the consensus. So far its 2 to 1. Reginmund 08:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
-Wikipedia hasn't had the honour of practising heresy just yet. The "common name" apparently gets 76 more hits than the current name which is too close to call as to whether or not it is more common. Battle of Los Angeles is also ambiguous considering other events that have occured. With how close the numbers are, "Battle of Los Angeles" isn't necessarily more "common". Again, "Battle of Los Angeles" is also ambiguous. Reginmund 01:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd do with Los Angeles Air Alarm if it were even moderately popular, as the other candidates seem confusing and ambiguous (owing to their inherent innaccuracy - it was neither a battle nor an air raid). But 5 Google hits? I can't understand why the article even mentions it! Is there something I've missed, or another possible title? Andrewa 00:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be general agreement that the term used by historians and other sources for this event is "Battle of Los Angeles". This article has been renamed from West Coast air raid to Battle of Los Angeles as the result of a move request. -- Stemonitis 07:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal#Rename request for West Coast air raid:
Although it's too late to affect the closed debate, it further supports the outcome, and I think it's good to note it here for future reference. Andrewa 14:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Wish I had come across this earlier. Check our Battle article. In this incident, there were a hell of a lot of people on the ground firing all sorts of stuff into the air, but there was no-one firing back. Like our article says, you need "two or more parties wherein each group will seek to defeat the others" to constitute a battle. So, we've had a name change, but it's still no more accurate than before. Moriori 08:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm currently unaware of who to go to to nominate the article for GA-status, but I say it calls for it, now; rather detailed for an individual UFO case. -- Chr.K. 11:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
And now a full review - major objections are MOS breaches... references are dreadful, and mostly lacking; see above points for more on reference problems; prose is poor; fair use newspaper image has no fair use rationale; punctuation isn't great.
I notice the above discussion and consensus on the article title, but I still find the idea of calling this a 'battle' ridiculous, but that has nothing to do with this fail. There needs to be a huge amount of work done on this article before, in my opinion, it approaches GA standards. I'd suggest you take it to MILHIST peer review before renominating. Carre 21:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Rumor has it the US army captured one of the supposed aircraft sighted in the "Battle of Los Angeles" as they pursued it crash land in the San Gabriel or San Bernardino mountains east of L.A. The US government might already possessed an "alien aircraft" prior to the 1947 Roswell and 1948 Socorro, N.M. UFO crashes. The incident took place during the midst of World War II when the US west coast feared a Japanese invasion (despite it never occurred) and other theories abound on this was meteorological phenomena since there was high cloudiness that night. The Battle of Los Angeles is an interesting pre-modern UFO era event, but what I heard on the "captured aircraft" rumor relating to the battle of L.A. is something I wish to add and get the sources to include them. + Mike D 26 ( talk) 01:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
"<copyrighted sources redacted>" WTF does that mean? You can't copyright a source title. Psychicattorney ( talk) 18:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
You obviously don't understand Copyright law. This is obviously censorship, what are the cited materials? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychicattorney ( talk • contribs) 19:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
"copyrighted sources redacted" on 24 January 2009 by the person who contributed them originally (Xtraeme) from these publications THE NIGHT L.A. BOMBED by Jack Smith (Los Angeles Times), Tuesday 04-08-1975 L.A. THEN AND NOW by Cecilia Rasmussen (Los Angeles Times), Sunday 12-17-2000 Battle of Los Angeles 1942: The Mystery Air Raid, 60th Anniversary Edition, (Sword, Terrenz) (2002) https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Battle_of_Los_Angeles&oldid=266042186 Waptek ( talk) 02:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
There's a reference at the end of the article that says "The incident appears to have inspired the plot for author Roger Conlee's novel Counterclockwise in which a couple from 1988 find themselves displaced into an alternate history in which the attack actually took place, shortly before the event occurs."
Neither the novel nor the author have articles on Wikipedia, is this notable enough to matter? Taniwha ( talk) 21:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that the three civilians killed by friendly fire justify a bit more mention in the article. E. M. M-R. ( talk) 03:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Late father saw this object skowly cruseing over Los Angeles! Whatever it was it was real! Yet, still no documents relating to this "LA.Air Raid" have been released to public I understand after more then 60 years! Why? Teslaedsonfan ( talk) 15:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Did that newspaper use that font? I doubt it very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.214.78.116 ( talk) 15:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding recent edits [5] with the edit summary: "The comment regarding photo retouching is a fabrication and should be omitted. The LA Times citations are irrelevant obfuscation": how are the LA Times stories not relevant, and how are they obfuscatory? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 22:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I am curious to know what the guns were firing at for an hour. Gunners should not be firing unless there is a target. What was reported in the brigades diary? Royalcourtier ( talk) 07:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Jim Maars writer on the paranormal and UFOS claoms US army NEVER has revealed full account of the "UFO" Battle of Los Angles?! 75 years this year after this event! Mortedik ( talk) 06:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
77th anniversary of this "battle of Los Angeles"! The same question "What was it" that caused anti aircaft guns to fire that night?! 107.184.16.48 ( talk) 03:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Wonder if there is to be an explantion for the "Battle of Los Angeles"? 77th anniversary of this event! Themoime ( talk) 03:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
77th anniversary of this event1 Stll no answers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theavengingone ( talk • contribs) 03:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
This infobox [7] is intended for actual battles or military conflicts, not false alarms. The WP:RS cited clearly say no Japanese forces were present, and it was later recorded in military historical records as a false alarm. The US military never designated it as a "battle". Rather, the term was used derisively, and only by newspapers and pop culture. Since it is not appropriate for this article, I will remove it. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Just got this on a promotion, and I'm seeing the version in the Microsoft Store proclaims "Over 24 minutes of bonus footage!" with a runtime of 2:21. Surprisingly, couldn't find anything on the internets about this, and the regular home media releases don't include any deleted scenes (that might've simply been reinserted for this version) nor any mention of an extended or director's cut. Does anyone know anything about this? Wondering if anyone watched the whole thing twice just to find all the differences.. Impasse ( talk) 04:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I propose this page about this event be reverted to its other, more descriptive name to avoid confusion with the far more historically significant 1846 event, given that this page describes an event in which no actual combat between opposing military forces occurred and the word "battle" in reference to the 1942 event is clearly satirical in nature.
It was not an air raid of course either, having been a weather balloon, but this is a more widely known name for the event and will avoid confusing readers looking for information about the three or more consequential events "Battle of Los Angeles" could refer to.
The actual battle of Los Angeles occurring in 1846, The Siege of Los Angeles, while oft-overlooked, is a far more geopolitically consequential event out of them and ought be the page returned automatically by searching 'Battle of Los Angeles' on EN Wikipedia. Alexbarbershop ( talk) 06:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think anyone disagrees that the analysis of the false alarm incident by the U.S. Office of Air Force History, although greatly detailed, is of significant importance to understanding the subject. The quoted text is a US Government document, and I assume it is in the public domain, so it may be simplified to summarize this huge wall of text with some close paraphrasing. I'm not familiar with licensing for text, and I think one of the templates at Help:Adding_open-license_text_to_Wikipedia may apply. Perhaps someone can help clarify. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)