Talk:Guadalcanal Campaign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Guadalcanal Campaign article.
Article policies
Good article Guadalcanal Campaign has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
March 24, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
United States Marine Corps Portal

Contents

[edit] Writing needs fixing

An event in this article is a February 9 selected anniversary

Just my opinion, but this is a critical battle in the Pacific Theatre of Operations; unfortunately, I don't think the writing style meets the standards of Wikipedia. I tried to fix some of it, but it needs a wholesale re-write. In addition, the Naval battle might be just as critical as the land battles, but it's not given equal time on this article. But I'm ex-Navy, so I could be biased. OrangeMarlin 02:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am ex-Army but I agree 100% with you and the comment below. DMorpheus 14:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
ex-Air Force here. The Naval actions were relatively more critical than the land battles because the island was isolated and reinforceable/resuppliable (for both sides) only by sea. The Cactus Air Force couldn't fly in enough gas for its own needs, much less supplying the entire garrison. The naval campaign began badly, progressed slowly, came perilously close to complete Japanese superiority at Santa Cruz (when the Navy was reduced to a single badly damaged carrier), and was won gradually and at great cost after that. Also the article as it exists swiftly passes over the August and September land engagements to get to a specific incident in one battle of which the author knows or was impressed--hardly encyclopedic. Lotta work needed here. --Buckboard 07:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Don't be silly.

In total 17 marines charged the Japanese at 5:40 a.m. on the morning of the 26th, signalling the turn in the Pacific theatre of the second world war. I propose this be moved back to the Monty Python article. Piet 14:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Btw. I don't mean to be impolite. I enjoyed most of the article but that one was too much. Piet

You're right. That specific incident is out of place in the article and written with too much hyperbole. I'll try improving the article but hope others can lend a hand. 68.100.190.166 16:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

... It's still there. WTF is the incident anyway? How could 17 marines doing just about anything be a "turning point"? :-D 82.103.215.147 18:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

... I have read that Guadalcanal was the first American land offensive of WWII, not just the Pacific theatre as shown in the article. Perhaps some worthy history buffs can verify this.

[edit] Watchtower

Shouldn't the title of the second section be returned to Operation Watchtower? All Along the Watchtower is a Jimi Hendrix song.

[edit] Campaign Box

It's appreciated that the article is being rewritten to make it better. However, the campaign box disappeared. I'll add it. The article also needs the battle summary box added. Cla68 14:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties numbers

I think we should have separate casualties numbers for land and sea operations here. It would clarify results. By the way those history sources I've read keep all battles around Guadalcanal connected. This page concentrates on land only. Naval battles only mentioned here. Shouldn't they have more attention? -- Tigga en 12:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The casualty numbers are broken down by land, naval, and air forces in the footnotes. But, if you think they should be broken down up front, in the info box, I think that's fine. Yes, the naval and air battles should be mentioned also. It appears that no one has yet approached this article with a view to address the entire battle comprehensively and chronologically, integrating all the land, sea, and air aspects. I'll be working on it in the future, but you or anyone else are welcome to jump in and help out also. Cla68 14:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed plan for improving this article

Since the Battle of Guadalcanal was more of six-month campaign, with several large land battles, and not just one single battle, in order for this article to present adequate detail for the entire operation, I propose that it be completed along the lines of Battle of Gettysburg, with the sub-battles broken-out into their own articles. The Guadalcanal battles I propose to break-off into their own articles:

  • Battle of the Tenaru (August 21, 1942)
  • Battle of Edson's Ridge (Sept 11-13, 1942)
  • Battle for Henderson Field (the major Japanese offensive of October 20-25, 1942)

If the article still becomes too long, it may be that the Gifu and "Galloping Horse" offensives (Dec, 1942 - Jan, 1943) and Matanikau River should also be broken off into their own articles. Any objections or comments? Cla68 19:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I notice on the Japanese Wikipedia that there is a separate article for Operation Ke [1] (the Japanese evacuation of Guadalcanal). I'm also leaning towards doing a separate entry for that event here, since it was a major event in the Battle of Guadalcanal. Cla68 23:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name of Article

The name of this article should be changed to 'Guadalcanal Campaign.' I think there may be a specific land engagement that could properly be called the 'Battle of Guadalcanal.' Nevertheless, the term 'Battle' implies a specific engagement, not a drawn out half-year-long campaign.

I'm new here, and made some minor adjustments to the opening paragraph, but it appears the entire article needs editing and re-writing. I'd love to assist.Markm62 19:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard B. Frank, in his book, refers to the subject as both the Battle of Guadalcanal and the Guadalcanal Campaign. Griffith also apparently refers to it by both names. Morison refers to it as the Guadalcanal Campaign. I guess then, it could be called by either name. If you really want to move it, I won't object.
You're welcome to assist in improving the article. I recently rewrote the Introduction, Background, and Landing sections to add more detail and inline citations in order to begin preparing the article for Featured Article (FA) nomination. I was planning on doing the same to the rest of the article, while breaking-out several of the land battles into their own articles as I discussed above, and rewriting the three associated naval battles that I haven't done yet (Savo Island, Cape Esperance, ad Tassafaronga) and nominating them for FA. I'm currently working on Savo Island. Do you have access to some of the sources listed in the References section? It's important to add inline citations at the same time that the article is being improved, as inline citations are a must in order to pass the FA nomination process.
Welcome aboard and welcome to the Wikipedia Military History Task force. An overview of the project is at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. If you'd like to sign your posts, please type four tildes (~) in a row at the end of your message. Cla68 22:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The article is now titled as you suggested and a new campaignbox has been created and added to the pre-existing articles covered under the Guadalcanal campaign. Cla68 13:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
"Campaign" is a more accurate description than "battle", but oughtn't it be "Guadalcanal campaign"? (Since I don't think that's its official title.) Also, should it be split off from the Solomons campaign, or left as a campaign within a campaign?
—wwoods 05:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
After I moved it, I realized that "Campaign" should have been "campaign" and I just haven't gotten around to fixing it. I was actually thinking of splitting the overall Solomon Islands campaign into three campaigns-within-a-campaign: Guadalcanal-Central Solomons-Northern Solomons. But, I'm not sure if that's a good idea or not. Since Guadalcanal was intended to be the first step in the overall Allied conquest of the Solomon Islands chain, I think it's appropriate for it to be considered as a campaign within the Solomon Islands campaign. Cla68 05:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Allied powers

Did Tonga and Fiji have any active role in the battle? Likewise, was there an active New Zealand force present? Obviously the US and Australia played big roles in the battle, respectively, but I'm not sure if these others warrant inclusion in the battlebox. Wally 02:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Tonga and Fiji provided personnel that were used as guides, porters, general labor specialists, etc by the Allies throughout the Guadalcanal and Solomon Islands campaigns. This site: [2] documents that troops from Fiji and Tonga fought in the Solomon Islands campaign, although it's unclear whether any of their troops took part in the Guadalcanal battle. New Zealand definitely had a direct role in the Guadalcanal campaign, with several New Zealand warships engaging in combat operations around Guadalcanal. One of the most significant actions occured during the Ke operation in January, 1943 when two New Zealand warships engaged in a surface battle with a Japanese submarine just off the coast of Guadalcanal, resulting in the sinking of the Japanese submarine. More details of that event will be forthcoming once I get to working on the Ke entry. Cla68 03:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We need to flesh out August '42 through February '43

I have just about finished re-writing what was already here. I still need to go through and check all the tenses and clean-up unnecessary language.

I will then start out with August '42 and add neutral POV information about the various key battles.

The links to the various naval battles seem sufficient for researchers and there is no need to repeat all of that in this article IMO.

Thoughts?Markm62 17:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I was going to take out the list of naval battles from the text myself, but hadn't gotten around to it yet. Nice work on the editing you've done so far. As you point out, there's still some POV, especially under the Edson's Ridge and Henderson Field (October) battles. I'm almost finished with the Tenaru article. Once it's done I'll be back helping you out with this article again. Cla68 23:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

It seems to me those flags in the infobox add more clutter than value.
—wwoods 07:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think we need flags next to each leader. Also there is something wrong with the alignment of Tonga's flag, and with only 26 personnel it should come after Solomon Islands (see British Solomon Islands Protectorate Defence Force) on whose turf the war was fought). Grant | Talk 12:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Done. Cla68 06:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese Casualties

According to Battle History of the Imperial Japanese Navy (Paul S. Dull) Japanese land casualties on Guadalcanal only ran to some 20,000 total. This figure is based on troops landed vs. troops evacuated at the end of the campaign (some 30,000 vs. 10,000), and being based on Japanese sources would presumably be more reliable than whatever the current source is. Kensai Max 17:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The Japanese casualty figures come from Frank's (1990) and Rottman's (2005) books. Frank and Rottman had access to some Japanese records that apparently weren't available to Dull in 1978 when he wrote his book. Both books state that Japanese records show that a total of slightly over 36,000 Army and Navy troops were deployed to Guadalcanal at some time during the campaign. Just over 11,000 were evacuated during Operation Ke. Frank's and Rottman's casualty numbers differ by 1,000 men, thus the two numbers in the infobox. Cla68 23:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Double check

The article says, "'route and annihilate'". I'm guessing this is a transcription error; can somebody check the original? And somebody with a copy handy check how far Fire in the Sky goes saying losses in the Solomons contributed to inabilty to hold the barrier? (I don't have mine in front of me...) Trekphiler 23:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Solomon Islands

There dosen't seem to be any reference to the fact that the Solomon Islands were in fact British.

You mean "under British control", heh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.5.6 (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Without informing Vandegrift, Turner, or Ghormley

It appears this snippet is wrong. From Henry I. Shaw, Jr. First Offensive:The Marine Campaign For Guadalcanal
Fletcher feared for the safety of his carriers; he had already lost about a quarter of his fighter aircraft. The commander of the expeditionary force had lost a carrier at Coral Sea and another at Midway. He felt he could not risk the loss of a third, even if it meant leaving the Marines on their own. Before the Japanese cruiser attack, he obtained Admiral Ghormley's permission to withdraw from the area. At a conference on board Turner's flagship transport, the McCawley, on the night of 8 August, the admiral told General Vandegrift that Fletcher's impending withdrawal meant that he would have to pull out the amphibious force's ships.
So Turner was informed and he informed Vandegrift about transports withdrawal. --Tigga en 09:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hammel and Loxton make it clear that Fletcher's carriers were halfway to New Caledonia before Fletcher radioed Turner to tell him that he was taking the carriers and leaving the area. Fletcher also had his carriers on the way towards the rear even before he radioed Ghormley and asked permission to withdraw. Shaw appears to have a softer take on the incident than several other historians. Cla68 10:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Apple

The (scarce) sources for the Code talkers#Use of Basque section give the name of the initial attack (7th August) as Operation Apple, but it is called Watchtower here. --Error (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consiceness

This article is in bad need of a summary of the campaign in short form, make it digestible for the average wikipedian. It is valuable to have in depth articles, but they also need to be able to deliver a relative non-expert an amount of detail that will pique his interest in the subject to make him keep reading, rather than blasting him with details that will scare him off from wanting to read further into the subject. Xtopher (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That is the purpose of the introduction, which does summarize the body of the article. And progressively more concise descriptions of the campaign can be found as one goes up the following outline:
Kablammo (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] P-400s

One fact that keeps being "corrected" by well-intentioned editors is the mention of US Army P-400 fighters on Guadalcanal to P-39s or P-40s. They were P-400s, the export version of the P-39 that hadn't been delivered to Great Britain as originally planned. Instead, a few of them were sent to Guadalcanal in the early stages of the campaign. A few months later they were gradually replaced by regular P-39 models. Cla68 (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Another source (in addition to source cited in text):

On August 22 the 67th Fighter Squadron, commanded by Captain Dale Brannon, flew up with five Army P-400s (the inferior export P-39, which pilots called "Klunkers").

Jablonski, Edward (1971). Airwar: Outraged Skies. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday & Co., 59.  As Cla68 states, these were not P-40s, nor were they, strictly speaking, P-39s, but rather a version of the latter, with different armanent. Kablammo (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article plans

Just an update to let interested parties know the current status of improvement plans for this article. It's getting close, but isn't quite finished. I'm going to be improving three more related articles including starting one more- The Battle of Mount Austen (the Gifu), plus Battle of Tassafaronga and Operation Ke then expanding sections on those articles in this, the main article. I'll then submit this article for peer and A-class review. I estimate another two months or so of work. Cla68 (talk) 10:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article review

I reviewed the article and assigned GA status. Congrats to all who've made this an outstanding work of history and clarity! Very few changes would need to be made in order to advance to FA level:

I noticed toward the end of the lead section the word "force" used twice in a sentence: "...the forces of Japan were thereafter forced..." Good writing style suggests one of the two occurences be changed to a synonym.

Regarding the sentence "At this time the Solomon Islands were a protectorate of Great Britain"... Just curious, would the island chain still be a GB protectorate during Japanese conquest and occupation? I don't know if the legal status of "protectorate" flexes to meet existing conditions.

Operation Watchtower redirects to this article. Should the first occurence here be bold instead of italics?

"...caused Turner to decide" and "also decided": this section is a choppy read. Perhaps Turner "finally settled upon a plan to unload as many supplies...".

"...lopsided Japanese victory." Yes, it was lopsided, but that word makes it sound lucky instead of masterful. Suggestions?

In the paragraph talking about September 12, I'm changing [Edson's] Raider's to Raiders, assuming that possessive Raiders's wasn't intended.

The Japanese Special Naval Landing Forces are properly wikilinked at first mention, but are later referred to as "naval marines" without the reader having been told that these two designations are the same. I've taken the liberty of leading with "naval marines" instead of "naval troops" prior to first wikilink. This should help connect the dots.

No reason is given in this article for Ghormley's replacement by Halsey. Something should be mentioned, however briefly.

Which reference supports the Japanese referring to Guadalcanal as "The Island of Death"? An inline ref here seems appropriate.

Do any photos of Japanese aircraft taking part in and around Guadalcanal exist?

Minor points all. GA passed. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and constructive feedback. I'll incorporate your suggestions. Cla68 (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
To answer your question, the Solomons remained a protectorate of Great Britain throughout the Japanese occupation. In fact, many of the native and Commonwealth inhabitants employed by the British government continued to serve in their official capacities throughout the campaign, some from behind Japanese lines. Cla68 (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
In response to your question about photos of Japanese aircraft...there are several, but I'm having a hard time finding a place for one in the article. I'll try to squeeze one in. Cla68 (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
If the photos don't flow, don't force them. ;^)
The article's looking great. Is it time to hang it out in front of peer review or skip past that step and head over to featured article candidate? Binksternet (talk) 06:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
There are two sub-articles, Battle of Tassafaronga and Operation Ke that I'm going to take to FA first, then enlarge the sections on those two articles in this article. Then I'll take this one to A-class review with WP:MILHIST and if it passes, then submit for FA. Thank you again for your review and help to make the article better in preparation for moving towards FA. Cla68 (talk) 07:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Martello

Anybody else think this is too much detail? Actions tracked down to the level of the unsung hero... At any rate, a better cite than "published oral history" is indicated. Binksternet (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the Martello information is ok to be placed in the Cactus Air Force article, but is too much detail for this article. If someone wants to remove the paragraph, please go ahead, otherwise I'll remove it before I submit this article for FAC which is still a month or so away. Cla68 (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)