Talk:Raid at Cabanatuan

message: "Many of the POWs resisted because the Rangers' weapons and uniforms looked nothing like those from 1940 and 1941." 
This doesn't make any sense - nobody was even deployed into the Philipenes until early 1942,  so no Americans could have been captured in 1940 or 1941.  I'm deleting the entire line just for accuracy's sake.
--Bri 20:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for future reference, whether or not Americans were captured in 1940 or 1941 is beside the point even though it didn't happen. The Philippines was a US colony for nearly half a century before the Japanese invasion. That sentence does make sense. The US military were in the Philippines from 1898 onward with many army bases, airfields and navy port and thus deployment is a moot point when their presence was already there. If you are speaking of the liberation, then that's a different story. --† Ðy§ep§ion †  Speak your mind 21:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No, you are still very incorrect. You can't have a "significant military deployment" of US troops when they were already there. There were 30,000 US troops there by 1941. As for "What does 1940 or 1941 have to do with anything?" You pointed those years out yourself so they needed to be addressed. Also, I must've missed the part in history when the Pacific Fleet wasn't crippled at Pearl Harbor (with the exception of the carriers) and the US was able to send reinforcements to the Philippines. Bottom line: There was NO US military deployment to the Philippines until the beginning of the liberation by US forces in 1944. One of the main reasons why the country capitulated was because there was no military deployment whatsoever. The USAFFE (United States Army Forces - Far East) was cut off from troops and supplies because of Pearl Harbor and the inability of the navy to get to them. Here's a thought, why don't you read history and stop asserting erroneous information let alone attacking people because someone pointed out incorrect info. Also, why don't you actually a look at Wikipedia's guidelines for civility and Policy for no personal attacks when someone critcizes you because it is you who has deployed" amateurish" behavior. --† Ðy§ep§ion †  Speak your mind 15:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't have said it better myself, Dysepsion! The other guy must have been asleep in History class. 58.168.49.70 09:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: My grandfather was deployed to the Philippines in 1939 and was a prisoner at Cabanatuan II, he did say that the uniforms suprised him, but that all of the men spoke english and were european, so he trusted them. -JWGreen 00:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates

message: Can some one help me!!! my grampa was a POW in WW ll for  1yeah and a half or so I can not find anything about it or him his name was Carl E Swasey.. so if anyone can help that would be good thank you!!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.150.85 (talk) 11:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help me

message: Captain James Canfield Fisher's mother, Dorothy Canfield Fisher, was a noted author and educator as referenced in the William Breuer book, and should be mentioned here.
Also, I take exception to the reference that Corporal Sweezy was the "only" Ranger killed during the raid. Fisher and his medics were members of the 6th Ranger Battalion and were considered Rangers, in the same way that Navy doctors, corpsmen and chaplains attached to Marine Corps units are considered Marines. If you want to nitpick over the fact that Fisher lived for another day after he was wounded, the mortar fragment was still what killed him!PhantomWSO (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Captain James Fisher's mother

message: This article belongs to the Japanese occupation of the Philippines, therefore, it should be inserted and be part of that page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Wandering Traveler (talk • contribs) 13:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: DisagreeThis is a specific action that had to do with the liberation.--Conor Fallon (talk) 02:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Oppose A small number of fighting men overcoming overwhelming odds, by raiding the Bataan Death Camp (Raid on Bataan Death Camp DVD, Shootout!, HISTORY Shop), warrants its own article, plus its not like Wikipedia is running out of space. --IncidentFlux [ TalkBack | Contributions ] 01:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Oppose The logic is fallacious. The raid should certainly have mention in the Japanese occupation of the Philippines page, but that does not at all preclude it having its own page. There are entire books and films written about this raid. It is notable in its own right. EvilCouch (talk) 05:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: A big omission - what nationality were the POWs?  Were they all American?  A mix of American and Australian? Or lots of different Allied nationalities?  This is basic infomration which should be in the article. 86.133.208.193 (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality 

message: After expanding the article and adding some new sources, I have nominated the article at GAN. While it sits in the queue to be reviewed, it would be beneficial if anybody could take a look for any errors. Good work to all those that previously worked on the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nominated as GA candidate

message: I've completed the requested copy edit. I would have appreciated if you were to refrain from editing, but I suppose I took a little while longer than expected, so you aren't at fault (regardless, I've merged your recent changes with the new copy). In general, very well written, but as your latest edits seemed to reflect, you should probably add a few other terms to replace "the prisoners" in the POW section. I've left suggestions for them in comments. Secondly, I added a  tag on a line describing information from a Japanese radio host – you never really stated any information about him, other than his name, and that he is the Japanese radio host. Not sure what that meant. Also, I replaced most of your em dashes with en dashes, and that is simply because the characters in the edit box made me perceive them as simple "dashes", something I apologize in advance for. Finally, thanks for asking for a copy edit before nominating for FA. If you need any other help, or if you would like to request a second look-over (whether it is a request from reviewers or from you), feel free to do so again. I wish you good luck toward your FA! EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the helpful comments and copyedit. Apologies for editing at the same time, I didn't know you were going to do it at that point. I'm going to work on addressing them now, and hopefully it goes to FAC within the next week. Thanks again. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy edit 

message: All of the resources that you list are after 2000, this is an injustice to the real research and original author on this subject. Forrest Bryant Johnson lived in the Philippines for 5 years with one of the Philippians, who participated in the raid, to research and document all of the events. He then published his book 
"Raid on Cabanatuan"
by Forrest Bryant Johnson (Author)
Publisher: A Thousand Autumns Press (1988)
ASIN: B000UF924K 
He then rewrote the book in 2002 as
"Hour of Redemption" The Heroic WW II Saga of America's Most Daring POW Rescue
by Forrest Bryant Johnson (Author)
Paperback: 352 pages
Publisher: Grand Central Publishing (September 2002)
ISBN-10: 0446679372
ISBN-13: 978-0446679374
All of the books listed on your page are based on the first book and provides all other authors at least 90% of the information for their books.
I think that Wikipedia should acknowledge this historical fact when publishing author information. 
Edward L. Hines
USMC Retired
76.0.192.184 (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for taking time to look over the article. There are several book sources that are included published prior to 2000 (throughout the 1990s-2000s) as seen in the References section. As the article is on the topic and not on the first reported research of an author, I don't think it's worth mentioning within the article. I obviously appreciate the fact the author wrote the book, especially if it was the basis used for assisting the development of the other sources from other authors. Sources were included when available, and his 2002 book, which probably included updates and additional material, is included for sourcing. The article benefits from a variety of sources from multiple authors, so readers can view what sources they prefer or are available to them for doing their own research. The citations included just help to link the specifics from sources I was able to come across (didn't get a chance to get a copy of the original 1988 book). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject Timeline information and research on Cabanatuan 

message: I'll leave the existing revision for now pending review of the Breuer source. I put a hold on "The Raid on Cabanatuan" (1994) from the library. I should get that later this week and I'll verify again if the source indicates the execution. If so, I'll readd it. Otherwise, we'll need another source(s) that indicates it did not occur. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Breuer citation

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Raid at Cabanatuan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20021001203319/http://images.google.com/images?hl=en to https://images.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=cabanatuan+%28POW+OR+POWs+OR+survivor+OR+survivors%29+source%3ALIFE
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why is the exact number never clear in this article?  Don't we have the exact number now?  I think we even have all or nearly all of the NAMES of those rescued, by now, from several sources.  Starhistory22 (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  511 

message: Removed a claim that the medical personnel accompanying the Rangers were armed in violation of the Geneva Conventions.  In actual fact, the Geneva Conventions explicitly authorize the arming of medical personnel for the defense of themselves and those under their care.  See, for example, the International Committee of the Red Cross site at https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule25 where it spells out that "light individual weapons" (pistols, submachine guns and rifles) are legal and do not affect the bearer's status as a protected medical person.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.166.3 (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. —¿philoserf? (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myth that Geneva Convention prohibits the arming of medical personnel 

message: The Japanese commander is listed in the info box as General Yamashita.  I don't think that is correct. He was the overall commander of the Japanese forces in the Philippines, not the commander of the forces at the camp.Bill (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Japanese Commander