Talk:Guadalcanal campaign

American objective

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.

Date format

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 reverted the changes. One of the functions of the template is to stop changes from one style to another, how that plays out is arbitrary and unsatisfactory. One subproject's style may conflict with another, so not an argument either way, but stability is preferred. cygnis insignis 17:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Publication by "Frank"

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)

USA naval losses

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)

List of ships lost

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)

so copy it over to a new page. 158.181.83.240 (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

It is unsourced material. It cannot be used in its present form. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

1. it's a "dynamic list"

2. click the link to an existing ship in the list, there are (should be) your references

3. it would not be police work to come up with plenty of references for large fighting ship going bust in WW2 158.181.83.240 (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

You cannot say "look at the other article for references." You need to cite references within this article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

now that you are here i can't.

do you find it difficult to verify the information in question or are you bothering me on general principle? 158.181.83.240 (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I am informing you of Wikipedia's rules. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

the rules are not that unsourced material must be removed though 158.181.83.240 (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN: 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)

it was a nice list though. should have been moved to a separate page. 158.181.83.240 (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Seconded. I agree it is a relevant and well put together list and should not have been removed. “May be removed”— Not should be, or must be. So, what is the fundamental reason for removing this list, aside from “unsourced material”? @Cinderella157 2601:1C0:CF01:A5D0:312C:4DB8:FD9A:7E7D (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

In answer, pls see here. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

the removed content had existed for a while. if there was a consensus on the scope of the article, it would have been objected to sooner. guadalcanal is among the most interesting naval campaigns in history. not only is there no consensus that warrants a removal, the initial objection is also wrong and it does not offer any explanation or specifics. 158.181.83.240 (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

"It's interesting" is not a valid argument for keeping an unsourced list in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

it addresses the scope problem.

the unsourced list can be kept in the article other reasons. so that somebody can attach references to the claims. or object to a specific piece of information. such a person would already be spared the burden of having to create the list.

i would hope that there are at least a few people in the vicinity who would have spotted mistakes large enough to damage the reputation of wikipedia.

it looks like a pretty solid list. isn't that a reason to keep it? 158.181.83.240 (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

No. Unsourced material can and has been removed. Such a list is also "too big" and should be forked to a stand-alone list article like Guadalcanal naval order of battle. However, an unsourced list would not be moved from draft space to article space. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• I also agree that a list, wherever it may be, should be sourced. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. It is a key principle that anyone can remove unsourced information from an article at any time and that any restoration (either here or on another article) will require inclusion of the sourcing. In terms of losing the work already done, Cinderella157 has provided a permanent link to the list's removal. Any editor reading this talk page can click the link, open the previous edit and copy the table source code for use on another page. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  it is also a key principle to improve content instead of removing it 158.181.83.240 (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  No, that isn't a key principle. I would advise you to read WP:V and WP:RS. Trying to argue against them will get you nowhere, so it is better to learn what the requirements are and work with them. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  you know how it is in a democracy. people have different opinions.

  btw, you are wrong. there is plenty of unsourced material on wikipedia and much of it is in the category of: obvious if you know a bit about the subject at hand.

  references are not as crucial as they are promoted to be, like by you. if i encounter a smell, i usually open google to research it, regardless of whether it has references. and this has the benefit of preventing a dilution of the gene pool. of course oftentimes references are valuable and not easily found independently.

  a list of ships sunk, with the link to the ships page under your nose, is not a reference of much value. 158.181.83.240 (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  This is a featured article, dumping an unsourced list of questionable use into it is a very tenuous "improvement". -Indy beetle (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  it is more on-topic than the unsourced list of films and manga.

  which don't interest me, but i find it very easy to ignore them. 158.181.83.240 (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  Well, I've removed that CRUFTy list. If it is on-topic, then surely sources could be provided? -Indy beetle (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  what does on-topic-ness have to do with the availability of sources? 158.181.83.240 (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  On-topic-ness doesn't mean diddly squat unless you can back up whatever you're trying to include with sources. The sources guide article content. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  "in popular culture" is a common section on wikipedia. there is your source for the on-topic nature of films and mangas. for basically any topic there is. 158.181.83.240 (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  "Other articles don't follow sourcing policy" is a very weak argument to include unsourced content. It's very simple: if good sources exist, then provide them. If they do not exist, then the material cannot be added, because there's no way to tell whether it's accurate. CodeTalker (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  we are debating whether it is relevant, not whether it is accurate. 158.181.83.240 (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  Well, it ain't likely going in here if it isn't sourced, considering its unnecessary nature. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  unnecessary nature is your opinion.

  guadalcanal stands out in military history as a naval campaign. it is in fact the most interesting naval campaign of ww2.

  2 conflicting opinions on what should or should not be in that article. and thus we are here. 158.181.83.240 (talk) 09:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  I mean necessary in the sense that removing it doesn't utterly disrupt the flow of the entire article and make additional cleanup more confusing. But if sources aren't going to be provided there's little further we can go here. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  actually not true.

  content may be removed for lack of references

  it may be left as-is

  it may be tagged as lacking references

  sourcing rules are frequently misused. very sad. 158.181.83.240 (talk) 10:32, 13 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)

a table is easier to read for most purposes. it's just for reference of the tactical outcomes, not for the strategic implications.

a companion to the various battle articles. 158.181.83.240 (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

You're not making very much headway in getting WP:Consensus to dump an unsourced table into this article. If you aren't going to take the trouble to find sources, perhaps WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Casualty figures need to be consistent.

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)

Hi Caracoid, the note against the US Army casualties states in the infobox states: 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)

Hi, just realized you had answered. Sorry for the delay. The numbers you state as US Army casualties look a lot like the Japanese figures. Something is amiss. Since I don't have access to the original source cited, I can't guess at what was said. US combined army-marine deaths on Guadalcanal I've seen in multiple sources as approximately 1600 total dead (which includes all causes) with a total 4245 wounded. Nothing like 8500 killed in combat. I know that due to advances in medicine, death by disease was reduced to near insignificance for US forces during WWII--unlike all other wars before it. This citation you mention reads that the majority of over 10,000 non-combat deaths at Guadalcanal were due to disease. These and total KIA numbers are just so far off that anyone who takes a casual look online would see they are way off target. Thousands of US troops were indeed evacuated from Guadalcanal due to disease, but that thousands died is simply inaccurate.

I truly believe what was cited was taken from either a different battle altogether, or that some reading of Japanese figures were somehow confused with those of the US. Nine thousand Japanese died of disease on Guadalcanal mostly attributed to the wasting of soldiers near starvation and without any medicines or medical care. This sounds suspiciously like what the citation reads: "the majority of over 10,000 non-combat deaths at Guadalcanal were due to disease." Caracoid (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)