Talk:Battle for Australia

message: One battle is missing from the campaignbox- the Battle of Brisbane.:) Cla68 02:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need that one. Or even Cowra breakout. Grant65 | Talk 07:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle missing 

message: The article is heavily biased toward Peter Stanley's opinions, which are a revisionist history by the way, and I suggest it take into account criticism of Stanley's positions and the idea that the Japanese never had a plan to invade Australia.--74.69.58.3 (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm amused to see the conclusions of the official history (Australia in the War of 1939-1945) in the 1950s and almost all subsequent research labeled as 'revisionist'.  Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that you presume this article is your personal property and prevent all others from making any changes that you disagree with it comes as no surprise at all Peter that you would label other peoples opinions as 'amusing'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.62.191 (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You've mistaken me for someone else. My first name is actually Nick. Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not about the term "battle of australia". It is about Peter Stanley's opinion of that term and the user Nick-D's obsession with ensuring that nobody other than himself can alter it. It is, in essence, a personal webpage for the user Nick-D. If you disagree then just try adding a counter argument to Peter Stanley's views and watch how quickly his disciple Nick deletes it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.164.191 (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You guys are all wasting your time. This page belongs to Nick. I have seen numerous attempts to criticism of Stanley's arguments and Nick just erases them. I had a laugh hearing you call him Stanley. Perhaps he is Stanley in disguise just blowing his own trumpet. Lol. But back to my point, Nick owns this page. It is his personal property and pet (at least in his head). You won't change that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.110.183.194 (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: I've just removed the following sentence from the article:
:Imperial General Headquarters still believed that Japan's top strategic objectives in the South Pacific must be to sever Australia's lifeline to the United States; deny the United States access to Australia as the springboard for a counter-offensive; and pressure Australia by intensified blockade into submission to Japan.Bullard (2007), pp. 90-93, 98, 119-120
I couldn't see where in the reference given for this sentence (Bullard (2007), pp. 90-93, 98, 119-120) where this was stated (I'm assuming that like the other references these are from the PDF edition of the book, which has different page numbers to the hard copy). Instead these ranges of pages repeatedly states that Operation FS had been cancelled though it was hoped to re-launch it in either September or November 1942. I might be missing something here, so please point out the text in the book. Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It should also be noted that Japan's Southward Advance and Australia states that "nothing more was heard of pressuring, much less invading, Australia" after the Battle of Midway and the decision to cancel the FS Operation on 11 July (p. 173). It's of course perfectly feasible for two different reliable sources to disagree, but this does highlight the need to clarify where Bullard's translation said that Japan still placed priority on blockading Australia and forcing it "into submission". Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

text: We need a secondary source pointing to Curtin's statement as the origin of this historiographical debate.  Australian Prime Ministers say a lot of things, we aren't exactly going to have a "pass the fucking butter" article because Bob Hawke remarked this at the kitchen table.  Fifelfoo (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material not supported by its citation 

message: I think that the current material on the Kokoda Campaign is much too detailed. I'd suggest that this be reduced to about three or four paragraphs, with an emphasis on what the campaign meant for Japanese and Allied strategies. There's no need for such a detailed blow-by-blow account of the campaign given that there are existing articles on it any several of its key battles. Nick-D (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kokoda Campaign material 

message: From an admittedly hasty read of [ this edit], it seems to me that the disputed material may have genuine potential for inclusion in the article.  The material in question seems to attribute the "Battle for Australia" hypothesis to specific claimants, rather than simply presenting it as an undisputed fact.  Without this material, the article seems to be one-sidedly discounting the hypothesis rather than attempting to give a balanced view.  It's not clear to me, at present, that the points mentioned last March by EyeSerene summarily rule out the current version of the disputed material.  This is, of course, totally apart from any questions of whether the material in question is being pushed via edit warring and sockpuppetry; the material should, I think, stand or fall on its own merits.  — Richwales (talk) 04:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The references to Frei and Frank don't actually support what's being attributed to them. These books provide a narrative account of Japanese intentions in 1942, but don't argue that this constituted a 'battle for Australia' as that text claims. Nick-D (talk) 05:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  But the article, as it currently stands, is curiously one-sided — it says there is a disputed hypothesis, and then most of the verbiage is devoted to debunking the idea.  If this claim has any genuine notability, there should be something available to back up a description of the claim.  If there truly is nothing more to be found in reliable sources, I'm tempted to suggest AfD.  — Richwales (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ...it's difficult. The concept is clearly notable (Peter Stanley wrote a book debunking it and the federal government has named it as a national day), but the literature supporting the idea is mainly limited to what Wikipedia would consider unreliable websites. I'll add some stuff. Nick-D (talk) 06:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balanced? 

message: At the moment his article starts off in a hectoring tone:
:"The Battle for Australia is a contested historiographical term used to claim a link between a series of battles near Australia during the Pacific War of the Second World War".
I am reminded of of Shakespeare "The lady doth protest too much, methinks". Perhaps it would be a good idea to move the article to "Battle for Australia Day" and report on why it has come into existence. This would allow for a neutral lead with the controversy moved down to a section where it can be discussed in a neutral way, without it needing to be in the very first sentence of the article.
Such a section could point out that the first use by the "Australian Prime Minister John Curtin after Japanese announced The Battle for Australia when Singapore fell on 15 February 1942" when it was a prediction not a fact ().
In this it was similar to Churchill's "The Battle of France is over, I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin" (June 1940), and it could be argued that the Battle of Britain never took place, instead it has been attached to an air campaign (for which a similar campaign over Germany is not known as the "battle of Germany" but Big Week).
Pointing out that the term was first used during the war when it was thought by Australians that that they might have to fight such a battle, and that some new think that the holding operations north of Australia represent that battle ().
If such a move is made to "Battle for Australia Day" the introduction can be rewritten in a style that follows the neutral tone of the Sydney Morning Herald "commemorating all who served and died in the defence of Australia in 1942 and 1943" () which I think is more encyclopaedic than the current lead.
-- PBS (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's hardly a solution: this actually is a contested historiographical concept, of which the 'Battle for Australia Day' is one result (the Rechniewski article you've kindly provided a link to above is mainly focused on this debate, for example). The debate over the concept is not a sub-set of the commemorative day (which has never gained much public attention), and the declaration of an annual 'battle for Australia day' didn't end the debate over the concept. Comparing the 'Battle for Australia' to the Battle of Britain isn't a good idea: there's no disagreement that the Battle of Britain took place, while most Australian military historians regard the concept of a 'battle for Australia' as being ill-informed. Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested move

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle for Australia. 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/20111219061956/http://www.dva.gov.au/commems_oawg/commemorations/commemorative_events/major_anniversaries/Pages/index.aspx to http://www.dva.gov.au/commems_oawg/commemorations/commemorative_events/major_anniversaries/Pages/index.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051228071344/http://www.awm.gov.au:80/underattack/index.asp to http://www.awm.gov.au/underattack/index.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051220105355/http://www.anzacday.org.au:80/history/ww2/bfa/default.html to http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww2/bfa/default.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified