Talk:Battle of Brisbane

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 (article contribs).

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] 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.[8] 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 (p3) reports that institutional discrimination was "paternalistic", varying significantly from state-to-state. Despite official policy ostensibly barring the enlistment of indigenous Autralians, in practice, a more flexible approach was adopted. (Hall p. 13) that saw many indigenous australians enlist. Segregation was not practiced and Indigenous Australians received equal pay, were promoted on merit[9] and were generally accepted and treated as equals. (an exception is the small segregated forces raised for the defence of northern Australia and particularly the Torres Strait - as footnote Hall pp. 29-45)

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. [10] 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)