Talk:Henry Reid Bay

FYI

Hi AustralianRupert‎ and Nick-D, I knocked this togeather from web sources in consequence of the Landing at Jacquinot Bay article. Would appreciate if you could cast your eyes over it - particularly if you have anything to add and/or better sourcing. I noted at Battle of Wide Bay–Open Bay: "They subsequently exhumed 158 bodies." (citing Bradley (2012), p. 21.) this appears quite wrong (see pic here for instance), but I don't have Bradley to consult.

There is no article for the Tol Massacre. I don't think there would be much to add without going to archives for transcripts. What would you think of creating a redirect to the section herein? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that creating an article for the Tol Massacre would be a better option - it has received a fair amount of coverage in reliable sources. I suspect that Bruce Gamble's book on the fall of Rabaul in 1942 covers it in detail. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Nick-D, a stand alone is always a better option in the longer term - particularly if there is enough material to give it substance. What about splitting out what is here as a start? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that would make for a good short article. Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

AustralianRupert‎ and Nick-D, I will run with this. But ask feedback on an article title. I suggest "Tol massacre (New Britain)". Firstly, the disambiguator is probably not necessary but potentially useful? Secondly, there is the issue of pluralising - massacre v massacres. It is often reported in the plural but the events (killings) are not clearly distinguishable - they all occurred on the same day and at the same place but are reported as 100 (aprox), 6, 24 and 11. I don't think that there is sufficient evidence to call them separate events in the plural?

As a stand alone article, there is sufficient body to have a lead and a body? Any suggestions as to a section heading? Do you think that there is sufficient material to set the "body" out as: Background, Massacre and Investigation? The discovery of the remains would need to be incorporated but there is little detail on this. Consequently, I think this would lie with the "Massacre" section. Comments please. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC) (PS hope you are enjoying the cricket)

G'day, there are a few examples of similar type articles in Category:Massacres in South Korea (although, obviously about a different war), which might help with ideas for structure and layout. For instance, Chaplain–Medic massacre (a featured article) uses Background, Massacre and Aftermath as its headers. I'd probably go with that, although your suggestion of Background, Massacre and Investigation would probably also be fine. I'd probably put the discovery of remains in the Aftermath section. (P.S. The cricket has been frustrating, to be honest, well the international version at least. The Big Bash is good for a bit of mindless fun, but I was a corpse-in-pads opening batsman in my grade cricket days, so I prefer the longer form). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)