Talk:Battle of Brisbane

message: I'm assuming "Pte." is Private, which is abbreviated "Pvt." in the US. dafydd 23:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note on abbreviations

message: Per WP:BB, I've removed what I believed to be spam from the infobox on this article. "(Unable to do much.)" was written after "Queensland Police" in the belligerents section.
If anyone has reason for that to be put back (I'm really not sure), then go ahead, but try to source it…I guess. --Sauronjim (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed what appeared to be spam 

message: The section named "Differing views on race" is made up, and nothing in it is supported by ANY of the sources given. 
The paragraph starts: 
To a lesser degree there was also tension over the treatment and segregation of the African-American soldiers by the U.S. military.[8] 
The source given is: http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-battles/ww2/battle-brisbane.htm. 
Nowhere in this source is it said there is tension between the Australian troops and American troops over race, or segregation. It says:
The other, and the major problem, was the rapidly developing gulf between the US and Australian forces. The Yanks had smart, tailored uniforms, were well paid and accordingly drew the bulk of female attention and they were mostly extremely well mannered and pleasant. In the eyes of the hostile Aussies running second on their own turf the Yanks were "overpaid, oversexed and over here".
Apart from the competition for the girls there was further friction caused by the lack of amenities for the Australians in the city. Australian units had wet canteens in their unit lines. The US Forces had well appointed clubs (P.X's') offering merchandise, food, drinks and cigarettes at very low prices. The Aussies were not allowed into those clubs.
It also says:
The town of Ipswich was out of bounds to blacks and in Brisbane they were confined to the south side of the Brisbane River. Accordingly they had a sense of being unjustly treated and provided much exercise for the gun toting baton wielding Yank MPs.
This says that black American soldiers felt unjustly treated, it has nothing to do with Australian soldiers or how they felt. The source eventually writes:
The bad feeling between the two forces came to a head in November 1942 a couple of weeks after we left Brisbane. Up to that time brawls between the two forces were frequent. According to one authority up to 20 occurring each night.
The tension culminated in the famous "Battle of Brisbane". This started through the typical Digger concern for the underdog. The long smouldering animosity between the two forces ignited when a couple of Diggers saw an American M.P. bashing a drunken US soldier with his baton. In the US Army batons are used to control riots. In the Australian Army their use would provoke a riot. The Aussies went to the aid of the US soldier. 
Race is not mentioned here at all as a factor.
I have removed this section, but a vandal has repeatedly put it back, and labelled my edits (fraudulently, and against the rules of Wikipedia) as "vandalism", a very dishonest thing to do. I will leave this section up here, if someone can quote a section from the source which backs up anything in the relevant section, I will leave it. If not, I will permanently remove the section, and the user will be reported.
110.175.159.167 (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits ARE vandalism. You deliberately ignore the other sources to the segment and misattribute statements covered by them, to a single, cherry picked reference. Unilaterally removing a segment as critical to the article as this is clearly ideologically motivated. I am going to revert them now.Senor Freebie (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You are incorrect. I have comprehensively shown that no such proof of the claim exists in the sources given. You will have to show me a quote that proves otherwise, or it will stay removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.159.167 (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The "diggerhistory" link is only the supporting link for the first sentence. The rest of the paragraph is sourced from Politics and Culture 2004 issue No 4. I had a look for other sources and there were several that mentioned the 208th Coast Artillery/394th Quartermaster Battalion riot, the most detailed being issue 16 of Studies in Australian History 1995 by Joy Damousi and Marilyn Lake which was similar to the P&C article in content. Admittedly there are few sources on the incident, likely a result of the heavy censorship in place. I have thus restored the paragraph. Wayne (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

text: The book The American Occupation of Australia, 1941-45 2013 by John McKerrow goes into a lot of detail on Australian and American attitudes to African Americans in Brisbane but doesn't mention any specific incidents of conflict. It often mentions the praise they received from Australians and interestingly, in official Australian police reports on their good behavior compared to that of the white Americans. Wayne (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Please quote the sections of the relevant source material proving that differing views on race were a reason for the Battle of Brisbane, or a source of tension. If you cannot do this I will have to remove the section. 110.175.159.167 (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you want me to do your work for you? I have a life which is why I don't edit often. Check the sources if you dispute the edit, do not delete just because you cant be bothered to read them like the rest of us do. Wayne (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

text: This is getting ridiculous. You cant delete content just because you haven't read the sources. You live close to the University of Canberra so it's easy for you to check them. Do so. Wayne (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've checked the sources. They do not back up the claims. 110.175.158.36 (talk) 04:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've checked the sources as well and they pretty much say what the content you deleted says. Wayne (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty clear at this point that this article needs protection, due to the rampant censorship of American segregationist violence. I will revert the edits once again and put in a request for protection. Please stop trying to rewrite history. This is not the forum for it.Senor Freebie (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... what's written in the article is not what is written in the sources. To put it bluntly. Source 2 states that;  In other words the treatment of Aborigines by Aussies was no better than African-Americans and Native Americans by White Americans. This directly contradicts what is written in the latter portion and sourced to a third source which says nothing about "Aboriginies" in even a single instance, it doesn't talk about pay or meritocracy, it doesn't say anything about Aussies welcoming African-Americans, it does however detail that Americans were resentful of African Americans interacting with white girls and the Wacol race riot. So, parts of the material are completely falsely sourced. I will be removing those portions. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: rnddude; so you're basically saying that you're unwilling to read the sources, and the discussion thread that you just responded to? Because this is all, extensively covered above.Senor Freebie (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Senor Freebie, what I'm reading from you is very much WP:IDHT. I've read this discussion thread and the sources. I quoted source 2 in support of my rebuttal. The discussion above has nothing to do with my comment, which, if you've read, is attacking the claim that Aussies treated Aborigines better than Americans treated African Americans and that Aborigines were entitled to equal pay and were part of a meritocratic system. That claim is not supported by source 2 or 3. Source 1 only applies to the first sentence as you laid out neatly far above. Please take the time to read my comments before making any easily falsifiable claims about it. I have not requested that the entire section be removed, nor am I challenging the entire section. My offer of a re-write was simply to dispell the claims that the whole section is fiction and thus end this edit-war. I do not appreciate your contemptuous remarks (here or below), nor would anyone else. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Differing views on race" 

message: Resolve this dispute here. The article has been locked for 48 hours. That should be enough time to sort this out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Your warning on my user page is completely ridiculous. The users above were the ones acting in bad faith. The subject was already discussed IN DETAIL in this talk page, and the sources were demonstrated to cover the material in the article in a non-controversial way. When this was pointed out by multiple users, the IP user simply began an edit war, without further discussion.
Even now, the new user, who was uninvolved, is ignoring the previous discussion, where another user contributes references to the source material, and the IP user is attempting to build a false consensus by saying "Look, he agrees with me", when he clearly doesn't.--Senor Freebie (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

text: First, I'm not a new user. Actually I've been around for a while. Secondly, I was acting on a request for page protection at RFPP. If you believe that the issue has already been resolved through talk page consensus then providing a link to that discussion would be most helpful. I am operating on what I see, which at the moment does not reflect consensus. For the time being let's keep this discussion here rather than multiple talk pages. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I referred to you as a new user, in relation to this discussion, which is easy to see, in the paragraphs above. You can say that you can't see that, but this just betrays laziness on your behalf.Senor Freebie (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Locked

message: I'm pasting this here so I can check the accuracy of the information on behalf of WP:MILHIST. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk)
:That's fine. We need to get some sort of consensus for the wording of the section and looking at what has already been written is a good starting point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Warring Information Accuracy 

message: | There was also tension over the treatment and segregation of the African-American soldiers by the U.S. military. In civilian life white Australians treated Aborigines in largely the same way as white Americans treated blacks, though in the Australian military segregation was not enforced and Indigenous Australians were promoted on merit.Hall 1997, p. 70. Due to white American resentment towards African-American access to dance halls and for associating with "white girls on the streets of Brisbane", troops of the U.S. 208th Coast Artillery rioted for 10 nights in March 1942, fighting against African-Americans from the 394th Quartermaster Battalion. As a result, U.S. military authorities segregated African-Americans, restricting them to the south side of the Brisbane River. However, trouble continued with a major race riot at Wacol, knife fights in South Brisbane and American military police assaulting or killing black troops simply for crossing the Brisbane River. This further incited the Australians, whose culture towards military police was notably different. Racial issues and segregation also played a substantial role in conflict between locals and Americans in both New Zealand the Britain.
*
UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Views on race

message: While race was not a direct causative factor in this instance, it has been cited as a cause of tension between Australians and Americans and as a contributing factor. This tension arose from the treatment and segregation of the African-American soldiers by the U.S. military. Racial issues and segregation also played a substantial role in conflict between locals and Americans in both New Zealand the Britain. While Baker reports that in civilian life white Australians treated Aborigines in largely the same way as white Americans treated blacks, Hall reports that institutional discrimination was "paternalistic", varying significantly from state-to-state. Despite official policy ostensibly barring the enlistment of indigenous Australians, in practice, a more flexible approach was adopted that saw many indigenous Australians enlist. Segregation was not practiced in the main and Indigenous Australians received equal pay, were promoted on merit and were generally accepted and treated as equals.Hall 1995, pp. 28-29.
Troops of the U.S. 208th Coast Artillery rioted for 10 nights in March 1942, fighting against African-Americans from the 394th Quartermaster Battalion. This was attributed to white American resentment towards African-American access to dance halls and for associating with "white girls on the streets of Brisbane".  As a result, U.S. military authorities segregated African-Americans, restricting them to the south side of the Brisbane River. However, trouble continued with a major race riot at Wacol, knife fights in South Brisbane and American military police assaulting or killing black troops simply for crossing the Brisbane River. This further incited the Australians, whose culture towards military police was notably different. 
Suggest amendment as above. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the segment on the precursor to NORFORCE. This formation may have been established with segregation in mind, by some of its creators, but there is a modern, largely indigenous unit deployed in the same area of Australia, due simply to local demographics. The people who live there, and know that land are mostly indigenous, and as a result, they have a unique advantage in the reconnaissance role.--Senor Freebie (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

text: Not my call, and I'd advise against adding the segment to the article. I got blocked for attempting to do that.--Senor Freebie (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

text: I'd say we leave this information out. I feel we don't have enough reliable sources to back up this information. aws.gov.au makes a short mention on racism (two words: 'racial tensions') and I personally don't think The Telegraph UK is a reliable source. That leaves us with two sources, both books that are inaccessible to myself and most likely many others, so we can't vouch for the reliability or even inclusion of relevant information in said books. If anyone can disprove my claim about the books, I'd be more than happy to hear it. But until that happens, this information stays out of the article. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

text: I'm not entirely sure how cautious I have to be here, to avoid getting blocked again, but it seems that on the issue of segregation and WW2, you need to have sources superior to those written by respected historians, or the Australian government, before you're allowed to even mention this widespread American policy. Of course, I'll be humouring Luke, by scanning the books and providing them to this talk page, but if at that point we can't agree on including this heavily sourced information, then I suppose I'll just have to escalate this to dispute resolution.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new Views on race 

message: I saw this recently and think it sheds a bit more light on the concept there was some sort of huge gulf between Americans and Australians at the time regarding race that contributed to the Battle of Brisbane.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/002193479502500304
It mentions that the first American ships that tried to bring Black GIs to Australia were refused entry, before eventually being allowed after US pressure. The original passage that claimed how much better Aboriginals were treated in Australia compared to black people in the US seems to fly in the face of the evidence. One passage from the paper I've linked reads: "A report made by the Office of Strategic Services in 1943 stated that the Aborgines "have no status in Australian Society and their existence is scarcely recognised".
"Because the Americans intended deploying Black troops to the Pacific theater of operations, measures were devised whereby they would be both fully used for the war effort while, at the same time, being contained in line with internal Australian practices".
The paper is relatively brief but it is well worth a read because it comprehensively stomps this fictional narrative of their being a great gulf between the Australians and Americans regarding race during the war and it somehow contributing to the Battle of Brisbane.
110.175.158.36 (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This evidence does not back up your assertion, that you've been making for months without providing a single source for.--Senor Freebie (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

text: I should add here that I've seen quite a bit of evidence of the 2 tiered nature of the White Australia policy. The official response from the very British Parliament, and the actual practice amongst the population often differed wildly. It's important to remember, in this context, that the further you go back, the less actual, precise control the government had over it's borders. Between the wars, touring Jazz bands from the USA would come here by boat, and would simply get let in. Some sections of society ... the conservative, middle and upper class, would kick up a fuss if they found out, but the functionaries and regular people would welcome them with open arms. Mixed families (including my own) coming from other British colonies were routinely granted residency visas that contradicted this policy, perhaps because Australian authorities made the naive assumption that British colonialists were all white.--Senor Freebie (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  More info 

message: I am much more concerned about this section as much of what it is saying is temporally inaccurate - Buna, Gona and Sanananda were only just being fought and there was what effectively amounts to conscription.  Cinderella157 (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions of each other's soldiers 

message: It seems that another Wiki user has made a couple of edits to the contested section of the article, including 'allahu akbar', and 'hi my name is sam harddick'. I have long held suspicions that there was an ideological motivation behind the removal of this subject from the article, and I would argue that this represents evidence of that.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: - Hello again. I don't think that usage of 'allahu akbar' shows any sort of political or ideological motive for removal of content. In case you aren't familiar, allahu akbar memes are quite common on the internet as well as being one of the most common terms pasted into articles as vandalism. I don't think this shows any connection but rather just simple vandalism. The thing that throws it off, however, is that both IPs are centered around the same city of [redacted for the sake of safety], so the IP address you were having trouble with could be behind this. I'm going to ping relevant editors for a second look:   . UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Also pinging . UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's vandalism. The existence, or not, of ideological motivation is neither nor there. If it happens again they will be blocked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Well, I'm glad that this can be defined as vandalism. Whether it's just someone having harmless fun, or someone or a group of people intent on damaging the content of this article is in my opinion relevant. Hopefully the disruptive edits subside, and we can get back to contributing elsewhere.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Oh yeah, definitely vandalism. Though I'm not sure that you're comparing the 101 IP to the 110 IP as they seem to geolocate to two different cities several hundred kilometres apart. One's in the ACT and the other is NSW. The 70 IP is the only other IP i've seen edit the article and they are apparently in Canada (also their edit was constructive). I'd agree that any more vandalism of this kind should be met with a short block. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  - Oops, I was mistaken. I thought they were both in ACT. It doesn't dismiss the vandalism, but now we can rule the other IP out. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Eh, with respect, these "allegations" were not directed at you. Please refer to this and this edit made by a different IP editor. I would say that as a whole, the way we've all been dealing with each other has improved from when the discussion started though I am sure that there are still sour relations between some. I hold no grudges with anyone personally, but, I'm also not much for the interpersonal department and just call "'em how I see's 'em". We're all supposed to be dispassionate, but, I assure you when we work on an article to improve it we can also get emotionally attached to both the work and the article. Good luck editing one of the article's I've worked on without me watching over it like a hawk. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they WERE directed at me. "I have long held suspicions that there was an ideological motivation behind the removal of this subject from the article, and I would argue that this represents evidence of that" - Doesn't get more clear cut an accusation than that. The frequent abuse and demeaning insults from this user are simply uncalled for. 110.175.158.36 (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You disingenuously labelled me a vandal when engaging in an edit war long before this other IP user showed up in your absence. Feigning offence at me calling another user a vandal is yet again demonstration that in my view, you are not acting in good faith. Apologise for your accusation of vandalism immediately, and your attempts to mislead this discussion, or I will have to request further moderation.--Senor Freebie (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it fair to call the recent edits vandalism? 

message: My earlier comments appear to have been lost in the uproar about race.  The comments about each-others soldiers are largely out of place wrt time.  Buna-Gona was just happening (just started) at the time of the battle of Bris. I am sure that many Yanks (with no battle experience) made asses of themselves by touting that they were here to save Australia, while there were Australians (of the 2AIF) with significant combat experience either returned wounded or recently returned.  I am sure that this went over like a lead fart and the Australian veterans had a low tolerance for such bravado - as indicated in the text.  The point is that the references in the text are largely inconsistent with the time-frame.  Simply, Buna-Gona was just starting.  While the comments may be valid, the justification for many of these comments (ie Buna-Gona) was not yet in the common knowledge in Bris and the specific references to Buna-Gona were not in interplay at the time of the Battle of Bris.  In short, this section is challenged an needs a rewrite to make it consistant with the time-frame. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions of each other's soldiers! 

message: Perhaps I missed something, but I'm not seeing how this could really be called a decisive victory for the Australian rioters. Everyone got their toys taken away at the end of it, and resentment against the Americans continued as evinced by the later riots. Perhaps someone can elucidate the decision? 68.168.13.249 (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decisive Victory? 

message: Hi, , ,  and anybody else. I have been looking at this more closely since some recent tag-bombing. I have always been uncomfortable with the section Battle of Brisbane#Opinions of each other's soldiers - not because each "side" did not likely have negative views but because the "facts" presented don't sit well in time. However, there are references to US conduct at Milne Bay shouted during the riot. The Battle of Brisbane (Thompson, 2000 ,p 212) quotes Inspector Charles Price reporting: "You bastards are yellow; you used the baton on our mates but you ran away at Milne Bay."  Same quote appears in They Passed This Way (Ralph, 2000, p 180). I think I read that an Australian was convicted on the basis of shouting that (dont you hate it - can't find it).  My question is, is there any basis for somebody having shouted that? It would be nice to be able to reconcile the matter - ie there was something to it or not. It is reported by witnesses that there were members of the 2/9th involved in the riot. Alternatively, how to deal with the matter. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day, sorry, I don't know enough about the topic to provide much guidance, but I would suggest that controversial topics such as this need high quality sources. WP:EXTRAORDINARY provides some guidance in this regard. Attribution of opinion within the article potentially also would help (e.g "according to X, blah..."), so long as it is balanced and both sides are presented with equal weight, where appropriate. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  US troops at [[Battle of Milne Bay]] 

message: Eddie Leonski had been executed in Melbourne just seventeen days earlier before this occured, could it have been a contributing factor too? LamontCranston (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: While the main reference and others touch on this in the broad sense of the relations between Australians and the US servicemen, there is nothing to suggest that this was a mater of particular significance. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

text: @LamontCranston This seems more relevant than  (below). Irtapil (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leonski influence? 

message: This sentence  was tagged in 2019, disputing the neutality:  [emphasis added]
This edit deleted the italicised section. No TP discussion was raised by the tagging editor to explain the reasons for the tag. The statement was referenced to Raymond Evans and Jacqui Donegan, "The Battle of Brisbane", Politics and Culture. Having reviewed an rewritten the article I can be quite certain about the source. While there was a version on-line, it is no longer available; however, Britannica says essentially the same thing:  This is verifiable content and I fail to see how this can be considered to not be neutral. It has been reinstated and the tag removed. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality tag and deletion. 

message: This me as very suspicious?  That means the stated reasons are just one side of the story? Irtapil (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The article reflects the sources cited in respect to the reasons. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  what was it really about?