Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Buna–Gona/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Problems

1. Too long to read (this is the length of a book). 2. Macarthur section is biased (only negative opinions listed as facts). 101.169.255.239 (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Bias – MacArthur section

  • @talk Balanced (as opposed to biased) does not mean equal. The section, in opening, does acknowledge the reasonable perception of the threat of Japanese reinforcement (as a fact) but, not withstanding this, it is well documented and widely held that MacArthur's command had a significant negative impact on the conduct of the battle. The section is consistent with the balance of the available literature I have encountered. The second last para of the aftermath section also provides balance on this issue. Personally, I am not happy with the section title nor with the sub-sections, which I think are tabloid like and could be removed. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
In the first para of sub-section "Demands results", there is also: "There was also the threat that the Japanese could reinforce the beachhead positions"; again adding balance.Cinderella157 (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I also meant to state that balance is achieved by proportionality. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
IP editor's lack of neutrality claim disputes fully documented and cited text in body. MacArthur's handling of this campaign has had numerous military critics, many cited. He managed the thing in detail from his luxurious rear area quarters, ignored accurate reports from front line commands and staged his only visit to the "front" as notoriously exposed by the presence of a sedan staff car in background that could not have gotten out of the vicinity of his rear area quarters. There is no way to come to the "biased" conclusion other than to ignore numerous cites by military historians. Unless those can be discounted the flag must be removed. Palmeira (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Sure the criticism of Gen. MacArthur is widespread and should be in here but this article doesn't balance it with any alternative opinions. That is what I meant but being biased. The person that wrote it then adopts the criticism as the article's own opinion by presenting it in the introduction (without saying who said it) as fact. I tried to remove that part but it got put back. There is something screwy here which I tried to fix but obviously am not allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32dDivGuy (talk • contribs) 20:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
You may misunderstand the whole premise here. Body text requires citation to reliable sources—and the critics are reliable by standards here, published historians and such—with the introduction a summary of the body. The part you (presumably) took out is clearly based on such sources down in the body. If you have equally reliable sources disputing those assessments in the body then add and cite them there and I'd support some coverage in the summary. Unfortunately, except for MacArthur's cheerleaders the blunt assessment of his actions at this stage are not very favorable from contemporaries or historians. He allowed himself to be a "map general" making decisions that had no basis in the reality of the ground his people were fighting on or the nature and strength of the enemy they fought. Part was the woeful ignorance everywhere of the geography and a sort of Western arrogance (same as those "nearsighted Japs that can't see in the dark" that led to the USN Savo disaster) about the opposing forces. Those are well documented facts. I'm not a Mac admirer, thinking he re-earned his "Dougout Doug" for similar behavior in the Philippines earlier. I will grant that his campaign from here on out, with quite limited forces, and his (and staff) improvisation of logistics over such an area often approached brilliant. Palmeira (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@32dDivGuy From he lead: "The demands were more [my emphasis] to politically secure and strengthen the position of MacArthur's command than for any strategic need." As stated in the reversion, the lead is a synopsis of the body and this statement is supported by the citations in the body. By virtue of "more", the statement is not categorical but is "to a greater degree" and thereby represents an appropriate balance of the critical commentary from the references identified and cited in the body of the text. An edit removing this sentence also removed that which followed. I also endorse the comments of Palmeira. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
As to the issue of bias or balance, I've contributed to this article off an on for several years because my father was in the 107th QM Btn, 32 ID. It was by this work that I first became familiar with MacArthur and his contributions to World War II in the Pacific. I had no real prior knowledge of his command behavior. Based on contemporary assessment by others and later comments by authorities, I believe that a fair balance has been struck in the current article. If you added an "equal" amount of content about his positive command actions, you'd hyperinflate what he did right in contrast to the mistakes he made.
Aside from any Japanese threat, MacArthur appeared to have personal motivations to get the inadequately trained 32nd ID into battle. When General Harding failed to lead the 32nd ID to immediate success, MacArthur sacked him. But the troops were not only inadequately trained, their were very poorly equipped and had continued supply problems--all due to command decisions that fell under MacArthur's responsibility. MacArthur, by requiring Harding to rely on aircraft for ground support, by relying on faulty intelligence, and by disallowing appropriate reconnaissance, among other things, had completely set Harding up for failure. MacArthur was utterly ignorant of the challenges Harding experienced on the front line. How can you "balance" this kind of abuse of his command authority? In my personal opinion, MacArthur was willing to sacrifice men's lives for the glory and attention he got for being among the first to attack the Japanese. The issue of "balance" in this article is a moot point. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 18:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the way to alleviate some of the concerns raised would be to move the MacArthur section into the Allied command section, thereby potentially reducing the undue weight that might be being perceived here (e.g. by reducing the heading level and treating as part of a larger topic, than by treating it separately). I think it is possibly a more intuitive place for the topic to be dealt with anyway. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
That sounds sensible. My understanding is that modern historians also rate the performance of the senior Australian commanders in this battle poorly as well, with some noting that MacArthur and the various other Australian and US generals were still learning how to fight the Japanese in the jungle (which seems a fair conclusion, though the consequences for the men under their command were terrible). Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Length

I agree at 205Kb the article may be due for a split. I suggest that the entire prelude to the battle might be split into a new topic. That seems like the only logical division. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 23:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@32dDivGuy, since you added the flag, I was wondering if you had anything to contribute to the discussion so far? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Battle section

I propose moving the battle section to a new page titled Battle of Buna–Gona: Details of battle. Only a slightly parsed version of the battle summary (section introduction) would be retained in the main article space. This is the first of a number of similar moves I would propose. Comments are invited. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

G'day, I understand the desire to reduce the length, but I don't think that approach would be ideal. Perhaps it would be better to create an article for each of the separate parts of the battlefield, e.g. Sanananda, Buna and Gona...not sure, really, sorry. Other opinions? AustralianRupert (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, While the headings indicate different locations, I don't think think that the subsections can just be pulled apart into locations and maintain the same coherence. I also think that the intro is a nice synopsis - much more and where do you stop? With all of these proposed changes, only the MacArthur section, with all of its quotes, would appear slightly longer and most would be much smaller. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
No worries, although I've certainly seen them dealt with under separate headings in certain works. For instance, Coulthard-Clark's Encyclopedia of Australia's Battles splits it into "Buna" and "Sananada". I guess my main concern is that "Battle of Buna–Gona: Details of battle" doesn't seem a viable article title in that it should very clearly be a subtopic to Battle of Buna–Gona, but the casual reader won't really understand how "Details of battle" is a split. In this regard, I think it risks becoming a content fork if it is created in this manner. The other topics, especially the logistics section and orders of battle, quite easily lend themselves to a split, but perhaps the section on the actual fighting itself does not, if it can't clearly be delineated. Anyway, that's my opinion, let's see what the others come back with. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
"A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided. On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." My perception(?) but not seeing the issue you allude to. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
My point of yesterday's date was not that it couldn't be split on a locational basis but rater, that it is not simply grouping the existing subsections by location without probably/possibly loosing cohesion. The split you refer to by Coulthard-Clark's is probably more correctly along the lines of the US and Australian AOs. A split by location should probably follow/be consistent with the subsidiary battle honours to make sense. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
G'day again, the issue I am alluding to is that readers will not see how "Battle of Buna-Gona" and "Battle of Buna-Gona: Details of battle" are different and subsequently over the course of time they will potentially cover the same thing in different ways...hence, a content fork. As such, a split needs to be made on very clearly defined terms. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with AustralianRupert. In the relatively early days of Wikipedia we had short and long versions of articles on some battles, but they were all eventually merged together. It would be best for this article to provide a comprehensive, but not too long, summary of the battle, and have more detailed articles on its various aspects as appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Would fracture the article too extensively. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 16:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Allied forces section

I propose moving the subsection on the 32nd division and Australian militia to Battle of Buna–Gona: Allied forces order of battle and ammending the For more details ... as follows:

For more details on this topic, see Battle of Buna–Gona: Allied forces order of battle. The article also discusses the lack of training and its impact on the combat effectiveness of the US 32nd Division and Australian militia units.

Comments please. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think this proposal could be viable. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Would fracture the article too extensively. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 16:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Fire support

I propose moving the Fire support section to a new page titled Battle of Buna–Gona: Fire support. Only the section introduction would be retained in the main article space. Comments are invited. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure about this one. Maybe. Again, is it just Allied fire support? If so, maybe Allied use of fire support during the Battle of Buna–Gona (or maybe just Allied fire support during the Battle of Buna–Gona), or if it is intended to cover both Japanese and Allied situations, then generically just Fire support during the Battle of Buna–Gona. Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Would fracture the article too extensively. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 16:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Logistics

I propose moving the Logistics section to a new page entitled Battle of Buna–Gona: Logistics. A brief synopsis would become the lead for the new article. It would also replace the section in the main article. There may be issues with fully referencing the synopsis which are acceptable as a lead but not when used within the body of the main article, even though it would be fully supported by the existing material. Comments pls. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

G'day, I think this could be viable in principle, although the article name should possibly be Logistics during the Battle of Buna–Gona, or something similar. Is the intent to focus on the Allies only, or on both Japanese and Allies? If just the Allied situation, I'd suggest the article title should reflect that, e.g. Allied logistics during the Battle of Buna–Gona, or something similar. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The existing section deals with both sides. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Then I'd go with Logistics during the Battle of Buna–Gona. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I am tending to a consistent format (here and any other sub pages) on the basis of Battle of Buna–Gona: Allied forces order of battle and the same for the Japanese order of battle but am happy to see where this leads. Thanks for the comment. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Consistency in this regard is probably not necessary, and I'd argue that "Logistics during the Battle of Buna–Gona" is probably more intuitive as a search term, but (as a military mind) I can certainly see the virtue in consistency/conformity. Anyway, it's not a warstoper. I found this as an example of a logistics article, which might help you in developing the article if you choose to go down that path: Battle of Pusan Perimeter logistics (it's currently rated A-class, so should be of reasonable quality). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I also agree that this topic would work well as a separate article, though this article should include substantial coverage of the topic (as I understand it, a major reason that this campaign was such a nightmare for the Allies was that it was fought on a logistical shoestring, which meant that proper support for the troops wasn't provided). Nick-D (talk) 12:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Nick-D (talk) understands this well. The exceptionally miserable natrue of this thing for both sides hinged on logistics. The fact that any heavy logistical support was dependent on the U.S. Army Small Ships, so often crewed by Australians under contract, and even that was a shoestring until that large ship path was opened with Karsik arriving at Oro Bay the night of 11—12 December 1942. Think of it, nearly a month with nothing but air supply and what could come to Oro Bay by small vessel to be wrestled ashore without true port facilities and still having to be ported through jungle to the troops. Those troops were on the offensive against well dug in, if trapped and eventually even worse supplied Japanese troops on a thread at first. I think it was Omar Bradley that said "Amateurs study strategy, professionals study logistics” and this was a lesson of what happens when terrain and logistics were not studied well enough by those launching troops into this venture. Palmeira (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I have previously discussed the matter of expanding the details of Small Ships and Lilliput in this section with Palmeira and have opposed this - not on the grounds of significance (it certainly is) but on the grounds that this tends to an unacceptable content fork, given this is covered in detail in the Operation Lilliput article. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Would fracture the article too extensively. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 16:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I certainly do not think the sea route needs expansion here; however, Operation Lilliput only deals with that specific aspect. There is a larger logistics aspect that just is not covered and could be covered in a separate article—though I am not sure it is worth the effort to try to surgically remove parts here in favor of that other discussion. The logistical issue for the entire early part of the war in SWPA went all the way back to Army in the U.S. with deep misunderstanding of the battle zone (Think piles of cans from waterlogged boxes that fell apart without labels because they also came off and wet ammunition, fast rotting uniforms). If you get out of the bang-bang histories into the logistics ones you find a massive effort back in QMC stateside kicked off by those Buna lessons. It extended from there to the frantic effort to put together "MacArthur's Navy" from every scow to new vessel they could commandeer, grab, hold in theater and otherwise draft into the logistics chain to assist the KPM ships that were the early core fleet.
It was "logistics" born in disaster, the fall of the Philippines, rerouting the Pensacola Convoy and scrounging through its holds for "stuff" that could be thrown into the forming SWPA forces (aircraft, but no coolant for engines, dive bombers without trigger motors, gunsight solenoids, and gun mounts). This particular first offensive action, with a logistics problem far beyond mere transport, after the holding of Milne Bay took place as that logistics nightmare was just getting some attention and before it began to resolve into something that could sustain a real offensive. One of the few things I personally think "Dougout Doug" did well with was pretty much solving the logistics nightmare while the whole of SWPA was actually low on the priority list. Creation of that "Navy" while shipping was so short worldwide and he way down from priorities such as Operation Bolero and Russian convoys was quite something. Palmeira (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

My sandbox (current version as at this date/time) has a cut down version of the article and includes a proposed summary version of the logistics section - it is about a quarter of the size (words) of the logistics section in the current article. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Observation

I have experimented with the above changes in my sandbox. All of the above changes I propose (save the battle detail) reduces the size to about 177 K bytes (readable prose - 86 kB). Implementing a move of the battle detail further reduces the size to about 110 k bytes (42 kB readable prose). Moving the battle section alone reduces the file to 190 kB (readable prose - 83 kB). The readable prose of the current document is 127 kB (total size - 205 kB). The earlier version of this article 106 kB (61 kB readable prose). A reasonable amount of what was in the battle section of that article is covered in the "prelude sections" of the current article. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd note that there's also scope to streamline the existing prose - for instance, by reducing the use of quotes. Nick-D (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The three sections identified above (other than battle) were chosen on the basis that they could be replaced by a summary that might be substantially shorter than the existing section, while not substantially fracturing the main article. For example, splitting out the Japanese defences section is unlikely to produce a substantial saving, considering its existing length and the length of any coherent summary that might replace it. Forking out the indicated sections except for the battle is a saving of only about 15% and probably less, depending on the summaries that replace them. The question is whether this is a sufficient saving to warrant the changes - effort and impact on coherence of the article? Cinderella157 (talk) 04:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Prelude to the Battle of Buna-Gona

Too much content!

All of the various forks suggested above would greatly fracture the article and a reader's understanding of the context.

Here's my suggestion for cutting this Gordian Knot: Take the sections that set up the battle theatre and split them off into a topic named Prelude to the Battle of Buna-Gona. This incluces Climate and terrain, Logistics, Intelligence, Japanese defences, Japanese forces, Allied forces, MacArthur's pressure and posturing, Allied command, and Fire support. That's about one-half of the entire article. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 16:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

That suggestion makes some sense and could be seen as the prelude to the entire campaign beyond as it was the breaking of that sea route logistics jam that made all the rest possible—at least while Rabaul and the north were still Japanese air and naval factors. A careful split there, with enough left in the article to show how critical that logistics factor was to the battle itself and a "Main article" pointer is something I could support. It would just take time and effort so as not to leave bloody gaps where the roots of logistics have been pulled out. Palmeira (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Many of those topics that fall between the background and the battle sections are not preliminary to the battle and for that reason, they were not grouped under a prelude heading. Many of these topics (such as logistics) give a development from before the battle and then across the conduct of the battle. Even climate and terrain, which fall within the scope of the prelude was edited (not my choice) to include disease as a subsection - the issue of disease developed across the course of the battle. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I am unable to see how the objections to a page dealing with detail of the battle (ie - inappropriate forking and excessive fracturing) would not apply at least equally to this proposal? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There's the preparations for and the background to the battle, and then there's the battle itself. Sure, some of the background affects the battle itself. But if you consider the two chronologically, I think such a split would be workable. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 00:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Disease, Logistics, Japanese forces, Allied forces, MacArthur's pressure and posturing, Allied command, Fire support and (to a small degree) Intelligence all have significant content that span the timeline of the battle (ie fighting). I submit that a chronological division would see much of the content retained in the main article but in a way that would be highly fractured. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Cinderella157, you've done a wonderful job in re-writing this complex topic. But I sense a little bit of ownership about the article and how it might be split. It feels like you're saying "my way or no way."
Any one else care to weigh in on how the article would best be split? I'd like to see a consensus. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 16:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
What I am saying is: the process that you have described is unlikely to produce an effective outcome since the material in the article prelude (ie between background and battle) is inconsistent with the premise that it is mainly chronologically before the fighting proper (in the article as it stands). My assessment is evidenced by the material itself. The MacArthur section deals with his impact through the course of the battle (about one-third is an introduction and preliminary. Almost all of the fire support section (except naval - which effectively wasn't used except in support of logistics) deals with the employment through the course of the battle. About half of logistics and almost all of 'sea route opened' deals with events through the battle. About half of the Japanese forces deals with reinforcement through the battle and changing dispositions. About one-third of 32 Div deals with the impact of training in battle and about half for Australian militia. In intelligence, perhaps a fifth deals with reconnaissance through the battle. if you envisage something different, then perhaps further explanation is require. I have done some working up in my sandbox for all to see. Perhaps your proposal needs a similar 'proof of concept'. I think you misinterpret my 'critical analysis' as "my way or no way". If I am to be expected to do this splitting (and this is what I sense), then I need to be starting from a workable practical plan. If this constitutes ownership, then ownership it is. However, no matter who is doing the leg work, there needs to be a a workable practical plan - that is my concern. You may notice that I have been somewhat critical of my own proposals. BTW/FYI, I posted an invitation on the MH talk page about 2 days ago to participate in this discussion here, since I too would like to see more ideas and a consensus. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Cinderella157, I don't know why you automatically assume you would be performing the split unless it's due to your feelings of ownership. I suggest we reach some agreement about the split and then individuals can volunteer to take on pieces of the job. As far as inviting others to discuss this on the "MH talk page" I think the discussion should remain here. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 16:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Not an assumption but a perception based on experience. I have provided a reasoned case why this proposition as you have described it is not likely IMO to produce the desired outcome. Alleging "ownership" or "my way or no way" does not address the reasonable concerns I have raised. I did not raise them in preference of another option. I have invited you to address these concerns. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

A search (say just "Buna Gona" as the search string) returns two versions of this article in the results. Even though they appear different, they appear to redirect to the same page. Don't know why or how to fix it. Cinderella157 (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Script edit [1]

@User:Darrend1967, @User:Meteor sandwich yum/Tidy citations.js and @User:AustralianRupert

I am concerned about this edit since it has produced widespread changes to references in the article which cannot be easily tracked, which appear to be largely 'cosmetic' and superficial rather than of any intrinsic value and which (by virtue of the number of changes involved), have a risk of corrupting data disproportionate to any benefit. I am not saying it has corrupted data but that this is a concern. The source code is not sufficiently commented for me to deduce the aim of the code, the criteria being applied or the logic by which this is being implemented. I see one undesirable outcome (IMO) - the change of citation section from three to two columns. This can be changed back separately but I am concerned about what is not readily apparent.

Would like to understand more about what this is doing, how it is doing it, why it is of benefit, what are the risks and whether the benefits outweigh the risks and are sufficiently mitigated? I have reverted the edit as a precaution. Please discuss. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

G'day, I wouldn't worry too much about this edit...looks largely just "wikignoming". Should be okay, IMO, but I can see why you might be concerned as it appears like a significant change at first glance. Anyway, all the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
No response from developer or editor making this edit. Will leave revert in place? Cinderella157 (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit to allied casualties in campaign box

@User:The Pittsburgher has made an edit to the allied casualties as it appears in the canpaign box of the article. See [2]. In the previous version ([3]), the statement made is supported by the discussion in Battle of Buna–Gona#Aftermath and by the footnote to the figures given. However, I acknowledge it is in error to the extent that it includes dead and this will be remedied.

The edit does not cite a page or pages in support which should be given and is in conflict with other sources and this should be reconciled (in the footnote at least if not in the aftermarth section). Likely, Gailey's references would need to be considered in reconciling this.

As a minor point the edit creates a referencing conflict wrt referencing format style as Gailey is quoted in the list of references.

I note that (not withstanding the cited reference) the previous edit gives a more accurate representation of the casualties than simply stating that "thousands were evacuated sick". I acknowledge the intent but do not believe that this is a "better" solution.

I am reverting this edit subject to a reconciliation of these issues with a correction to the original error.

@User:AustralianRupert, your advice and input would be appreciated. Signed late Cinderella157 (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

In making the edit I intended to make a distinction between combat and non-combat losses on the Allied side. The source in question (Gailey) unfortunately had no specific page citation though it mentions Australian losses of 8,546 (3,095 killed) and American losses of 847 killed and 1,918 wounded. There is also a round figure of ~12,000 casualties for the Japanese, which I left out because the current breakdown appeared more detailed. Those totals also appear in Dean W. Andersen's "Praise the Lord and Pass the Penicillin: Memoir of a Combat Medic in the Pacific in World War II" pages 34-35, and in at least one other source. There appears to be some confusion as to just what the real numbers were, as I have also seen the figures of 8,546 casualties and 3,095 killed appear in other places, though they are used to represent the entire combined Allied total, not just the Australians.
Sincerely, The Pittsburgher (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate the intent but here is the anomaly. The Dept of Vet Affairs (DVA) web page cited in the aftermath section quotes total Australian battle casualties of 3471 and 1204 killed. McCarthy may give a figure somewhere but not in the chapters I have downloaded (up to 17) I have very low speed so I can't do a further check atm. Brune (ABoAPlace) on a quick skim does not appear to give a figure either. Also, the non battle casualties are of great significance. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
G'day, I had a look at Keogh (p. 280), and he provides the following figures: 5,698 battle casualties (Australia) and 2,848 (United States). In addition, 15,575 non battle casualties (Australia) and 8,659 (United States); unfortunately the non battle casualties are only up until the end of 1942 (and it is for all of New Guinea). I also had a look at Coulthard-Clark. He lists Buna, Gona and Sananada separately and provides the following figures: Buna - 2,870 battle casualties (Allies); Gona - 530 battle casualties and sickness (AS 21 Bde only); Sananada - 2,100 Allied casualties. (pp. 232-236). As such, I think it would probably be best to provide a broad range (highest and lowest estimates) in the infobox, and then provide a full discussion in the body, which outlines the various different estimates. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

McCarthy (p 546) states:"casualties on the Australians and Americans in Papua of 8,546 between 22nd July 1942 and 22nd January 1943." The DVA gives Australian casualties total Jan 42 to Jan 43 as 5866. This is high compared with the sum of the individual battles (ie 5766), suggesting a calculation/typo error. From the same DVA source, total KIA and DOW for US and Aus army and air force is 3195, which may suggest a calculation error/typo compared with 3195. figures suggest that total Papuan figures have been quoted as being for BGS. Reporting this in the Aftermath and campaign box then becomes problematic in the same way that the Japanese strength and casualties were also problematic. I suggest it will require a similar solution. This was to look at the sources quoted by the authors. The elevated figures appear to probably be from listing total Aus figures for Papua as being for BGS. Coulthard-Clark's total is 5500 - these figures would appear to be rounded and would be low, give only 21 Bde is counted at Gona. The DVA total for Australians at BGS and for US army in Papua is 6000 if MIA (pres dead) are not included. The total give by Gailey appears to add US casualties to McCarthy's total, which already includes the US figure. Similarly, Gaileys Australians killed would appear to be the total killed in Papua including US figures. Inclusion or not of missing, can account for some small discrepencies (about 140 Aus army, for all of Papua and 176 US army).

Unfortunately, I don't have easy access to these references being quoted by both of you - help please. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Japanese strength in campaign box

Have reverted edit [4], amending figure of Japanese strength given in campaign box from "6,500+" to "11,000-12,000". Issue is how best to report this / deal with it?

The most often reported figure is 5500 or 6500, depending on when it is reported wrt early reinforcements. 11,000 - 12,000 is arrived at from a number of sources. Both are correct wrt the sources, though the latter (when qualified) is probably more accurate. Certainly a note would be appropriate. I have only reverted the edit by way of stimulating discussion and gaining a consensus as to what is best. For consideration is both the figure to be quoted and a note to be added. I would tend to the lesser figure and a not to see the section. Alternatively, "6,500+ (up to 12,000) - Note: see section, Japanese forces for details." @User:Nihlus1 @User:AustralianRupert Cinderella157 (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Units in campaign box

Present info under units in campaign box is inaccurate, incomplete and misleading wrt both the Allied and Japanese. 6 Div did not partake in the battle although units of the Div did. Similarly, the 8th Area Army was the higher Command but did not have a HQ on the battlefield. New Guinea Force did exercise command from the battlefield. These are just examples. Orders of battle are provided which are effectively lists themselves with a brief preamble and a complete list within the campaign box would be unwieldy. As a solution, I am substituting redirects to the orders of battle. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

7000 out of 6500 Japanese soldiers got killed?

That dosent make any sense to me Jacky138 (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jacky138: G'day, you raise a fair point. The infobox wasn't exactly clear. I've attempted to address your point with this edit: [5]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
That seems a good solution to me. Anotherclown (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
It is what happens when you have a very brief summary of complex and conflicting sources. The material makes (or attempts) to make sense of this. Already tanked AR for his solution but will think some more on this. May need another nother to refer to section for details? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Battle of Buna–Gona. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 14:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Dealing with size

I have been making some edits [6] to deal with the issue of size and moving a lot of material to the orders of battle.[7] [8] Most of the material goes to the Allied forces orbat. These may need to be renamed "Allied forces and order of battle" etc since they will no longer be just an order of battle. These are still a bit rough ATM but the gist should be pretty clear. Looking for feedback on this being a workable solution to the issue of size? Cinderella157 (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

G'day, seems like a good idea to me. Just a quick query on the Allied forces sandbox. Should the "US units" and "Australian units" sub-sections, which are currently in Fire support, be in the Order of Battle section? It would also probably be a good idea to expand the leads of the two articles, but otherwise this looks like a step in the right direction to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
You are pointing out some of the rough edges and I agree about the lead but I wanted to get some positive feedback before I expended too much capital on the proposal. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @AustralianRupert I think they are ready to move into the main space. What is the best way to do this? There will need to be new pages/page moves for the orbat pages. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 06:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

G'day, what are the exact page names you want to exist? I will see if I can move them around to achieve this. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Buna–Gona: Japanese forces and order of battle

Battle of Buna–Gona: Allied forces and order of battle

Thanks @AustralianRupert Cinderella157 (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: Ok, to confirm, though, I will have to move "Sandbox 3" over "Battle of Buna–Gona: Japanese strength and order of battle", which will delete the past edits. I will then have to undelete the deleted edits, and then move to "Battle of Buna–Gona: Japanese forces and order of battle". This will mean "Sandbox 3" and "Battle of Buna–Gona: Japanese strength and order of battle" will cease to exist, with all edits being in "Battle of Buna–Gona: Japanese forces and order of battle". Same same for Sandbox 2 being moved over "Battle of Buna–Gona: Allied forces order of battle", with undeletion of past edits and a move to "Battle of Buna–Gona: Allied forces and order of battle", leaving "Sandbox 2" and "Battle of Buna–Gona: Allied forces order of battle" as being no longer in existence, but all edits showing in "Battle of Buna–Gona: Allied forces and order of battle". (I think, I'm still a bit new to the admin tools). If you are happy with this, I will give it a crack. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert that sounds right. Do I just cut and paste in sandbox one to the Battle of Buna–Gona then? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

No worries, give me a moment and I will see what I can do. I think I can merge the sandbox with Battle of Buna–Gona with the tools. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
@Cinderella157: Ok, I believe I have completed these moves now. The main Buna-Gona move nearly crashed the server, I think... Please let me know if everything is how you expected it to be, or otherwise. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert looking in detail now but on first look it seems right. Thanks. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert had checked for reference error before I asked for the moves but shit happens. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Excellent job all with the effort to deal with the article size. A difficult and well done task! — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 02:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
@btphelps, I very much appreciate the comment. There is probably a little work to do to tie up links, both here and in the linked pages. I would also like some detail regarding streamers for US units and this is outside my content knowledge. Apart from this, I hope that there will be no "creep" to increase the size of this page, wrt matters outside the actual battle as the associated issues now have a separate space. Cheers. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

CE

CEd as far as Battle, closed double spaces, blammed a few typos, put quantities into convert formula (not sure about oz and usoz though), made per cent space consistent, changed & to , in footnotes. Need a ruling as to single or double spaces after full stop, percent or per cent and oz or usoz to remedy inconsistency pls. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

US and the imperial system both use the avoirdupois ounce at the same value in general commerce. Ounce-gram-mL conversions only work for water. Rice has a different bulk density. The US floz and the imperial floz are slightly different because of the difference in US and imperial gallons though they both have an historical relationship in that a floz is the volume occupied by an ounce of water (which is not an ounce of rice - and is that north African rice or common European rice? Just a twist of Monty Python but it does depend on the type of rice). I understand what you are trying to do wrt the rice ration. but it is complicated even more because the Japanese have their own customary units. The value is in the comparison of scale. My first guess is that the bulk density of rice is similar to water so that 28 oz of rice is about 28 floz is about 800 g is about 800 mL. I could add a footnote to such an effect. Unfortunately, the sources were not obliging to be more directly comparable. In short, I didn't try the convert template function here because I knew it wouldn't work. Will need to have a look at the templat but I think that the dif in oz v usoz is wrt USfloz. Will check.
Pretty certain that the WP renders the code to a set space between sentences regardless of of whether one or two spaces are used at the end of sentences. It does the same regardless of whether one or two returns are used between paragraphs. I know that some editors get hung up on "white space" the issue of white space is not what is in the code but what is in the rendered text. I have seen editors remove line-feed (returns) from the references sections on the justification that it reduces white space. It has no effect on how the document is rendered to the reader but the extra spaces in the code makes it much easier to edit. My preference goes back to my days computer programming, where extra spaces made it much easier to delineate sub-routines and made debugging easier. An irony is that the same editors want big areas of white space in the rendered text? Double spaces at sentence ends make it easier to find sentence ends and don't change the rendered product IMO FWIIW or why change it if it makes no difference but I am happy to roll with the flow.
I didn't know that it made no difference to the article page, now I do, thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Percentage refers to the "percent" sign , so that is a pretty good indicator.
I know but it has been written as per cent and percent so I harmonised them as per cent but will change them all to percent if preferred. I think percent is the US usage but I'm not sure.Keith-264 (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks so far. It is good to see what another set of eyes will bring to the table. I will comment that there is a difference between "canibilising the dead" and "cannibalism" where a person is killed for the express purpose of eating their flesh. The sources do not support the latter in this case, though some have tried to argue otherwise and I believe there are instances where the Japanese did so elsewhere. I hope it is a good read. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Good point, I'll change it. It's very interesting but I wonder about the amount of footnotes, are they all really necessary? I cut a few duplicates but none of the text I read looked controversial enough to need more than one per source in each paragraph, except where a different source was between passages from another source.Keith-264 (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Rice ration

Looking at the rice ration issue, I think that the original text provided a working reference of scale and that use of the convert template makes it less readable? The original follows. The initial converts, "28 oz (800 g or approximately 600 mL)" establishes a reference for comparison between systems. perhaps it could be noted that 600 mL is approximately 20 floz (either US or imperial). It is easy to see that 360 mL is 60% of the normal ration (or just over half) and 40 - 80 mL (average 60 mL) is about 10%. I don't think that trying to use the convert templates assists in making these simple observations.

OKKeith-264 (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Not saying it is the best. More throwing ideas around to get the best result.

The normal rice ration was 28 oz (800 g or approximately 600 mL).[1](as endnote: 600 ml is approximately one imperial pint or 20 fluid ounces (either US or imperial – noting that the two are only approximately equal).) Rice formed the bulk of the Japanese ration. At the end of December, each man received around 360 mL of rice per day but this was reduced to 40–80 mL in early January. There was no food for the period 8–12 January.[2][Note 1] By the time that the battle was over on 22 January, the garrison had been virtually starved into submission. There was widespread evidence that the Japanese had resorted to cannibalising the dead to stay alive.

OKKeith-264 (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
As an observation, I think it is better to avoid adjectives and adverbs in descriptive writing. A threat is a threat (A threat is a communicated intent to inflict harm or loss on another person.[1][2] A threat is considered an act of coercion.), there's no need to use active because a passive threat isn't a threat. In this matter (as in several others) I speak and write the English English of the 1970s, when sentences that scanned and made sense still mattered but it appears that times have changed. I try to write paragraphs of approximately equal length rather than treating them like lists, so some of mine are composites. All of my edits are subject to the preferences of the people who are more involved in the article so if you or anyone else disagrees, I won't argue the point, I'll gnash my teeth instead. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I take your point; however, I observe that a flank can be threatened by the presence of a force - only by virtue that it is there. On the otherhand, a force can engage a flank but not in force. In military terms, this is an active threat, as opposed to the other case. Is there a better way of saying this? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
PS, good collaboration is when you can disagree but reach a common ground without too much angst (or any at all). I am very conservative when working on somebody else has put a lot of effort into.

Strength

Not certain about this edit?

Original text clearly indicates which authors gives which figure and my recollection is that the second figure quoted was actuall 11,900 (not 12,000 but nerly 12,000). Because I am quoting figures I am particular about their attribution.

Sources give the total of Japanese forces deployed to Buna–Gona or operating to the west in the vicinity of the Kumusi and Membare Rivers as between 11,000[4] and nearly 12,000.[5]

This edit implies that both authors have quoted the figures given?

Sources give the total of Japanese forces deployed to Buna–Gona or operating to the west in the vicinity of the Kumusi and Membare Rivers from 11,000–12,000.[4][5]

trying to fix a formatting / appearance issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Japanese Armed Forces Standard Rations". Retrieved 1 November 2014.
  2. ^ Bullard 2007, p. 197; Brune 2003, p. 542.
  3. ^ Happell 2008, p. 78.
  4. ^ a b Bullard 2007, p. 205.
  5. ^ a b McCarthy 1959, p. 531.

Concatenating

FYI, there is a(n) history to this with another editor. I probably have a tendency to write larger sentences (though not like AR with whome this is a standing joke. Avoiding concatenation where reasonable is the result of accommodating the other editor.

I very much appreciate you input. I have made changes in small steps so that they are easy to address. If I have changed something back, it doesn't mean I think I am right to the exclusion of a middle ground that is ultimately better than either proposal. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Nearly all of my edits are cosmetic so a matter of preference, I don't mind you cancelling all of them if you prefer. There have been a few typos and dating format errors, odd (to me) duplication of citations and the occasional repetitious clause but no glaring errors. At last I've seen sfns with combined sources that work so I've copied the format and got more than I've put in so far. I've shifted sources into Further reading where they aren't cited in the text using a script (User:Keith-264/common.js) which makes them show up in the article space. There are a few others if you haven't already got them. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
there is a history to some duplicate citations. Initially, the article was re-written with a broad citation to three main sources and specific references to others. This was a concept too hard to grasp, so resolving this has lead to some duplication. Also, there was a move of a lot of material to the subsidiary pages. I ran a check that I thought would pick up ref issues but not the same - so thank again. I have only wound back a few where I see a change of meaning or similar - and it is still open for discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Rice ration

Previous version[9]

The normal rice ration was 28 oz (800 g or approximately 600 mL).[89] Rice formed the bulk of the Japanese ration. At the end of December, each man received around 360 mL of rice per day but this was reduced to 40–80 mL in early January. There was no food for the period 8–12 January.

Current version has been edited to include convert template with thanks to User:Keith-264:

The normal rice ration was 28 oz (790 g).[89] Rice formed the bulk of the Japanese ration and at the end of December, each man received around 360 mL (12 US fl oz) of rice per day but this was reduced to 40–80 mL (1.4–2.7 US fl oz) in early January. There was no food for the period 8–12 January.

I appreciate Kieth's efforts and acknowledge that this might be the norm, however; in this case, I believe that it detracts from what is trying to be conveyed by adding too much superfluous information - obscuring the primary message. The essential information is the scale of change that has occurred with time. The relationship between imperial and metric is established in the first sentence: "28 oz (800 g or approximately 600 mL)" - rounding 790 g to 800 g. 360 mL is 60% of the normal ration of 600 mL (or, at a quick glance, a bit more than half). It falls to 40-80 mL (average 60 mL) or 10% of normal. I would like some feedback regarding my concern and how too deal with this? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it felt a bit awkward when I tried to use the convert parameter and I don't think it turned out any better. I think your preference works better. Thanks for taking the trouble. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

CE

Finished the ce of the Battle section, revert as desired, not many flaws, mainly dates with -th. I was a bit surprised that there are writers even more laconic than me. ;o))Keith-264 (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=Note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Note}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Buna–Gona/Archive_4&oldid=1061806599"