Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:23, 27 November 2014

Military history: South Pacific List‑class

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 List This article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces: /  Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force

Ambigious word Ally

The last column in this table is rather problematic. The victorious party is usually the Allies . But to which side the word ally refer to is unclear. Because in other columns the word ally is not used. (Same with communist victory and coalition defeat) The author must be more precise to show Australia's stand. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I know what you mean? Do you think it would help people more if I added in allies as well as opponents? 19 December 2011 Collingwood26 —Preceding undated comment added 23:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC).

I think the words victorious or defeated must refer to Australian side. So instead of Communist victory you can just state "defeated" and instead of coalition victory you can state "victorious". You can also use coloring for victory, defeat or indecisive. (see Webcolor) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Nedim Ardoğa. I've added a couple of wikilinks which might help clarify the results, although I couldn't find suitable links for a couple. What do you think of this approach? Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course links help to clarify. But my original objection was the inconsistency between 2nd and the 4th columns of the table . For example, in the second war, the result is alliance victory. Well which side was the alliance ? In other words, was Australia victorious or defeated ? Certainly after reading the linked articles one may draw conclusions. But the table must be more precise and even without using the links the reader should be able to perceive the conclusion. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes that makes sense. Given this the solution may be, as Collingwood26 suggested above, to include another column detail which side of the conflict Australia was on. Thoughts? Anotherclown (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion(s) column

I think that this version of the article is rather simplistic, and misleading in parts. Few wars end with simple 'victories' or 'defeats', and claiming that the Iraq War was a 'victory' and Australia's role in the Vietnam War ended merely with a 'withdrawal' is rather dubious. The more detailed version of this column also isn't without its problems, but at least provides a lot more nuance. A third option might be to list the Australia-specific result of each war rather than the overall result of the war (eg, in Vietnam Australia succeeded in maintaining the South Vietnamese Government's control over most of Phước Tuy Province until the 1st Australian Task Force was withdrawn, and in the Gulf War Australian ships were successful in their various missions but contributed little to the final victory). Nick-D (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• List-Class military history articles
• List-Class Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history articles
• Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force articles