The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the Allied force which landed on Morotai in September 1944 was over a hundred times larger than the Japanese force defending the island?
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 articles
Battle of Morotai is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. 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: 21:16, July 15, 2024 (JST, Reiwa6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
I've just removed the casualties from the infobox. During the development of this article I was not able to find a source for the overall number of casualties in the battle - there are good estimates for the losses during the landing in September 1944, but after that no comprehensive figures are available. The number of Japanese killed crossing to and from Morotai is unclear and the number of Allied and Japanese troops killed during the fighting on and near the island from October 1944 to the end of the war (including the air raids and PT boat actions) is vague at best. As no source gives a figure for the overall number of casualties and it's not possible to calculate a number from the different sources covering the different stages of the fighting, I think that it's best to leave this section of the infobox empty and include casualty figures for those stages of the battle where they're available. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Nick's request for a mini-peer review, I've performed a basic copyedit. The structure, referencing, and detail look good, just have a few mainly stylistic points to make:
Date formatting: Bit all over the place, mix of standard US format (month-day-comma-year) and UK + US military format (day-month-year). Up until the Allied landings section it was mainly the former, then it started to go more the latter, then back to the former (mostly). Personally I think one or other could be justified since it's mainly a US-themed article but the MOS seems to push day-month-year for US military articles (which should make life easier for us Commonwealth types anyway...!)
Done
Number formatting: Again inconsistent, with the Prelude section using words for all numbers but the Allied landings section using figures for those greater than 10. Best double-check MOS regulations and then review/alter the article.
Done (I think!)
Image formatting/licensing: The images from the Australian War Memorial should be updated to consistently claim PD for the reason that the AWM labels them "Copyright expired - public domain", as in File:Japanese surrender party Morotai.jpg. The others still claim the old "copyright clear" status, which is out of date. Also, instead of a link to the AWM collections database plus and a separate image ID, you can use the {{AWM-image|nnnnnn}} template for sourcing.
I've placed an expert verification request on this article. The recent edits on 25 August have been controversial to me, and since I'm not an expert on this subject matter, I'd appreciate it if someone would review the article for its historical accuracy. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed the tag as part of a further reversion - I hope that this is OK, and please re-add it if you disagree. While some of the changes appear to have merit, they're not supported by the sources given (I played the key role in developing this article to FA status and am familiar with the sources on this battle). Given that this is a FA changes to content do need to be supported by citations so that the article can maintain its status. I've got no doubt that there's room to improve the article, and look forward to a discussion of this. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. I was concerned that since there were no add'l references added by the editor to the article that I could see, while there were major changes being made to the content, that the information in the article might be comprised. I was also concerned that the term "allied forces" was being removed or changed, without further sources to back it up. In regards to the editor's response, see: [1], the History of United States Naval Operations in World War II was the editor's source, but since I haven't found an online edition, as of yet, I wasn't able to verify the new content in a speedy manner. If any of the sources listed in this article have online editions, it would be appreciated if someone, who might have easy access to the links, would add the URLs to the citations. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the references are available online, and the URLs are provided in the 'References' section. The History of United States Naval Operations in World War II is still under copyright, and so is not available online. It only has a few pages on this battle. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nick-D, this does look a bit dodgy especially as no mention of it on the MacArthur Foundation web site (searching for Morotai or Museum). So I have extracted the paragraph from the article and parked it below until confirmed by an authoritative source.
I note also that the referenced newspaper article states that 'Coordinating Minister for People’s Welfare ... made a visit on Monday to the MacArthur Memorial and MacArthur Museum in Norfolk, Virginia, to discuss the plan, according to Busyra' (Busyra is Indonesia's US consul general in Houston, Texas), emphasis added. If the matter is genuine then it is only in a preliminary stage.
In June 2012, the Governor of North Maluku, Thaib Armaiyn, announced that his government was planning to build a museum on Morotai in cooperation with the American MacArthur Foundation to commemorate both the Battle of Morotai in World War II and the Indonesian attacks on the Netherlands New Guinea in 1961 and 1962.[1]
Thanks for that, I agree. The MacArthur Foundation appears to focus mainly on supporting social development and peace studies, so it's highly unlikely that they'd co-fund a museum dedicated to an obscure battle of World War II and a campaign of aggression launched by Indonesia against one of its neighbors. Presumably the journalist (or governor?!) is confused about the nature of this organisation. A much stronger citation is needed, and I was unable to find this through a Google search. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done
