Talk:Hellfire Pass

Merge proposal with Burma_Railway

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Hellfire Pass has changed considerably over the last 2 years and there is hardly any overlap. I added a small section to Burma Railway and a prominent link, so a merge is no longer required. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

---

"Hellfire Pass" in Kanchanaburi, Thailand is definitely a place that needs its own Wikipedia entry. Many visit it and will seek the entry for more information. I was there yesterday (Nov. 29, 2008) and it now has a fine museum and walking trail to the real pass, nice parking and possibility of picnic-ing. The area also uses this name, "Hellfire Pass," to locate an agriculture/army base nearby. The name is well known in the Thai language with no change when spoken by a native Thai speaker. The Bridge on the River Kwai is still there, with one section original, and the light show done there on special occasions is very nice with live actors, full sized buildings from the "Death March" era, and a great sound track.

The opening paragraph of this article deals with Hellfire Pass, but the remainder of it deals with the Burma Railway in general, duplicating a lot of the Burma_Railway article. I think the Hellfire Pass paragraph could be incorporated into this article as a subsection, and the other information absorbed into the article. Johnmc 07:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems to have fallen into the cracks, reopening the merge proposalJohnmc (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hellfire Pass is a place of special significance, at least to Australians, on the Burma Railway. IMHO it does deserve an article of its own, with links with the main article of course. --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I myself am an Australian, I think that they can be merged. Just make sure there is a redirect.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reopening

From a visit there on Nov. 29, 2008, there continues to be talk of running regular trains over the route, including the Bridge on the River Kwai. The bridge will hold a full sized train and engine as shown during the light show there.

Don't quite get what you mean? There have been services running on the Ban Pong - Nam Tok section of line since the end of the war. Do you mean a rebuilding of the line to Burma? Johnmc (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

according to the page on the burma railway - there is talk of one day reopening the route to rail traffic

here it says that there are no plans for such a scheme

what source is right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.219.190 (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure. However, any potential Thailand-Burma railway cannot use the *exact* route of the old line, simply because there is now a hydro electric dam on the Kwai Noi, flooding the old route. Johnmc (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hellfire Pass. 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/20100814171053/http://www.hellfirepass.com/museum_hellfire_pass.html to http://www.hellfirepass.com/museum_hellfire_pass.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

IP:212.136.9.4

The above IP is edit warring and refusing to answer any contributions on their Talk page regarding their deletion on this article. The offending sentence is just information that might be of use to visitors to this WW2 site. Initially they deleted without reason and now claim that it is "POV" and reads like a travel log, whilst I believe the sentence is informative and should stay. For some reason I have been accused of a "power trip", which I find unacceptable and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. I am happy to abide by other editors views. David J Johnson (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

David J Johnson - Maybe we should start off on a good foot and try this approach instead:

"Hi, 212.136.9.4! I'm starting this talk page discussion so that we can resolve this content dispute that we've been having over this article for quite some time now. Can you explain your arguments for removing this content from the article (and citing relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines to support your argument)? I will respond with my arguments and cite relevant policies and guidelines as well. Then, we can try and work out a resolution from there. Thanks :-)"

Remember, you're trying to work directly with this user; address them directly as if you're having a conversation, and if things draw a line between the two of you, agree to get the input of more users and work together to resolve the dispute :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I am quite happy with this wording and await comments. David J Johnson (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Funny I'm accused of "edit warring" - me alone? You did no reversions then? I've already stated in the edit comments: this is completely POV wording and provides no useful information. Since you insist on dragging this out let's analyse the paragraph in detail and I'll break it down for you:

"It is possible in one day to visit the Erawan Waterfall in the morning, followed by a visit to Hellfire Pass and its museum in the afternoon, and then catch the train back to Kanchanaburi to cross the bridge around sunset."

Let's start with the fact that it states "It's possible in one day". So it might be possible for YOU to visit everything in one day but what if someone is disabled? Do they have the possibility to do all that in one day? Does the infrastructure exist to allow them to get round all of these places in one day? Actually, having been there myself, I'd say that's quite difficult and so this is deliberately misleading. Erawan Falls is a waterfall consisting of seven tiers - so when we say "visit Erawan Waterfall" are we talking about visiting one tier, two tiers, climbing to the top tier? People all climb at different rates so are we saying everyone can climb to the top tier and then visit everything else in one day? Even if they're elderly perhaps? The fact is, none of this matters, this is all point-of-view information which provides nothing for a reader looking for encyclopedic content.

Secondly it states that you "then catch the train to Kanchanaburi to cross the bridge around sunset" - who cares? I could catch the train in the morning, the afternoon - it really doesn't matter.

I'll state this again: this is not meant to be a tourist guide! Stick to hard facts when it comes to Wikipedia please.

I've made my point now and I'm not wasting any more time on this. I'd be happy for an independent adjudicator such as ~Oshwah~ to make a final call.

212.136.9.4 (talk) 07:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Why the constant aggressive tone? I have already stated that I agree that Wikipedia is not a "tourist guide", but felt the information was of use to readers who intend to visit this WW2 site and I invited you to rewrite the offending line - but if it is deleted - so be it. And question stills stands why ignore the entries on your Talk page? However, despite your remarks on "power trip" - which is hardly the way Wikipedia operates, I am prepared to abide by someone, such as Oshwah to decide the final call. Perhaps you could consider starting a Wikipedia account too? With best wishes, David J Johnson (talk) 11:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

You are both more than welcome to factor my response and input made here on my talk page to help with coming to a decision if you wish. What I'm mostly concerned about right now is that this discussion between you two remain civil and come to a peaceful resolution. 212.136.9.4, I understand your frustration and highly encourage you look past these emotions and try and help this discussion come to a peaceful close. It's important that we do our best to look past such emotions when discussing a dispute and put the project first (as hard as I know and completely understand that it can be). I'm more than happy to assist with any questions or requests for help if any of you need it; just let me know and I'll be happy to do so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hellfire Pass. 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/20100922103915/http://anzacday.org.au/history/ww2/anecdotes/deathrailway.html to http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww2/anecdotes/deathrailway.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070127232723/http://english.vietnamnet.vn/social/2006/03/550229/ to http://english.vietnamnet.vn/social/2006/03/550229

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect info

Still see that Wiki is stating incorrect info on this Kannyu cutting. 69 men beaten to death..I suppose it adds drama to an already hellish story despite being a complete fantasy. Grauwulf (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Once again, you need to supply reliable, secondary, sources for any changes you may wish to make. You have already been advised of this and nothing happens? The offending line in your opinion is properly sourced. Also you placed your latest comment in entirely the wrong position, which had to be changed by another editor. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)