Talk:Kokoda Track campaign

message: This article features purely photographs from the Australian/Allied side, and the contents of text and weaving seems to tell the story from an Australian orientation rather than describe events as they happened. There is a huge imbalance between Japanese and Allied narration and content. Note that there is no lack for Japanese sources on this campaign or photographs.
:To the section heading (ie on photographs), you are welcome to upload photos that meet WPs criteria re copyright and include these where they are "on topic".
:Where there is a significant language barrier to accessing sources (exacerbated by script), an "apparent" imbalance of sorts will always be "problematic". It can be addressed by those with language skills and access to sources collaborating to improve an article. This is what WP is all about.
:To my reverting your edit that removed text attributable to an academic author: the text accurately reflected the views of that author - even if you disagree, per WP:NPOV, it is not reasonable to remove the text. To state it was "inaccurate" (as you did) because it was "very early [in the] war before the Japanese acquired much Australian captives" does not address each part of the text removed nor does it address that many (most) of the Australian losses as captives occurred before this campaign. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I believe that the bulk of the 21,000 or so Australians who were taken prisoner by the Japanese during the war had in fact been captured in January to March 1942 (i.e. before the Kokoda Track campaign) in places such as Malaya, Singapore, Ambon, and New Britain (Rabaul) for instance. Prisoners were also taken during the early part of the Kokoda Track campaign and at Milne Bay (during the height of the fighting along the Track), and it seems quite probable that the fate of these soldiers certainly influenced the attitudes of Australian soldiers throughout this campaign. Regarding the information in the paragraph about Australian attitudes, I am unsure how it whitewashes the issue, particularly as it quite clearly states that racism had a part to play in how the Australians saw the Japanese and subsequently how that negatively influenced their actions in a manner that was not congruent with LOAC. One suggestion, I have though, is that it might be best to attribute it in text. For instance, something like this might work: "Historian Nicholas Anderson asserts that these attitudes were influenced...", or something similar so that it is clear that it is an author's opinion. Beyond that, if you have suggestions about how it might be worded better, by all means please add your suggestions here. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article in its entirety does not contain a single Japanese photograph. 

message: Papua was, at the time, Australia. Same status as the Northern Territory. (New Guinea was not Australia. New Guinea was a trust territory) The invasion of Australia certainly contributed to Australian attitudes at the time. The Japanese had invaded the far North of Australia, and there was an expectation that if the invasion proceeded farther south, the Army would continue to retreat south.  The fear of Japanese invasion of the Northern Territory, and of the Army retreating south, was real because the Japanese had already invaded Australia, and the army had already retreated south.
Perhaps the article should say that it is now known that the Japanese never intended to invade "mainland Australia" or "continental Australia". 121.200.27.15 (talk) 06:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Article says:  and  (see Strategic context section). Cinderella157 (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Japanese never intended to invade Australia"