Talk:Bougainville campaign
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bougainville campaign article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Which is correct?
editI'm a bit confused. The article title says 1944-45, but the article itself says 1943-1944. Which is correct? -Etoile 00:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Neither. Fighting on Bougainville lasted until the end of the war (eg, 1943-45). While the article does not currently mention it, after the US forces left Bougainville the Australian Army launched a major offensive against the Japanese. --Nick Dowling 05:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'll be working on this article eventually and I'll make sure to include the final stage of the battle that included Australian troops. If you know of any references that detail the Australian portion of the battle, please list them in the references section. Thanks, Cla68 14:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- One more thing, whoever originally laid out the Solomon Islands campaign, placed an article for the land battle of Empress Augusta Bay (1943) as a seperate article from the later Bougainville campaign (this article). I'm not sure if they should be separate articles. Cla68 00:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Japanese statistics
editAt the moment, citing Gailey, we have 65,000 troops and 44,000 dead. However the AWM website says: "At the surrender it was found that in November 1944 there had been 42,000 Japanese on the island. At the surrender in September 1945, 23,571 were left; 8,500 died in battle and 9,800 of disease and malnutrition."[1] I wonder where Gailey gets the other 23-24,000 from. Grant | Talk 16:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'll check Gailey's book and see what source he cites for his numbers. CLA 01:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Gailey is insistent that there were 65,000 Japanese troops on the island. Rottman's book, however, states that there were 38,000 Japanese troops on Bougainville at the time of the Allied invasion and that 7,000 more arrived later. Since Rottman's figures are closer to AWM's numbers, I think we should use those. I'll make the changes and put Gailey's figures in the footnote. CLA 12:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, thanks. Grant | Talk 01:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, I think the Allied forces numbers in the infobox may be too high also because Gailey is vague on the exact number of Allied soldiers involved. CLA 01:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Concerns about GA nomination
editHello, I see that this article has been nominated for a GA review. I have a number of concerns about this. Firstly, this was done without consultation. While I understand that anyone can nominate an article for GA, I think it is best to notify the article's main contributors beforehand. That is a minor point, though, and I understand that the nominator was only acting on good faith, so I will move on. My main concern is the fact that I don't believe that the article is ready for GAN. I say this as the article's main contributor. It is missing a lot of things, for instance: the strategic context of the fighting (background), description of terrain/geography, logistics, air operations, aftermath/analysis, etc. There is a lot more that could be written here. I intend to add this to the article eventually, however, I am not in a position to do so at the moment. Unless someone has the inclination to add this information, I think that the GA nomination should simply be removed as I fear that without it, it won't be successful and it will simply be wasting a reviewer's time. As such, I propose to remove the nomination. I will wait for some feedback on this proposal before doing so, though. If I haven't heard anything by tomorrow night (it is currently 8:00 pm Sunday here), I will go ahead and remove the nomination. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- After reviewing the article myself, I agree the nomination should be pulled. Not that the article is in bad shape (far from it), but it needs a bit more content. I am willing to help with that, and thanks for notifying me, 72.184.164.159 (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- No worries, I've removed the nomination per above. If you are keen to work on the article, please feel free. I'd be very interested to see what you come up with. At the moment, I'm a bit tied up with the Huon Peninsula campaign, but I could drag myself away from that once you get started. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Bougainville Campaign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070109011150/http://www.nps.gov:80/archive/wapa/indepth/extContent/usmc/pcn-190-003130-00/sec14.htm to http://www.nps.gov/archive/wapa/indepth/extContent/usmc/pcn-190-003130-00/sec14.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Serious Issues
editThe article seems to heavily focus on the American viewpoint of the campaign, it is riddled with photos of American officers who took part in the campaign (their "hip" nicknames included). The description of the second photo of the January–February 1944: Encircling Rabaul segment is borderline POV. The reference to the Thanksgiving Day as well as Eleanor Roosevelt's column My Day also seems out of place since it only resonates with American readers. I also spotted some peacock language, example below: "With experience learned in previous invasions and extremely detailed staff work, the landings went off with great efficiency." Furthermore the article lists an insane number of locations without using enough wikilinks and overuses direct quotations.--Catlemur (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- The material on the motivations for the Australian campaign on the island also needs work (which I'll do today). I agree on the photos. Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- G'day, gentlemen, thanks for your input. I've made a bunch of changes now, but TBH I'm finding it difficult working with the text given how complete the rewrite was that was completed a while ago by another editor. Anyway, I've added another Japanese source now; removed the images; and tried to copy edit the article a bit more. If you could both take another look and let me know how we are tracking for B class I'd greatly appreciate it. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Much improved IMO. I also had difficulty working with that text, which didn't present a well-rounded view of the campaign. Nick-D (talk) 12:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- G'day, gentlemen, thanks for your input. I've made a bunch of changes now, but TBH I'm finding it difficult working with the text given how complete the rewrite was that was completed a while ago by another editor. Anyway, I've added another Japanese source now; removed the images; and tried to copy edit the article a bit more. If you could both take another look and let me know how we are tracking for B class I'd greatly appreciate it. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Carrier raids
editThe article mentions the carrier attack of 5 November 1943 but not the one of 11 November. See Bombing of_Rabaul_(November 1943)#Carrier attacks. Although the latter raid occurred after Japanese withdrawal of warships, should not the 11 November raid be mentioned as well? —Kablammo (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- G'day, thanks for this. Yes, I think this would be a good addition. I think there is something about it here: [2] on p. 260. Unless you beat me to it, I will see if maybe I can work something in tomorrow (it's getting late here). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- I will check some sources also. I believe that the AIRSOLS operation against Rabaul was in essence a battle of attrition against forces including the air groups of the two Shōkaku-class aircraft carriers, which were highly trained. The success of that operation led to Japanese withdrawal of those groups and others, which gave the Allies command of the air and enabled further Allied advances. It also allowed some Allied air elements to be withdrawn. I'll be glad to work with you, but I leave it to you how much detail we should give to those elements in this article. Kablammo (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bougainville Campaign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120614000050/http://www.pacificwrecks.com/airfields/png/kahilli/index.html to http://www.pacificwrecks.com/airfields/png/kahilli/index.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121107140716/http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/b8/bougainville-i.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/b8/bougainville-i.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Requested move 24 June 2019
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Bougainville Campaign → Bougainville campaign – Case fix per discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_151#Campaign_article_titles and Talk:Tunisian_campaign#Requested_move_16_June_2019, since these are not proper names, and are by far more often lowercase in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Dicklyon and Sam Sailor:
- I do not see a clear consensus at Special:Permalink/903162402#Campaign article titles. Courtesy ping User:Parsecboy, User:WelpThatWorked, User:Keith-264, User:Cinderella157, User:Qwirkle, User:Kablammo, User:SnowFire. Sam Sailor 15:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- I do not see a clear consensus at Special:Permalink/903162402#Campaign article titles. Courtesy ping User:Parsecboy, User:WelpThatWorked, User:Keith-264, User:Cinderella157, User:Qwirkle, User:Kablammo, User:SnowFire. Sam Sailor 15:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- I think these are quite clearly proper names, and capitalization is appropriate. Qwirkle (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
And also:- Norwegian Campaign → Norwegian campaign – Case fix per discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_151#Campaign_article_titles and Talk:Tunisian_campaign#Requested_move_16_June_2019, since these are not proper names, and are by far more often lowercase in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Parsecboy, WelpThatWorked, Keith-264, Cinderella157, Qwirkle, Kablammo, and SnowFire: Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Evidence
editAs with the last bunch moved (see Talk:Tunisian_campaign#Requested_move_16_June_2019), these, like other campaigns, are not treated by sources as proper names. See book usage stats:
Survey
edit- Support as nom – I proposed these as "technical" moves since there was general agreement on the last batch that these are not proper names, per evidence from books, and that MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS call for using sentence case, not title case. Dicklyon (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Support - per nom. Evidence meets the relevant criteria for move. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- WP:NCCAPS explicitly defers to MOS:CAPS which states: "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent [empasis added], reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." The evidence of an n-gram search is provided in satisfaction of the criteria (PBS). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- "Oh no it doesn't". If it does quote the line. Secondly even if it does, we make decisions on the policy Article title the MOS is not a policy and where it diverges from the policy then it ought to be fixed. In this case there is nothing in the policy that says "consistently capitalized" see WP:COMMONNAME. -- PBS (talk) 08:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- WP:NCCAPS explicitly defers to MOS:CAPS which states: "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent [empasis added], reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." The evidence of an n-gram search is provided in satisfaction of the criteria (PBS). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- PBS, Quoting from the third para of the lead at WP:NCCAPS:
For details on when to capitalize on Wikipedia, see the manual of style sections on capital letters ...
You will note (and can confirm) that the link in that text is to MOS:CAPS. At WP:AT, what it does say is:as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources
. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- PBS, Quoting from the third para of the lead at WP:NCCAPS:
- Support - per nom. This is well-established as WP practice. Tony (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Support - per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS. CThomas3 (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment MOS:CAPS has nothing to do with it as that is not a guideline for article titles. If this article title is to be changed then establish that the is descriptive and not a name. If it is a name then establish what is commonly used in reliable secondary sources. -- PBS (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- This is well established by the linked evidence in the #Evidence section above. Dicklyon (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Both uses are common and I see no reason to change. We are attempting to impose order where order doesn't exist. And to the argument that these are "technical" only: That does not excuse the failure to notify of the proposal by an appropriate notice on each article affected. And the question should be kept open for seven days at least, and no move should be made until it is closed. Kablammo (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- When both uses are common, Wikipedia style is to default to lowercase; that's the reason to move. In all these cases, lowercase usage is much more common in sources, as the stats linked above show. Dicklyon (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Other campaigns
editAdvice on how to move forward is welcome. Two other RMs are now open at Talk:Balkans_Campaign and Talk:Italian_Campaign, which have in common with this one just an unexplainable objection by Quirkle to a technical move request. There has been a broad consensus to abide by WP:NCCAPS, and to acknowledge that sources show these are not proper names, so we ought to just move forward and fix the stragglers, but such objections tie up a lot of user attention in redundant pointless RM discussions. Ideas? Dicklyon (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- If the sources show that these are not proper name (and have you brought forwards evidence to each requested move that the specific campaign is not a name but just a descriptive one?), then section in the article title policy is "Article title format" section "Use sentence case" (the most appropriate link to the specific section in the policy is WP:LOWERCASE. However if the title is found to be a name in reliable sources then the policy also states "The following points are used in deciding on questions not covered by the five principles" and those principles also covers usage in reliable sources. Suggesting that one ought to follow the guidance in MOS:CAPS is misleading. What is the evidence for this requested move the indicates that "campaign" starting with a lower case "c" is what is commonly used in reliable sources (and in particular those that support the text in this article)? -- PBS (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- Are you saying that MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS and WP:LOWERCASE are not mutually supportive, or that they would suggest different outcomes here? I don't think so. In all cases they suggest that our decision about what's a proper name comes from usage in sources, don't they? And the source evidence I showed is clear, is it not? Anyway, thanks for your consideration. Dicklyon (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- User:Dicklyon I am saying that WP:LOWERCASE, is the policy it is supported by a guideline called WP:NCCAPS. Where there is any discord between those two then section in the policy (linked via WP:LOWERCASE) takes precedence. MOS:CAPS is unnecessary and confusing as it is not part of assessing the article tile. If its guidance agrees with WP:LOWERCASE then it is unnecessary. If its guidance diverges from WP:LOWERCASE then it is confusing.
- Article Titling policy explains that sentence case is considered as part of a whole process in selecting either a name or a description for the title of the article. In all the Move Requests I have seen you make you imply that because MOS:CAPS suggests sentence case the make it so. In none of Move Requests I have seen you initiate have you presented a case based on what is used in reliable sources. This is backed up with your bulk requests, that seem to ignore looking at sources completely.
- As a matter of interest Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history suggests looking at the MOS:CAPS (the section MOS:MILTERMS) and that should actually encourage you to find out what is used in reliable sources: "The general rule is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper name, as indicated by consistent capitalization in sources, it should be capitalized. Where there is uncertainty as to whether a term is generally accepted, consensus should be reached on the talk page. ... Accepted full names of wars, battles, revolts, revolutions, rebellions, mutinies, skirmishes, risings, campaigns, fronts, raids, actions, operations and so forth are capitalized " -- PBS (talk) 08:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- All of my moves and proposals are based on looking at usage in sources. In no case do I see any possibility that MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS are pulling us in different directions. Do you? How could they? Are there any of these where caps are more appropriate in light of sources? Show me. Dicklyon (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- The point, User:Dicklyon, is that MOS:CAPS has no bearing on this issue. So why push a guideline that is not relevant (and as you assert WP:NCCAPS also covers it)? You should be basing you arguments on WP:LOWERCASE and only supporting it with WP:NCCAPS if someone questions the interpretation of that. As it happens there is an obvious specific contradiction in using WP:MOS. It is the clause "as indicated by consistent capitalization in sources" take literally that would mean that 99 out of 100 books could use "Campaign" and because one uses "campaign" then "campaign" ought to be used. This is a contradiction of the Article Titles Policy. The section WP:UCRN in the Article Titles Policy is more nuanced that that, it does not include such a high bar and it also considers what is commonly used in more authoritative (for the subject of the article) sources. You seem to want to use a formulae but deciding on names of articles often involves nuanced judgement. -- 07:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- If all your moves are proposed based on sources then you ought to open WP:RMs for each one separately as the sources need to be reviewed separately and different article titles may differ in capitalisation depending on the sources reviewed. -- PBS (talk) 07:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- All of my moves and proposals are based on looking at usage in sources. In no case do I see any possibility that MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS are pulling us in different directions. Do you? How could they? Are there any of these where caps are more appropriate in light of sources? Show me. Dicklyon (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- Are you saying that MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS and WP:LOWERCASE are not mutually supportive, or that they would suggest different outcomes here? I don't think so. In all cases they suggest that our decision about what's a proper name comes from usage in sources, don't they? And the source evidence I showed is clear, is it not? Anyway, thanks for your consideration. Dicklyon (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- To your statement (PBS) that:
The point, User:Dicklyon, is that MOS:CAPS has no bearing on this issue.
You ask the question (above) and it has been answered, with the quotes you have explicitly requested. Unless these are are significant misrepresentation or grossly in error (and you have not indicated either), your persistence to claim they are otherwise has the appearance of being vexatious. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)- "Vexatious" – I like that. PBS has a long history of trying to claim that WP's house style is not relevant in titles. I never understood how anyone could think that, that we'd style text one way in an article, but then in a title do something different. But he has consistently pushed that view – even here where it makes no difference to the point, since MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS are not in any kind of conflict in interpreting the very clear source evidence that I presented for these cases. I don't know why PBS ignores the fact that I presented source-based evidence. Dicklyon (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- To your statement (PBS) that:
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Untapped Source
editThis is a fine article that appears well on its way to A status. Particularly for beefing up the introduction, my book South Pacific Cauldron, published in 2014 by the Naval Institute Press, could be of much use in providing background not available elsewhere. For instance, based on archival research, the book tells in great detail the remarkable story of the suicide of the designated commander, Marine Major General Charles Barrett, immediately before the invasion, covered up by a fabricated court of inquiry proceeding approved by Halsey. The book, which comprehends the entire So Pac campaign up to the Japanese surrender, should be of value at many other points in the article as well. Despite favorable review, it has flown under the Wikipedia radar here and elsewhere. AuthorNoteAuthorNote (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)