Talk:Battle of Brisbane

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pndeleo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Accuracy

Removed sentence saying that Australian troops only being used in mop-up operations in Pacific . Quite incorrect .

In 1942-1943 Australian troops were engaged in a desperate struggle with the Japanese army on the Kokoda Track and northern PNG ,and were the first allied troops to defeat the Japanese Army in the Pacific in battle .

Verify

I've lived in Brisbane for 8 years and never heard about it. I didn't even know there were American troops here in 1942. It's on Google Earth, but the description is replaced with a link to this article. Aleksei 08:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what the reference to Google Earth has to do with the Battle of Brisbane but yes American troops were stationed in many cities in Australia. Possibly one of the boiling points that go with the phrase "overpaid, oversexed and over here". The incident itself has been the subject of a documentary as well as several books. More info here:

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s228063.htm

http://aspen.conncoll.edu/politicsandculture/page.cfm?key=359

The fact that it followed the Brownout Murders in Melbourne earlier that year may have possibly contributed to the anti-American feelings of the Australian troops.~ Brother William 12:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Just worth noting- I'm a 24yo Sydney-sider and I like to think I'm relatively well educated and have picked up my fair share of general knowledge, however, I've never once heard of this. Fascinating stuff. Stuntaneous ([[User

talk:Stuntaneous|talk]]) 21:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC) The Saying Oversexed, Overpaid and Over here orginated in Britain. The British men started saying it and the Americans responded by saying The British were Underpaid, Undersexed and Under Eisenhower. It did not orginate in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.178.162 (talk) 07:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Race relations

"...American military police assaulting or killing black troops simply for crossing the Brisbane River". I don't buy that for a second. Guys, please don't paste passages from some site into this article just because it sounds provocative.

Note on abbreviations

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

Removed what appeared to be spam

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)

"Differing views on race"

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)

Update (22/02/2016): It has been more than a month and there has been no objections to my proposal. I will now remove the section entitled "Differing views on race". Parts of the section do have a source, however they are not relevant to whether there were "differing views on race", and should thus be elsewhere in the document if they are still desired. I am not prepared to move them into the correct part of the document, someone else may do this. I will now remove the infringing section.

110.175.159.167 (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I've checked the sources. They do not back up the claims. 110.175.158.36 (talk) 04:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

Um... what's written in the article is not what is written in the sources. To put it bluntly. Source 2 states that; in Australia, white attitudes toward the native Aboriginal people more or less mirrored white American attitudes toward African and Native Americans... 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)

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)

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)

Edit War

I don't know what it is about, and I don't care. Stop it. Do not re-add controversial material w/o talk page consensus. Once that consensus is established it needs to be respected. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with all that you wrote here. It has been laboriously proven that no sources back up the section in question, and Mr rnddude (talk) agrees, too. Hopefully you can do something to prevent the section from being continually re-added. 110.175.158.36 (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I only agree that part of the section is unsourced, not the whole. I removed those statements which none of the sources backed. The treatment of African-Americans by White Americans was very poor eventually resulting in forced segragation and the Wacol riots. Let me quote source 3 for you; Trouble persisted, however, with a major race riot at Wacol, knife-fights in South Brisbane and individual black troops assaulted or killed by American MPs simply for crossing the Brisbane River to the north-side. One soldier was shot ‘just near the flame at Anzac Square and now the section that you removed; 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. The bigger issue is the lack of paraphrasing, and therefore copyright. I'll be re-instating the section once I am able to clear up any remaining mess. Due to the possibility of copyright infringement and lack of attribution, the IP is correct in removing the section, but, I disagree with the reason. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

You actually stated it really well. You noted quite forcefully that:

"what's written in the article is not what is written in the sources. To put it bluntly. Source 2 states that; in Australia, white attitudes toward the native Aboriginal people more or less mirrored white American attitudes toward African and Native Americans... 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"

And I totally agree. The section is a fiction. The last part, which says "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.[2]" is probably true, but it has nothing to do with there being tension over differing views on race between Australia and the US, and it needs to be in a totally different section. The key claim that differing views on race between Australia and the US contributed to the conflict is not proven by the sources, but rather, as you have noted, explicitly contradicted by them.

If we are to re-add the notes about tension within the American military regarding race, they must be in a different section, because this article is about a conflict between Australian and American troops, not racial tension within the US military, which of course did exist. 110.175.158.36 (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

110.175.158.36 (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

You might have missed that part of my edits on the article changed the section title from "Differing views on race" to just "Views on race" and also removed parts of the section out that had no citation. But like I said, I'm leaving it out for now till I get round to re-writing it. Both to keep the fictitious parts out, and to get the relevant parts back in. Though when I'll be able to do that is up in the air, I'm busy right now. For the time being, if it comes down to it, I am against the section being reinstated without proper, accurate citations, that reflect the sources. Just in case this gets into any further disarray. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

rnddude ... I'm not sure where you came from, or why you think you can take ownership of this article, including stating that clearly cited information is 'ficticious', but you need to at least acknowledge the lengthy discussion above, rather than simply chatting to an IP user, who has shown bad faith in editing.Senor Freebie (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Senor Freebie, I have come from MILHIST. I have acknowledged the above discussion as you're no doubt aware by responding to me above, you should be aware since you commented to me more than two weeks ago. I have responded to that comment today. You are in no position to declare me to be taking ownership of the article, I am an entirely disinterested third party and have only a couple edits to the article. None of which have been undone and none of which I have edit-warred over. You and the IP by contrast have, hence Ad Orientem's page protect. I have already removed the uncited and unreferenced material, and that change has not been undone as yet. My issue is with the declaration that Aussies treated Aborigines with respect unlike their American counterparts. That is wholly demonstrated to be a fiction in source 2; in Australia, white attitudes toward the native Aboriginal people more or less mirrored white American attitudes toward African and Native Americans.... Please take the time to read what other have written without giving pointy borderline PA responses. I am free to edit any article that I choose to do so without your claims of wrongdoing. You are free to challenge my edits if you have reason to do so, and I will challenge back if I have a reason to do so. That is what this talk page exists for. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems that you are unaware of the distinction, and how important it was, in the conduct of either military towards these groups. The Australian military promoted Indigenous Australians on merit, and some achieved high ranks as officers. In the US military, African-Americans were not allowed to become officers at all. They were kept in segregated barracks, and typically deployed in separate formations. They were treated as an entirely distinct group within the US military. This information WAS sourced when I first came to the article, and if you need me to, I will find those sources.Senor Freebie (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

That is not to say that things were great for Indigenous Australians, in public life, or before civilian law. They certainly were not. But this article is specifically referring to the differences in treatment by the armed forces of either nation.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Senor Freebie, if you can find those sources and put them in the article along with the material that is absolutely fine. The issue is that there are quite extraordinary claims presented in the article that are not supported by the currently cited sources. I have no qualms you doing that, nor would I challenge them without significant reason to do so. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Reg_Saunders should give you an idea of the difference between civilian and military discrimination against indigenous people; 'He recalled that his fellow soldiers "were not colour-conscious", and that during training in northern Queensland his white mates would sit alongside him in the "Aboriginal" section of movie theatres.' I'll return with more direct sources when I have more time. I should add that these were recent changes for the Army, though the RAAF had better policies for longer, as far as I recall.Senor Freebie (talk) 05:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Article Locked

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)

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)

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)

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)

Edit Warring (v2.0)

Mr rnddude & Wayne I'm sorry to drag you back into this mess again but it has been asserted by Senor Freebie that the most recent edit is supported by talk page consensus. I'm not seeing it but it is always possible I could be mistaken. Please have a look and let me know. 110.175.158.36 clearly dissents but consensus does not require unanimity. If everyone else is on board we can move forward. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for actually reading the discussion. This is getting more constructive. I am happy if the edit I've made is disagreed with, or revised further. The grammar may not be incredibly encyclopedic, and it could do with a few more sources.--Senor Freebie (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

My position can be summarized as follows; [I]f you can find those sources and put them in the article along with the material that is absolutely fine. In other words, I'll support only that which can be verifiably attested to by an appropriate source. So far; ... though in the Australian military segregation was not enforced and Indigenous Australians were promoted on merit still requires attribution, Baker's work makes no mention of either the segragation of Australian forces (or lack thereof) nor of promotions based on merit. This further incited the Australians, whose culture towards military police was notably different - and also this needs to be rephrased as Evans and Donegan do not suggest that the Wacol riots had any impact on the subsequent fighting between Australian soldiers and American MP's. It also wasn't "culture" difference between the two that led to fighting in Brisbane. To be far more accurate, the combat between the Aussie soldiers and Yankee MP's was entirely due to the abuse the Aussies endured from U.S. MP's and American servicemen on their own soil. Stabbings, shootings, and batonings abound and the two groups came to significant blows during an argument between a drunk Yank and five Aussies (Evans and Donegan) or alternatively a drunk GI and US MPs (Baker, p 35). U.S. MP's used force to get what they wanted eventually batoning one of the Australians. The result was that other Australians drinking in the canteen burst out onto the streets attacked the MPs and forced them to flee back to their PX, whereupon the combat escalated further resulting in one dead Aussie soldier and many wounded on both sides. The rest of that paragraph is already cited appropriately enough. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you Mr rnddude, and we've had this discussion further up this talk page too. As far as I can see, Senor Freebie is the only person who thinks that differing views on race were a contributing factor to the Battle of Brisbane conflict. I think it's important the section stays off the page until it is sourced properly. Senor Freebie must stop re-adding disputed and incorrect content to the page. 110.175.158.36 (talk) 09:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

You can't simultaneously say that you agree with rnddue, and make a statement that contradicts that. He is in favour of including major parts of that segment, which you have been deleting for months, without discussion, while making bad faith comments about your reasons. Your above comment is another demonstration of that. At this point, your behaviour is more troll-like than even ideological and biased.--Senor Freebie (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Having read through the discussion can all agree on the following? a) A source needs to be provided for 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 that specifically supports that statement (since rnddude has said that the current source has failed verification); b) phrasing of the final sentence needs to be changed to remove WP:SYNTHESIS and be more accurate in meaning (per above comment by rnddude); c) the remainder of the paragraph is fine, except the first sentence and source, which still needs to be discussed. Alcherin (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

As some comments on the material here (made in response to a request for outside eyes at WT:MILHIST)

• It is discussing an entirely different incident to that covered in this article, so seems of limited relevance as written. The source does not make a clear link or talk about "views on race", with its discussion of the topic being focused on it being part of the history of military violence in the lead-up to this battle.
• The statement on the treatment of Aboriginal Australians in Australian society and the military is clearly wrong: Aboriginal Australians faced far worse discrimination than African Americans (eg, they weren't even considered citizens) and were barred from joining the military until late 1941. Only a small number of Aboriginal Australians managed to evade this restriction and enlist prior to this time.
• Australian society was highly racist towards the African American troops posted to Australia, with the Australian Government being reluctant to allow them into Australia.
• Diggerhistory is not a reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Nick-D, do you also contest the content on the Australian War Memorial website, which seems to substantiate much of the contents of the Digger History article? Additionally, are you aware of the nearly identical incidents that occurred in New Zealand and Britain?--Senor Freebie (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Nick-D. I have identified the following book; South Queensland WWII, 1941-1945 by Peter Charlton as the source for the Digger History material. As Wikipedia prefers original material, and you have voiced concerns about the re-publishing of that information, would you maintain your objections if I borrowed this book from a nearby library, and included information directly from it?--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Go for it: Peter Charlton was a generally well regarded historian. Note though that some of his work remains controversial and other work is now considered badly dated, so it should be read in context with other sources. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Re the use of the AWM bio of Reg Saunders used below, which I presume is what you're referring to, it doesn't support any of the claims being made here. It is a biography of a single serviceman who does not even appear to have been in Brisbane at the time of the riot (the FA on Saunders says he arrived back in Australia in October 1942 after spending the best part of a year evading the Germans in Crete), and doesn't even discuss the broader context of his military service as an Aboriginal Australian. I don't see how this can seriously be offered as a reference for this article, and to be frank it makes me highly sceptical of your approach here. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It supports one specific claim; that indigenous service members were promoted on merit. Can I ask which claims you thought I was referring to, and why you feel like it's justified to level a personal attack against me?--Senor Freebie (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The source does not state that: it is a bio of Saunders only. His life story doesn't support that claim anyway: as the Fighters from the Fringe book Cinderella157 posted a link to notes, he was the only one of the thousands of Aboriginal serviceman in the Army to be promoted an officer during the war. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, can you please acknowledge the other sourced material about similar conflicts in NZ and Britain that I included, which runs contrary to the narrative you're trying to support?--Senor Freebie (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Enough

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ok. I'm done with the endless edit warring and personal attacks. I am now handing out blocks. Further edit warring will be dealt with severely. I have removed the section on race from the article and IT IS NOT TO BE RE-ADDED WITHOUT TALK PAGE CONSENSUS ON ITS EXACT WORDING. If there is any doubt on what I am referring to, ask before editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I won't edit the article anymore. But I would still like clarification, directly from you, on where you claim that I made personal attacks.--Senor Freebie (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

There is an itemized list on your talk page. And for the record, I am not asking you not to edit the article. I am insisting that the edit warring,, which you were not alone in, stop. You are more than welcome to participate in the discussion here on the talk page as we try to settle the wording of the disputed section. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I request right here and now that all engaged users in this discussion come to my talk page to witness this claimed list of alleged personal attacks that I have made, to provide commentary and verification of them. When doing so please consider the context in which each line was said, including the one that I consider to be by far the most egregious; "Vandal keeps re-adding section that has been disproved in the Talk page". I am utterly and personally insulted by the treatment I have received as a result of trying to contribute to this article, both by the IP user, and by the above admin, who has explicitly refused my repeated requests to tell me the reasons for blocking me, and threatening me with a permanent ban. If I have erred. If I have made serious enough personal attacks against someone, I want to know where and when so that I can apologise and modify my behaviour.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Senor Freebie: I'm a neutral party who's been following this, so I feel most appropriate to explain. You were blocked because of edit warring. You were not the only one blocked. That BS you pulled in your unblock request about 'ideological differences' was totally false. You were blocked because you basically violated Pillar #4 of Wikipedia. Also, the IP you were edit warring with was banned for seven times longer than you, so don't act like a victim. As for the personal attacking, I can find numerous examples just by scratching the surface. You said on the talk page:

...needs protection, due to the rampant censorship of American segregationist violence...

which basically is saying the IP editor is some kind of antihistorian that wants to cover up history.

...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...

which is not exactly a personal attack, but you did lash out at a user who was only attempting to resolve the issue.

...why you think you can take ownership of this article...

...at least acknowledge the lengthy discussion above, rather than simply chatting to an IP user, who has shown bad faith in editing...

where you're basically being a direct dick to @Mr rnddude: and indirectly to IP as well.

...your warning on my user page is completely ridiculous. The users above were the ones acting in bad faith...

where you then proceed to attack @Ad Orientem: as well, while once again calling IP a bad faith editor when he and everyone else have been nothing but respectful and kind towards you. IP was also editing in the best of faith as far as everyone else can tell.

...even now, the new user [Ad Orientem], who was uninvolved, is ignoring the previous discussion...

...the IP user is attempting to build a false consensus by saying "Look, he agrees with me", when he clearly doesn't...

you attack Ad Orientem again, as well as once more saying IP is acting in bad faith and... sockpuppeting? I don't know what you meant.

...you can say that you can't see that, but this just betrays laziness on your behalf...

another attack on Ad Orientem. I think this is #4 or #5.

...at this point, your behaviour is more troll-like than even ideological and biased...

where you basically accuse IP of being a troll, an ideologist and a biased editor at the same time. We can consider this three different attacks.

...not disputed by registered users...

I don't want to delve into your user talk page, but this one really stood out to me. You say this, which basically means, as @Boing! said Zebedee: puts it, you consider IP editors to be inferior to registered users. This, on your part, shows a bias against IP editors. Don't talk about bias if you commit it as well.

Because of how Wikipedia rules work, this argument could fall under a personal attack itself, so I just want to inform everyone that this is not meant to be a personal attack. I want to consider it more of a wake up call, to let this editor know that he, despite what he thinks, is in the wrong. I've also pinged the associated administrators and others so they can comment on this. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some sources

I have read the material that has been removed. I believe that I have read similar in sources some time ago when I was researching another article but can't say I could definitely lay my hands on it again. The official policies on indigenous Australians at the time has been described as paternalistic (though misguided) and tended to marginalise the indigenous population. While far from perfect I also believe it is significantly different from the US - or particularly the southern states. Re merit in the armed forces of Australia, I believe that there are likely sources in Reg Saunders that might help. The AWM article [1] does identify race relations as an issue of significance. See also [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7][8] I hope this is of some help. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hall (Fighters from the Fringe) gives some good coverage re race relations in civilian Australia at the time. The chapter on Reg Saunders also gives some insight. There were marked differences between WA, Qld and the NT v the other states Reg (of Vic) recounts petty discrimination but equal institutional rights except for a small minority. Hall (p3) describes: "The various State Aboriginals Acts forced upon Aborigines a wide range of paternalistic controls over many aspects of their lives including their employment, movements, income, consumption of alcohol and sexual relations." Some of these are not dissimilar to gender discrimination at the time wrt income and employment. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hall also describes limited raising of some segregated Islander units where there was active discrimination. However, in the mainstream, what the section says about pay, merit and integration is supported in both Hall and the DVA article.

While race was not a specific causative factor in the Battle of Brisbane, it was a factor in other incidents and contributed to friction between the parties as identified in the AWM article. I propose that the introductory sentence to the section be amended to this effect.

This ref has disappeared: Baker, Anni P. (2004). American Soldiers Overseas: The Global Military Presence. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger. pp. 33, 35. ISBN 0-275-97354-9. While Baker reports that in civilian life white Australians treated Aborigines in largely the same way as white Americans treated blacks, Hall (p3) reports that institutional discrimination was "paternalistic", varying significantly from state-to-state (see also chapter on Reg Saunders where he recounts civilian discrimination in Vic etc). However, with the exception of segregated units raised for the defence of the Torres Strait, indigenous Australian soldiers received equal pay and were promoted on merit. ...

Some suggested amendments. I think it puts the issue of race into better context. It was not a direct issue in this particular instance but it fueled the tension that exited at the time. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit Warring Information Accuracy

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)

Views on race

| 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. 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.

• Hall, Robert (1997) [1989]. The Black Diggers. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press. ISBN 0-85575-319-6.

UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

References

The source for the uncited material

I found the source for a large segment of the disputed material;

• 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.

A large part of this comes from the Department of Veteran's Affairs; Indigenous servicemen in regular the militia, AIF, Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and Royal Australian Navy (RAN) received equal pay (almost unheard-of in civilian jobs), could expect promotion on merit, and forged friendships with white men. I pinged Nick-D on Senor Freebie's user talk page before realizing that it had been revoked. I have moved it here. Nick-D (sorry for the additional ping, just noting I've moved this here instead) and every other potentially interested party; Ad Orientem, UNSC Luke 1021, Cinderella157, Senor Freebie (not pinged due block) and 110.175.158.36 (who won't receive the ping due to being an anonymouse editor, but, pinged anyway). What do you think of the source specifically. Reliable or unreliable? trustworthy or untrustworthy? I tend to limit myself to using scholarly work only with the only exception being "in the news" events for which news sites are the most useful sources. The other sources I found contradict the above quite explicity. Please refer to my long post on Senor Freebie's page for examples and references located here. Skip to the third paragraph, paras 1 and 2 are me responding to Senor Freebie. The main example here is Defending Whose Country?: Indigenous Soldiers in the Pacific War by Noah Riseman pg13; the Aboriginal workforce received less pay than soldiers ... in fact army officials discouraged paying equal wages ... because they did not consider Aboriginal people as equals. Note; this is pre-Aboriginal enlistment and refers to Aboriginal workforce and Australian soldiers doing similar work for different pay. At this time, Aboriginals were not soldiers but workmen/labourers. The question is, did this change when they formally became soldiery at the end of 1941? I haven't been able to find a source suggesting it had other than the .gov one above.

The other part of this dispute is over segregation which I have to say is disputed. Riseman doesn't say anything conclusive about it on page 12 of the same book; By 1940 as the demand for Aboriginal labor increased, the Department of Native Affairs was espousing policies of assimilation. Nonetheless there were calls to segregate the two races in the military. There were calls both for and against segregation. Fighters from the Fringe which has been mentioned somewhere above does indeed explicitly state that segregation did exist in the Australian armed forces. Refer to pages 32-33 of the book which discusses Torres Strait Islander; The creation of these segregated Islander units may have been seen as overcoming ... the problem of mixing white and black troops in barracks and permitting black NCOs to have authority over white soldiers. The other important thing on page 33 that is being said is this; Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders serving in the units of the Torres Strait Force received about one third the pay of white Australian soldiers. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: I have removed my post from Senor Freebie's page on account of their talk page access being revoked, and, the important stuff being more relevant here anyway. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the Battle of Brisbane, and the disputed section is called "Differing views on race". It begins with "To a lesser degree there was also tension over the treatment and segregation of the African-American soldiers by the U.S. military." No source has ever shown this. No source given even mentions differing views on race as a source of tension. If someone wants to mention that Australia's military treated Aboriginals better than the American military treated African Americans, that's fine, but the place for it is not in a section that states that differing views on race were a contributor to the Battle of Brisbane. It's probably not even warranted in the entire article. Putting that statement in a section that starts by exclaiming that differing views on race were a source of tensions is misleading at absolute best, because it implies that all the follow statements (some true, some not) are reasons for tension over race, when it's actually untrue that there ever was tension over race.

I really want to emphasise that some of the statements in the section may be true, they just don't have any relevance to differing views on race being a cause of the Battle of Brisbane - an idea that is utterly false and not proven or referenced in any source given. 110.175.158.36 (talk) 12:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually that's a fair point as well. The above doesn't demonstrate relevance to the actual topic regarding the Battle of Brisbane. I have found zilch linking the Battle of Brisbane to the issues of segregation, race relations, and aboriginal people. The Wacol race riot get's the closest, but, that doesn't seem to have impacted on the battle in any way. Thanks, .36 for reminding me of that ever present issue. Let's say all of the above is correct, how is it related to this article? Mr rnddude (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe that the statement that this is 'utterly false' to be POV and not constructive. The link is directly, and clearly stated on the Australian War Memorial website, and this information is included as a source. The link is also made in a number of other sources, that discuss the issues in the broader context of the Battle of Brisbane.--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed new Views on race

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.

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.

References

Suggest amendment as above. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

This has been here for a bit. What are we going to do with it? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

If Hall is the second of the books, I have already provided a link to a gov site that has the first chapter in full plus google books. There is no qualification on the number of RSs that are required nor that they be available online - and only one out of nine inline citations isn't available online. What is it in what I have proposed is contentious in any way? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

More info

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)

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)

Yes, Australia did have a "white Australia" policy and this was an issue wrt accepting entry of African-American servicemen and this was set aside for the duration. See Hall, Fighters From The Fringe, p 52.

Although Aboriginal and Islander military service and the suspicions that were sometimes levelled against the Aboriginal community were important factors affecting black–white relations during the Second World War, another important factor was the arrival in Australia of black Americans. Following the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor, the Philippines and Malaya, the United States saw Australia as a convenient base from which to mount a counter-offensive. But the Australian government was resistant to the idea that black Americans should be included among the US troops sent to the Australian base. Such an idea was contrary to the White Australia Policy, the legislative instrument the government hoped would preserve Australia as a bastion of the white race in Asia. Nevertheless, with a major portion of its defence forces already tied up in the defence of British interests in Europe and north Africa, and with the Japanese pressing in Malaya, Australia had little option but to fall in behind American wishes and allow the entry of black troops.

There is no denying institutional discrimination against indigenous Australians nor the extent of this in some cases. There is however, a different social context giving rise to this. Hall deals with this at length, including the variation from state-to-state. [9] It is interesting that Saunders and Taylor, in quoting the OSS report, quote a work by one of the co-authors and not the original source.

It is interesting that Saunders and Taylor justify African-Americans carrying knives in consequence of them not being officially armed. I suggest that off-duty servicemen would not have been armed in a non-combat area and this is something of a red herring.

Military forces were 'dispersed' around Brisbane, including Camp Cable, well to Brisbane's south, occupied by US forces, and Redbank Plains, used by Australian forces. Other sources appearing above refer to racial tension leading to rioting within the US forces and a particular incident leading to African-Americans being excluded from the city and relegated to South Brisbane (across the river). This appears to have been a response by US command. While this may have appeased civilian authorities, to attribute it largely to racial motives of the civilian authorities ignores both the source of the segregation and the significant issues of public order and safety. The authors refer to "Black servicemen" being "mostly confined to the dilapidated south and east banks of the river". I would question whether this accurately represents the situation at the time or whether this is a perception of these localities in more modern times. Red Hill and Darra are both described as working-class, as if they are 'unsuitable' and I would think that Darra, at the time, was quite rural.

"'Southerners in the U.S. Army in Australia were a major consideration'; in framing both policy directives and establishing segregated facilities for Black troops". The authors refer to many instances of inter-racial tension, segregation and conflict that were intrinsic to the US forces and seek to make them extrinsic, to Australian society by transference, insinuation and implication - brushing over details, using 'white' to imply white Australia when this more often refers to 'white' US forces. This is not to deny that racism and discrimination existed in Australia at the time in question (or even now), both institutionally and in the broader community.

Hall (Fighters From the Fringe pp. 52-53) reports: "Some black Americans complained that they were rarely invited into the company of whites, though many also claimed that their treatment in Australia was better than they had experienced at home, though few would have gone so far as to say that no racism existed in Australia."

Saunders and Taylor report: "In the ensuing fight, the local civilian police acted with such restraint and adroitness that two policemen were recommended for the King’s medal for bravery."

While the authors do report such matters, they tend to gloss over them - such as the positive association between Australian soldiers and African-American soldiers - focusing only on the "official response".

Saunders and Taylor report: "Hurley believed that he was; shot by a white man who caught him in bed with his wife." This is a tenuous argument since it does not reasonably establish whether the white man concerned would only shoot 'Blacks' that he caught in bed with his wife and was therefore racially motivated.

Because of segregation in US forces, African-Americans were largely employed in service and construction units. While it may have appeased the Federal Government, it is hardly surprising that these were required for duty in regional and remote Australia. Another red herring.

It is difficult to view this as a well reasoned article based on a sustainable, coherent assessment.

See also: Darian-Smith, Kate, The Home Front and the Amerixcan Presence in 1942,(pp. 70-88) in Dean, Peter, ed. (2013). Australia 1942: In the Shadow of War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-03227-9. LCCN 2012464720

Cinderella157 (talk) 03:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

Opinions of each other's soldiers

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)

Is the discussion now over?

It seems like all the people who held the view that the differences on race section contained unsourced material have now gone silent, now that each point has 2-4 sources backing it up. While there have been effectively no retractions or admissions of this, the lack of further arguments seems to indicate that the discussion is over to me. If anyone has any sources that demonstrate that the various works by historians, and the Australian government are in fact fictitious, then I think you should present them as soon as possible, because this section has been out of the article, due to what I still believe amounts to vandalism, for many months now.--Senor Freebie (talk) 10:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• People "going silent" does not signify a consensus supporting your view. If that were the case, content disputes would always be decided by the person who talks the most. It is, however, hard to determine a consensus in issues like this. What I suggest is you make a specific edit proposal here with the actual wording you would use, and then ask for Support and Oppose !votes. Oh, and stop accusing others of vandalism! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee I don't think that Senor Freebie was implying consensus by silence. The issue is one of sources and I have, as you suggest, provided an alternative above: "Proposed new Views on race". It is clearly supported by sources which, for the most part are quite impeccable - being independently published or government published. Only one editor has expressed a conservative view based in part, upon the accessibility of the sources (ie not on-line but this is not strictly true as I have pointed out) and that newspaper sources aren't sufficiently reliable. Another editor has provide an alternative source of questionable 'provenance' and this too has been responded to above and not responded to. There appears to be sufficient reliable sources for what I have proposed and no objection of significant weight has been raised. I have put this up for discussion. No specific edits have been raised and the one comment has been addressed. It is certainly close to a point where I would intend making the edit based upon the proposal I have made. Having said that, specific edits would be welcomed, where they are supported by a case of sufficient weight. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, OK, thanks. If there is a consensus for something in the above sections (I admit I find it hard to follow), then yes, go ahead and do it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it is pretty difficult in this case to come to a consensus, when the complainants seem to cease discussion when content they disagree with gets proven by sources, especially since the vast majority of the deleted content was only ever disputed by one user. This user has had their edits consistently undone by a wide variety of other users, has made statements that seem to directly contradict the nature of the discussion of that material and has described efforts to provide sourced material as vandalism, while escaping reprimand for that allegation.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Neutral pending response to queries and the still necessary minor adjustements Support - I am assuming the question is with regard to the thread entitled "Proposed new Views on race". My silence can be attributed almost entirely to not being available, not because I have nothing to say or contribute. I have not had the time to give a thorough review of the proposed material, even a skim of which raises some questions for me. What source is being referred to in citation 4? it is currently completely blank. Further, the proposed material is mutually self contradictory; Segregation was not practiced is completely nullified by an exception is the small segregated forces raised for the defence of northern Australia and particularly the Torres Strait. That should (really must) be re-written so as to be clear and correct. E.g.; Segregation was not generally (or widely) practiced, however [insert exception here]. There are also exceptions, at the very least, to the "equal pay" statement. From pages 32 and 33 of Fighters from the Fringe; Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders serving in the units of the Torres Strait Force received about one third the pay of white Australian soldiers. Again, the term "generally" should be applied and an exception mentioned or explained. Other than that, I don't really have further issues to take with the section. It's been re-written and at least clarifies that it's relevance to the article is more tangential than causal. It's an improvement overall. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude, you are correct re: "Proposed new Views on race". The Torres Strait force was an exception in an extreme minority (about 1000 strong if my memory is correct) raised for a specific purpose (and a couple of other much smaller units as discussed in Hall included in this number ?). This is a very minor exception compared with the AIF and AMF. Because it is very much an aside. I have chosen to address this exception as a note. I will make an edit to the note to identify the pay issue. Ref 4 is in the main text. it is: Evans, Raymond; Donegan, Jacqui (2004), "The Battle of Brisbane", Politics and Culture, University Press (4), archived from the original on 23 September 2006, retrieved 20 October 2006. You are welcome to propose a change. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• Cinderella157 1,000 segregated out of a total of 3,000 (per The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History (Second ed.) [10]) Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders that formally enlisted over the course of the war added all up (150 more for irregular and 3,000 more as labour workers, not soldiers). That's 33% segregation, however, the more accurate figure would be around 750 in the Torres Strait Light Infantry Battalion so more like 25% segregation in the forces and 12.5% segregation across the board. I don't think even 12.5% is "a very minor exception", but, I am happy for the exception to be listed in a footnote. That said, I'd still insist on "was not generally practiced" when at least 1 in 8 enlisted Aborigines and Torres Strait did actually experience segregation. Btw, there is a lot more in the link that might help you out that as an extra source. I'm going through it myself currently (it's about 2 pages worth). Also, I think Nick-D disputed the reliability of the diggerhistory source (Evans, Raymond;Donegan Jacqui), but, I don't have an opinion on it personally. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

This is not the diggerhistory source and the source I refer to is cited seven times in the page at ptesent.The Battle of Brisbane I acknowledge your point re numbers but this occurred in a very small geographical area: the Torres Strait Islands and Arnhem Land - therefore "not in the main" is more representative of Australia by area (perhaps 95%) and population (99%). Hall discusses how this is outside the main. Notwithstanding the numbers, this was a very small and very specific case in the greater context of the Australian war effort - about one battalion in about 10 divisions (and not to mention the navy or air force) drawn from very specific and limited areas - perhaps 1% or less of the organisational structure. Cinderella157 (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're mathematical loop-de-loop somehow reducing at a minimum 12.5% (25% realistically) of all Aborigines (and Torres Strait Islanders) in the armed forces to less than 1% is based factually, but, faultily on the premise that most units were not segregated. I acknowledge your point that most Australian units were not segregated, but, most Australian units did not have Aboriginal soldiers enlisted in them anyway. Aboriginal and TSI made up less than 1% of Australia's armed forces in WW2; 3000/1 million = 0.3%. I'll put it this way; 1 million enlistees[11] spread across 1,000 divisions (assume 1000 enlistees per division for simplicity), 3 of which have indigenous peoples in them (3,000 Abo and TSI enlistees [12]) and 1 of which is segregated (per the link in previous post). You're looking at the 997 divisions that don't have indigenous enlistees anyway and saying well, they are the majority and are not segregated. Well duh, they can't be because only White Australians are in them. It'd be far more accurate to say that "segregation couldn't be practiced" than it is to say "segregation was not practiced". Who cares about the 997 divisions that don't have Aboriginals in them when of the 3 that do (3,000 soldiers) 1 (well 0.75 but you get the point) is segregated? If a total of 3,000 Aborigines and TSI enlist in Australia (as a whole across the nation), and 750 of those are segregated (even if it's in 1% of Australia as a whole) then that is not a "very small" even though it is absolutely a "very specific" case. It's (quite literally) a very specific case that Aboriginals enlisted at all. I am really asking for just one word here; was not generally practiced (or was very selectively practiced, or even was almost never practiced). We can speculate all year as to what would have happened if Australia had 100,000 Aboriginal enlistees, but, it didn't. It had 3,000 soldiers (+ 3,000 labourers) and of those a quarter (12.5% when adding labourers) were in a segregated unit. That is very much isolated but also very much significant. Explain all of the details in the footnote, if I can help write a detailed footnote I will, but, I can't understate how inaccurate it would be to say that "segregation was not practiced". My gripe with it is almost entirely with the fact that is an unfinished (highly omitting and poorly formulated) thought. The full thought is really; segregation was not practiced ... because there were very few people on whom it could be practiced ... and when it could be practiced ... there was a 1 in 4 chance that it would be. That said, you are correct diggerhistory is not the Raymond/Donegan's source, mea culpa I'd been looking at the wrong link when viewing old diffs. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I already raised this point, regarding the units that were almost entirely indigenous, but I'll bring it up again, since this issue seems unresolved. There are STILL units that are almost entirely indigenous, because they are based on local recruitment, or areas that have almost entirely indigenous populations. The Torres Strait, and Kimberley are two such areas. This is not segregation due to racial motivations. These are military formations that are made to suit local conditions. This point needs to be acknowledged before this discussion continues.--Senor Freebie (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude Are you aware, as per my previous post that the proposal has been edited to "not practiced in the main". Your maths isn't making a lot of sense to me sorry. Firstly, 1 in 4 was not a random chance but isolated to a very small geographical area. A division is about 20,000. You are suggesting we had 1000 divisions but only about 10. If 1000 are in a segregated unit (actually 750) then 2000 aren't then, for a unit size of 1000 and total enlistment of 1,000,000 (actually 850,000 Hall p 1 or less by your source) there would be 2 in every unit (on average). The number of units is more probably something like 300. Furthermore, the population of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders was about 85,000 in a total of 7 million (or about 1.2%). I just don't see where you come to the figure (nominally) that there were only 3 units in the Australian military with indigenous Australians in them?

The important thing though, is did you see the edit I had made on this matter and does this satisfy your concern? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

... I was trying to make things simple rather than complex with my "1,000 man divisions", obviously a division would be much larger and there were far fewer divisions than "1,000" in Australia. I was just trying to neatly lay out the forces into equal sized blocks. I was not aware that you had modified it after my comment, admittedly I did not see the mention of the modification. That said, what is "in the main"? meant to mean - in the main forces? i.e. those that were not specifically raised for TSI and Aboriginal (by accident) enlistees. If so, then yes, that is fine and then obviously footnote for the rest as planned. I was making a generalization that if we submit that there were 1 million enlistees (per the Australian gov source that I have provided which totals 990 thousand and not less than 850,000 I don't know which column you're reading but it definitely isn't the totals) and assume that a division is 1,000 men for simplicity's sake then our 3,000 aboriginals could be condensed into three divisions in the country. Whether they were present in more or less divisions was wholly beside the point. You state two in each division, but, that just makes the opposite assumption to my own without actually demonstrating either of our assumptions to be correct/incorrect regarding where these soldiers were. A middle ground would be more practical but still mot. There is no existing source explicity stating the whereabouts of where each soldier was, to my knowledge for us to trawl through and work out absolutes. So what we're doing is pointless OR and estimations, admittedly. I am stating only that it did happen (segregation) and that it accounts for a large proportion of the whole (for the very last time 25% of all Aboriginal and TSI soldiers were located in Australia's segregated units). I do not wish to argue semantics here further, if by "in the main" you mean what I think you mean then close enough and we can move on. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

In the main part of the forces or mainly. So similar to "generally" or "almost never that" that you have indicated would be acceptable to you. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Mhmm. Ok. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

One more time; can I direct your attention to the geographic isolation of the indigenous communities, where these indigenous groups were raised?--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

For reference's sake, the Torres Strait is still 650km from the end of paved ashphalt roads , and 750km from the closest city on the Australian mainland. That's approximately the distance between Berlin and London, or from the Chinese border to the end of the Korean Peninsula. If we're going to move forward on this, I feel like it needs to be acknowledged that this was a culturally, and geographically isolated group, raised to operate solely in their own community, and that any resulting appearance of segregation may have been incidental.--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

SF even in the indegenous unit the NCOs and Officers were still white. Yes, I am aware that these units were specifically raised for TSI enlistees with some additional Aboriginal peoples by accident. That may contribute, but does not however, explain away the criminal (acknowledged by the Australian government to have been a crime in 1986) underpayment of the troops for the duration of their enlistment. Additionally, the TSI unit wasn't completely isolated from the rest of the Australian army, they participated in exercises with other units on Prince of Wales Island. But, sure fine, it is speculatively possible that had it been a properly mixed race unit that they might not have been segregated and that the segregation they experienced might be the natural result of separation of rank between NCO's, Officers, and soldiers and their limited co-operation with other units in the army. But again this is speculative and I'm only going off of what the sources I have provided say and doing basic mathematics alongside this. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude, withstanding this, I think we have a way forward and to some extent, as you suggest, the finer detail is somewhat off-base. The issue is that there was racial tension that was not a specific cause in this case but did contribute to social tension giving rise to the "battle". Senor Freebie's observations are correct in the most part but I don't think they are constructive. The article is not about segregation in the Australian forces but about how to represent the racial issues that were in play WRT this particular instance. I think that we have a way forward on the proposed section as amended. I am a bit busy for the next couple of days but I will be tidying this up to correctly reference and create the note, essentially as it now reads. I might say that the TI force (and similar in Arnhem land) were drawn from the local remote communities, as they were. Perhaps this might appease the contention and different views you both identify but I would rather omit this than create more contention. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that the fact that these units were commanded by white officers is more indicative of a colonial mindset, which can be seen in the early resistance by the Australian government to indigenous enlistment, rather than a policy of segregation, though that's probably not much comfort to those servicemen who were treated in this way. Anyway ... happy to take it on board that this is not a constructive side-point. Sorry if I've wasted any time on this.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Senor Freebie. I am glad that you accept my comment was made in good faith. I respect your POV, but I am being pragmatic in my comments and trying to progress a consensus. I thank you for your acknowledgment of same. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. There is no consensus for many of the passages in what has been re-added. Please remove it immediately. 110.175.158.36 (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you state which passages, and which users you believe have objections to them?--Senor Freebie (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Folks, I hope you don't mind a comment from me here. I've remained neutral on the content itself, but I've been following the way the discussion has been going, and I see it as a great example of editors working together to find the best sources and use them to create the most accurate and appropriate content. Kudos to all involved. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• 110.175.158.36 Please try to be helpful here. We get it that you're not wild about this section. But at this point there are multiple editors working to get it into the article. Your apparently blanket opposition does not appear constructive and suggests that you are working more to obstruct than to build consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Can we compile the list of sources somewhere so we can easily access all of them without hopping around? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

See section :Some sources, I added above. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Is it fair to call the recent edits vandalism?

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)

@Senor Freebie: - 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: @Boing! said Zebedee: @Ad Orientem: @Mr rnddude:. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Also pinging @Cinderella157:. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@Mr rnddude: - 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)

I just came back here after being extremely busy for several months to find I've been accused of vandalising the article by Senor Freebie. Is there no depths to which you won't sink, mate? You think vandalism by a random IP somehow vindicates you? This is really awful and I must say makes me hesitant ever again to try and correct an error on wikipedia. The frequent abuse and lies I've suffered from you are beyond the pale. 110.175.158.36 (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Opinions of each other's soldiers!

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)

Decisive Victory?

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)

I would tend to agree Cinderella157 (talk) 03:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Some links for possible use

[13][14][15][16] [17][18] [19][20] [21][22][23][24][25][26]

US troops at Battle of Milne Bay

Hi, AustralianRupert, ‎Peacemaker67, Hawkeye7 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)

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)

Leonski influence?

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)

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)

@LamontCranston This seems more relevant than "their uniforms were more stylish" (below). Irtapil (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality tag and deletion.

This sentence was tagged in 2019, disputing the neutality: U.S. military pay was considerably higher than that of the Australian military[note 1] and U.S. military uniforms were seen as more appealing than those of the Australians. [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: American enlisted personnel were paid twice as much as their Australian counterparts, and the dress uniforms of American enlisted men were more stylish than those of Australian officers. 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)

what was it really about?

This me as very suspicious? "…the reasons for the riot were not mentioned in the few Australian newspaper reports of the event." That means the stated reasons are just one side of the story? Irtapil (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The article reflects the sources cited in respect to the reasons. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)