Talk:Battle of Ramree Island

message: You can see the embellishment already in the quoted extract.  If the crocs had taken the Japanese, there would be nothing left for the vultures .
I'm not so sure. There was high disdain for the Japanese, to let them suffer that sort of horrendous fate would have seemed amply justified. There are still 500 Japanese un-accounted for.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.132.248 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Crocodile attacks

message: So far as I recall either a US or Japanese boat sank during WW2 incurring more lost lives to shark attacks. Perhaps this should be mentioned for some context?--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point if we can source it...perhaps you're thinking of the USS Indianapolis disaster ?? (the ship was sunk by a Japanese submarine in a chance encounter, and HQ never realized it had happened for many days)...Engr105th (talk) 06:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shark attacks 

message: A 2005 discussion on the forums at snopes.com is interesting; the posters point out that the swamps at Ramree had "Mosquitoes, Scorpions, crocodiles, flies, strange insects, thick mud and impenetrable trees", and that Burma has "many different species of venomous snakes, including several (King Cobra, Russell's Viper, Krait, Banded Sea Snake) that are fatal without (and sometimes even with) medical help".
One poster concludes "(t)he condition of the captured Japanese soldiers suggests the main killer was dehydration due to the complete lack of fresh water in the swamps. That late in the war, with supplies being interdicted by the allies, Japanese troops were often in poor health. It's likely that most of the troops were already suffering from malaria, beriberi, disentery (sic), or even all three before entering the swamp. They wouldn't have lasted more than a couple of days without water, trying to slog their way through muddy swamps. They would have collapsed and drowned."
They even cite their sources:
"From "Crocodiles" by Rodney Steel (1989) page 55:
"..allied troops surrounded between 400 and 800 Japanese soldiers..
There seems to be some doubt as to the veracity of this frequently quoted account, however, and David Finkelstein concluded in 1984 that in fact the majority of Japanese troops escaped to rejoin the rest of their army."
The Finkelstein reference is: "Tigers in the Stream" Audubon, 86, May 1984, 98-111."
Useful material for the article, I should think? DS (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other sources 

message: Does anybody have any more information on the crocodile account? According to the link provided, McLynn is practically frothing at the mouth with rage about the crocodile story. I'm frankly disinclined to believe anything he says, since he segues into incredibly non-scholarly, dismissive arrogance very early in his account and doesn't provide any actual information aside from "It's obvious, and if you don't agree with me you're a blithering idiot." Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 06:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Bravo, which link are you referring to? I'd like to look at it myself (though I'm no authority on this battle). If he's making statements like that, then that source sounds awfully un-encyclopedic; i.e. a dubious reference...Engr105th (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: McLynn's text is accessible via Google books (link is in the article).--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Actually the article has been rewritten in a way that totally mischaracterizes McLynn's argument. One might personally believe McLynn's assessment or not, but contrary to the other sources it is actually a real scholarly work with a reputable publisher that scrutinizes and examines various sources of the alleged event contrary to Guiness entry and other somewhat dubious sources. Contrary to misleadings posting above McLynn points out that the event was not supported by local eye witnesses or army reports and not even the existence of the original author (Bruce Wright) could be confirmed. Note that website with biography of the Canadian Bruce Stanley Wright is first of all no reputable source (a community website rather than a scholarly book) and second it is currently not completely clear whether Bruce Stanley Wright is identical with the Bruce Wright from the Guiness book, at least is crocodile thing is not mentioned in his biography. But even if it is the correct Wright, the main points of McLynn's criticism (other causes of death, contradicting figures, number of required crocodiles, self defense of well armed soldiers, no corroboration by witnesses or in army reports) still stand. Not to mention that McLynn cites other scholarly work denying the veracity of the event. Btw. in another scholarly source Wright is described as British rather than Canadian () and the veracity of the event is questioned as well. This article questions the veracity of the crocodile attack report by Wright too and as well an article mention in a section further up on this discussion page.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Also it should be noted that no Japanese source gives the crocodile story much credibility, and the Japanese version of this article actually claims that with the assistance of the local population most Japanese troops managed to escape the area. Then it seems likely that perhaps a few real crocodile related deaths and the disappearance of so many Japanese made it an all too easy but ultimately wrong 1+1=2 for the British to count. -46.204.101.126 (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

text:  The irony being that Japanese sources for this conflict are about the most least trustworthy sources that could be used - they are littered with constant denial. 900 Japanese troops were not killed by the crocodiles, most would have drowned, were shot/shelled by the Royal Marines or died of wounds/disease. My grandfather (RM Lieutenant Spencer) said that there were numerous crocodile incidents during the entire retaking of the Arakan. He states that it would have been entirely possible for at least 50 Japanese troops to have become victims at Ramree given the nature of the terrain and sheer concentration of crocs in the Mangroves.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.65.173 (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is no argument that crocodile attacks occurred in the swamp, the debate is about the scale of those attacks.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: re: Wright being British rather than Canadian — in the 1940s, those two categories weren't as mutually exclusive as you might think. Tangentially related point: the Ramree Island article cites Platt (1998) (I think it's the Steven G. Platt article cited here) for the statement that "the only verifiable mention is of 10-15 men killed by crocodiles while crossing Min Chaung creek near Ramree town", so... DS (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  McLynn's objections 

message: Tried to do a drive-by tidy up but the reference system isn't one I know about so I had to fall back on sfn's instead as that's the one I know. Feel free to revert if preferred. Regards. Keith-264 (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: At first I thought it was some kind of joke but apparently  believes that the crocodiles are to be considered a separate side in the battle.I would like to hear what is the rationale behind this decision.--Catlemur (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Still not answering my question on why my edits were undone and why the crocodiles must stay.--Catlemur (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day, all, for something similar, if you have time, take a look at Emu War; it might give you a chuckle. But in all seriousness, I think it would probably be best to remove "crocodiles" as a belligerent from the infobox. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

text: Fair enough, I'll take my tongue out of my cheek. ;O))Keith-264 (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

text: I think you're mischievous. Keith-264 (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

text: As best I can tell,  has found a Burmese-language documentary which I think states that the crocodiles only came out after the battle, to eat the corpses of the soldiers who died via other means. This is plausible, although I wouldn't be surprised if at least some soldiers were killed directly by the crocodiles. However, since the documentary is in Burmese, I can't assess its validity. DS (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Side in the battle

message: I find it inappropriately informal to say that scientists and historians "ridicule" the crocodile attack claims. Any suggestions for better wording? DS (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems a bit petty to complain about; the story was debunked and that is a synonym of ridicule. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's not. "That's not true" and "That's stupid and you're stupid to believe it" are two very different concepts. DS (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

text: Ridicule has nothing to do with intelligence. Keith-264 (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The word still connotes very hostilely and dismissively. It's not at all neutral. What would you say to "dismissed" ? DS (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ridicule? 

message: I've re-written the sentence and put trifling back in because there's no number for the British casualties in the OH or any of the other sources I can use. I wouldn't agree that it fell foul of NPOV but the revised wording removes any ambiguity about its provenance. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me, thanks! Rublov (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Eythenkew! too ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: There is no reason, grammatically or as specified by MOS:CAPS, why "The" should be capitalised in the section of the infobox that says "Part of The Burma campaign".
Keith-264 insisted to me in a discussion I started on their talk page that "Not everyone does [the capitalisation] but when in for a B class review it's usually recommended." I looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment#Criteria and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/B-Class FAQ, but nothing speaks to this particular capitalisation scheme. But isn't B-Class criteria, specifically the fourth criteria concerning grammar and style, supposed to reflect the the manual of style? I asked Keith-264 for the specific discussion on this project convention that contradicts MOS:CAPS, but Keith-264 suggested that I inquire about it on the project talk instead.
Fair enough, nobody wants to waste time looking for something they believe is well-known, but I could not find anything scouring through the project talk archives. What exactly am I supposed to look for aside from keywords like "part of" and "infobox"? Also, this capitalisation rule isn't widespread either; most of the featured and good articles in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Showcase do not capitalise "the" either. How can something be recommended (hopefully by consensus) for B-class grade if most of the Good and Featured articles contradict the recommendation?
Keith-264 can add their thoughts to clarify their points, but I think I am going to ask for a third opinion and hopefully it comes from someone else who knows exactly what Keith-264 is talking about. I'm fine with contradictions of MOS when they're based on community consensuses (e.g. why military conflict infoboxes contradict WP:FLAGCRUFT), but I am skeptical this one exists. Yue🌙 01:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Part of The Burma campaign"