Talk:Battle of Edson's Ridge

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)

@AustralianRupert, N0n3up, and Nick-D: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)

I tend to agree that Australia shouldn't be listed in the infobox for this battle, as it isn't mentioned in the body of the article. British Solomon Islands involvement, though, probably should be recognised, IMO. Not fussed if the UK flag appears, though, because the name "British Solomon Islands" seems clear enough to indicate a level of UK involvement to me, which would probably be enough for the casual reader to understand. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@JuanRiley, Nick-D, and AustralianRupert: 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) 19:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC))

@N0n3up, Nick-D, and AustralianRupert: I agree with Rupert. And I believe that technically speaking the 'UK' never subsumed the British Solomon Islands. BTW, nice of NOn3up to show up after so many reverts. Juan Riley (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@JuanRiley and AustralianRupert: 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. BTW, nice of Juanriley to make edits before reaching consensus when his edits were reverted, and I didn't exceed the 3RR. (N0n3up (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Edson's Ridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927200621/http://sitekreator.com/hirose/rep1_en.html to http://sitekreator.com/hirose/rep1_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070112190444/http://www.nps.gov:80/archive/wapa/indepth/extContent/usmc/pcn-190-003130-00/sec7.htm to http://www.nps.gov/archive/wapa/indepth/extContent/usmc/pcn-190-003130-00/sec7.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070112190434/http://www.nps.gov:80/archive/wapa/indepth/extContent/usmc/pcn-190-003130-00/sec6.htm to http://www.nps.gov/archive/wapa/indepth/extContent/usmc/pcn-190-003130-00/sec6.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Map Graphic

The map in "First night's action" section has hills labeled "A" and "B". The text refers only to Hill 80 and Hill 123. Also, this map does not show the lagoon which apparently was between the ridge (Hill 80) and the Lunga River. See the map near the end of "Second night's action" section. How hard would it be to fix this? Fred4570 (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

• Some citations here have gotten messed up. For example, Hough is listed in External links, but is used in citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

G'day, Sandy, I think I might have fixed these issues. These are my edits: [1]. If there any others you can see, please let me know. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I don’t understand the distinction here between Further reading and External links, nor why there are so many of both, but marking Satisfactory at URFA/2020. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)