Talk:Peter Stanley

Article lacks neutral POV regarding
The article 'Peter Stanley' lacks a neutral point of view when discussing Peter Stanley's opinion of the wartime slogan of a 'battle for Australia' and makes no mention of what many consider to be a highly controvertial statement; "It seems to be that Australians want to believe that they were part of a war, that the war came close; that it mattered...Set against the prosaic reality, the desire is poignant and rather pathetic." Threat made manifest #Griffith Review, Spring 2005#.

The above quote, or a reference to this quote, is required to create a counter argument to the following biased statement "He has recently been a major participant in a public debate regarding the "Battle for Australia", contesting opinions that events in Darwin in 1942 during the Second World War represented Japan's intention to invade Australia. He argues that the wartime slogan of a 'battle for Australia', used by John Curtin in February 1942 in anticipating invasion by Japan, was taken up in the mid-1990s and applied unjustifiably." as stated on the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Stanley

Any attempt to create a neutral point of view or to quote the above statement by Peter Stanley are removed without cause by Nick-D who cites 'vandalism' or a range of other wikipedia rules in what may be a case of wrongful use of the wikipedia rules to promote a biased opinion. 122.148.43.180 (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * For starters, you're blatantly miss-quoting Stanley by cherry picking bits from that paragraph in his Griffith Review article and not placing it in the context of his argument. The article is online here, and the full paragraph reads:
 * Why is it that the stories of the attack, invasion or incursion are so persistent? It seems to be that Australians want to believe that they were part of a war, that the war came close; that it mattered. Why can't we as a nation accept that the war the Allies fought was decided far from Australia – in North Africa, north-west Europe and above all on the steppes of European Russia? Why do we appear to want to believe that Australia really was threatened with invasion, that it was attacked; even that Japanese commandoes really did want to land on its shores? Set against the prosaic reality, the desire is poignant and rather pathetic.
 * This forms part of an argument that the invention of invasion myths and their continuing popularity has hindered the understanding and appreciation of Australia's actual role in the war. Moreover, what reliable sources support a claim that this passage is considered "highly controversial" by "many"? Please also see Biographies of living persons. Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Tentatively support present wording I have had a look and Nick-D's edits appear neutral and sound.  I would be concerned that including a quote out of context is more likely to misrepresent Stanley's opinions and per BLP I believe it should stay out of the article - unless put into context and agreed to by all parties.  If I have missed something, I'll hang around to see to consider objections. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)