Talk:Battle of Tulagi and Gavutu–Tanambogo

message: I am just wondering about the numbers in the article. In the box it is said, that there were 122 dead allied soldiers but if I merge the numbers in the text, there are just 112 dead. It is the same with the Japanese. The box says 19 prisoners but the text 20 which both won't match the beginning strength of 886 if I combine the prisoners with the dead. If I don't count the korean prisoners, it won't match too. Another thing with a number is the Hill 280/281. It is said, that some cources call it Hill 280 but since the official US-Picture name it Hill 280, which sources name it Hill 281 and has the main author proved if this sources does not have made a simple mistake? --Bomzibar (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources conflict or are unclear on the total numbers.  You're right that the box and text should match, so I'll work on fixing that. Cla68 (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Another one: Are Gavutu and Tanambogo really have a height of 42m over the sea level? That is pretty high for coral based islets. --Bomzibar (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: From Hough, p. 267, "Gavutu's hill, 148 feet in height, stands some 25 to 30 feet higher than Tanambogo's highest point." Cla68 (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

text: A photograph here: http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/T/u/Tulagi.htm shows just how hilly the islands were. Tulagi was chosen for the local British Residence because its high relief made for a slightly less intolerable climate. --Yaush (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

text: This source has also other numbers. 144 dead and 194 wounded americans, 70 not 80 japanese fleeing to Florida Island, 23 instead of 19 prisoners. --Bomzibar (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Sorry.  I will try to look it up in Frank tonight. Cla68 (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the delayed response.  The reason for the discrepancies in the Allied totals is because the numbers of dead in the text refers to the number of Marines killed on both Tulagi and Tanambogo-Gavutu.  The "122" number in the infobox includes the US Navy sailors who died supporting the landings, such as the landing boat crews.  I will change the box to say "20" prisoners, because that is what Frank says.  The sources use different numbers for the hill sizes, some say 280, some 281. Cla68 (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that. It is a little of a problem, that the number of fallen and captives does not match the beginning strength of the japanese garrison but I fixed this with using ca. before the beginning strength. Another thing is, have you reminded that the Korean workers captured in fact were Japanese because Korea and its inhabitants were part of the Japanese Empire at this time and so de facto Japanese too? This means the workers were Japanese of Korean ancestry. --Bomzibar (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The "20" number of prisoners should include the Koreans then, too. Cla68 (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, I only mean it is not obligatory to mention them because they were in fact Japanese. --Bomzibar (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: These comments are very similar if not identical to those I posted on the talk page of Battle of Edson's Ridge and Battle of the Tenaru. I guess there are two main issues with my edits of this article. (1) The article is explicitly about a specific land battle during the initial Guadalcanal campaign. Thus I posit that land forces alone be included in the infobox. Note that absolutely no one (least of all me) could belittle the importance of the Australian navy to the Guadalcanal campaign and their sacrifices especially early in that campaign (e.g., see HMAS Canberra and USS Canberra). However no Australian land forces were present in this battle (at least as far as is referenced). On the other hand, Australian individual(s) are mentioned as being involved in scouting but seemingly as members of the British Solomon Islands Protectorate Defence Force. Does this raise Australia to a belligerent in this land battle? (2) The perhaps more contentious question is whether the contribution of the British Solomon Islands Protectorate Defence Force entails subordinating them to a UK flag in the infobox when (at least by my take) no literally 'UK' forces were present. I obviously don't think so. Have I stated the issues clearly? Juan Riley  (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day, Juan, the summation seems fine to me. My take is that the situation regarding British/UK involvement in these campaigns is a little complex due to the colonial situation. For example, the British Solomon Island Protectorate Defence Force would have been British controlled and financed, with British officers and NCOs (and most probably Australian and New Zealand personnel also) either on detachment or otherwise etc. Does this warrant inclusion in the infobox? Not sure, really. Largely, I'm not overly concerned about flags in infoboxes as I think they can cause too much drama, which actually takes the focus away from improving the rest of the article. In general, in military history I think there is certainly a tendency to ignore the part played by minor belligerents. For example, Australians suffer from this in relation to the Kokoda Track campaign where we tend to ignore the role of the US in providing vital logistic support, but it isn't a uniquely Australian trait, either. Thus, I certainly think it is important to acknowledge the role of the minor players in the campaign in the body, but I'm not too fussed whether or not they are listed in the infobox. Ultimately, it probably comes down to whether inclusion places undue weight on the contribution, although perhaps it could be made clear that they were in a supporting role by adding the "Supported by" heading above the flags for the minor belligerents? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I agree with you..not so sure though if anyone but Aussies and New Guinean's should ever appear in the Kokoda track battle articles--at least the ones I am familiar with. The infobox stuff can get out of hand as it is not easy sometimes to differentiate 'campaign's' from 'battles' as well as individuals from effective combat elements. Here, I think British Solomon Islands Protectorate Defence Force is sufficient as long as the linked article lists the contributions of Australian, British, etc... to this Solomon Islanders force. Juan Riley  (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since the Solomon islands were under UK subordination, they technically count as UK forces thus a detail that should be placed in the infobox, otherwise giving a misconcepted view that the Solomon islands were wholly independent in battle, which was not the case. (N0n3up (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

text:  At least technically speaking the 'UK' did NOT subsume the British Solomon Islands. See above. BTW N0n3up that is three reverts (I think..hard to count your reverts) of my edits before you ever came to the talk page. Juan Riley  (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thus a higher reason to include the UK in the infobox since disregarding the amount of autonomy the Solomon islands might have had, the de-facto truth was that the Solomon islands were under the British flag at the time and under UK subordination, and such detail should be placed in the infobox. And Juan, to be fair, I was reverting the page to its original contents while inviting you to discuss your changes to the talk page yet kept on reverting and afraid you might deform the article, like that we can better understand your reasons of edits and make sure you're not putting your POV only. Btw I didn't exceed the 3RR and apologies that the O Hotel had a bad WiFi connection thus not able to quickly respond but not fast enough to find out you reverted a topic still in process in the talk page. (N0n3up (talk) 01:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Gents, I truly think you should both stop editing this article for a bit while the discussion is going on. Please remember that the definition of edit warring is not simply 3RR; even a single reversion can be construed as edit warring, particularly as this debate is taking place across several talk pages. The question I put to both of you is: is the article significantly better, or significantly worse, with the inclusion (or exclusion) of a flag icon? I would argue probably not either way. What is important is that the text clearly indicates that the US forces were supported by a small British Solomon Islands force. This is already the case, but I would suggest potentially adding a brief mention of this to the lead (for instance, maybe in relation to the mopping up that occurred after the main fighting at the end of the second paragraph in the lead). That would make it clearer to the casual reader that not all forces involved were American, but would also make it clear that they formed the large majority. Anyway, that's my opinion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. (N0n3up (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  On recent edit reversions