Talk:Territory of Papua

message: There is some interesting information in the main article which may or may not be correct. I had once actually put forward a similar argument in relation to the Ross Dependency, in that the British government only ever gave the Ross Dependency to New Zealand in the capacity of having it governed by the Governor-General. That makes an interesting legal argument in that the British government could as yet revoke the relevant order of 1923 and reclaim New Zealand Antarctic territory, notwithstanding the 1961 Antarctic Treaty.
I suppose the same situation arose with British New Guinea, but I'd need to see the exact wording of the order. Having said all this, I would have thought however that if British New Guinea had still been officially regarded as UK territory right up until 1975, then it would have required a UK act of parliament as well as an Australian act of parliament to have brought about the independence of Papua New Guinea in that same year. To the best of my knowledge, the independence of Papua New Guinea was handled entirely by the Australian parliament. I'd like to see if we could get some expert opinions here to tidy this issue up. David Tombe (talk) 09:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: British or Australian Jurisdiction?

message: The section on World War II needs to be reviewed. Since the article is on the Territory of Papua an overview of the Bombing of Port Moresby, the Kokoda Trail, Milne Bay and the beachhead campaigns is all that is needed with links to more detailed articles on these battles rather than a summary of the war in the Australian Mandated Territory of New Guinea. Anthony Staunton (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  World War II 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Territory of Papua. 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/20110624035623/http://www.awm.gov.au/wartime/23/new-guinea-offensive/ to http://www.awm.gov.au/wartime/23/new-guinea-offensive/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130504191213/http://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/passports/Policy/Citizenship/index.htm to http://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/passports/Policy/Citizenship/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071204010222/http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=145641 to http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=145641
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: We are well past the three revert rule so I think this should be settled in talk. I do not understand why the change made by User:Kanto7 should not stand. It objectively makes the article better by including the Monarchs and Lieutenant-Governors in the infobox. User:PyroFloe could you please explain your reasoning for reverting? // Lollipoplollipoplollipop :: talk 12:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I'll admit their edits on this article should stand. The list of British monarchs should still be included though which they removed. I reverted them because based from his recent contributions, he has engaged in multiple edit wars before so I assume since other editors are reverting him that he has added unsourced information again, in addition to that an IP was the one that added it not the account Kanto7 which was reverting it and he claims that is his [] so I think that's in violation of multiple account misuse. But in this case, I'll let it slide. Best regards, PyroFloe (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit War