Talk:Invasion of Buna–Gona

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Invasion of Buna–Gona. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070923140303/http://ajrp.awm.gov.au/ajrp/ajrp2.nsf/pages/NT00010DFA?OpenDocument&Start=1&Count=30&Collapse=1 to http://ajrp.awm.gov.au/ajrp/ajrp2.nsf/pages/NT00010DFA?OpenDocument&Start=1&Count=30&Collapse=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed revision
Per Talk:Kokoda Track campaign/Archive 1

pls see proposal for migration of material Cinderella157 (talk) 06:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Image of SNLP
Not overly happy with this because I think it is likely temporally out of context (specifically wrt the type 92 heavy mortar). Would like a better image that has no ambiguities. Comments and suggestions pls. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the sourcing for that image isn't very strong either, which is disappointing as we have few images of Japanese troops during this time. I'd suspect that if you eventually took the article to GA or higher, that the image would have to be removed until more solid sourcing could be provided. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Stepping back
Hi, @AustralianRupert you will see that it is pretty much the finished article. I will step back and let you cast your eyes over it as I can see you are looking at it. Not certain about the lead and perhaps the aftermath. I think they are close but might need a tweak wrt what the article is meant to cover. The aftermath could include the atrocities being moved here from the man page? The section in the main page can now be parsed down. Let me know where you are at so we don't clash. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day, I'm done now. I agree that the bit about the atrocities could be moved here from the main page. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

analysis
Hi AR, added some analysis. Sure that Williams will have something to add. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

war crimes
This is getting a little cluttered. McCarthy tells the story in detail and the two missionaries are part of that tale - as is what McAuley is telling. Would you like to look at it or would you rather I did? I must admit that I was being a little lazy at that time of night in not expandingg NcCarthy's account. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day, by all means please feel free to work on it. I don't have much time tonight, sorry. Had to bring home a pile of work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits 22 December 2021
Hi,, I have some concerns with these recent edits: and.

First edit Second edit
 * I am concerned as to whether Military History Online meets WP:RS.
 * Changing the paragraph around has disrupted the citation integrity. Teague is being cited for material not supported by that source.
 * Teague is being interpreted incorrectly. He identifies the PIB as a battalion of native constabulary. The PIB was part of the force but it was already in situ.  They did not depart with B Coy. Teague doesn't actually say the constabulary departed with B Coy.
 * Changing the order of the airfield matter disrupts the continuity. The note talking about the deployment of the 39th being coincidental is being introduced before the main text identifies that the 39th was deployed.
 * McArthur's failings is a matter best left for the aftermath section. However, when McArthur is similarly criticised, it is for his conduct as the campaign progressed - remembering that McArthur didn't send B Coy.
 * Whether B Coy was ready to fight on the 14 July is one thing, whether they were ready to fight on 22 July is another. Whether other companies that arrived overland and were thrown into combat immediately were fit to fight is quite another. A good source would justify such a statement (as other sources do in similar circumstances).  This comes back to the reliability of the source.
 * Yes, the first sentence of the main para edited requires a copy edit.
 * Teague is cited but doesn't support any of the text.
 * The essence of that para is:
 * The amphibious assault was aborted
 * The Japanese recced an alternative
 * They planned an attack using Horii's troops
 * I wouldn't say that the previous version couldn't be improved but I am not seeing an improvement for more words that is less direct.

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Teague gives a range of 4,00 - 6,000 landed. Williams (a recent good quality academic source using access to Japanese records not previously available) gives a figure of 4,057.  At the very least, Teague's figure is given out of place with respect to where the other figure is quoted and it creates an unresolved inconsistency.  Whether it should be quoted at all is a matter of the reliability of Teague.

PS: per: the Japanese chose to land troops on the northern coast of New Guinea at Buna-Gona, it is the northern coast of the territory of Papua on the island of New Guinea - ie Papua, not New Guinea is more consistent with how it is described elsewhere in the article (particularly the lead. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

PS: B Coy departed Illolo 7 July to Uberi. It then departed Uberi 8 July. It generally reported that they departed [along the track] on 8 July. For more details, see edits of 29 Dec 21. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Edits have been reverted because of these concerns. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)