Talk:Battle of Los Angeles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeBattle 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 20, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

small clean-up needed at end of the article[edit]

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)[reply]

dispute[edit]

So, who is disputing the content on this page?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimv (talk • contribs) 20:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing here... so what r u really trying to suggest????— Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.134.25.195 (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2006‎
UFO?
Some poeple even think it was a UFO. eh... if its unidentified flying and an object then it is a UFO!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.146.25 (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2006‎

neutrality[edit]

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)[reply]

Japanese fire balloon[edit]

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

Also, it seems unlikely that any aircraft produced at the time (and currently??) could have withstood an AA barrage without being destroyed. Even assuming gross inaccuracy, the odds of enough rounds missing the target to let it survive is remote, and the sources in the article suggest the object was hit repeatly. - Doug, 20:23, 28 Jan 2007, UTC
Guess you may not heard of a small thing called WW2. Luftwaffe, Soviet Red Airforce, USSAF, RAF etc etc all flew through hell and back to drop bombs - even though a load of planes would be shot down and more damaged, quite a number of them would be ok. Just because all sorts was being shot into the air doesnt mean they will score a hit and if they do doesnt mean they will bring whatever it was down i.e. look at some of the photos and reports of heavily dammaged B17s with half the plane missing which made it back home.--86.4.87.16 (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1)It is very hard to hit even near a 100+mph moving object several miles away with a time-fused shell whose time is being set manually based on eye-measused distance in a cloudy night. 2)I don't think that the photo is faked - those searchlights are simply converging on a part of a cloud hence creating a glowing "object" in the sky impossible to shoot down. Depending on the altittude of the clouds and the current windspeed the "object" may have appeard to be going very fast or slow, especialy if they did not estimate their altittude correctly.
Veljko Stevanovich 17 July 2007. 23:42 UTC+1

Photo[edit]

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

Photo manipulation of the sort you are suggesting would not have been out of the realm of possibility at that time. It just takes a little familiarity with a darkroom, that's all. --Panoptik (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

I have submitted a FOIA request with the US Airforce at March Air Reserve Base, to get the original unretouched photo, so that it can be included in this article.Chantern15 (talk) 06:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15[reply]
It’s here. If you had read the sources cited by the article, you would have known the photo was taken by the Los Angeles Times, not the US Air Force. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, does the US Airforce have its own photo?Chantern15 (talk) 06:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15[reply]
Perhaps there can be a comparison which can be made?Chantern15 (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15[reply]
A comparison made by whom and concluding what? - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By no one and of nothing, basically placing the LA Times and the US Airforce picture side-by-side, preventing Original Research and maintaining NPOV.Chantern15 (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15[reply]
Unfortunately, the USAF closed my FOIA request as they were unable to contact me by phone, and perhaps some procedural issue prevented them from asking questions by e-mail. If anyone lives in the US and could file a FOIA request about this, it'd be much appreciated.Chantern15 (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15[reply]
Even if you had gotten something from a FOIA request, it wouldn't have been verifiable by readers so we couldn't have used it on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 11:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ye of little faith :), I would've found some way to place it on an online archive, for example, "The Black Vault" and then referenced that here. Chantern15 (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15[reply]
Or shared it with a reputable news outlet, to get an article published and then reference that here. Chantern15 (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15[reply]

Title[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


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)[reply]

-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)[reply]

This isn't a vote. Ideally, it's a discussion. And "West Coast air raid" is not the subject's common name; Wikipedia pulled the title out of a hat. Ichormosquito 16:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-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)[reply]

Take another look at those Google hits for "West Coast air raid"; they are almost all copies of or related somehow to this Wikipedia page. It is not a common name. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events): "If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view." "Battle of Los Angeles" is the only common name for the event I can find. Hyperbolic though "Battle" may be, Wikipedia editors shouldn't invent a name unless there is no other option. Ichormosquito 03:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JSTOR turns up nothing for "West Coast air raid"; but in "The Impact of the Second World War on Los Angeles" by Arthur C. Verge, a historian at El Camino College, Verge says the event is today known as "The Battle of Los Angeles". Ichormosquito 03:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we want to be serious, there was a real battle of Los Angeles, and this was held not in LA California, but during the War of the Pacific, on March 22, 1880. And please don't speak to me about the number of google-hits: everybody knows that the structure and origins of the web make it higly Americano-centric. That said, I must admit that the current name is not fully satisfying, as it tends to take for granted that there was really an air raid, which is far from assured.--Aldux 14:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but as of now, that "Battle of Los Angeles" doesn't have an article. A search on Google Books turns up a significant number of results relevant to this article's subject, in addition to those concerning the War of the Pacific. Here's one. On Google Books, "West Coast air raid" pulls no relevant results. Keep in mind we are only looking for a common name for the event that took place in 1942. "West Coast air raid" is not a common name, it is the invention of an editor. According to WP:TITLE, an article should take the common name, even if that name is controversial. Ichormosquito 20:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Los Angeles air alarm would be preferable to West Coast air raid, as it takes care of the descriptive concerns Aldux raised. It's even a little poetic. However, it's not the common name. Only two of those five Google hits are relevant to the subject or not from a copy of this Wikipedia page; both come from wartime. History calls the event The Battle of Los Angeles. Ichormosquito 03:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the Boston Tea Party wasn't a tea party. Ichormosquito 03:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, but this event isn't quite in that league in popular culture. Is it really true that History calls the event The Battle of Los Angeles? That should probably be the last word if so, but it seems a bit sweeping, and surprising. Down here we don't call the 1942 Attack on Sydney Harbour the Battle of Sydney Harbour. Perhaps we should... at least in Sydney some shots were fired by both sides. In LA, it seems as if there probably wasn't even an enemy present to shoot or to shoot at. Andrewa 07:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go for any of the others besides Battle of Los Angeles because it has other meanings. Reginmund 04:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Before anyone closes this, let me advertise the discussion at the two Wikiprojects listed at the top of the talk page. I'm particularly interested in what Southern Californians would have to say on the matter. Ichormosquito 17:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clear it needs changed to "Battle of Los Angeles". But someone needs to source the first paragraph to make sure all the names that are listed are actually true. Puddytang 00:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it is renamed Battle of Los Angeles, a hatnote should redirect to the Siege of Los Angeles. 132.205.44.5 22:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)[reply]

From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal#Rename request for West Coast air raid:

Support "Battle of Los Angeles" is the most common name for the event. Zagalejo 18:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support Better late than never, but agree, "Battle of Los Angeles" is its common name. West Coast air raid? West coast of where? Battle of Los Angeles is more descriptive. Mothman wasn't necessarily a moth-man. --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that there wasn't a battle[edit]

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)[reply]

We were looking for a common name, not necessarily the most accurate one. Ichormosquito 09:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't even have said accurate. What seems logical to us may not always be the way English is spoke, and historical events often have poetic names... you gave the Boston Tea Party as an example above.
While I shared Moriori's disquiet exactly (see above), after vigorous debate I think the outcome is sound in terms of Wikipedia naming conventions and current usage. Until either WP:NC or English usage changes, we shouldn't need to revisit the decision. Of course we can, but it would be better to move on. Andrewa 14:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moving on doesn't always rectify the problem. The Battle of Los Angeles - which wasn't an actual battle - appears in Attacks on North America during World War II under the subhead "False alarms". Which should be changed? Moriori 01:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please take into consideration that the article you mention, Attacks on North America during World War II, has been calling the incident Battle of Los Angeles for two years now. The name has a currency that others don't, which I think the discussion above goes a good way toward establishing. Ichormosquito 04:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that moving on doesn't rectify a problem, but I think we've investigated this possible problem thoroughly already. Andrewa 08:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this instance "Battle" a noun, not a verb (over simplified, I know, but you get the drift of what I'm saying). Regardless of how you define the word, it is irrelevant whether this was an actual battle. The only thing that is relevant is that it is commonly referenced to as being the "Battle of Los Angeles". It could be called the "hissy fit above LA" for all I care, just so long as that is the most widely recognized name. perfectblue 20:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well put. Andrewa 21:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it was a battle, it is CALLED a Battle by most sources, and the fact that civilians died in the missed artillery shots certainly makes it notable. If a consensus is ever universally reached on calling it the 1942 Los Angeles UFO Incident, by all means change it. --Chr.K. 11:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination[edit]

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)[reply]

You should post the article at WP:GA under the GA nominees sections. Someone will come and review the article then. --Hdt83 Chat 21:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest you sort your citations out, before someone over at GAC puts your nomination on hold, or outright fails it. You have 3 instances of "THE BATTLE OF LOS ANGELES, Photo analysis by Bruce Maccabee", 3 instances of "Timothy Good; Above Top Secret 1988", and one strange {{cite book}} in the reference section. The first two can be fixed using the <ref name="reference name"> format. You should use uniform reference/citation templates throughout the article. You should also check WP:CITE for details on where citations should be placed, and various templates and formats available to you.
At first glance, I'd also say this article was way under-referenced for GA.
I'm not doing an "official" review here, because I can't be bothered, but you should really fix the above points as soon as you can! Good luck with the nom. Carre 16:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

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)[reply]

Captured aircraft from Battle of LA event ?[edit]

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)[reply]

Mike D here are some articles and their sources to further your research:
<copyrighted sources redacted>
--Xtraeme (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"<copyrighted sources redacted>" WTF does that mean? You can't copyright a source title. Psychicattorney (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It means what it said, someone copied some sources to this page, they were copyright violations and they were removed. Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You are really quick on the attack. You shouldn't assume that you understand everything. See WP:COPYVIO and associated links. This is the way we work. Dougweller (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"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/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Los_Angeles&oldid=266042186 Waptek (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conlee novel... notable?[edit]

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)[reply]

Civilians Killed[edit]

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)[reply]

My father a Block Air Raid Los Angeles area saw this object cuaeing Air Raid[edit]

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)[reply]

You misunderstand the purpose of talk pages. They are not here to discuss the subject of the article, you'll need a forum for that. They are here to discuss the article itself. Your question simply can't be answered here. Dougweller (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Font on the newspaper cutting.[edit]

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)[reply]

UFOlogy section edits[edit]

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)[reply]

The first citation TV Skeptic: 'Fact or Faked: Paranormal Files' looks at the real 'Battle of L.A.' describes how the TV show independently recreated the look of the photo, but then goes on to state: "The show with “Fact or Faked” in its title missed its chance to show that a key piece of historic UFO evidence was “faked” (the handiwork of a newspaper photo editor)." In other words, an attempt to debunk the photo failed because they didn't bother to examine the original photo negative, which the article confirms is available for analysis. So why include this in the article? The second reference is regarding how the art direction for the fictional film Battle: Los Angeles altered original newspaper articles for dramatic purposes. The article does not even discuss the authenticity of the original photo, and the quote used is very misleading in this context. It belongs on the Battle: Los Angeles movie page. Ufotheater (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC) Ufotheater[reply]
The first citation clearly discusses the original 1942 photo: "As reported by Los Angeles Times bloggers Scott Harrison and Larry Harnisch, the version of the photo that ran in the paper in 1942 had been retouched in ways that would not be acceptable today. The skyline was darkened with ink; paint (similar to correction fluid) was used to brighten searchlight beams and to turn lens flare dots into antiaircraft bursts. The part of the image identified by UFO experts as an alien spacecraft was shaped by drops of paint on the print." And the Harnish source makes it clear from the outset that "the film was about this historic event" and goes on to describe the historic event (the subject of this article) and how the studio publicity materials misrepresented/altered the historical facts (including the famed photo), so Harnish's comments are quite relevant. I don't really see how either are used in a misleading way. The idea that newspapers routinely retouched photos 'back in the day' is completely uncontroversial (like people using iceboxes before advances in refrigeration, or answering services and answering machines before the invention of voicemail) but here's a source for it, if you're interested [6]. On Wikipedia we go by what reliable sources say. Our policies have a pretty unique definition of what "reliable" means, which usually makes for confusion by new users who disagree with what the sources say. Best regards, - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see your first point. That said, direct citation of the Harrison/Harnisch article makes more sense than a reference to "Fact or Faked", which confuses rather than clarifies anything about the event. I believe the same is true of the reference to the film. Ufotheater (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Ufotheater[reply]
OK, I added a direct cite to the original Harnisch story. I did leave the Ed Stockley story in as a citation to state that the photo is said by some ufologists to show an alien spacecraft. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Targets[edit]

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)[reply]

See this, starting at the bottom of page 4. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand US War Dept has never revealed exact info on this "Battle" even after 75 years![edit]

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)[reply]

Claims like that are why our encyclopedia has policies like WP:REDFLAG. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Army didn't hide anything. You need to read the article. Especially those little numbers at the end of sentences that lead to the footnotes. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

77th anniversary of this event1 Stll no answers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theavengingone (talk • contribs) 03:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infobox military conflict}}[edit]

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)[reply]

Xbox digital exclusive edition[edit]

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)[reply]

Swag in Ohio ender dragon 💀💀💀[edit]

Swag in Ohio 172.222.132.54 (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page Title Should be Reverted to "Los Angeles Air Raid" To Reduce Confusion[edit]

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)[reply]

Per WP:COMMONNAME, the Battle of Los Angeles, a derisive term, is the best known name for this false alarm. However I've added text cited to an academic source that clarifies the terms "battle" and "air raid" were intended to be ironic and derisive. I've also added a note to the infobox to remind editors that adding details in 'Infobox military conflict' (numbers of combatants, identity of opposing forces, etc) isn't appropriate for this topic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution section[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Los_Angeles&oldid=1214046314"