Talk:Raid at Cabanatuan

Dates
"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)

Actually I'm replacing this line as this fact appears to hold up but am describing it as "looked nothing like those from several years prior."

--Bri 20:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

OK, excuse me. There wasn't a significant military deployment until early 1942. This is why I said the original sentence doesn't make sense (which it doesn't.) What does 1940 or 1941 have to do with anything? Instead of pointlessly arguing with me over what you yourself described as a mute point, why don't you try contributing to the article? You've got 2000+ edits, why don't you maybe clean up some of the (horribly) amateurish sounding writing? Just a thought... --Bri 15:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

ost Soldiers, By Hampton Sides) also tells of the filipino deaths, who they dont mention and is also the best book on the subject!

My Grandfather Woodrow Jackson Reece was one of the Army Rangers who rescued the prisoners and I wanted to state how proud I am of him as of all our military men. He was a wonderful man from North Arkansas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Help me
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)

Does someone have a source for the 21 Filipino deaths? The Leavenworth papers on page 69 specifically states that there were NO guerrillas killed

The Book I am read (Gh(Ghost Soldiers, By Hampton Sides) also tells of the filipino deaths, who they dont mention and is also the best book on the subject!

Referencing?
I thoroughly enjoyed your article- it accurately portrays the supreme cruelty of the Japanese. My father was a Javanese Nationalist guerrilla, decorated and buried in our Heroes' Cemetery. His mother and sister were forced to become comfort women- his mother he never saw again after 1944. Just a quick nitpick- with regard to the experience of PFC Egene Wilson- could you please reference that one so the revisionists, Vandals and other turds don't attempt to sanitise Japan's sordid history? And I'm more than willing to help proof read as an objective 3rd party if required. Nice work.Starstylers (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No nation that achieved civilization is free from stains on their history - for example, the human rights violations by the Indonesian Security Service (the murders of four men in a Java jail in 2013 for instance) - note that the actions of the Imperial Japanese armed forces and the leaders of fascist Japan can hardly be put on the 100-plus million of Japanese citizens who didn't know what was happening, and paid a terrible price for the actions of their dictators. The article is balanced and is a document of the actions of those responsible, not "the Japanese."

Captain James Fisher's mother
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)

Merge
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)
 * DisagreeThis is a specific action that had to do with the liberation.--Conor Fallon (talk) 02:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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 01:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)

Nationality
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)

Nominated as GA candidate
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)

Interpretation of WP:NBSP
At WP:NBSP, I get the main point that non-breaking spaces are inserted to prevent awkwardness from line breaks. Others here argue that all money and dates get them. I think that only awkward money and awkward dates which might suffer from line breaks need them. For instance, if 30 December is at the beginning of a paragraph, or near the beginning, it will not be subject to a line break. However, if it is deeper in the paragraph, it requires the non-breaking space.

The money example seen at WP:NBSP is a little more arcane. It is not simply money that gets the non-breaking space, it is a glyph of a unit currency followed by a numeral followed by a number. The example is not a numeral followed by a number. The unit currency must be present to create the possibility of a misunderstanding from a line break. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I support the use of the non-breaking spaces as WP:NBSP does not list any limitations on their use. I'm going to revert one last time (as I'm about to add further citations to the article and want to keep the article consistent, and consensus on the change can be included later) based on the following rationale. I don't see the harm in having these included in the article (in fact, they are for the benefit of the reader), and for the previous FAC's I had, comments suggested similar setup for the spaces. Although a number may be located at the front of a paragraph, it may still be pushed to the next line if the article is viewed on various size screens, including mobile phones. Instead of picking and choosing what numbers should have the non-breaking spaces, it's best to be consistent in ensuring they all are set up. If the article is edited to move sentences around, the shuffling could result in these numbers being placed in the middle of the paragraph (which would require a non-breaking space). In this case, it is best to go with the MOS guidelines, and if there is desire to change how they are formatted, that should be discussed on the MOS guideline page itself. That will ensure that not only will this article be correct based on consensus, but for other articles as well that rely on the MOS.


 * By the way, thanks for altering the template for the currency conversion, I wasn't aware of that parameter that would negate the annual update. That will definitely be helpful for other articles. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So you think somebody with a small display relative to the size of their text will appreciate niceties such as non-breaking spaces? If a 14-character string such as "On 31 December" doesn't fit on the screen, then there's little we can do to make it look good. If their screen is so narrow or their text so large that the date at the beginning of a paragraph is partially pushed to the next line, they have more important visual issues than non-breaking spaces, and we may be adding to their woes by not allowing the text to wrap. This is why I think infoboxes and the beginnings of paragraphs are not the places for non-breaking spaces.
 * As well, I see no reason to spread non-breaking spaces everywhere in an article in the possibility that the phrase might be moved elsewhere some time in the future. That bridge can be crossed at that time. Binksternet (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You are wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting that the way that Wikipedia is viewed differs for different people, and the text can stretch across a large monitor while being limited to a few words in a row with a small screen on a mobile device. As much as we'd like to think that we can always add the non-breaking spaces later if statements are moved, that may not occur, especially if it's done by a new or unregistered user that is unfamiliar with MOS. If the non-breaking spaces are already present, and serving their designated purpose, I don't see why we would need to remove them when they would possibly need to be added again in the future. I don't think anyone here is going to watch this page just in the off-chance of adding another non-breaking space when the article is changed. I'd like to think that we would be more focused on more important details of the article or other areas of Wikipedia instead. As this article heads to FAC, there may be other changes suggested, and the fact that the spaces have already been addressed will not require further editing when statements are possibly moved around or new details expanded. If the article was on a website that was constant and didn't have the possiblity of multiple revisions at any time as Wikipedia allows, then I'd have no problem in having the non-breaking spaces just for the numbers of the middle paragraph. In the same manner that I add citations after nearly every line to prepare for statements that may be moved and new content is added, the non-breaking spaces can serve the same purpose. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * But the date changes you made aren't consistent with the day/month/year military format... Magus732 (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked through WikiProject Military history/Style guide and I didn't see any designated requirements for how dates should be set up. As long as the dates are uniform throughout the article, I don't think there's an issue. Do you know of another area where it recommends an alternate date formatting? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit
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! Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  03:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)

Subject Timeline information and research on Cabanatuan
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)
 * 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)

Breuer citation
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)

That would be a tremendous mistake and you propose an impossible alternative. No one has published anything that directly and specifically says Breuer is wrong, but NO ONE has repeated the story or published anything that backs up, or supports in any way, what he wrote. Your solution represents a case where one author who gets it badly wrong has his misinformation passed along as fact simply because no one bothered to refute his misinformation. The description on the Wiki page is essentially what Breuer wrote in his book. The problem is that Breuer's info is simply false. Where did it come from? Breuer doesn't specifically cite the source, or offer a direct quotation, but the surrounding material suggests it came from an interview with William Delich, of the 59th CA Regt, who was a POW at Cabanatuan. So it appears to be a case where one man, many years after the fact, reported a remarkable incident--the execution of 20 men--that no one else had ever mentioned, and the author accepted it and reported it as fact. Contrast that with the executions of three officers, Biggs, Breitung, and Gilbert, in Sept 1942 that has appeared in virtually every history that mentions Cabanatuan. Surely if everyone remembers that execution, someone else would have remembered that two 10 man shooting squads were eliminated? Probably the most detailed period source for Cabanatuan is "Of Rice and Men" which was edited by Capt. Calvin Chunn and published in 1946 or 47. Of Rice and Men lists the six men, not four, who escaped and were executed on 26 June 1942, in the incident Breuer says initiated the 10 man shooting squads: were Fred Reed, Irvin Penrose, Robert Graham Jr., Thomas E. Hunt, Jose Gastelum, and Kenneth Sisson. Four of them were buried outside the main camp and two buried on the hospital side (my father helped bury the two on the hospital side.) The burials are verified in the Cabanatuan Death records prepared by Capt. Robert W. Conn who was the graves registration officer at the camp, copies of which I possess and have transcribed with John Eakin who has posted portions of the data at http://bataanmissing.com/cabanatuan-burial-roster/. Single men were executed on 5 july (Pete Martinez), 28 Aug (Thomas Long), and possibly 31 Aug (although John Fox was more likely executed on a Bridge work detail), and the famous incident when 3 men, Biggs, Breitung, and Gilbert were tortured beaten and ultimately executed on Sept 29. Quite simply, neither a key period source that mentioned numerous executions by name, nor the official Cabanatuan Death roster lists any group of executions of a group of 10 or 20 men. The bottom line is there were no 10 man shooting squad executions at Cabanatuan; however, such an incident did occur elsewhere in the Philippine. It happened on the Lumban Bridge work detail after a POW named George Lightman escaped. On 12 June 1942 the Japanese commander of the detail picked out 10 men and had them shot in retaliation for the escape. That was the only time when the 10 man rule was actually enforced and it predated the escape of the 4 (really 6) men at Cabanatuan cited in Breuer. Cabanatuan was a miserable, horrible place. Fictionalizations and embellishments only detract from the history and dishonor those who suffered there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kohlerdino (talk • contribs) 03:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC) For completeness I should add that there was one additional mass shooting in retaliation for an escape. Five men were executed on the Calumpit bridge detail on 10 July 42. Their names are known as are those of the men on the Lumban bridge detail. Kohlerdino (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Avi8tor (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)== Primary Units ==

Being the Phillipines, the primary unit should be metric per Wiki Manual of style with conversions that are rounded,not exact. The estimation of distance 48 km is too exact, as is the lowest altitude 9,1 m flown by the black widow, all of these distances ordimensions of the camp in yards are estimations and the equivelant metres are probably the same, this should be reflected in the units show.Avi8tor (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
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)

511
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)

Myth that Geneva Convention prohibits the arming of medical personnel
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)
 * Thank you. —¿philoserf? (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Japanese Commander
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)


 * I removed it, it was indeed absurd. 5.173.74.65 (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)