Talk:Battle of Edson's Ridge: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:51, 20 August 2016 editJuanRiley (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users2,545 edits →Australian and Solomon Islands forces involvement in this battle: reply← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:54, 20 August 2016 edit undoJuanRiley (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users2,545 edits →Australian and Solomon Islands forces involvement in this battle: ceNext edit →
Line 44:		Line 44:
	:The matter whether Australian forces were involved or not is another matter. The reason for my decision to return the page to its original version is because the edits made by the editor lacked sources as the original. Not to mention the edits didn't go according to his edit summary as he deleted more than what was deemed necessary. If he had deleted Australian involvement itself it would've been fine while I looked for the sources themselves yet more than that was deleted thus the need to revert back to its original version until the confusion can be cleared out. And regarding the Solomon island scouts, considering that the scouts were involved in the battle and under directions of the British (Solomon islands were under British authority), we should delete Australia and keep the UK and Solomon islands, at least for now. (] (]) 17:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC))		:The matter whether Australian forces were involved or not is another matter. The reason for my decision to return the page to its original version is because the edits made by the editor lacked sources as the original. Not to mention the edits didn't go according to his edit summary as he deleted more than what was deemed necessary. If he had deleted Australian involvement itself it would've been fine while I looked for the sources themselves yet more than that was deleted thus the need to revert back to its original version until the confusion can be cleared out. And regarding the Solomon island scouts, considering that the scouts were involved in the battle and under directions of the British (Solomon islands were under British authority), we should delete Australia and keep the UK and Solomon islands, at least for now. (] (]) 17:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC))
	::Tis because if I say black {{ping\|N0n3up}} will say white. Thus I now have to stop saying anything. ] (]) 00:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)		::Tis because if I say black {{ping\|N0n3up}} will say white. Thus I now have to stop saying anything. ] (]) 00:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::I guess there are two main ~~edit~~ issues in this article. (1) The article is explicitly about a specific land battle on Guadalcanal. 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 ] and ]). However no Australian land forces were present in this battle. (2) The perhaps more contentious question is whether the contribution of the ] entails subordinating them to a UK flag in the infobox. I obviously don't think so. Have I stated the issues clearly? ] (]) 18:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)		:::I guess there are two main issues with my edits of this article. (1) The article is explicitly about a specific land battle on Guadalcanal. 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 ] and ]). However no Australian land forces were present in this battle. (2) The perhaps more contentious question is whether the contribution of the ] 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? ] (]) 18:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:54, 20 August 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Edson's Ridge article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Battle of Edson's Ridge is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Battle of Edson's Ridge is part of the Guadalcanal Campaign series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 12, 2009.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 31, 2006	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
January 9, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted
September 21, 2008	Featured topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Asian / Japanese / North America / United States / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Japanese military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force

Additional information:
/
	This article has passed an A-Class review.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Japan High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 21:42, December 29, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Japan to do list:

Peer review: None
A-class review: None

Featured content candidates –

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One
Add requested images to articles that need them.
Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions.
Improve and expand Japan-related stubs.
Create some requested articles.
Help translate an article from the Japanese Misplaced Pages into English.
Assess unassessed articles

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Melanesia: Solomon Islands

	Oceania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Melanesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Melanesia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MelanesiaWikipedia:WikiProject MelanesiaTemplate:WikiProject MelanesiaMelanesia
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Solomon Islands.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on September 12, 2012 and September 12, 2014.

Untitled

Just a note to explain why I chose "Edson's Ridge" as the article name instead of "Bloody Ridge" or "The Ridge"...All three names are used about equally as titles for the battle in the available sources. I chose "Edson's Ridge" because it's the most unique of the three names. "Bloody Ridge" is also the name of a battle in the Korean War and "The Ridge," I thought, is too generic. Cla68 01:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

william henry jones fought on bloody ridge

my fathers name is william henry jones and fought on bloody ridge is there anyone can give any information about him... don jones his son —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.11.130 (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Australian and Solomon Islands forces involvement in this battle

@N0n3up: Can you please provide references which demonstrate that forces from Australia and local Solomon Islands personnel were involved in this battle? As far as I'm aware, no Australian forces took part in the ground fighting on Guadalcanal, and the only references to Solomon Islands troops being involved is a single mention of native scouts providing advance warning of the movement of Japanese forces towards the American perimeter. Unless there was more significant involvement, this should be removed from the infobox. Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The matter whether Australian forces were involved or not is another matter. The reason for my decision to return the page to its original version is because the edits made by the editor lacked sources as the original. Not to mention the edits didn't go according to his edit summary as he deleted more than what was deemed necessary. If he had deleted Australian involvement itself it would've been fine while I looked for the sources themselves yet more than that was deleted thus the need to revert back to its original version until the confusion can be cleared out. And regarding the Solomon island scouts, considering that the scouts were involved in the battle and under directions of the British (Solomon islands were under British authority), we should delete Australia and keep the UK and Solomon islands, at least for now. (N0n3up (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC))

Tis because if I say black @N0n3up: will say white. Thus I now have to stop saying anything. Juan Riley (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I guess there are two main issues with my edits of this article. (1) The article is explicitly about a specific land battle on Guadalcanal. 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. (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) 18:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Categories: