This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Guadalcanal 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 |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 730 days
![]() |
![]() | Guadalcanal campaign is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | Guadalcanal campaign is the main article in the Guadalcanal Campaign series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 7, 2018. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present. |
I've removed the common myth that the Japanese were building the airfield to threaten American supply lines to Australia, and that consequently one American objective was to prevent this threat. In fact, shipping from the American West Coast and the Panama Canal (through which shipping from the U.S. East coast passed) to Australia passed about 2000 miles south of Guadalcanal (about 200 miles south of New Caledonia). That is outside the effective range of even Japan's longest range dive bombers and torpedo bombers. So, the airfield on Guadalcanal was not a threat to the supply lines. The second objective mentioned in the article is, in fact, the only American motivation: America wanted an airbase for a planned future attack on Rabaul. And, consequently, the Japanese motive for seizing Guadalcanal was to preclude an American capture and thereby protect Rabaul.
As stated at the top of the edit screen, this article uses d-m-y format for dates. So do the other articles in the Featured Topic suite of articles (of which this is the lead); so do other articles on US military battles and campaigns (as that is the format used by the US Armed Forces). It is also the format used in the Anglosphere outside the US. Kablammo ( talk) 17:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I see many citations to the writing of an author named "Frank". Somehow, I fail to find the actual complete citation. It would be useful if some editor would find the complete citation and then enter it appropriately. Pete unseth ( talk) 21:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, it is given in the references. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
In the losses box it is reported 2 fleet carrier lost, but in the order of battle, of the three carriers involved (Saratoga, Wasp an Enterprise) only Wasp was sunk. Saratoga was torpedoed but not sunk, making it kind of “wounded”. Shouldn’t the box be corrected?
2001:B07:A3B:5C48:E499:9284:9427:CDFE (
talk)
19:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I have recently read elsewhere that of the personnel Losses- perhaps there were more dead from the navy at sea, than the land based soldiers. Interesting fact, needs verification before added into article. Wfoj3 ( talk) 14:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
There is a dispute over the table in the section "ships lost". In this edit I have reverted to remove the table. There are two issues with the table. Firstly, it is unsourced and explicitly states that it is "original research". I have no doubt though that entries could be sourced. Second though, is that it significantly expands what is already a faily large article. For that reason, I don't think it belongs in this article. However, I would have no issue with it being a separate list article (presuming such doesn't already exist). Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.However, that was not the only reason given for its removal. Cinderella157 ( talk) 21:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Is a list of ships lost notable of itself? Is this not better handled 1) by text in the article summarising the losses and noting the significance, or not, of the losses on further operations. 2) on the order of battle page noting which ships named there were lost. (by the way, the order of battle article could do with some attention to aid reading it). GraemeLeggett ( talk) 11:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Despite having listed total ground combat forces on both sides of the battle in the box at right, just below those figures casualties for the US forces are shown to include Navy dead and wounded along with ground troops with no mention of their inclusion. Japanese figures only show ground troop losses.
For the sake of consistency, this should probably be standardized to ground forces only. Naval casualties for both sides could possibly be added parenthetically or as separate figures.
Would do it myself, but don't have the knowhow. Caracoid ( talk) 23:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Cowdrey (1994) p. 71: "Of the 19,200 dead, only 8,500 were 'killed in actual combat,' the majority perishing by malnutrition, malaria, diarrhea, and beriberi." Naval personnel deaths both on land and at sea are not included.I'm not seeing the issue existing as you describe it. Should I be looking somewhere else? Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Guadalcanal 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 |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 730 days
![]() |
![]() | Guadalcanal campaign is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | Guadalcanal campaign is the main article in the Guadalcanal Campaign series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 7, 2018. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present. |
I've removed the common myth that the Japanese were building the airfield to threaten American supply lines to Australia, and that consequently one American objective was to prevent this threat. In fact, shipping from the American West Coast and the Panama Canal (through which shipping from the U.S. East coast passed) to Australia passed about 2000 miles south of Guadalcanal (about 200 miles south of New Caledonia). That is outside the effective range of even Japan's longest range dive bombers and torpedo bombers. So, the airfield on Guadalcanal was not a threat to the supply lines. The second objective mentioned in the article is, in fact, the only American motivation: America wanted an airbase for a planned future attack on Rabaul. And, consequently, the Japanese motive for seizing Guadalcanal was to preclude an American capture and thereby protect Rabaul.
As stated at the top of the edit screen, this article uses d-m-y format for dates. So do the other articles in the Featured Topic suite of articles (of which this is the lead); so do other articles on US military battles and campaigns (as that is the format used by the US Armed Forces). It is also the format used in the Anglosphere outside the US. Kablammo ( talk) 17:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I see many citations to the writing of an author named "Frank". Somehow, I fail to find the actual complete citation. It would be useful if some editor would find the complete citation and then enter it appropriately. Pete unseth ( talk) 21:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, it is given in the references. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
In the losses box it is reported 2 fleet carrier lost, but in the order of battle, of the three carriers involved (Saratoga, Wasp an Enterprise) only Wasp was sunk. Saratoga was torpedoed but not sunk, making it kind of “wounded”. Shouldn’t the box be corrected?
2001:B07:A3B:5C48:E499:9284:9427:CDFE (
talk)
19:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I have recently read elsewhere that of the personnel Losses- perhaps there were more dead from the navy at sea, than the land based soldiers. Interesting fact, needs verification before added into article. Wfoj3 ( talk) 14:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
There is a dispute over the table in the section "ships lost". In this edit I have reverted to remove the table. There are two issues with the table. Firstly, it is unsourced and explicitly states that it is "original research". I have no doubt though that entries could be sourced. Second though, is that it significantly expands what is already a faily large article. For that reason, I don't think it belongs in this article. However, I would have no issue with it being a separate list article (presuming such doesn't already exist). Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.However, that was not the only reason given for its removal. Cinderella157 ( talk) 21:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Is a list of ships lost notable of itself? Is this not better handled 1) by text in the article summarising the losses and noting the significance, or not, of the losses on further operations. 2) on the order of battle page noting which ships named there were lost. (by the way, the order of battle article could do with some attention to aid reading it). GraemeLeggett ( talk) 11:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Despite having listed total ground combat forces on both sides of the battle in the box at right, just below those figures casualties for the US forces are shown to include Navy dead and wounded along with ground troops with no mention of their inclusion. Japanese figures only show ground troop losses.
For the sake of consistency, this should probably be standardized to ground forces only. Naval casualties for both sides could possibly be added parenthetically or as separate figures.
Would do it myself, but don't have the knowhow. Caracoid ( talk) 23:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Cowdrey (1994) p. 71: "Of the 19,200 dead, only 8,500 were 'killed in actual combat,' the majority perishing by malnutrition, malaria, diarrhea, and beriberi." Naval personnel deaths both on land and at sea are not included.I'm not seeing the issue existing as you describe it. Should I be looking somewhere else? Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)