Talk:Pacific War/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

"guerrilla submarine" passage inside-baseball tone

The following passage is emblematic of the writing style of someone who lives and breaths history, but then forgets that the rest of us don't, and that we might be piecing together this chapter in broad strokes for the first time.

However, the problem of Allied forces surrounded in the Philippines, during the early part of 1942, led to diversion of boats to "guerrilla submarine" missions. Basing in Australia placed boats under Japanese aerial threat while en route to patrol areas, reducing their effectiveness, and Nimitz relied on submarines for close surveillance of enemy bases. Furthermore, the standard-issue Mark 14 torpedo and its Mark VI exploder both proved defective, problems which were not corrected until September 1943. Worst of all, before the war, an uninformed US Customs officer had seized a copy of the Japanese merchant marine code (called the "maru code" in the USN), not knowing that the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) had broken it. The Japanese promptly changed it, and the new code was not broken again by OP-20-G until 1943.

• Surrounded how and by what, exactly? Japanese-controlled territories, or active Japanese forces?
• Basing what in Australia? Submarines only, or general fleet activity in the sector?
• Before what war? Japanese aggression generally, or formal American participation? The sharp event "promptly changed it" warrants an actual date, rather than a hand wave.

Moreover, "Basing in Australia ..." is functionally a garden path sentence for someone less steeped in the admiralissimo idiom of "to base".

— MaxEnt 01:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it's clear enough. This is an mid=level history article that indeed assumes a little knowledge of WW2. People ignorant of WW2 should start with World War II which tells who was who. For example they would then realize that the Allied forces were surrounded by Japanese power, not Russian or German or Italian power. The passage is only about subs and so "based" obviously means where the subs were based. "Before the war" does not mean before the Civil War, but if someone thinks so I do not think we should stop and summarize world history so they can understand this paragraph. Rjensen (talk) 04:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree it's clear enough, & not only because I wrote it. You're taking phrases out of context. The 'surrounded" is (obviously) connected to IJA after the invasion, given the year in the next phrase is 1942. "Basing what" is equally clear, since the previous words mentioned submarines. And since the subject is "Pacific War" & the year mentioned is 1942, it would seem fairly obvious which war is in question. (I'd happily see the actual date footnoted, if you have a copy of Farago's Broken Seal; IMO, the date doesn't merit adding in the text, being too much detail for the context, & being a case of "Look how smart I am".) As for "admiralissimo", "basing" is a perfectly good word; what you appear to want is more words when fewer will do nicely. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Infobox (March 2019)

I've just reverted the changes to the infobox over the last week. I think that they made the infobox much too complicated, with more and more details being added, often with no clear rationale (for instance, the inclusion of some American divisional and corps commanders). Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I feel the same Lyndaship (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking at its prior appearance, I can understand some editors' concern that the "commanders and leaders" of the infobox section was becoming bloated and unwieldly. However, based on the precedent set by other articles devoted to other theaters of World War II, I think we can significantly trim the content without throwing out everything that was added before.

Based on how much they were involved in strategic decisions over the course of the Pacific theater, I think it's appropriate to include commanders such as Chester Nimitz, Douglas MacArthur, Louis Mountbatten and Joe Stillwell on the Allied side and Hajime Sugiyama, Osami Nagano, Hisaichi Terauchi, and Shunroku Hata on the Japanese side. All these figures commanded entire fronts or several of them and did so for at least most of the conflict's duration. In the article devoted to the Western Front, the infobox lists Bernard Montgomery, Dwight Eisenhower, Gerd von Rundstedt, and Albert Kesselring in recognition of the decisive impact they had on their nation's military strategy due to their command of several major fronts in the war (even though they were not the head of state). Likewise, the article for the Eastern Front deems figures like Erich von Manstein, Walter Model, Kurt Zeitzler, Aleksandr Vasilevsky, and Konstantin Rokossovsky significant enough for inclusion on its infobox's list of important commanders. Consequently, if we limited the infobox on this page to those of similar stature, there should be no risk of overloading it with relatively trivial figures such as division and corps commanders. Emiya1980 (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Those are bad models IMO - the infoboxes are much too complex. The World War II article's simple infobox is a much better model. A problem with what you're suggesting is that it leads quickly to a bloated infobox, with arbitrary inclusion criteria (for instance, Stillwell was not actually a theatre commander - he was Chief of Staff to Chiang Kai-shek for most of the war, and an army commander in the war's last weeks). As infoboxes are meant to summarise the article briefly, the simpler they are the better. Nick-D (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

As evidenced by its title ("Commanders and leaders"), the infobox section was intended to include not only political leaders but those wielding the most influence on their nations' wartime strategy. With regards to your concerns about a bloated infobox, can't that be fixed by simply omitting Joe Stillwell? Without him, the criteria is sufficiently narrow to prevent the inclusion of just ANY commander and permit only those serving as the commander-in-chief of a specific branch of a nation's armed forces or the leading military authority in a theater of operations. Emiya1980 (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

That's also unworkable - it would lead (for instance) to Sir Atwell Lake, 9th Baronet, the commander of the Royal New Zealand Navy, being included, which doesn't seem at all helpful to readers. As there were lots of countries involved, limiting the infobox to their leaders is more sensible. Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Nick-D, I apologize for the delayed response. Regarding your last post, I think your analogy comparing figures like U.S. Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz and Supreme Commander Douglas MacArthur with Commodore Atwell Lake, Chief of Staff of the Royal New Zealand Navy, is misplaced in this instance. Notwithstanding their contribution to the war effort, there were no theaters in the Pacific where officers from New Zealand, Australia, the Netherlands or Canada served as Commander-in-Chief during World War II. All major fronts were under either American, British, or Chinese command. Therefore, listing Nimitz (the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet) and MacArthur (Supreme Commander of the Southwest Pacific Area) does not necessitate Lake's inclusion in the infobox.

However, if you feel including ANY military commanders (even after limiting their selection to commanders-in-chief for the Pacific War's main theaters)) would excessively clutter the infobox, they can be moved to a collapsible list which viewers can access at their own discretion. In this manner, the infobox can satisfy both those who want just a simple summary of the major combatants' top leadership and those who want to learn more about the chief figures directly involved in formulating and executing military strategy in the Pacific. Emiya1980 (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

In your previous post, you proposed including "those serving as the commander-in-chief of a specific branch of a nation's armed forces" in the infobox. Hence why I pointed out this would lead to all kinds of fairly obscure people being included (Lake was the commander in chief of the RNZN. If you mean "commander in chief" in a legal sense as head of state, it would also lead to the Governor General of Australia being added, despite them being a powerless figurehead who played no significant role in the war). Collapsible infoboxes are a bad idea IMO - the whole point of infoboxes is to provide a very brief summary which readers can quickly grasp. Adding collapsible fields makes the infoboxes tricky to navigate, and is an invitation to add all kinds of trivia. Nick-D (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I did mention including "those serving as the commander-in-chief of a specific branch of a nation's armed forces" in a prior post. However, in the interests of compromise, I would be open to excluding them in exchange for including the top individual military commanders in the main fronts of the Pacific.

On the main page for World War II, figures like FDR, Churchill, and Hirohito are identified in the infobox "commanders and leaders" section without ANY reference to those who directly led their nation's forces during the conflict. Since this article is intended to provide a more detailed view of a specific portion of World War II than the conflict's main page, this in turn calls for a more detailed list in the infobox's "Commanders and leaders" section. However, in order to satisfy your concern about WP:EXCESSDETAIL, I am willing to limit the list to commanders-in-chief for the Pacific's main fronts. Emiya1980 (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Nick-D, do you find the proposal set forth in my last post an acceptable compromise? If not, it's probably time that we should get other editors' opinions on the matter. Emiya1980 (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

No I don't. Listing the leaders of the "main fronts" would mean that the senior western Allied officers who commanded the short-lived commands during the Japanese offensive of 1941-42 would go in, along with the Soviet officer who saw a short period of combat in the last period of the war. As the Japanese frequently didn't have unified command arrangements, both Army and Navy commanders for some fronts would need to be listed. It doesn't seem sensible to list such marginal figures alongside national leaders, of which there are quite a few to include (hence the risk of over-crowding the the nfobox). Yes, it would be a good idea to advertise this discussion more broadly. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Since other editors have been invited to offer an opinion: I prefer a small, clean infobox. I think Nick-D has the better of the arguments here. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Nick-D. No other infobox lists the commanders and leaders like that, not a single one. Lucasjohansson (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Lucasjohansson That’s not true. The main pages for the Vietnam War, Korean War, American Civil War, Thirty Years War, Nine Years War, and the numerous individual Napoleonic Wars list both military commanders and political leaders in the infobox.

Additionally, I disagree with Nick-D’s classification of every commander including MacArthur, Nimitz, and Yamamoto as marginal simply because they did not hold top positions in their country's government. It was their decisions that dictated the course of the Pacific conflict at turning points like Midway and Guadalcanal. Conversely, when compared to wartime leaders like Hitler and Stalin, FDR and the Emperor had little involvement in commanding their country’s forces at the operational level. Therefore, it is misleading to confine the page’s list of “commanders and leaders” to each participant nation’s head of state particularly given their limited role in the Pacific compared to those directly exercising command and control there.

There is no need for this to become an all-or-nothing argument when there is plenty of middle ground that can be reached. The way the “Commanders and leaders” section of the infobox was previously broken into time intervals can be easily dispensed with. Likewise, I can understand the rationale behind excluding front commanders whose tenure ended between 1941 and 1942 along with Soviet commanders whose involvement in the Pacific was limited to 1945. That being said, is there really no way we can decide upon some form of criteria addressing these concerns while allowing for the inclusion of at least some of the Pacific War’s commanders? Emiya1980 (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose adding the senior-most military officers involved on both sides, so Nimitz, MacArthur, Yamamoto, the IJA CoS (was that Tojo?), & the ROC Army CoS. What causes a problem for me is the arbitrary inclusion of some figures who were effectively mere corps commanders (IJA Army level) while omitting IJN officers who effectively outranked them. That's both unjust & excessively detailed, & adding AUS, USMC, or Oz Army corps level commanders as a solution is nuts. What are we going to see next? Every USN Division commander? (Who here has even heard of Sunshine Murray? Do you want to defend adding him? Because if the corps level adds stand, I'm going to start with him.) IMO, omitting the senior-most COs is a mistake; they governed the conduct of the war, & influenced it, more than the political leadership. I'm not unsympathetic to the "bloat", but IMO adding that level of command isn't unreasonable. That's my $0.05 worth (since Canada's discontinued the penny... ;p ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I would support keeping only the "overall" leaders for "lesser" powers (Australia, Netherlands, Thailand, Soviet Union (since they were involved so late), etc), but adding some of the top level commanders for the "big players" (USA, UK, China, Japan). Probably not all top level commanders (such as the US ones only in the initial invasions in 1941/2), but the more involved (TOP) level commanders, such as previously mentioned MacArthur, Nimitz, Mountbatten, Nagano, Terauchi... Trying not to take too many people though, maybe a 2-3 extra commanders for UK, US, China and Japan to the existing infobox, maybe some more Japan since they are the only big Axis Power and "spread" out to their many enemies (in China, Burma, Pacific). See how it looks or if it becomes too bloated. (and imo, remove Clement Atlee, Koiso and Suzuki.) Thoughts?--Havsjö (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I made an example of what I think would be good like: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pacific_War&oldid=889392259
I "tidies up" China/CCP and put info about CCP in the note on China.
The infobox includes both US presidents
Douglas MacArthur as commander of the SWPA and later SCAP
Chester Nimitz as commander for Pacific Ocean Areas.
Depending on how "far" people are willing to go, I could also see William Halsey Jr. and Thomas C. Kinkaid being added for Commanders, South Pacific Area and Commander Allied Naval Forces SWPA, respectively.
Adding Chen Cheng, He Yingqin and Bai Chongxi as the biggest China-wide leaders under Chiang Kai-Shek(i.e. not just a War Area/Military Region.)
Removed Clement Atlee (anybody contest this?). Added Archibald Wavell for ABDA Command and his roles in India (CnC, India and Governor-General)
Added Louis Mountbatten for SEAC.
The longest serving/most important overall leaders for Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Netherlands and USSR remain.
For Japan I suggest/support removing the PM's after Tojo and adding
Osami Nagano, Chief of Navy Staff
(Althoug I forgot to add him in) Shigetarō Shimada, Minister of Navy and later Chief of Navy Staff,
Isoroku Yamamoto, CnC of Combined Fleet
Hajime Sugiyama, Chief of Army Staff and later Minister of War
Hisaichi Terauchi, commander of Southern Expeditionary Army Group (all Army units in South-East Asia and Pacific)
Shunroku Hata, China Expeditionary Army (all Army units in China)
Then I kept Plaek Phibunsongkram and added an "optional" drop down box for the main leaders of the Puppet states. (I would also support removing Mengjiang (and its leader), from here, since it was just an autonomous region of the Wang Jingwei regime during the whole Pacific War. Its worth including in the Sino-Japanese War infobox, which it/he is. But not the Pacific War imo...) --Havsjö (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Trekphiler:@Emiya1980:@Nick-D: Well, any thoughts? Updated and "final" version of proposition here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pacific_War&oldid=889997347 --Havsjö (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Too many people IMO - it's unlikely that readers would find this very helpful. The Japanese collaborator leaders definitely shouldn't be there - they had very little actual authority. More generally, I dislike the above approach of editors picking and choosing between people to include - why exclude some of the Japanese PMs and include Wavell? (who lead a short-lived theatre, and was then a regional rather than a theatre commander). What historians support this as being the key people in the Pacific War? This kind of approach gets arbitrary very quickly. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick-D: It is indeed a bit "arbitrary" in places such as on the Japanese side, but I think its somehow quite "obvious" to see why Yamamoto is included and not his successor Mineichi Koga, despite them holding the same position. Other than that I dont feel its so arbitrary? The Japanese leaders are the top positions that held their roles for most of the war and the allied leaders are all of their "top dogs", so to say (MacArthur, Mountbatten, Yingqin, etc). Wavell's role as leader of ABDA command may have been short, but he was basically the largest commander of the allies in the pacific war during the invasion of Malaya, Dutch East Indies, etc. The Japanese PM's are described in their articles as "token" and did not sit for very long and the collaborator leaders are "optional" in the drop-down box. Its not really that much longer either and a user can easily hover over the names to see their introductions mention their positions as Navy chief of staff etc-- (Also, how is this "less helpful" to list the main commanders vs the "token" short-serving PM position in 1945..?)Havsjö (talk) 10:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the logic behind including Yamamoto but not Soemu Toyoda, who also led the Combined Fleet through several major battles with very important strategic implications. The only difference is that Yamamoto scored some short-lived victories. If the commanders of important semi-independent commands were to be added, why not add Curtis LeMay or Bruce Fraser? Including the puppet leaders in any form is to accept Japanese wartime propaganda claims, and collapsible fields in infoboxes doesn't seem a great idea to me. You could swap in all kinds of leaders, and it would still be arbitrary and confusing to readers. If there was a desire to expand the list of names in the infobox, it should be on the basis of who historians have judged to be the key military figures in the war, not the views of individual Wikipedia editors picking favourites. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree Toyoda could be added too, thats actually a good idea. Also maybe LeMay. I think Fraser is way to "insignificant" compared to the rest though. I think its a bit dramatic to call it "accepting Japanese propaganda" to include the puppet leaders, especially since they are even marked as such... AND if they are even "hidden"/optional. I could also see Yamamoto/Toyoda not being included at all, but I put more and some "lower level" japanese leaders than allied leaders because the Japanese section had room to be filled and considering how Japan basically acted like "several enemies" (Jap vs UK in Burma, Jap vs US in Pacific, Jap vs China in China). I think including the commanders I have included in my proposition (with roles such as Supreme Allied Commander, Chief of the entire Japanese Navy for most of the war, Commander of all Army troops in the pacific) are much more relevant and "helpful" to include compared to a rather short-serving "token" PM in 1945... With my proposition the list also grows in length, but shrinks in width, so its not even getting physically bloated or anything.--Havsjö (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding Japanese leaders to make up the numbers highlights the problems with this approach IMO. As historians stress, one of the main reasons for Japan's total defeat is that it took on multiple countries, including several major military powers, simultaneously, and the fact that Japan's list of leaders is small in comparison to the array of Allied leaders is in line with this. I'm not aware of any historians who describe the puppet leaders as actually having any significant powers within their supposed jurisdictions (which were actually dominated by the Japanese occupation authorities) or any meaningful influence over the war. Again, if you want to expand the list, I think that there needs to be solid views of historians to support the selection. Nick-D (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

If Yamamoto(/Toyoda) is not included then? Then the Japanese side only features people who were Prime Minister, Minister of Army/Navy, Chief of Staff of Army/Navy for the vast majority of the war. + the commanders for all troops in Pacific/China. The very highest of the highest and who sat for majority (or all) of the war. Although some improvements could be discussed later, I think its much more helpful and informative and list far more relevant people to the "Pacific War" than the current listing at least. --Havsjö (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

What historians support such a selection? I don't see the logic in including Japanese ministers and service chiefs but not Allied ministers and service chiefs - this repeats the approach of seeking to make up the numbers, which would mislead readers. Nick-D (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Nick-D I don't see any reason to shut down Havsjö's proposals immediately without giving them some consideration. Subject to a few changes, I think they offer material to work with. For this reason, I invite Lyndaship, Kent G. Budge , and Lucasjohansson to rejoin the discussion so their concerns about an overcrowded infobox can be directly addressed in the context of these new suggestions. There should be other editors in favor of the status quo participating in this thread.Emiya1980 (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick-D: I just wanted to squeeze in here my "line of thought", that for example US/UK, lets say, minster of war/chief of staff, are also "spread out" of over both Europe and the pacific, so the pacific specific people are more relevant here. In Japans case, the minister of war is "totally involved" only in the pacific war. --Havsjö (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

That's still you picking and choosing though. The American ministers and service chiefs were also heavily involved in the Pacific War (Hap Arnold even personally commanded the strategic air campaign against Japan! - though he almost entirely delegated the day to day running of the offensive). Do any historians argue that the American military leadership played a much less significant role in the Pacific War than their Japanese equivalents? I haven't seen this. It's issues like this which make me favour a very simple and concise infobox - the Pacific War was a huge conflict, with a large number of important people involved. Nick-D (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Limiting the box to each participant's head of state is still too narrow a sample to accurately reflect the leadership in charge of each side's war effort. You're criticizing Havsjö for "picking and choosing" which people to include when you're doing the exact same thing to insure simplicity (EVEN IF it means limiting the infobox's quality as an educational tool to regurgitating information in the one given on World War II's main page). As a page devoted to World War II's Pacific Theatre, the infobox and the article as a whole is intended to provide visitors with a more in-depth look at this part of the conflict than the page discussing the war in general. Moreover, if the pages devoted to the other fronts serve as any reference (let alone those for most conflicts), the listing (as shown by the link previously set forth by Havsjö) is hardly overcrowded. Emiya1980 (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@@Nick-D:,@Trekphiler:,@Havsjö:. Here is an revision to the page addressing Nick-D's concerns about unequal representation of Allied and Japanese leaders in the infobox: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pacific_War&oldid=890237975Emiya1980 (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

My 2p:

• The fundamental principle that should inform what is presented in the infobox is that it should be a concise summary of the important points as covered in the main body of the article. This is based on policy (WP:WEIGHT) and guideline (MOS:LEAD). Thus, based on the current version, Stalin, Stachouwer, Fraser, Mackenzie King and Attlee, who are never once mentioned in the main body of the article, do not warrant inclusion in the infobox; Factotem (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
• The fly in the ointment is the fact that the axis leaders are pretty much entirely absent from the main body. This, I would argue, is a WP:POV failure in the main article, and common sense would suggest that Hirohito and Phibunsongkhram at least should be retained in the infobox while that is addressed; Factotem (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
• MacArthur is mentioned six times in the main body (and three times in image captions), which suggests that he is a fairly important figure in the narrative that might justify his inclusion in the infobox; Factotem (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
• Unfortunately we cannot customise the infobox commander heading as we can the combatant heading, but we can precede the list of commanders and leaders with something along the lines of "Key figures" (or whatever) to emphasise that the list includes only key leaders. Factotem (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Thus, I'm casting my lot in with the "keep it short and concise" camp. The key issue is that, within the constraints of policy, guideline and the advice given in the Template:Infobox military conflict documentation, it is the contents of the article that dictate what is presented in the infobox. Factotem (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

(break)

• Can I just suggest that as there is basically an active discussion taking place regarding a content dispute, that no further changes be made to the article, or at least any sections of the article content being discussed, until the discussion is concluded, either by consensus or a policy determination. In the meantime, any changes being sought should be proposed here first. JMHO - wolf 04:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I would tend to agree though changes immediately self-reverted could aid the discussion? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Yup, I've done that myself. Sometimes it's easier to show just what is you want to do, so do it, immediately revert, then post a link to the version with your changes. It can help in some situations and can't really see it hurting, except in the most contentious disputes. - wolf 05:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, been through this and it is getting a bit on the side of TLDNR. Te first "key premise" is that an infobox should be a "brief summary". It does not need to be a "complete" summary, provided it makes this clear. The World War II is (IMO) a good model. It uses statements like "main allied leaders". It is also appropriate to use "See XYZ for full details" - possibly as a footnote. Collaped lists don't work well - even on my PC screen. Even the stable revert version is somewhat bloated (IMO). The territorial changes such as "removal of Japanese troops from Papua" is not accurate, since this is not a change from pre to post war. The "result" is not the same as "what resulted". Technically, "what resulted" does not belong here. I would limit the Allies to the big three (UK, US and China) and their leaders to their political leaders for the main. Being austere in this regard, it is debatable if Australia should be included but no others. NZ and Canada concentrated their effort toward Europe. The Pacific is broken down into "Commands" and this is where more detail can be added without as much risk of bloat - but not here. My thoughts for what they are worth. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I think we've hit a snag on the WP approach to the war, namely, including China & India. That makes adding Chinese & other leaders mandatory, if we're going to add Nimitz & MacArthur. (I do wonder if that doesn't also mean Commander Fourteenth Army, whose name I'm embarrassed to admit I don't recall, should also be.) And the CBI means Brit PMs should be too. So the options appear to be 1) live with the crowding or 2) split CBI out. Beyond that, I don't have any strong views on the proposed adds. (For the record, my late silence was an enforced AFK, not indifference. :) ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

A way forward?

Thinking on this some more, this seems a bit intractable (without broader input and a third-party close) and the previous discussion is a bit hard to wade through.

Broadly, the four alternatives are:

• maintain the status quo as represented by this version or a more recent version that might be agreed upon but is not substantially different.
  • Which particular version best represents the status quo might emerge from further discussion but is ultimately immaterial (in the first instance) to support for maintaining the status quo. If it is not apparent in the first instance, it might be subsequently clarified once (and if) the status quo becomes the consensus.
• Parse the infobox (particularly the belligerents and the leaders) IAW the example set at World War II.
  • While there is no specific example for the Pacific War, my post (immediately above) strongly suggests what this might be.
• Expand entries under the section for "commanders and leaders" - particularly for the Allies.
  • There are three recent proposals IAW this broad proposition. [2] [3] [4] While one of these (or another) may garner particular support, the issue is the broader principle. If not clear which version is ultimately supported, it can be subsequently determined if this "broader" alternative becomes the consensus.
• This last alternative assumes the status quo, with the provision that any addition (or deletion) to the list of leaders (and belligerents) be made on a case-by-case (individually) basis and that any change achieve a "clear" consensus.
  • By this, I might propose to add Douglas MacArthur but not multiple leaders. If my edit is challenged, I would have to obtain clear support for MacArthur's inclusion.
  • This alternative can potentially apply to any of the previous three. As such, it might complicate matters, so I phrase it in respect to the status quo.

I would ask those following this to consider this, not from your own preference, but whether this is an adequate summary of the alternatives and a basis for an RfC. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Do a RfC, we need some more people to reach a consensus. Anyway, I think the other 2 examples linked are waaay to bloated with people not really helpful/"relevant" for Pacific war leaders (also, no Chinese leaders(!?)). Alan Brooke for example has NO mention of Japan and 1 mention of Pacific in his whole article. I get he was Chief of Staff of the entire British army, but this is what I mean that people like that are not as relevant for the Pacific War vs their Japanese counterparts. If USA is fighting in Europe and Asia, the leaders such as commander of "Asia Command" (for example) are the relevant/important/helpful ones here. Japan (and China) is only in Asia, so their "overall" Chief of Staff (for example) becomes the most relevant/important/helpful for them. Also, I do not think reducing it in a similar way as World War II infobox is good at all. WW2 has the overall, simplified, leaders/countries, but if people want to go deeper and look at specific parts, it should reveal more leaders/countries.--Havsjö (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: I agree. Let's do an RfC. Emiya1980 (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Trekphiler:@Factotem:@Nick-D: Well, does anyone else have thoughts on Cinderella157’s proposal? Emiya1980 (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

RFC on detail in infobox regarding beligerents and commanders

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I think it very obvious the consensus is for option 2. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

---

The conflict infobox is intended to provide a brief summary. The question for comment here relates to striking a balance between concision and completeness. Specifically, this RfC is to establish in broad terms the belligerents and commanders to be listed and not specific individuals and countries. For background, see the discussion immediately above. The options arising from the discussion are identified as follows:

Option 1: Maintain the status quo as represented by this version or a more recent version that might be agreed upon but is not substantially different.

• Which particular version best represents the status quo might emerge from further discussion but is ultimately immaterial (in the first instance) to support for maintaining the status quo. If it is not apparent in the first instance, it might be subsequently clarified once (and if) the status quo becomes the consensus.

Option 2: Parse the infobox (particularly the belligerents and the leaders) IAW the example set at World War II.

• There is no specific example for the Pacific War but, as a broad option, it would likely limit the Allies listed to three or so and the commanders to the principle prime minister/president of each. It would also refer to a more complete list of Allies involved.

Option 3: Expand entries under the section for "commanders and leaders" - particularly for the Allies.

• Clarify: this option expands the status quo. clarifying this option. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
• There are three recent proposals IAW this broad proposition. [5] [6] [7] While one of these (or another) may garner particular support, the issue is the broader principle. If not clear which version is ultimately supported, it can be subsequently determined if this "broader" alternative becomes the consensus.

Option 4: This last alternative assumes the status quo, with the provision that any addition (or deletion) to the list of leaders (and belligerents) be made on a case-by-case (individually) basis and that any change achieve a "clear" consensus.

• By this, I might propose to add Douglas MacArthur but not multiple leaders. If my edit is challenged, I would have to obtain clear support for MacArthur's inclusion.
• This alternative can potentially apply to any of the previous three. As such though, it might complicate matters, so I phrase it in respect to the status quo.

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• Option 2 followed by Option 4: There is already (IMO) too much info for this to be considered "concise". The body of the article is the place for complete and fuller detail. It would also be much easier to deal with specific inclusions or deletions than en block. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1, with tweaks The World War II infobox is a good example of how an infobox can be used to summarise a complex conflict. The Pacific War was one of the two main elements of this war, and was every bit as complex as the larger conflict. I think that the current infobox does a reasonable job of summarising the war, though it should be further simplified by removing the minor participants on the Allied side (Canada and Mongolia) as they played very minor roles, and the so-called client states on the Japanese side as they were in no way independent actors and did not play any significant role in the conflict. Nick-D (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• I recommend adopting Option 2 and subsequently adding additional commanders on a case-by-case basis. Emiya1980 (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

  I think that's what's proposed in option 3? Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

  Nick-D, option 3 expands upon the status quo, as is evidenced by the examples given in describing the option. Both your position and that of Emiya1980 might have the same ultimate outcome but have different starting points. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• Option 2 In broad terms, the decision on which belligerents and commanders should be included in the infobox should be informed primarily by policy and guideline. The relevant policy is WP:NPOV, specifically WP:WEIGHT and and WP:PROPORTION, which basically say that minor aspects of the subject should not be given undue weight, and specifically identifies prominence of placement as one of the ways in which this can occur. The relevant guideline is MOS:LEAD. As part of the lead, the infobox is expected to be a "summary of [an article's] most important points" and not be a comprehensive listing of every detail, major and minor. It's also important to point out that the guideline states that "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." It's perhaps debatable whether any given commander is a "basic fact"; it seems fair to accept one, single leader of each belligerent on this basis, but for other commanders to be considered for inclusion in the infobox, they should receive significant coverage in the main body of the article. Factotem (talk) 09:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 The shorter the better, with links. It is more readable and understandable and therefore more likely to be used. If there is too much info, then the infobox will not be a quick-look, sidebar-like guide and it will not serve its purpose. The "Pacific War" is a larger-picture, strategic-level conception of how to talk about the WWII and the infobox should reflect that and be focused on larger-picture, strategic-level leaders and other info. Remember Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. People looking for more detail can quickly scan the article, using the Table of Contents or See Also to find more information and links to "main articles". Only list the key theater-wide players and info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloilo Wanderer (talk • contribs)
• Option 4 I think that would add the most relevant leaders to the conflict when looked at on a case-by-case basis, instead of picking leaders after some strict rules for "consistensy" despite the specific individuals not having equal relevance/importance to the war. --Havsjö (talk) 08:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Factotem, though following Nick-D's suggestions is also a good course of action. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 01:16, 03 May 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Iloilo. I have no opinion about adding commanders one by one as I view this proposal as almost exclusively affecting editors who intend to continue actively editing this article––I was summoned by a bot and have no particular intention to participate in future discussions on this page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

I would be in favor of Option 4 under one condition. While many nations who fought for the Allied coalition in the Pacific, their positions in the coalition’s hierarchy were hardly equal. In the various fronts comprising the theater, all Allied participants served under the command of either the Americans, British, Chinese, or the Soviets (assuming anyone wants to given them credit for their last-minute entry into the theater). Therefore, in order to address concerns about overcrowding, it would be reasonable to confine the list of Allied ‘leaders and commanders” to these 3-4 countries’ heads of states while opting to add other commanders from these nationalities on a case-by-case basis. Thoughts? Emiya1980 (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Emiya1980 Personally, I would not include the Soviet Union for the reason you state. I might include/retain Australia (per previous). However, the purpose of this RfC is to identify the broad principle to be applied. As I read your comment, you would be happy with (favour) option 2 in combination with option 4 (even though you said initially that you favour option 4). By this, you would start from a position of option 2 and add additional commanders on a case-by-case basis. This would certainly be reasonable if you phrased it like this. IMO, it is important not to present a confused picture to a closer, since it will only result in "no consensus". Hope this addresses your question. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

As noted above, after there's agreement on the underlying principles I think that we should ensure that the selection of countries/leaders is supported by reliable sources rather than editors' personal assessments. For instance, while the USSR was only involved in the Pacific War for two weeks many historians argue that its role was either a or the deciding factor in the Japanese Government's decision to accept unconditional surrender. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

To reinforce the point I made in my !vote, I believe the selection of countries/leaders should be supported by the main body of the article, not the sources. Factotem (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Factotem on having the selection of commanders based on their coverage in the article itself. Deeming a commander necessary for inclusion because "many historians say so" is far too abstract a standard to apply effectively. How many historians are we referring to here? Are they qualified experts on the subject? Is the material they rely upon to make their argument outdated?

By their very nature, Wikipedia articles are the result of compiling findings and observations from numerous historians which are in turn filtered by a broad consensus of editors based on their reliability. Therefore, it follows that additions to the infobox should only be made on the basis of sources other editors have a chance to review for themselves. Going forward, determinations regarding additions to the infobox could be made more objectively without as much back-and-forth arguments. Emiya1980 (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

...additions to the infobox should only be made on the basis of sources... "Sources", plural? My position is that there is only one source that can be legitimately used to determine what goes in the infobox, and that is the article itself. Factotem (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm referring to statements backed up by sources cited in the page's bibliography. If material was added to the article without any support from a published source, it would constitute original research which is prohibited by Wikipedia. Therefore, if you're going to base infobox determinations on what is written in the article, you inevitably have to look at the sources supporting such content. Emiya1980 (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree; if the infobox's source is the article, the article must be sourced properly. (These two positions are not irreconcilable.) —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 01:21, 03 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox: Casualties and losses; and, Strengths

I am seeing a number of issues with figures reported in these sections of the infobox. Most problematic is in the breakdown of the casualties. The main figure reported is for "dead", thereby implying that the breakdown is also for "dead". The figures reported in the breakdown are not consistent with the main text. It appears the figures may variously report: capture, wounded or total, rather than only "dead". Also, some of the detail in the infobox is not reflected in the main article (eg casualties of Japanese allies are not listed in the main article). There is no section for strength in the main body, so all figures must be referenced. The flag icons in these sections were always problematic, even before the RfC to limit participants. Their use tended to obfuscate rather than clarify (IMO). Since the RfC, this is even more the case. A question is how best to deal with this?

regarding casualties, it may be best to omit a breakdown, given the inconsistencies? Under "strength", where flag icons have not been previously used, the icon should be replaced with the name. Thailand plus other is approximately 1.1 million or approximately 1 million. This depends on what Jowett (the cited reference) actually says. A strength for Australia of ≈ 600,000 is probably a reasonable total at the end of WW2 but may not be the strength in the Pacific War. All of these figures need to be qualified by what time they represent, otherwise they are virtually meaningless - eg, the Dutch force was largely captured at the onset of hostilities. Thoughts please. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding strength:
Japanese puppet troops numbered over 1,000,000 in total (of all armies) (Jowett, p.18) (although I have a e-book version, so page number might be a bit off).
Manchukuo Army in the 1945 Soviet offensive was between 170,000 (Glantz) and 200,000-220,000 (Soviet intelligence in 1944) (Jowett, p.53).
Collaborationist Chinese Army was about 627,200 men (327,400 regulars & 299,800 irregulars) in early 1944 (British intelligence), 683,569 (Nationalist estimate), 900,000 (410,000 regulars & 490,000 irregulars) (Communist estimate), (and ~44,000 mongols in the Mengjiang army during the Soviet '45 offensive, they were nominally part of China-Nanjing).
Burma Independence Army (and later iterations), peaked at about 18,000-23,000 guerrillas in the initial invasion, and then was reduced to a 3,000 strong regular army soon which grew to 11,000-15,000 in 42-43 and stayed that size until the end.
Indian National Army had around 43,000 in total. (Dont have a book source, but here is an example https://learn.culturalindia.net/indian-national-army.html, seems to be accepted fact and always the given size of strenght in all places.)
Thailand had, as the article say, 126,500 men in total, but in where they actually activate fought, the Phayap Army in the Burma Campaign, "only" about 75,000 were fielded in several divisions.

Casualties for Chinese puppets troops say 288,000 (low), 432,000 (mid) 574,560 (high) dead or 960,000 dead and wounded (by Communists). I think maybe Manchukuo has their numbers included in the above Chinese numbers prior to the country being totally overrun by USSR.
Thailand and India National army have sourced deaths (and missing for INA, but thats basically the same) 5,569 for Thai and 2,615 for INA. Burma is unknown.

Strenght:
Chinese Nationalists had 2,600,000 in 1939 and 5,700,000 in 1945, Communists had 488,744 in 1940 and 1,200,000 in 1945.(sources here).
US has sourced number (for 1945), so do India, USSR, UK and Netherlands (which is for during the Dutch East Indies campaign 41-42). Australia had 476,000 in the peak in Aug 1942 and ~730,000 total. Mongolia had 16,000 men in 1945 offensive (but I dont have a real source on that...)

Casualties:Overall deaths for some countries can be seen here World War II casualties, such as Dutch East Indies had 11,500 military deaths or China had 3,000,000-3,700,000 dead and 1,700,000 wounded (similar numbers in the 2nd Sino-Japanese war article and pacific war article), Mongolia with ~300. Glantz say that USSR in 1945 had 12,031 killed and 24,425 wounded.
That page says Philippines had 57,000 military dead and another page also say 8,000–10,000 guerrillas during the occupation and 50,000-80,000 guerrillas during the 1944 US invasion. But the 57,000 is probably from the initial invasion
The "WW2 casualties" page are for Europe/Africa too (Australia, New Zealand, UK for example..), but these allies should be pretty easy to find source for pacific casualties though. I dont know why France is in the allied casualties section and where 20,000 comes from...

PS, why was the belligerents section changed? That feels like it was quite clear and uncontroversial (the discussion was about the leaders). Was that section also part of the RfC about the commanders and leaders? Feels like some countries, like Australia and Netherlands are omitted quite a lot now and cause some confusion with the strength/casualty section... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havsjö (talk • contribs)

I'd suggest omitting the 'strength' section from the infobox - it's lots of detail, and will be basically impossible to find meaningful figures. At the moment we have a mix of figures from 1940, 1942, 1944, 1945 and the war as a whole - on what basis were these chosen? The Australian figure is not properly referenced (no page number) and may be wrong given that a million people served in the Australian military over the course of the war. The British and Indian figures are for the entire war, and are a bit different from what's presented in the infobox (Hastings states that "almost 400,000 British servicemen served in the Far East, along with more than two million soldiers of Britain's Indian Army"). Given the results of the above RfC, it's also unclear why all the countries are being listed here - this does not appear to be consistent with the RfC results. Nick-D (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I definitely see your point, but I feel some rather "big" belligerents (even if they are not "top 3") are being "omitted",(such as Australia/Netherlands), I feel this infobox is being to cut down. WW2 only lists the basic top 3 countires, but a "deeper look", like this page, should offer something more, even if "leaders" is shortened, as per RfC... --Havsjö (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Those issues were discussed in the RfC. I don't see the point of re-litigating the issue. A better solution IMO would be to keep the infobox simple, but improve the relevant sections of the article - which is generally not in good shape and would benefit from this. Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with omitting "strengths" from the infobox since there is no meaningful basis of comparison. It does not mean that this could not be developed in the main text. This still leaves the problematic issue of casualties to resolve. I am tending to deleting the "detail" from the infobox on casualties because of the inconsistencies. I agree with Nick-D that we should concentrate on improving the article and keep the infobox simple - particularly in the face of these inconsistencies. On the RfC, the belligerents and the leaders were both specifically subjects of the RfC. There is no doubt that China, US and British Empire are main Allies in this war. Whether any other nation also needs to be considered as a main Ally should be discussed. I would tend not to included the USSR. It only fought for a very brief period (less than a month) of the 3 ²/₃ years - even if the show of force was significant in the timing of the end of the war. The Netherlands was neutralised as a force of significance in the opening months of the war. I might only argue for the inclusion of Australia (as I have already said). It opposed Japan throughout the course of the war, with a force (arguably) of next most consequence. It is also significantly represented in the article. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Other improvements

Per comment by Nick-D re improving article. I have been looking at the results section of the infobox and the territorial changes section. There is a lot of detail there. The territorial changes might be summarised more succinctly and developed in the main text. To say (in the lead), "its sovereignty was limited to the four main home islands" appears questionable - in respect to only these islands and not other islands making up Japan. Also, I have not been the only one to observe (previously) that the multiple dot-points under "result" does not conform to WP:MILMOS in consequence. [Almost] none of the dot-points are addressed in the main text of the article. The infobox is meant to be a summary of the article that supplements the lead. However; at present, it is acting as a de facto aftermath section. This is a deficiency in the article. By addressing this and creating an "Aftermath", these two sections of the infobox might be simplified. While I might write such a section, I lack access to suitable references (a problem when you live in the bush). Any thoughts? Any takers? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Page Details

I think there should be more added to the infobox like on the previous versions of the page itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhos12345 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Please, what and why? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 20:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Please see the earlier discussion of this. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Underground tunnel

@DimensionQualm: Are there other tunnels with which the reader could be confused with? I see only that one mention, so it doesn't seem that a distinction is necessary, especially when those other tunnels that appear above ground are fairly rare. In other words, are we belittling the reader's intelligence when they understand that most tunnels are underground? To me this feels like little is gained by distinguishing this particular example. In the previous sentence a cave is mentioned. Could it be that tunnels are being constructed in the sky? Or that on Iwo Jima they were being constructed between skyscrapers? You see what I'm getting at? You're argument doesn't support the context in which this use is inferred. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I was simply pointing out that not all tunnels are underground, you also have a history of other editors on your talk page addressing you about your mass removals of underground without any regard to contexts. I didn't realize that you were editwarring with multiple people across multiple articles either. Honestly that's another point that was brought up, not all caves are underground either. Type in the word "Cave" or "Tunnel" in Google Images, and you can clearly see that they are not all underground. DimensionQualm (talk) 11:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Per this edit and the following revert. Please see Tunnel: A tunnel is an underground passageway, dug through the surrounding soil/earth/rock and enclosed except for entrance and exit, commonly at each end. A pipeline is not a tunnel, though some recent tunnels have used immersed tube construction techniques rather than traditional tunnel boring methods. I think there is little doubt that the phase "underground tunnels" is a tautological construction. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a WP:Reliable source to support an argument with. DimensionQualm (talk) 11:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

A somewhat pedantic use of WP:RS but ... From my Macquarie Dictionary: "an underground passage". See also [8][9][10][11]. As for pics on google, they all have earth over their top - ie they are under the ground. I am curious as to what tunnels (with particular note of the context) are not under the ground. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a strong interest in arguing this. The user already has enough issues arguing with multiple people about this same thing on their talk page, I don't want to fan the flames. Just because they have earth on their top doesn't mean they are under the ground. I'm done with this. DimensionQualm (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Allied Civilian Deaths Citation

Hi, sorry if my post breaks protocol but I've never edited a wikipedia page. However, recently I noticed that the source for Chinese civilian deaths (the 17 million one) leads to a blank page, and the citation was retrieved many years ago. I just thought that a better source should be found to make the article more credible. (I'm not disputing the amount of civilian deaths, but the citation turns up blank and the site itself dosen't have a tag and is .cn, I just thought that a better site could be found) Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halo23020 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

infobox edits to leaders

Emiya1980, please discuss to gain consensus for your additions per this [final version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pacific_War&diff=919083941&oldid=919061533] of your edits. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Surely the leader of the British Empire should be King George VI, not Winston Churchill? (Also, in "Belligerents", should it not be British Empire rather than United Kingdom? That would also resolve the concerns about Australia, New Zealand and India being ignored.) SC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.248.36.64 (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The UK ran the war and Churchill as Prime Minister and Defense Minister ran the UK. The king had only a nominal ceremonial role with no decision-making re the war. The British Empire was one of many offices in the UK cabinet (and India had a separate office). Rjensen (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the infobox already said British Empire, but this was changed by an IP on 19 November 2019. I've reverted it back. I agree with the points by the IP. EtherealGate (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The point of view of Section "Aftermath and evaluation" is unbalanced

The section "Aftermath and evaluation" mostly cites sources that repeat Japanese imperialist propaganda, and lacks evaluation from the perspective of countries most severely affected by Japanese war crimes such as China and Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohthere1 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Concur. I have deleted it in toto Lyndaship (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Recent edit to include Australia as a major belligerent

Hi XavierGreen, I have reverted your edit that added Australia to the infobox as a major belligerent. Given the history of the infobox entries in this field, there needs to be a firm consensus for the addition of entries in this and the related field of leaders. I am therefore initiating this discussion. As an Australian, I am not opposed to such an edit but perhaps you might make a case for why Australia should be added to this list over the other Allies not listed. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

As a personal take on the issue I think that adding the indepedant British Dominions (as well as perhaps the British Raj) in a drop down menu underneath the "British Empire" link is more reflective of the poltical reality of the situation at the time. Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa (the so called "white" dominions) were given a fair degree of latitude when it came to foreign and domestic policy and therefore fought in the Pacific theatre largley seperate from direct British Military Command. The Kokoda Track Campaign for instance, was conducted at the behest of Australian Military Commannd, and in promient naval actions such as the Battle of Leyete Gulf, Australian forces fell under the command of American Admirals - not British ones. Further, having the dominions in a drop down menu (or even just listed below) the British Empire is the standard template for military articles about WW2, such as for instance on the article for the North African Campaign (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_campaign) and the Siege of Tobruk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tobruk) Finally, it seems a bit disingenous to not list the specific dominions which participated in the front and merely just the "British Empire," as (for a very good reason) the majority of the Empire did not participate in this theatre of war. Regards Frodo.mintoff (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Frodo.mintof, please see Talk:Pacific War/Archive 5#Infobox (March 2019) and RfC that followed. Hence, we are only listing the major Allied belligerents in the infobox. There is no doubt that the US, UK and China meet this. As an Australian, I believe that there is a case for inclusion in this but I am not going to rock this boat. The Dominions declared war independently but India was not granted dominion status until after the war and was administered by Britain. Canada and New Zealand concentrated their efforts on the war in Europe and had minimal participation in the war in the Pacific. Australia was heavily directly involved in the conflict from essentially the start (1941) until victory. At the end of the war the military had a strength of nearly 600,000 personnel, of whom 224,000 were serving in the Pacific. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Undue Weight

In the entries on the "War crimes" section, the paragraphs of American wrong doings are too large and overly detailed, while the paragraphs on Japanese crimes are mostly two to three simple sentences long. The paragraphs on American wrongs should be severely trimmed, and statements like "One of the greatest and continuous war crimes" should be removed, so as not to give off the illusion that American wrongs (whether real or alleged) were anywhere near as significant as the massive atrocities committed by Japan when they weren't. One to two sentence paragraphs should be fine, as at present, it reads like Allied crimes are being played up to look like they were about as bad as Japanese crimes even when they clearly weren't. Also, the Wahoo entry should be removed, given that it was comparatively minor and incidental, while all other crimes in this section were massive and systematic.--104.228.9.173 (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I somewhat agree, and have made some changes. (Hohum ^@) 19:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The now existing paragraphs could still stand to be trimmed down to just two or three sentences, just to keep everything balanced with everything else in this section. Either way, thanks for the good work, Hohum@--104.228.9.173 (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

So would it be okay if I trimmed those paragraphs down? The paragraphs in the Allied section are still about six to seven sentences, while most of the ones in the Japanese section are only two to three. They currently look like we're giving more attention to individual wrong doings by the Allies than the ones by Japan, which is especially wrong since Japanese crimes were much worse (and far more numerous). Cutting the Allied paragraphs down to equal length as the Japanese paragraphs would be ideal.--104.228.9.173 (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Weight is not just about the number of words/sentences and and equal weight does not mean equal numbers. But in broad terms, it would be more acceptable to prune the text rater than just deleting as you have before - though I think it should retain the same issues (at least for now). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

How is it not? Why does something really minor, like taking body parts off of already dead Imperial soldiers (who were murderous criminals of a genocidal criminal organization, by the way) get to have seven sentences devoted to it, while the Nanking Massacre, the greatest single atrocity of the Pacific War, only gets one sentence. It's pretty much giving more attention to one side's minor wrongs than the other side's major wrongs. How is this not unbalanced and, frankly, intellectually dishonest? I was talking about simply trimming it down while retaining the subject itself, not deleting them altogether. If people want more information on these subjects, they can simply go to the pages devoted to them.--104.228.9.173 (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems like we are in agreement that some discussion of the firebombing and mutilation should remain. I do think Nanking is undertreated in the article—it could probably merit its own subsection. Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, we could pull some content in from the main article (with attribution) and use a Template:Main header to link back. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

So are you suggesting we instead just add more to all the individual Japanese paragraphs to make them equal to the Allied ones. I would think that simply trimming the Allied paragraphs would be simpler, but whichever is best (maybe doing a mix of both). Also, sorry if I my last edit to this page accidentally removed your comment. Must have happened when I was trying to fix a spelling mistake in one of my comments.--104.228.9.173 (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

No worries. I think probably both trimming and addition are warranted. My first instinct is to trim the single-topic paragraphs (Western POWs, comfort women, scorched earth, firebombing, trophy-taking) and to expand many of the single-sentence mentions (Unit 731, bio-weapons, Nanking).

Hohum and Cinderella157, does that seem like a reasonable path forward? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Trimming is fine. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit on Chinese casualties

Nick-D and others, see this edit. I think there are some bits that are questionable and some that should remain. Any thoughts? I am uncertain about the edit to the infobox. It is now not supported by the source cited but I am not certain about that source either. I don't think that the last para added belongs in the section on casualties nor the material dealing with famine, unless it establishes that it was of war origin (which it doesn't). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit on American casualties

There are sources that unfortunately not 161,000 Americans died, but almost 300,000. 169k in the army and 127k in the infantry. Maybe add these numbers to the pack ? Source http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Japan/Monos/pdfs/JM-155/JM-155.pdf Japan Monograph No. 155 Record of Operations against Soviet Russia Northern and Western Fronts, August-September 1945. — Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 1954. — P. 280—281. — xii + 296 с. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.145.61.199 (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

That document appears to discuss Japanese casualties. Firefangledfeathers 18:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

There is also a source, the site is Russian, but there is a link to an American source http://www.warconflict.ru/rus/statistika/?action=shwprd&id=1228 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.145.61.199 (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Reversion of edit

Migrated from User talk:Cinderella157

Hi! You reverted my edit to Pacific War, which removed a CN tag, citing "WP doesn't work that way" as a reason. I would argue that this claim itself is  :)

WP:WTC provides some insight. Regarding tagging claims as CN:

Editors making a challenge should have reason to believe the material is contentious, false, or otherwise inappropriate.

Do you have reason to believe the facts in the paragraph in question are false? I certainly don't. The Soviet Union without doubt fought two border conflicts with the Japanese in 1938 and 1939, certainly remained neutral throughout their neutrality pact with Japan, and definitely invaded Manchuria along with allies in 1945. This information does not require citation in my view.

I'm happy to discuss this further - I'm not a particularly experienced Wikipedian myself, despite the age of my account. — Jthistle38 (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jthistle38, firstly, can I say that this is probably not the right place to start this discussion. It would have been better to have started it at the Pacific War talk page. That way, other editors watching the page would be aware of this discussion. To your query, I would refer you to WP:UGC: In particular, a wikilink is not a reliable source. I acknowledge that I might have cited this in my edit summary. WP:MILHIST tends to set a high standard. The expectation (at a minimum) is that any paragraph can be supported by a citation - hence the tag. Hence, notwithstanding WP:WTC (and I am not challenging that such sources "do" exist), the best way to address the tag would be to add suitable citations that support the paragraph in question. I hope that this is sufficient explanation - both for my initial revert and for that subsequent. If not, can you please copy this discussion to the article's talk page and the discussion can be continued there. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Cinderella157, thanks for your response. I won't be reverting again, but, 1) I was wrong to suggest in my edit summary initially that the Wikilinks were good enough reason to not need a citation - you are right, WP:UGC is clear about this. 2) I am, however, still inclined to disagree with you that citation is needed for the paragraph in question, but on different grounds. WP:MILHIST, while certainly setting a high standard (recommending 'thorough' use of citations; see WP:MILCITE), does not require that every paragraph be supported by an citation. I think that this is a case of WP:BLUESKY - that these events (the border conflicts, neutrality treaty, invasion of Manchuria) all happened is without doubt and does not need citation. The finer details do, certainly - but the paragraph doesn't include any of the finer details. I'm interested to hear other people's perspective on this. (Maybe Global Cerebral Ischemia could weigh in, seeing as they thanked me for my initial edit - though maybe this was a misclick when reaching for the 'undo' button!) Anyway, at this point I'm not too bothered so if you still disagree, I'll leave things there. — Jthistle38 (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

My opinion is that a citation is not needed in this case, and that this is "subject-specific common knowledge" per WP:WTC. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems Loafiewa has fixed the issue in the most uncontroversial way possible. Thank you! — Jthistle38 (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

American casualties

I am a reader from Russia, I apologize in advance for bad English. I don't know if this is appropriate for discussion, but if the US lost 405k soldiers in WW2. Then why in the Pacific War the loss is only 160k fighters, is there more American casualties in the Pacific Ocean than on the Western Front? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.145.61.199 (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

See World War II casualties. The US suffered ~407,000 military deaths; 161,000 dead in the Pacific War against the Japanese, and the rest in other theaters (North Africa, Italy, Western Europe and elsewhere) against Germany. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

But here the confusion is that all sources say that the Americans lost 185k soldiers in the war with the Nazis. Is it possible to assume that the remaining 60k deaths of unknown origin, roughly speaking — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.145.61.199 (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I think part of the confusion is not including non-battle deaths, or only referring to deaths from one branch; for example, the "US Army" is only one branch of the US military, and some sources do not include non-theater deaths that were not sustained in battle. AFAIK, the ~160,000 total deaths in the Pacific includes deaths from all causes, whether in battle or not. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

All the same, I insist that the Pacific Ocean was the bloodiest front for America. When the US fought the Germans in Africa, Italy, on the Western Front. The enemy was significantly exhausted and could not inflict heavy losses. And the Japanese were fanatics, which forced the American soldiers to suffer losses + the fauna was very conducive to diseases, which could also affect the losses. There is also a Russian site that refers to American sources, it says about 296k dead in the war with Japan and 185k in the war with Germany. http://www.warconflict.ru/rus/statistika/?action=shwprd&id=1228 37.145.61.199 (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This is veering into non-article talk. The Russian site you reference is not accurate, and no other source claims that the US suffered more casualties in the Pacific than against the Germans. The claim is completely implausible; you're free to look up the death tolls of the biggest battles in the Pacific and compare them to the biggest battles elsewhere. For example, the Battle of Okinawa was the single deadliest land engagement for the US in the Pacific War, and they lost up ~20,000 dead; they faced 76,000 Japanese soldiers and 40,000 Okinawan conscripts. The sheer numbers the US faced in Western Europe were consistently far larger and much better equipped. For example, in the Battle of the Bulge, they faced over 400,000 German soldiers as well as over 1,000 tanks and AFVs; the US suffered nearly ~90,000 total casualties during the battle. The Battle of Hürtgen Forest is another example, as are battles in Italy. In case after case, the number of enemy forces were larger, better equipped, and inflicted far more casualties. The Pacific War was undoubtedly horrific for the men who were there, but the sheer number of land forces engaged in any given battle was simply lower than on the other side of the world, so the US casualties were lower. Battles in the Pacific were intense, but they simply involved smaller numbers of troops. For example, in the famous Battle of Iwo Jima, the US faced a total of 20,000 Japanese troops and suffered ~6,000 dead. Check the Pacific War infobox and go through the list of battles. The major battles in the Pacific consistently involved far fewer troops than the major battles in Europe. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, you haven't looked at the source the site cites to claim that it's not accurate. But so be it, let's each remain at his own. By the way, when I want to see a site that talks about 161k killed in American wars, it does not open, the source has deleted or I just have glitches. 37.145.61.199 (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It cannot be accurate. The deadliest battles of the Pacific War involved hundreds of thousands fewer people than the deadliest battles in Europe. And then there's sheer numbers of tanks and AFVs, artillery, self-propelled guns, etc that were produced and fielded by Japan in the Pacific; there's simply no comparison with the Germans in Europe; check the numbers yourself. For example, Japan's only competitive medium tank produced during the war was the Type 97 Chi-Ha medium tank, and it produced ~1,000 during the war. Of these, a grand total of only 14 participated in the Battle of Okinawa (alongside 13 lighter tanks, for a total of 27 Japanese tanks in the entire battle). Again, you're free to look at the casualties for each of the battles yourself. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Again, it seems to me that the Pacific Front was still more bloody for both sides. Yes, there were several bloody battles in the European theater: Hurtgen, Ardennes, Normandy. But if I remember correctly, it was all 1944, and starting from 1945, the advance of the Americans went like clockwork. Plus, it seems to me that the main US losses are at the beginning of the Pacific Front. Also, many soldiers may have been killed not on land, but in the fleet. Here is another source, I have not yet had the opportunity to study it, but you may be interested in http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Japan/Monos/pdfs/JM-155/JM-155.pdf Japan Monograph No. 155 Record of Operations against Soviet Russia Northern and Western Fronts, August-September 1945. — Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 1954. — P. 280—281. — xii + 296 с. 37.145.61.199 (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

If you really want to answer this question, then you should be looking up US casualties and deaths for each of the major battles in the Pacific right now and comparing them to the major battles in Europe. It's just that easy. As far as deaths in the fleet, the largest naval battle in WWII (and possibly the largest naval battle in history) was the Battle of Leyte Gulf where the US lost a total of 3,000 casualties. The comments about 1944 and 1945 are irrelevant; just look up the casualties for the battles and let us know what you find. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

As if out of principle, you do not wish to get acquainted with other sources. What I remember, Operation Overlord-20k dead, Siegfried Line-50k dead, Ardennes-19k dead, Invasion of Germany-14k dead. But even if we take into account for the correct figure 161k dead in the Pacific Ocean, 185k in the war with the Germans, we still will not count 60k 37.145.61.199 (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

What we "remember" is irrelevant. The Wikipedia articles for the battles are well-sourced. If you have other sources that meet the WP:RS standard, you're free to cite them in the articles. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

As if you will study the sources. I already sent you 2, but you refused to even read them because you "do not like" them. I will ask you to change the source about American losses. For when I open a link to 160k dead Americans, he answers me "the page is not available" 37.145.61.199 (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

No need for personal attacks, please keep it polite and professional. Your first source, warconflict.ru, appears to be a personal website. It looks like WP:RSSELF to me, and if so, would likely not be acceptable as WP:RS. I don't know the relevance of the second source. You're free to cite it in the article, though primary sources such as this monograph are strongly discouraged. Again, see WP:RS. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

You do not understand, as the first source, I offer not the site itself as such, but the book to which this site refers. And yes, I have a request to you, God bless him with my sources, you can correct the link in the article. Because when I want to read about 160k killed in the war with Japan, the site writes to me "page not available" 37.145.61.199 (talk) 06:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, let me clear up what's happened here. The link you're referring to is a 'dead link'. The webpage which it linked to has since moved. Luckily, the page was archived - this didn't actually save the main content of the page, but it saved enough of it to allow me to find the place where the old page moved to. Here is the new reference with the fixed link:

Whoever wrote the original citation didn't do it quite correctly - they cited the website on which a PDF of this report was hosted, rather than the report itself. I have fixed that in my recent edit to the page.

Anyway, I suggest that you go to the website using the link below, download the last PDF file which gives you the last pages of the report, and go and have a look at page 110 (PDF page 15). This tells us that in the Pacific, the US Army and Air Force lost 62462 in total. This isn't 160k, so I am as confused as you are about where that number comes from.

What we can tell from this source, however, is that the Pacific theatre was no where near as bloody as the European theatre, which saw 152109 battle and nonbattle deaths in the Army and Air Force (p106). So we can at least be clear about that: the US did not lose more soldiers in the Pacific than in Europe.

Hope this helps! — JThistle38 (talk) 11:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes thanks it helped. The only link points to only 4 pages where there is no division of US military casualties. There is only a figure of 318k dead. I don't see any specific division. 37.145.61.199 (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Those '4 pages' are the first page of each of the separate PDF files. You need to download the PDFs to see the whole document (which is split across 4 separate files). You can do that by clicking on the download button on the right above the list of files. — JThistle38 (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

With that said, if you don't mind, I'm going to rollback your changes for two reasons:

1. You changed a reference name, which broke the citation
2. I have no clue where you're getting the numbers that you put in your changes from

I think we need further discussion before we make any changes to the existing statistics. I also think it would be a good idea to start a new talk section to do so. — JThistle38 (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, about American losses, I took the figure of 160k from a source we already know. It's just that if the column with losses says "248k wounded and missing", then in the column about American losses it says 161k dead and 248k precisely wounded, not wounded and missing. And as for Japanese losses, I already take into account Japanese data from the Yasukuni Shrine, which states that 2.1 million military personnel died in the entire WWII. In general, this ratio of losses surprises me. 161k:2.1 million, the same ratio of 1:13, why the Americans defeated the Japanese so easily. This ideal loss ratio is amazing. 37.145.61.199 (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The vast majority of Japanese military deaths in WWII were sustained against China (which is why the infobox shows "1937-1945", it's including the "casualties" from the Second Sino-Japanese War, 1937-1945). The number of Japanese forces defending Pacific islands against the US was far smaller than this. With few exceptions, the casualty ratio (which include wounded and MIA) for the US and Japan was closer to 1 or 2 in most battles. See the major battles, like the Battle of Iwo Jima, Battle of Guam (1944), Battle of Okinawa. In almost every battle in the Pacific, casualty figures are roughly similar because the Japanese made up for technical disadvantages by being well-fortified and dug-in. The distribution of KIA vs wounded, etc is always lopsided however, because the Japanese fought to the death, while wounded Americans could be taken out of the fight and sent to field hospitals or even back to the US. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I think a monograph from the US Army Military District deserves to be the second source. The only thing I could not find in this monograph was the loss of the US Army, maybe more attentive and "sighted" participants can help me. The Russian wiki referring to this monograph says that the United States lost 296k soldiers, but again I did not find this figure. Japan Monograph No. 155 Record of Operations against Soviet Russia Northern and Western Fronts, August-September 1945. — Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 1954. — P. 280—281. — xii + 296 с. 37.145.61.199 (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

References

The number of American troops in the Pacific War

I propose to announce the data that a total of 14 million Americans fought in the war with Japan. American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics Page 7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.145.61.199 (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

It appears that you accidentally posted a file link from your computer (instead of a URL to a file online). Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:iVRgsqflGjsJ:https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf+&cd=1&hl=ru&ct=clnk&gl=ru The site is probably dead, but there is a copy of it 37.145.61.199 (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Japan casualties

And why does the article take into account only the Japanese version of the losses of the "samurai", and not the Soviet one? Specifically, the Japanese claim that out of 2.1 million soldiers in Soviet captivity, 370k died (which sounds very strange to me), the Soviets claim that 60k Japanese prisoners died in Soviet captivity. I consider it correct to indicate both sources, that is, 1.8 million dead Japanese (Soviet version) and 2.1 million (Japanese version). I also do not understand why the article indicates 161k dead Americans and 248 wounded, and the "template" indicates 111k dead and 248 wounded and MISSING. Here is a link to the Soviet version of Japanese losses. http://lib.ru/MEMUARY/1939-1945/KRIWOSHEEW/poteri.txt#w10.htm-_Toc2489843 table 204 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.145.61.199 (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, this is covered by Japanese prisoners of war in the Soviet Union which already states "between 60,000 and 347,000 died in captivity," and includes a Russian source (sadly a dead link). No source states that there were 2.1 million Japanese soldiers in Soviet captivity; you might be confusing that with the total number of Japanese military deaths, detailed at Pacific War#Axis. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

No, it's just my bad English. I meant that according to Japanese data, 2.1 million servicemen died (500 in the war with China, 1.2 million in the war with the United States, 400k killed and captured in the war with the USSR). That is, the Japanese claim about 370k dead in captivity, and the USSR only about 60k. What about these links? https://rusarchives.ru/online-project/yaponskie-military-prisoners-v-sssr 37.145.61.199 (talk) 06:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)