Talk:Kokoda Track campaign

Archives (Index)

1 2 3

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Article in its entirety does not contain a single Japanese photograph.

This article features purely photographs from the Australian/Allied side, and the contents of text and weaving seems to tell the story from an Australian orientation rather than describe events as they happened. There is a huge imbalance between Japanese and Allied narration and content. Note that there is no lack for Japanese sources on this campaign or photographs.

To the section heading (ie on photographs), you are welcome to upload photos that meet WPs criteria re copyright and include these where they are "on topic".

Where there is a significant language barrier to accessing sources (exacerbated by script), an "apparent" imbalance of sorts will always be "problematic". It can be addressed by those with language skills and access to sources collaborating to improve an article. This is what WP is all about.

To my reverting your edit that removed text attributable to an academic author: the text accurately reflected the views of that author - even if you disagree, per WP:NPOV, it is not reasonable to remove the text. To state it was "inaccurate" (as you did) because it was "very early [in the] war before the Japanese acquired much Australian captives" does not address each part of the text removed nor does it address that many (most) of the Australian losses as captives occurred before this campaign. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I believe that the bulk of the 21,000 or so Australians who were taken prisoner by the Japanese during the war had in fact been captured in January to March 1942 (i.e. before the Kokoda Track campaign) in places such as Malaya, Singapore, Ambon, and New Britain (Rabaul) for instance. Prisoners were also taken during the early part of the Kokoda Track campaign and at Milne Bay (during the height of the fighting along the Track), and it seems quite probable that the fate of these soldiers certainly influenced the attitudes of Australian soldiers throughout this campaign. Regarding the information in the paragraph about Australian attitudes, I am unsure how it whitewashes the issue, particularly as it quite clearly states that racism had a part to play in how the Australians saw the Japanese and subsequently how that negatively influenced their actions in a manner that was not congruent with LOAC. One suggestion, I have though, is that it might be best to attribute it in text. For instance, something like this might work: "Historian Nicholas Anderson asserts that these attitudes were influenced...", or something similar so that it is clear that it is an author's opinion. Beyond that, if you have suggestions about how it might be worded better, by all means please add your suggestions here. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

FRUMEL sig int per Duffy

Hi Hugo999, re your edit - no issue with adding material from this source. However, I don't know if this is the best place/way to add this material? I am leaning to a mention at "Strategic context" - possibly early in the last para. To say: and took "minimal precautions" to defend the track, begs the question of what these precautions were? Per, resulting in heavy losses for the 39th Battalion sent there - this would be a paraphrase? I would be interested in what was actually stated, any references cited in support and the credentials of the author to make such an assessment. As this is a conclusion, it is also something better for later in the article than early. Pinging AustralianRupert and Hawkeye7. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

G'day, I'd suggest making sure that the position is attributed in text to Dufty in text. For instance, "According to David Dufty, Blamey said..." X " etc. I'd suggest that the "see Central Bureau" comment in the article should be reworded - we don't usually include commentary like this. If the link is desired/necessary, I'd suggest trying to work the link in a bit more naturally. Or it could potentially go into a note. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I've removed it. Here's what Dufty says:

An Australian at Monterey - possibly Nave - anonymously told a journalist after the war of everyone's frustration. 'We had got the message that they were going to land at Buna ... We told MacArthur and Blamey They said, "Nobody in their right senses would land there." We told them this was going to happen. Blamey couldn't have cared less about it.' [sourced to 18 August 1992 article in the Sydney Morning Herald]

One reason was that MacArthur's head of intelligence, Willoughby, was convinced that the Japanese would never be so foolish as to try to take Port Moresby overland. He simply didn't believe that the Japanese would attempt to come over the mountains. Another factor was that the intelligence about the landing at Buna was only one of many pieces of information about Japanese strategy, and nobody really knew what they were up to.

MacArthur hedged his bets, and warned Blamey that there might be an overland invasion by 'minor forces'. Blinded by this cloud of uncertainty, Blamey's eventual reaction was paltry. He sent the 39th Battalion up the Kokoda Trail to stop the new line of enemy attack.

My points here:

• The direct quote from Blamey is dubious; it is certainly a paraphrase.
• Clearly, MacArthur and Blamey did take it seriously.
• Had the 39th Battalion been in position at Buna in time, things might have played out differently
• That the intelligence about Japanese was uncertain was not because it was faulty, but because the Japanese had not yet decided on a course of action.
• Dufty has a PhD in psychology. This is his second book; the first was on artificial intelligence. The book is intended for general readers. For my review, see the June Bugle Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent copyedits

Hi, AustralianRupert and Hawkeye7, there was a string of copyedits by an IP today. I would just ask your views on a couple of these.

• withdrawing/withdrew back to/from [place] ... There are several edits of this type. It could be argued that back is tautological. Equally, back conveys a direction where, withdrawing is simply away from. I am happy enough to let this stand.
• Toward to Towards: correct per ENGVAR. (multiple occurrences)
• withdrew back on [place] ... These are the ones that give me some concern. withdrew on [place] ... doesnt sound correct. Thoughts please.
• westwards was capped and then reverted - ignore that one
• withdrew south towards to withdrew southward towards I think the former was better but the latter not incorrect but no biggie.
• withdrew back along the track no disagreement.
• sourcing to getting - no biggie

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

G'day, Cinderella, hope you are well. The changes look generally ok to me. I probably wouldn't change "sourcing" to "getting", although maybe "obtaining" might work better here. For me "withdrew on" probably doesn't quite work, what about "withdrew to" or "withdrew towards"? For instance, " then withdrew on Oivi" (assuming they withdrew the whole way to Oivi?)--> "then withdrew to Oivi"? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi AustralianRupert, hope you are well and safe too. For "back on", do you think that it really needs to be changed? As you know, there was a lot of withdrawing done, so it does become a bit repetitious. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

G'day, we have been lucky today -- the helicopter firebombers have been hitting the ridge behind us, which has done the trick, hopefully. We were about five minutes away from evacuating early this morning when I got home. I do worry about what happens to the family when I head off back to work again tomorrow afternoon, though. For "back on" -- it's not vital (IMO) that it gets changed and can live with it either way. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

"Withdraw to" is correct. "Withdrew on" is only used when a date or time follows. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

'Kokoda Track' and 'Kokoda Track Campaign are historical revision pushed by 90's and later era Nationalists (and badly written Peter Fitzsimmons garbage) who've never read any source material and rely only on what their 'Grandfather told them', allegedly, 40 years ago. The fact is - every Infantry battalion that fought there requested 'Kokoda Trail' as their Battle Honour after the war, not Kokoda Track. On maps and war diaries of the period its clearly labelled Kokoda Trail. There were and are no Battle Honours for the Kokoda Track Campaign. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.211.24.83 (talk) 06:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

"Kokoda Trail Campaign" is the official battle honour, see https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/E84663

This article should be renamed to match the correct name for the campaign. 2001:8003:604B:D700:B940:62A0:98F0:3B75 (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

"Japanese never intended to invade Australia"

Papua was, at the time, Australia. Same status as the Northern Territory. (New Guinea was not Australia. New Guinea was a trust territory) The invasion of Australia certainly contributed to Australian attitudes at the time. The Japanese had invaded the far North of Australia, and there was an expectation that if the invasion proceeded farther south, the Army would continue to retreat south. The fear of Japanese invasion of the Northern Territory, and of the Army retreating south, was real because the Japanese had already invaded Australia, and the army had already retreated south.

Perhaps the article should say that it is now known that the Japanese never intended to invade "mainland Australia" or "continental Australia". 121.200.27.15 (talk) 06:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Article says: the Australian government and many Australians feared that Japan would invade the Australian mainland and The Japanese Imperial General Headquarters considered invading Australia in early 1942 but decided against doing so in February that year (see Strategic context section). Cinderella157 (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)