Talk:Pacific War

message: The Dutch and British have their numbers listed, when more Australians fought in the pacific than both countries combined over 800k Australians served during the war. It’s typical due to general McArthur refusing to acknowledge Australian soldiers victories. But you’d think with the thousands of sources indicating Australia’s massive involvement in this theatre, we would be represented much more 2001:8003:E80B:5701:96F:3:C21A:D770 (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it.  We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse.   Nick-D (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you encourage the OP to include Australian numbers (or, do it yourself - I have no idea how to)? Australia's significant role in the Pacific theatre remains unacknowledged since the omission was raised in April 2023. Including all British Empire & Commonwealth forces involved i.e. British, British India, Aus/NZ and East and West Africa (SEATO) and even those Canadian defenders of Hong Kong (1942) will most likely exceed the number given for US contribution to the Pacific War - and should produce some lively debate! 2A01:4B00:AE0E:6200:85AF:7E1C:F73B:DE73 (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Military history of Australia during World War II is relevantbut on a first look I cannot see any obvious sources there to provide actual numbers. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Australian mention 

message: I have added a section to shed light on the attitudes that each participant in the war held towards their enemy as I was surprised that there was little mention of this on the page. I have only written about American attitudes however as this is the only side which I know enough about to write on, but I was hoping that someone more knowledgeable  than me on Japanese social history could write a section on the Japanese attitudes, and it time more sections can be added for other participants such as China, Australia etc. Rhinocerous777 (talk) 09:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: While I do feel there can be a place for a section on this topic, I also feel that this section can only be included if it covers Japanese attitudes as well. Either someone should immediately add a subsection on Japanese attitudes, or the whole section should be removed for the time being and later reinstated when it includes a Japanese subsection.104.228.9.173 (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

text: Hi I am a university student and I have studied the Japanese in World War Two for the past 2 years and could write the Japanese narrative for this section. I also have studied the American attitudes so I could possibly assist with that as well. Please let me know what you think. Goldenl03 (talk) 10:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

text: This section seems to have been removed (I approve). Generally Homo sapiens individuals have a belligerent attitude towards and enemy, and each warring party is called a Belligerent. Nuances of belligerence are generally manipulated by government propaganda. A short 'Propaganda' section would make sense, each sentence having one or two links to articles on WWII Propaganda or the nature of racism during WWII—but no such dedicated articles exist. There is an article on Anti-Japanese sentiment in the United States with 1300-word section on World War II; the balancing material Anti-Americanism#Japan is very short and only covers the postwar period, so a balanced NPOV will require a lot of research/editing. In Japan there is the fascinating phenomenon of "war painting," with Tsuguharu Foujita as the most famous painter; a category page for "Japanese war artists" also exists. Vagabond nanoda (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attitudes Towards the Enemy 

message: I have added a section on Japanese and US sexual violence during and after the Pacific War as I believe this is an area that should be included on the main Pacific War so that people can then go and research the topic more thoroughly on pages that are more developed around the subject. Let me know what you think and if you have any points or edits that could improve/aid the development of this topic. T224murray (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual Violence 

message: , when you amended the US casualties in the infobox by changing the number of KIA, you did not amend the total. This is not a simple addition as the source will probably have MIA as an additional casualty category. Please amend the figure according to the source. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  US casualties in infobox 

message: My edit to the article was removed, and they said that before these figures were published, they needed to be discussed.I think the losses are a little higher than those given in the article. 72k dead in the army, 40k dead in the navy, and 24k dead marines.https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-us-military-numbers https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/Casualties/index.html https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/u/us-navy-personnel-in-world-war-ii-service-and-casualty-statistics.html 95.25.208.74 (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: As per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, modern secondary sources are preferable to the older primary ones you have posted and your general feeling that 'the number was probably higher' has no real bearing on site policy. And the fact this point has been continually raised by IPs over a total of 2 years, all of which are based within Moscow which indicates they all the same person, the fact that several editors on this page have continually rejected these changes, then this seems to indicate that these changes are unwanted, and the best course of action would be to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Loafiewa (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok 176.59.82.175 (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  And once again about American losses