Talk:Battle of Ramree Island

Crocodile attacks

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)

First poster is displaying ill-founded conjecture. The idea that crocs would leave no remains is not self evident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.6.209 (talk) 09:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

My uncle was in the Newfoundland contingent of the Royal Navy. From what my cousin states, he was involved in many WWII campaigns involving the Royal Navy, including operations in the Burma theatre. They know this through research through the Dept. of Veterans Affairs. He is no longer available to talk about this, however another close relative managed to discuss some of his Burma experiences when he was alive. He mentioned being shipwrecked & having to hide in Burmese coastal swamps, where fatal crocodile attacks were a reality. I know nothing of this Canadian (or is he British?) scientist Wright. The existence of the Newfoundland contingent of the Royal Navy is easy to verify.24.138.36.68 (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Shark attacks

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)

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)

Other sources

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)

McLynn's objections

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)

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)

McLynn's text is accessible via Google books (link is in the article).--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

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 ([1]) 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

CE

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)

Third Side in the battle

At first I thought it was some kind of joke but apparently Keith-264 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)

It was there before I did the CE. I'm happy to leave it there but perhaps the other editors of the article might like to venture an opinion?Keith-264 (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

Dear Keith-264 what wrong about my lastest edited? Detective psm (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

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

what do you mean? i'm seriously Detective psm (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

i'm waiting for you answer. Detective psm (talk) 05:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

As best I can tell, @Detective psm: 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)

Actually it is not Burmese language.It is Thai language.If you worry about the validity of the document,you can check it in English.This document was produced by National Geography (in series Nazi World War Weird episode crocodile massacre) Detective psm (talk) 06:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Ridicule?

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)

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).

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)

Ridicule has nothing to do with intelligence. Keith-264 (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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)

Casualties

@Rublov: 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)

@Keith-264: Looks good to me, thanks! Rublov (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Eythenkew! too ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Robert Duff/BBC source

Feel free to discuss this change here. 14:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Not a good enough source to challenge debunking by printed sources. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

This quote is not necessarily a challenge. It simply conveys that this perception was shared by other veterans present in the battle, which is relevant to a section dedicated to alleged crocodile attacks. According to the Wikipedia page on primary sources, they "can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for clearly attributed controversial statements." Duff's allegation, along with Wright's and Jacob's, are other examples of similar controversial statements that are included in the article. It is true that Wright's and Jacob's accounts were both published in nonfiction books, but Duff's recollection was published by the BBC in a war retrospective, which makes the quote "subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher," per Wikipedia's guidelines on primary sources.

The BBC is a state broadcaster and only considered reputable by Wiki for controversial reasons and I suggest it's inclusion is overkill, turning a myth into something else. Thanks for taking the trouble to consider this. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Unless we have reason to doubt the BBC editorial process for this story specifically, the outlet should remain a reputable source for the purposes of this article. The published statements from Duff are necessary to demonstrate the prevalence of the crocodile attack perception among Ramree veterans. If available, we should add conflicting eyewitness accounts to add greater context. Remember Wikipedia's "primary goal is to be a fully comprehensive and informative reference work; that is, it does not purposefully omit ..." Thank you for continuing the discussion.

Witness accounts are primary sources which have to be used with caution to avoid OR and non-printed sources are inferior to other media. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

As shown above, Wikipedia's standard for primacy sources has been satisfied here. If we find additional sources that meet the same threshold but indicate a conflicting cause of death for the Japanese soldiers (e.g., disease, dehydration, etc.), those should be included as well to create a more compressive article. If you are concerned about the aesthetic appearance of this subsection, perhaps we can remove the block quote formatting so it takes up less space.  ::::I don't agree, I think you're teetering on POV pushing. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's guidelines, primary sources are allowed if "subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher." Wikipedia considers the BBC a reputable publisher. Therefore, a primary source published by the BBC is allowed.

Regarding the second clause of your sentence, appeals to motive should not distract from responding to the argument at hand. We should both be working to create a more comprehensive article, and sometimes that means including reputably published information, whether it supports or contradicts a claim, because the information is relevant to a topic. Here, the topic is alleged crocodile attacks. Duff quite literally alleges crocodile attacks.

The point is that this primary source is otiose in this article. Your persistence and your platitudes are my reasons for wanting you to step back and examine your motives. Your edits have not improved the article, they have added distraction. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

As stated above, the purpose of including the Duff quote was to emphasize the prevalence of the perception among veterans. If you remove the Duff quote, the perception appears less prevalent. The inclusion is not a distraction. It is material.

If you believe persistence is evidence of ulterior motive, then perhaps you should look at yourself. If you read a sentence like "comprehensiveness is good" and see nothing but a platitude, then perhaps you should not stop editing on Wikipedia.

Side note: I apologize if that sounds harsh. I do not actually believe you should stop editing, but please, keep things polite and on-point.

New Source

@Keith-264 If interested, I have found a new piece of information supporting McClyne’s position (i.e., the crocodile massacre never happened). You or I should add it, but the information is from a newspaper (“Oh, no!”). I have provided a link below, but you will likely have to sign up for a free trial with newspapers.com to verify the veracity for yourself (time to show your commitment as a researcher). If not, I can add the information and the citation myself.

The source is a Boston Globe article by George Frazier (11 March, 1974, page 11). Here is the supporting text:

“Inasumch though as I am “Guinesse” believer, I’m also quite nosy, nothing would do but for me to get off a letter to the Japanese War Office in Tokyo asking if it could confirm the item [the crocodile massacre]. The reply that arrived some ten days later informed me that it could not.”

Here is the link: https://www.newspapers.com/image/438950677/?terms=crocodiles%20ramree&match=1

This is overkill. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, it might be interesting to have something about the stance of the Japanese authorities on this issue. "In 1974, George Frazier reported having asked the Japanese War Office, and being told that they could not confirm that the incident had happened." DS (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

If this can be cited I'd be glad for it to be included. Keith-264 (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtysevenThe drafted sentence looks much cleaner than the actual quote. I can cite it later today if no one else beats me to it. Also, if no one is opposed, I can remove the block quoting for the Duff quote. Right now, the subsection looks kinda clunky.

Reuters story on Ramree

@Keith-264

@DragonflySixtyseven

I found another source through newspapers.com. On Feb. 24, 1945, the Guardian published a Reuters story on the alleged crocodile attacks. The headline is “Japanese Killed by Crocodiles.” The first sentence after the subheading reads, “Japanese stragglers who are trying to escape from Ramree Island, off the west coast of Burma, are being forced by hunger out of the mangrove swamps and many have been killed by crocodiles.”

Here is the link: https://www.newspapers.com/image/259404482/?terms=ramree%20crocodile&match=1

It looks like a lot of other newspapers picked up the same story from Reuters, but this is the first time I’ve read about it. What do you all think? If we included it, we probably wouldn’t need to quote the text, just summarize it like DS did for the George Frazier quote.

{{ping|Keith-264}} if you do this it's quicker. Enough of this scouring of newspapers, it is overkill and I will revert any further additions to the section on crocodiles, under WP:UNDUE. Keith-264 (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

At best, it might be worth citing this as the earliest reference to the crocodiles, but we'd have to be very careful to avoid ascribing too much meaning to it. And, barring analysis by a historian, I don't think it adds that much. DS (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtyseven:

I was thinking along the same lines. The source seems noteworthy just because it was published at the same time. It’s not a soldier’s recollection written years later.

Here's my draft: “Stories of crocodile attacks on Japanese soldiers appeared in newspaper reports shortly after the battle.”

I would bury it in the third paragraph right before the sentence that starts with “The British Burma Star Association...”

If both of you decide that it isn't worth adding, I’ll be fine with that.

If anything, the contemporaneous report would be more relevant than "Robert Duff, surviving soldier 60 years later". DS (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. The Reuters story seems more noteworthy that the Duff quote for a couple reasons, though I'm not sure it needs to be an either/or scenario.

Given that memories are malleable, I honestly don't see how the quote from A Random Surviving Soldier Decades Later adds to the article. He doesn't even say anything particularly different. McLynn's quote of Wright matters because Wright was a) a naturalist and b) writing 17 years after the incident instead of 62. DS (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Memories are definitely malleable and Duff could be remembering the circumstances incorrectly, but his quote is still interesting because it is similar to the stories told by Wright and Jacob. If the same story is frequently told by soldiers who fought at Ramree then that is information I would want to know if I stumbled upon this Wiki page. You might want to take a look at this book as well just for your own personal reading. According to this vet, among the servicemen stationed there, the belief that crocodiles killed the Japanese was common enough that they started joking the crocodiles were the "allies."

What have you decided on the Reuters story? It was written 17 years before Wright's account, after all.

Overkill. Keith-264 (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

haha. You know, somehow I already knew your position.

Actually, specifying that contemporary media reports said only "many have been killed by crocodiles" might be worth including. But we have to be careful of drawing too many conclusions. DS (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a draft that might work?

"Debunk"

There's a substantial difference between "of the troops who went into the swamp, only a few came out alive" and "of the troops who went into the swamp, only a few came out alive because they were eaten by crocodiles": correlation versus causation. I find it perfectly plausible that only a small number of the troops who went into the swamp were captured alive; Frank McLynn pointed out that many of the troops who went in "were already dying or wounded and most were suffering from malaria, dysentery and dehydration", and others may simply have escaped. To say that Duff's oral history was debunked feels excessive, and verging on OR.

What's important is that we say a) what is alleged to have happened, and b) what the problems are with that version of events. DS (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The RS aren't equivocal, the crocodiles have been debunked, it's in the article. Keith-264 (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I only just now thought to check Worldcat, and at least two local institutions have a copy of Wright. It'll be interesting to see if he provided any more details than what McLynn excerpted. DS (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Glad you liked the edit and thanks for the constructive criticism. regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I have the book in my hands, and it's interesting, but as a source of military history, I find it less than reliable. Among other things, Wright provides the viewpoint of the first crocodile to eat a Japanese soldier, giving many highly specific details: the crocodile had been 35 years old the first time it ate a human; the first human the crocodile ate had been a Ramree inhabitant whose canoe it had accidentally overturned; the Japanese soldier had not slept in four days when the crocodile grabbed him, and had lost his rifle; the soldier weighed 130 pounds; the crocodile dismembered the soldier and then tucked his corpse into the mud at the river bottom so that it would rot and become soft enough to eat in small pieces; when the crocodile tried to grab a second soldier, he shot it with a rifle, at which point the crocodile "felt a searing pain in its back and instantly submerged." Even without the fog of war and the incomplete nature of the historical record, this is unverifiable and clearly involves some... let's say creativity on Wright's part. Is it plausible that Japanese soldiers were killed and eaten by saltwater crocodiles during the Battle of Ramree Island? Absolutely, and the method of predation described means that (n) crocodiles could have killed more than (n) humans. However, I also note that Wright does not say that the Ramree crocodiles killed more than 900 Japanese soldiers. It's easy to infer this, but that's not what he said. The Platt article has some excellent historiographical analysis, and is definitely worth citing for more than just the bit about an urban myth (and, in fact, Platt never uses the words "urban myth", so we probably shouldn't either). DS (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and this -

At dawn the vultures arrived to clean up what the crocodiles had left.... Of about one thousand Japanese soldiers that entered the swamps of Ramree, only about twenty were found alive

See that ellipsis? It feels dramatic, but it's actually meant to indicate that there was an extra paragraph in Wright's text, one which talked about the battle lasting longer than just that one night. DS (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the trouble. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

If you want to alter the article using the book as a source I look forward to seeing the result. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I second that "debunk" is too strong of a word. It makes it sound as if there is no evidence anyone died from a crocodile attack, when the scale of the attacks is what is at issue.

Your comment is OR since you haven't rooted it in the sources but as your opinion. The history of this is that there have been occasional attempts to make more of the crocodile myth than it is worth according to the sources. I think I put debunked in, to add to the falsity of the stories as the sources are emphatic that it's balderdash. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Your comment is OR. No scholar has claimed that zero Japanese soldiers were attacked by crocodiles. Your version gives that impression.

Additionally, "hundreds" is less variable than "many." If you change "many" to "hundreds," the word "debunking" is more appropriate. Is that a suitable compromise?

Note we will have to change the wording, because as it stands, "debunking" would refer to largest crocodile attack in history, rather that the scale of casualties. Since we don't have a list of other crocodile attacks to compare it too, I propose this change:

"The battle is known for claims that hundreds of Japanese soldiers were killed by crocodiles in the mangrove swamps of Ramree. Some editions of the Guinness Book of World Records have cited it as the highest number of fatalities in a crocodile attack. Zoologists and modern military historians have debunked these high casualty claims."

We absolutely need to cite Platt, who went to Ramree in the late 90s and interviewed the locals about their wartime experiences. He says (among other things) that "(t)he only crocodile-related deaths occurred when 10 to 15 soldiers were killed trying to ford Min Chaung, a tidal creek near Ramree town". DS (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

In 2001, herpetologist Steven G. Platt published a historiographical analysis of the allegations. He established that Wright had not been present on Ramree Island at the time of the Battle, and noted that although the other chapters in Wright's book were told in the first person, the account of the Battle was in the third person; possibly, Platt speculated, Wright was repeating stories he had been told by friends. Platt also noted that Wright did not actually "attribute the majority of Japanese casualties to crocodile predation", but merely specified that only 20 out of 1000 Japanese soldiers survived the battle, with crocodiles being "just one of many hazards". He identified the source of the allegations as embellishment by Swiss naturalist C.A.W. Guggisberg, author of the 1972 work Crocodiles: Their Natural History, Folklore And Conservation.

In addition, Platt visited Ramree Island and interviewed residents who had been alive during the war; they "unanimously discounted any suggestion that large numbers of Japanese fell prey to crocodiles." Ultimately, he stated, "[t]he only crocodile-related deaths occurred when 10 to 15 soldiers were killed trying to ford Min Chaung, a tidal creek".

(The tricky part will be integrating this with the other statements. How many of them are actually relevant now that we have this?) DS (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm a bit bogged down with other things at the moment. Your research into the sources looks very good and I don't doubt your good faith or ability. Why don't you make the edits you prefer, including excisions and if I have anything to say, I'll comment here? Regards Keith-264 (talk)

"This book is a collection of articles and stories written about wildlife that I have encountered in various parts of the world. (...) Some are fiction for obvious reasons, but all are based on the best information available at the time." - introduction to Wildlife Sketches Near and Far, by Bruce S. Wright. DS (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

We do need to cite Platt. How do you feel about this addition?

“In 2000 herpetologist Steven G. Platt interviewed Ramree islanders who worked as porters for Japanese forces during the war. The islanders could only attribute 10 to 15 of the battle's casualties to crocodiles.”

I’d leave out the bit about the inflated numbers not appearing until the 70s. Guinness was attributing the fatalities to crocodiles at least by 1968, according to a footnote on page 191 from The Forgotten Fleet (Whitton, 1970). The crocodiles were also mentioned in The Campaign in Burma (Owen, 1946), and in contemporaneous newspaper reports. The idea that there were such high numbers of crocodile attacks is very old.

The analysis of Wright is tricky. I never got a chance to read Wildlife Sketches Near and Far, but I found a copy of The Frogmen of Burma (1968). There, he makes it clear he was on the island after the main battle was over but while the British were still patrolling the swamps, and then relayed their earlier perceptions of the battle. I can post a few photos of the pages later.

As I mentioned about I think you both have a very good grasp of the sources so please go ahead. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The presence of crocodiles in the Ramree swamps led many soldiers to believe that they were a significant factor in the battle's outcome, with one British soldier writing in his diary on 2 February 1945 that "[w]hen the Army landed they drove the Japanese into the swamps and the crocodiles killed hundreds of them. They used to call the crocodiles the allies." DS (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I vote to add it, DS, but as I stated above, I think it improper to attribute the perception of these attacks to a 1970s source. (Edited)

Frogmen of Burma (1968)

These quotes from Wright corroborate some of Platt's conclusions: that Wright did not arrive on Ramree until after the main battle was over (but when there were still armed Japanese soldiers hiding in mangroves); that Wright heard the croc stories from his men operating on the island; and that the crocodiles were just one of many dangers. I'm trying to figure out how to incorporate elements of these statements into the article. They compliment the first paragraph on Platt very well.

“Without food or water, prey to the flies, the leeches and the crocodiles, with their feet swollen to lumps of flesh that showed no toes from stepping on mangrove shoots, they stumbled on.” (p. 135).

“On February 22, after Operation BLOCK had been functioning for twenty-nine days, it was finished. One thousand Japanese troops were thought to have garrisoned Ramree Island. No more than twenty surrendered. How many escaped before the chaung-blockers got into position we do not know, but it could not have been many. The rest fed the crocodiles. It was into this killing ground that [Lt.] John Junor had been leading his men in folbots, on paddleboards, and swimming. As soon as I arrived on the scene I set out to see it.” (p. 136).

“Two of his [Junor's] men spent a night in the branches of the mangroves after a huge crocodile had investigated their paddleboards too closely for comfort. They heard shouting and rifle fire during the night. As none of our people were near, the Japs must have been shooting at the crocodiles. One of our men phrased it well: ‘These crocs have been eating dead and half-dead Japs for so long now, they’ve forgotten the difference between them and live Englishmen.’ What the crocodiles left the vultures cleaned up. Circling vultures often appeared over areas our forces had never reached, showing that the Japs had withdrawn into the swamp to avoid us only to die of thirst, wounds or crocodiles. Rarely have men faced, and by their own choice, a more horrible death.” (p. 138).

Additionally, there are long descriptions on Operation Block in general, how Allied ships sank and shot Japanese boats trying to cross creeks in the swamp, and how crocodiles and vultures feasted on the bodies of the men who were killed trying to cross.

References

"Part of The Burma campaign"

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)

Recent edits

@Dora the Axe-plorer: Perhaps you'd like to explain why you think your edit is an improvement? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Keith-264 Have you heard of MOS:NUMNOTES? You're a far more experienced editor than I am, basically reverted my edits then restored parts of it. Looks like you're offended by my revert and then proceeded to do just that to my edits. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 20:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, Woodburn Kirby's name is mentioned in the subheader above, why do you want his full name again. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 20:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright you're right about Woodburn Kirby's name, that's my oversight. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 20:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Dora the Axe-plorer: Edit conflict I've had a look at MOS:NUMNOTES and can't see anything in it that the original edit contravened. Stanley's surname is Woodburn Kirby, Woodburn isn't a middle name. I might have been editing for longer but all this means is that I can be as fallible as anyone else. I left a note that losses isn't specific so not really a good word to use when there's a specific number of dead. Losses are all of the categories of casualty, prisoner, injured, ill.... Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Keith-264 Comparable values near one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: patients' ages were five, seven, and thirty-two or ages were 5, 7, and 32, but not ages were five, seven, and 32.

Though MOS needs to clarify what's the threshold of "comparable" values. Adding to that, the article has consistently used figure numbers so why do you insist spelling "twenty". If you want to spell, you need to apply this form across the article. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 20:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Dora the Axe-plorer: The last time that I checked any of this (quite a while ago) you could mix words and numbers depending on magnitude, eg, 150, twenty, six but if you prefer to spell all the numbers or write them as numbers I will defer to you. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

With some exception for quotes I prefer consistency with the way numbers are presented. I just don't see a rationale with mixing words and numbers in this case. TY Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 20:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)