Talk:Battle of Goodenough Island

Feb 2015 - Recent infobox changes re strength and casualties
Per WP:BRD your proposed changes need to be discussed here before you make further changes (hence Bold, Revert, Discuss). If a consensus develops amoung the editors involved in the discussion then it can be implemented. So far you have posted some comments to my talk page here - User_talk:Anotherclown; however, that does not allow other editors to discuss your proposal, nor has any consensus developed at any rate. As such I have reverted your additions again. Pls outline your concerns about the current wording / infobox here, describe what you propose to change and why, and then allow others to discuss the merits of those points. Until then you repeatedly changing the article is just disruptive. Anotherclown (talk) 09:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This article talks about the ground battle of Goodenough (10/22/1942-10/27/1942). Initially -in August 1942- 353 japanese soldiers were defending this island, however the sources clearly say that around 70 Japaneses -sick or wounded- had already been evacuated from Goodenough before the ground battle started. The casualties in the infobox also include Japanese soldiers who died weeks BEFORE 10/22/1942. The sources clearly say it. So I suggest to modify the infobox and to follow what AustralianRuppert said on your talk page :

Japanese strenght : 353 (initially), 285 (during ground fighting) Japanese casualties and losses : 20 killed, ~15 wounded, 1 prisonner, (+19 killed prior to the Australian landing)--PacificWarExpert (talk) 09:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately your English (which is fairly good I grant) still seems to be making it difficult for you to articulate your concerns, or at least for me to fully understand them. However, from your edits I take it that you are concerned that the figures for Japanese strength and casualties in the infobox are inexact (i.e. that they cover the period before the Allied operation which captured it from the Japanese, not those as they were during the operation itself). Yet the article does not only cover the period of the landing though, and even if it did why should it be so constrained? Realistically any military operation has multiple phases, including a preparatory phase, and I'm sure this one did too. As such the article covers this part as well. What were the circumstances in which the 19 Japanese killed before the landing died? If they died during Allied air attacks prior to the landing then I don't really see any distinction. Regardless, there is no real requirement to be so exact in the infobox if the detail is covered in the article (as it is). The infobox is meant to be a summary only of the information in the article, and as such references really shouldn't be required (pls see Manual of Style/Infoboxes). Anotherclown (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If these 19 Japanese soldiers died during pre-invasion bombardments, just a few days before the Australians landed on Goodenough, in this case yes these men should normally be included in the casualties. However -for example- 8 of these soldiers died in August 1942 (2 months before the ground battle! The Allies didn't even plan to invade Goodenough at this time!). Others died of sickness or wounds during September 1942, again several WEEKS before the ground battle started... If everyone starts to include in Infoboxes casualties who occured months and weeks before any WW2 landings operations, loads of articles on Wikipedia will have to be updated and reconsidered. Do you understand my point? It is just a question of general consistency and historical veracity.--PacificWarExpert (talk) 12:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I cannot speak for the person that wrote the article, although I assume the reason for the figure of 39 killed being included is because that was what was available in one of the main English language sources on the topic, i.e. McCarthy, so not really a case of "...everyone starts to include in Infoboxes casualties who occured months and weeks before any WW2 landings operations..." etc. Anyway that said I think you may be reading the details of the article and the sources a little too closely and misinterpreting them, or at least providing your own interpretation of them, which is not necessarily the correct one. For instance yes this article mentions 8 Japanese killed in an air attack in August and alludes to others dying in September (it mentions 13 dead taken back to Rabaul by submarine for instance) but I cannot see any evidence that these have been included in the figure of 39, although you seem to be assuming that they have been. Is that right? I'd actually assume the opposite i.e. that the later figure does not include them. Regardless, this whole issue seems fairly trivial, so I'm struggling to understand your obsession with it (you seem to be a new editor and have not edited any other articles according to your edit history other than this one). Is there a reason for your particular interest with "precision" here? Anotherclown (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just do the maths and you will see the evidence. I just quote the article : the 10/03/1942 "This left 285 Japanese troops on the island". then "to Fergusson Island, where they arrived at dawn on 25 October. From there, 261 men were collected by the light cruiser Tenryū the following day." Ok? So it means that 24 Japanese soldiers were killed/reported missing between the 10/03/1942 and the 10/25/1942. (sources say 20 killed and 4 missing/prisonners). Thus it means that the 19 others soldiers killed died BEFORE 10/03/1942-during September or August 1942- and so they shouldnt be included in the 22-27 October casualties. Can you just make an effort and try to understand? No Im not a new editor. I began to create several articles about the Pacific War in the French Wikipedia. (which was and is still poor on this subject). While creating the French article about the Battle of Goodenough, I came across this article to see if there was some pictures I could take to illustrate mine. And I noticed there was some incoherences. Once again -like you said- that's not a big deal, but Wikipedia has to have consistency. I have no obsession with this, but I simply don't understand what's your problem with my modifications. All you say is "I have this book". Cool, I also read it you know, we have the same sources. But it seems that you are intentionally not trying to understand easy arithmetics. Im sure you can --PacificWarExpert (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I fully admit that I am not even remotely interested in your mathematical ability (or otherwise). As we have now established you are not a new user so you should be well acquainted with our policies on 1) edit warring, 2) verifiability and 3) original research. My "I have this book" statement was about verifying the writer's use of the source, nothing more. I did not write this article as I have said repeatedly . You believe you have found some "inconsistency" in the source used here. That's great however, until you have a reliable source which supports what you THINK happened this sounds very much like original research to me. Provide a source then we can move forward, until then there is little point wasting any more time on this. Of cse if others wish to indulge you and share your concerns and some consensus develops to change what we currently have then they are free to do so. Anotherclown (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I already added sources (which you deleted). Since you have this book, I will copy/paste it p349 : Australia in the War of 1939–1945. Series 1 – Army "The Japanese had, in fact, been aware of the Australian landings from the time they began. In the fighting which followed they lost some 20 men killed and 15 wounded." It is clearly written no? Only 20 Japanese soldiers died AFTER the Australian landings. The others died BEFORE 10/22/1942. What's now the reason you are deleting my edits? I explained clearly everything. Are you really trying to ameliorate this encyclopedia in this discussion?--PacificWarExpert (talk) 07:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, you now have the attention of the person that wrote the article. I would draw your attention to the ArbCom Infoxes case. I also note that the French version reads: au mois 20 morts, 15 bléssés, 1 prisonnier. Now what do we know?
 * Japanese records give the strength on the island as 353, and losses as 20 killed and 15 wounded. The Australians counted 39 dead Japanese. (AWM52 8/3/12) But if there were 285 on the Island before the landing, and 261 were collected afterwards, that leaves 24. Now, we know about the fate of four more who were missing, so it looks like everybody is accounted for, except the additional dead bodies. They could have been killed beforehand, but could also be the result of miscounting the dead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see User:Hawkeye7's latest edits here accurately reflect the sources available and seem appropriate in my opinion. User:PacificWarExpert - despite being reverted by three different editors now you have continued to edit war, in turn reverting or making bold changes without consensus on no less than four occasions, here -, here -  , here -  and here . As you are well aware WP:BRD requires you to discuss and achieve consensus once reverted  however you have obviously chosen to ignore this. Whilst you didn't breach WP:3RR this is hardly constructive, regardless of whether you feel you are right. No idea what your plans are on En Wiki are after this episode but I would suggest a more collaborative approach in the future would likely be more productive.  Anotherclown (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @User talk:Anotherclown : Hawkeye7 latest edits are exactly the SAME than my first edits  ! So why do you say that his edits are correct since you reverted mine? Because I am not the author of the article? Or because I am not Australian so I dont know what Im talking about? You are a bit dishonest, admit it. Sad and hilarious.--PacificWarExpert (talk) 07:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we deal with this in a note on the page, while we clarify the issue. There appears to be a conflict in the sources and between editors and while we can go around in circles, can we agree that in the interim we deal with this as a note, then we can review and clarify. Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As I see it the casualties are now correct (since -like I said- the latest edits are litterally the same than my first edits). The only problem was the excessive hypocrisy of one editor.--PacificWarExpert (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Goodenough Island
How is "Goodenough" pronounced? The information belongs more at Goodenough Island, but would be no harm to have it here as well. Google suggests most but not all people of the surname pronounce it "good enough". jnestorius(talk) 13:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)