Talk:Bruce Kingsbury

Article
This article contains significant exaggeration of the basic facts of the incident. We are doing no one any good by bullshitting what really happened. I have edited it to remove the exaggerations, the historically incorrect statements and unrelated quotes. mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.49.60.206 (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike. Thanks for your help with the article. I have worked a little to replace some of the information you removed, as it is sourced by reliable sources. I hadn't seen the interview with Kingsbury's superior before, good job finding it! I have done my best to incorporate it into the text so that it doesn't break the flow of the prose. If you have any other concerns, feel free to discuss them here or make the changes yourself!. Thanks again. &lowast; \ / (⁂) 20:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You cannot put that Kingsbury was shot from the top of "kingsbury Rock". Avery was there and so was his commanding officer, standing right next to him when it happened. The official citation and his commander state that it was a shot from the tree line. Further when the Isurava site was excavated by the AWM in preperation for the menorial they found Australian shell cartridges on the rock itself and no Japanese ones. Thomspon states that he stopped with Kingsbury to talk to 2 Australian soldiers on the rock when the fatal shot rung out. Check out Bill James excellent book "Kokoda track field guide". This is also covered in an ABC tv interview. I urge you to read everything on this subject. mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.118.74.222 (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Quote from 'Japanese commander'
I'm not sure what the purpose of the quote from the 'Japanese commander' in the Kokoda Track Campaign section is - no proper context is provided for it, and its uncited beyond the word 'Kokoda' (which presumably means its somewhere in the book by Paul Ham, though it could also be from the awful book by Peter FitzSimons of the same name). If we want to talk about the difficult position the Australian force was in we can do so directly. Would there be any objections to removing this? Nick-D (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're right, Nick. It'd be a great quote to retain -- Japanese perspective, acknowledging the enemy's fighting spirit, etc -- but, as you say, it needs context and proper attribution. If both of those could be provided then I'd say keep it but, as it is, I don't think it belongs in an FA-level article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: this has been removed now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The Kokoda Track
This is a biography and not a campaign study. So I recommend dropping the first paragraph which I have commented as follows. The Japanese Army had for several months been making great progress in its Pacific War campaign – agreed - and attempted to capture eastern New Guinea in Mid-1942.- yes after things had been misfiring since the Lexington Raid in February and the further attack with the Yorktown at Salamaua and Lae in March and the Tactical Victory at Coral Sea in May, the Strategic Victory at Midway on 4 June and after the landing at Buna by the US landing at Guadalcanal on 7 August which was to play a significant role is forcing the Japanese to retreat back across the Owen Stanley Range. The Japanese had captured Rabaul in New Britain in January, and on 21 July, landed at Buna, in northeast Papua.[9] After capturing the town of Kokoda for the second time on 9 August, the Japanese began advancing along the Kokoda Track towards Port Moresby – Ok - The 2,500-strong Japanese force met the 39th, 49th and 53rd Infantry Battalions, collectively 400 strong, at the town of Isurava.[10] - This is the we were outnumbered myth. 49th Bn was not at Isurava, the two battalions had 960 men but the 2/14th was involved the 26th and the 2/16th the 27th by which time the total Australian force was 2292 strong which nearly matched the Japanese force. See The Kokoda campaign 1942: myth and reality by Peter Williams, Cambridge University Press, 2012. For a day by day account see http://kokoda.commemoration.gov.au/into-the-mountains/stand-at-isurava.php I would keep the next line with amendments. It was at the height of the battle (delete ‘at the height of the battle’ and substitute ‘just as the battle was beginning to develop’) on 26 August, that the members of the 2/14th, including Kingsbury, arrived at Isurava.[8] Delete ‘Despite the arrival of reinforcements, the Australians were outnumbered five to one.’ (see above - the numbers were even.) Comment. Why did the Australians lose – not numbers but thinking they were outnumbered, not planning to counter well known Japanese tactics, not being prepared for the Japanese artillery (the Australian had no artillery for the entire Owen Stanley campaign except for Imita Ridge) and better Japanese generalship. Anthony Staunton (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day, Anthony, thanks for these comments. Unfortunately, the editor who was the main contributor and who took this article to FA is no longer active. I've made a few tweaks, but I'm loathe to cut too much from an FA without establishing strong consensus. Totally supportive of implementing these things, though, if others agree (and I am keen to help do so, although if I could encourage you to edit the article also, that would be great) and it would be great to get these things sorted before the TFA on 8 Jan 16. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Anthony's changes sound good to me Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for both responses. I endorse AustralianRupert's desire for consensus. Anthony Staunton (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Cheers, gentlemen. Anthony, just to clarify, are you saying delete the entire paragraph between the headings "Kokoda Track Campaign" and "Battle of Isurava", or just the first couple of sentences, i.e. "The Japanese Army had for several months been making great progress in its Pacific War campaign, and attempted to capture eastern New Guinea in mid-1942. The Japanese had captured Rabaul in New Britain in January, and on 21 July, landed at Buna, in northeast Papua"? Sorry, my brain isn't working well today...hideously sick at the moment...so I just want to be sure what is being suggested. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I like the changes already made. I suggest delete the first line up to ‘On 21 July’, add ‘the Japanese Army’ and keep the rest. You could start it with ‘Following the Battle of the Coral Sea, the Japanese abandoned the attempt to capture Port Moresby from the sea and on 21 July the Japanese Army etc. Anthony Staunton (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day, I've made that change now. (and anyone else who wishes to comment!) can you gentlemen please confirm whether or not you are happy with these changes? If not, I'm happy to revert and we can discuss some more. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rupert, well done. I would suggest slightly rewording/trimming "Following the Battle of the Coral Sea, the Japanese abandoned the attempt to capture Port Moresby from the sea and on 21 July, the Japanese landed ground forces at Buna, in north-east Papua." to "Following the Battle of the Coral Sea, the Japanese abandoned the attempt to capture Port Moresby from the sea and, on 21 July, landed ground forces at Buna in north-east Papua." or "Following the Battle of the Coral Sea, the Japanese abandoned the attempt to capture Port Moresby from the sea; on 21 July, they landed ground forces at Buna in north-east Papua."
 * Cheers, Ian, I've made that adjustment now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggest ‘exhausted’ instead of ‘depleted’ 39th Battalion. I would delete the penultimate line. On 27 August half of the 53rd Battalion which had been in reserve at the junction behind Isurava moved to Aburai to the east of Eora Creek and encountered the Japanese. On 28 August the 53rd Battalion was again concentrated at the junction behind Isurava and the fresh 2/16th Battalion was facing the Japanese at Aburai. Anthony Staunton (talk) 12:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Prahan, Victoria
I was reading the article on Bruce Kingsbury, and out of curiosity clicked on the link to the town in which he grew up, Prahran, Victoria. I noticed that his name was not included in the list of Prahran, Victoria, and I wondered if anyone thought it would be a good idea to add his name to that list. Corinne (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, yes I think he would be a candidate. I'd suggest posting your suggestion on that article's talk page to establish some consensus. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bruce Kingsbury. 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/20110617082408/http://www.australiansatwarfilmarchive.gov.au/aawfa/interviews/1804.aspx to http://www.australiansatwarfilmarchive.gov.au/aawfa/interviews/1804.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.actpla.act.gov.au/tools_resources/maps_land_survey/place_names/place_search?sq_content_src=%20dXJsPWh0dHAlM0ElMkYlMkYyMDMuOS4yNDkuMyUyRlBsYWNlTmFtZXMlMkZQbGFjZURldGFpbHMuYXNweCUzRm9iamVjdElEJTNEODI5MiZhbGw9MQ%3D%3D

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bruce Kingsbury. 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/20080810082317/http://www.awm.gov.au/honours/honours/person.asp?p=VX19139 to http://www.awm.gov.au/honours/honours/person.asp?p=VX19139
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090304030247/http://www.awm.gov.au/virtualtour/valour.asp to http://www.awm.gov.au/virtualtour/valour.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Translation into Hebrew
To whom it may concern, I translated most of the article to Hebrew. I would like to thank the editors who participated in writing the original in English. MagicWord (talk) 07:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Amending a reference
I suspect readers of Note 7 "Recommendation for Alan Richard Avery to be awarded a Military Medal" (PDF). Index to Recommendations: Second World War. Australian War Memorial. Retrieved 13 April 2020 will think the pdf is a recommendation. The pdf is an index card which includes a brief citation and refers to much other information, including the recommendation, which is only available at the Australian War Memorial. The article is quoting from the card so I suggest all that is needed for Note 7 is "Brief citation on index card for Alan Richard Avery who was awarded a Military Medal"(PDF). Australian War Memorial. Retrieved 13 April 2020. Anthony Staunton (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, Anthony, I hope you are well. My suggestion would be "Honours and Awards (Recommendation): Alan Richard Avery" as that seems to be the main header on the cited page. Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * AustralianRupert Thank you for the suggestion. Unfortunately, the header you suggest is misleading. Only in the case of First World War are some recommendations online. The issue is that the present note mentions the word recommendation twice but all that is being quoted in the text of the article is a phrase on an index card, not a recommendation. The reference GH File AMF 1/A on the index card is most likely a reference to a citation. The recommendations for most Australian Army awards, including VCs, in the Middle East is WO373 at TNA. The purpose of the note is to show where the quote came from and I do not think my suggested wording is misleading.Anthony Staunton (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, Anthony, I'm not really comfortable with making up a title if one exists on the cited page. Regardless, though, it's a minor point, and I won't oppose your suggestion. If you feel strongly enough about it, please feel free to make your adjustment. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)