Talk:World War II casualties/Archives/2015/November

Tarawa
As written the caption for the Battle of Tarawa picture reads as if there were 6,000 American dead. I intend to reword it to "American corpses sprawled on the beach of Tarawa. The Marines secured the island after 76 hours of intense fighting. American dead totaled 1,696. Over 100,000 American military personnel died in the Pacific War." I tried a couple of ways to work in the total, ie inclusive of Japanese, dead, but couldn't without completely rewriting the caption; the picture and the text focus on the American. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Say, what is your source for the 1,696 American dead?--Woogie10w (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Wright, D., 2000, Tarawa 1943: The Turning of the Tide, Oxford: Osprey Publishing Ltd., ISBN 1841761028. Page 93. You can find the detailed breakdown in Battle of Tarawa. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

OK now I understand, you included the Navy losses--Woogie10w (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you think that "The island was secured after 76 hours of intense fighting with over 1,000 American Marines killed." works better as a middle sentence? I found the original text confusing - "6,000 dead Americans?" It seems that my first suggested revision has a similar effect. Or, perhaps "American corpses sprawled on the beach of Tarawa. The Marines secured the island after 76 hours of intense fighting. There were over 6,000 US, Japanese and Korean dead in total." And cut the bit on total US Pacific theatre dead, which is getting rather a long way from the picture. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It's up to you be bold and edit, I pity those poor Koreans who had to die for the Emperor--Woogie10w (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks for the input. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorting errors
Anyone know why there are sorting errors on this table, particularly with the civilian casualties that do not sort properly but instead sort by first number only. Krazytea ( talk ) 04:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

There are also issues with sorting in many of the other columns. The one that caught my attention was total population, it seems to sort by the leading number rather than the total number. 50.92.38.138 (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)