Talk:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Featured article star Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 9, 2006.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This History article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

I have this picture on the back of my motorcycle trailer in memory of my husband, a loyal Marine.

Traveling, you quickly know the Marines and loyal service personnel. I get the "thumbs up" by passers-by. I get "Semper Fi" when in a parking lot.

I am sadden by the number of young people who don't know what it is. Recently, I picked some supplies up with the trailer. Several young people complemented me on the picture. I said, "Gee, do you know what it is?" "No" each one replied. "Do you know about Iwo Jima", I asked. "No", they relied. "So you never heard of Ira Hayes?" "I'll bet that's History, huh?" said one.

Just what do they teach kids in school now?

Thank you to every Service person for the life you provide us.

This is not a talk page or blog; it is for discussion of the encyclopedia article itself (changes to be made, requests for clarification, etc.). Comments like this would be more suitable on a personal web page. Thanks. Matt Deres 04:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
You're right, Matt Deres, but do you have to be such a goddam, condescending bitch about it?? Elizabeth R
No kidding! In regards to the article-- I had heard that this photo was staged. True/False?
Ah, that should be covered in the article. No, it was not staged, but that rumor has dogged the picture. Allow me to explain. There were two flag raisings that morning. The first flag, however, was too small. So (second plantoon?) E company was dispatched to replace it with a much bigger flag. That second flag raising was the one caught in this photo. Afterwards, everyone was so excited, Rosenthal had them all pose and took a picture of them (here's a photo of Rosenthal taking the posed picture). So Rosenthal sent his film to Guam to be developed. On guam, they developed the photo, realized how amazing it was, so they wrote back to Rosenthal asking if "it" was staged. Rosenthal didn't realize they were asking about hte flag *raising* picture, he thought they were asking about the group photo after the flag raising. So he wrote back and said that yes, it was. That's why this rumor has dogged the photo. There's also video footage the marines raising the flag that corrolates *identically* with the flag raising photo. Thus, the picture was demonstrably not posed. Raul654 06:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


This is not the real first raising. The article should contain the truth that others raised the first flag. There is only one remaining American serviceman still alive (living quietly in Minnesota), his service should be noted.

Contents

[edit] NetBSD

On 14:27, 23 February 2006, 69.6.101.194 (talk • contribs) removed information on the inspiration of an old NetBSD logo without logging in and without giving an edit summary. Why was this warranted? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 14:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


READ THE BOOD FLAGS OR OUR FATHERS ITS A GREAT BOOK ABOUT THE FLAGRASING

[edit] Reichstag picture? Come again?

Picture in question
Picture in question

Removed this: "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima bears a striking resemblance to Yevgeny Khaldei's Soviet flag over the Reichstag photo from April 30, 1945, taken during the Battle of Berlin."

Not only does it not bear any resemblance, other than it in involves a flag during WWII, there is no citation justifying the inclusion of a comparison. Comments? --Easter Monkey 04:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, these are two famous WW2 photos featuring a flag. I don't see why it shouldn't be linked.  Grue  06:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Meh, I suppose, but I wouldn't call the resemblance "striking." How about a see also, pointing to "another notable WWII flag pic" instead of the comment I took out? --Easter Monkey 06:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
It symbolizes the Russians triumph over the Germans, much like the U.S's triumph over the Japanese in a major WWII battle. Oh and I also updated the links with the Commons version. - Hbdragon88 07:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, meh...What does the Russian storming of the Reichstag have to do with the U.S. securing Iwo Jima? Not much, the only similarity that I can see is that they are both famous WWII photos of flags being raised. The context is completely different, the stories behind the photos is different, the numbers of people in the photo are different, etc. The Russians taking the Reichstag symbolized the complete victory over Germany. The capturing of Iwo Jima, although very significant in that the island would surely be used as a jumping off point for an invasion of the Japanese home islands, is not quite as significant. That is to say, capturing Iwo Jima does not equate capturing Berlin. Of course the Battle of Iwo Jima was extremely important not only to those who fought and died there but to the greater war effort, but saying that the two photographs resemble each in a striking fashion is misleading at best. If the U.S. had invaded Tokyo, and a photograph had been taken of a U.S. soldier or Marine raising a flag over the Japanese parliament HQ or other prominent governmental building, then yes, that photo would indeed bear a striking resemblance. But these two photos? I say no, and that is also part of the problem, no citation or scholarly source. If you can find a source then my arguments are of course moot. But, that they are two very famous WWII photos of flags being raised I don't have an issue. A See also: other WWII flag photos link, would be very appropriate I think. --Easter Monkey 07:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the picture should probably be mentioend in the article somewhere, but I don't have strong feelings one way or the other. However, this article *will not* have a see-also. See-also's are evil, mindless, degenerate writing that has no place in a featured article. Raul654 07:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Point well taken. It would have looked stupid as a one line See also section. --Easter Monkey 08:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, both are iconic flag-raising photographs from WWII, indicative of the Allies triumphing over the Axis, but the compositions are not all that similar (flagpole up from bottom right to middle, with soldiers at the base of the flagpole, but the flags are flying in different directions, the backgrounds and points of view are different). A citation comparing or contrasting the two would be great, though.
Surely there are other examples of homage or parody, other than the cover of Monstrous Regiment? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes there are. Status Quo, the music group, had a song called 'In the Army Now'. The cover is obviously a homage to it. Douglasnicol 15:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

http://eil.com/newgallery/Status-Quo-In-The-Army-Now-52704.jpg

[edit] Dammit

I was going to run this as the featured article on Joe Rosenthal's 95th birhtday (coincidentally a few days before hte movie comes out) but he died yesterday :( Raul654 17:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

94 isn't bad... But don't change your plans, please! --Jumbo 20:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You know, when Joe Rosenthal died, a number of editoral cartoons ran that used the image on various topics, including eulogies. This could probably be added to the article, but I don't know where to find those cartoons now. howcheng {chat} 21:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats a good idea; however, I do not know where to find these cartoons either. When you find them though, that would be an interesting addition to the article. Wikipediarules2221 02:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "possibly the most reproduced photograph of all time"

I realise this is sourced, but the source does only say "possibly".  ? Stu ’Bout ye! 08:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

ultimately came to be regarded as one of the most significant and recognizable images in history
Frankly I couldn't believe this article made it to featured status with such weasel words in the first paragraph! Personally I've never even seen the photo before so it can't be that significant and recognisable. Better words would be "has been called" which is what the sourced AP article said. Came to be regarded implies a regard by unspecified persons, presumably the world community in general. Has been called means that one or more individuals have called it that.
Ben Arnold 10:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
If you have never seen this image before then you need to crawl out of whatever rock you have been hiding under. --Looper5920 11:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
As a non-American, I also never ever saw this photograph before. At best, it reminds me of the painting La Liberté guidant le peuple. However, I did see Soviet flag over the Reichstag before. There are definately many more (globally) significant and (globally) recognizable pictures in existance, e.g. The Blue Marble (according to Wikipedia, one of the most widely distributed photographic images in existence). I would presume these really iconic images get reproduced more widely and more often. — Adhemar 11:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[1], [2], [3], [4]. Here are 4 more quick references for the above claim I pulled from Google. I left out the ones I thought may be construed as biased but AP, Wash Post, NY Times and A&E TV are not the worst of sources. Bottomeline is that it is a valid claim. Not only has it been a Pulitzer prize winner, stamp, war bond poster and yes propoganda but it has been so for over 60 years. Hope this helps.--Looper5920 11:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
It does to me. Thanks. (From time to time, I seem to not know something that is common knowledge in a large part of the world. Then again, that's why we have Wikipedia.) — Adhemar 13:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC) [P.S. Of these sources, AP might be biased, as they are copyright holder. But I disgress]
I changed my mind again: It no longer does to me. As rightly pointed out below, all of those sources are American. And apparently I'm not the only person not to know the picture. — Adhemar 10:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
According to your user page, you have a specific interest in U.S. Military History, so you are highly likely to know about photos that have significance in U.S. military. If the photo has significance internationally, why do all the sources you cite hail from the United States? Anyway, my main point is that the the phrase has come to be regarded is a weasel phrase (see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words). Regardless of the truth of the comment, the way it is presented gives the impression of bias. (By the way, I do think it's a good photo!) Ben Arnold 17:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Weasel words shouldn´t be allowed on a "featured" article. I have heard in a lot of places than Korda´s "Che Guevara" picture "ultimately came to be regarded as one of the most significant and recognizable images in history", outside the USA. So? without reliable citations, those phrases are completely irrelevant.

I had to Google to find the photo you're talking about, and yes I've seen that one a billion times. Of course, this isn't about what you or I or anyone else finds familiar, it's about attributing opinions to sources and not to unnamed protagonists hiding behind the passive voice. Ben Arnold 17:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Agree. To me, Che Guevara is far more iconic than Raising the Flag. A bit higher Ben Arnold is also right: all cited sources are American based, the statement might be very US-centric. Che Guevara and The Blue Marble are very know, also outside South and North America respectively, Raising the Flag probably far less so. — Adhemar 07:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words are "some people say" or "it has been claimed" - claims without clear attribution. Providing a source (in this case, the Associated Press), it is, by definition, not weasel words. The reason it says "possibly" is because there's nobody keeping clear tabs on just how many copies of all images get produced - so any claim along these lines is inherently a best guess. Raul654 17:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The most significant and recognizable images in history, and possibly the most reproduced photograph of all time may be true for the US but the other backward countries may not recognize inherent greatness of the photo. Picking a Czech language book "Japanese War 1931 - 1945" by Aleš Skřivan, 1997, ISBN 80-85983-28-1, there's picture of landing on Iwo Jima but not the flag (it mentions the photo, though). Obviously the book must be lacking ignoring such a monument of photography for a photo of actual war action.
Pavel Vozenilek 21:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Raul. Yes, a source is provided, but the words are weaselly because they don't attribute the claim to the source. I'd be looking to replace:
ultimately came to be regarded as one of the most significant and recognizable images in history, and possibly the most reproduced photograph of all time.[1]
...with...
has been claimed as the most memorable photograph of World War II and possibly the most widely reproduced photograph of all time.[1]
Ben Arnold 09:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
(Belated entry) The following is extracted from a BBC article: The photograph of the US Marines raising the flag over Mount Suribachi was taken by Associated Press photographer Joe Rosenthal and is one of the most famous images of the war. It won the Pulitzer Prize in 1945.[5] SoLando (Talk) 11:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In his talk at the TED conference 2006, Larry Brilliant claims that the most reproduced photograph shows a child suffering from smallpox. During the smallpox eradication program, 150,000 people performed door to door searches for the disease. They distributed two billion copies of this picture to aid recognition of smallpox. He explicitly states that its circulation exceeds that of The Blue Marble. Video source at [6], 05:32 - 06:07. --Akatose 23:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Felix de Weldon

This name, appearing several times in the article, is spelled [last name] as DeWeldon De Weldon deWeldon, and de Weldon. What is the correct term, and it should be made consistent. --Dumarest 12:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article Felix de Weldon says Felix de Weldon and notes no spelling variants or issues. So I'm fixing everything to that form. — Adhemar 13:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Ronson" sherman

Underneath the flame modified sherman picture it is described as a "ronson sherman". I believe that the nickname "Ronson" was bestowed by German troops to the Sherman because of how easily it lit on fire when shot by a shell(ronson was a brand of lighter),not the flame modification.

I think this is a coincidence: the tanks were certainly know as "Ronsons" for their tendancy to light on the first strike; however, the flame-throwing equipment that was added to these tanks was known as the Ronson system. See the caption to the image here - A Marine flame tank, also known as a "Ronson," scorches a Japanese strongpoint. The eight M4A3 Shermans equipped with the Navy Mark 1 flame-thrower proved to be the most valuable weapons systems on Iwo Jima. Department of Defense Photo (USMC) 14075. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh silly me! I didn't click the article for the "Ronson system". Gothca. --Ashmole 20:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stamps

Someone keeps putting in the urban legend, which is present on the Web, that the 1945 stamp showing the photo was the best selling stamp in US Post Office History, at least for many years. This just isn't true. It was outsold by three other stamps from 1945 (http://www.1847usa.com/identify/YearSets/1945.htm) And it is not even a hair on the record holder for a commemorative, which has held the record for over sixty years, 3 cent Win the War stamp of 1942, with over 20 billion sold (http://www.1847usa.com/identify/YearSets/1942.htm). The Iwo Jima stamp's 137 million was good, but not exceptional. As for the claim that living people could not be depicted on US stamps, that was not quite true. The policy was against honoring individual living people--though there were exceptions to this, Lindbergh had his name on a 1927 stamp (but no photo). A number of living people were depicted on the Navy commemorative the same year--which outsold the Iwo Jima stamp, by the way.--Wehwalt 15:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I looked at this source again, and Wehwalt is correct. Somehow I missed the issance numbers the first time I looked at that source. Raul654 15:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I am troubled by putting in that it sold 137 million copies, without context that it was the fourth best of the year. Frankly, though I don't have a source for this, the sales were determined more or less by print run minus spoilage minus a small number of returns when the stamps went off sale, so all the stamps that sold around 130 million were basicly the same in popularity. Postmasters didn't want to deal with returns of accountable paper, so they would push sales of stamps near (and, frankly, even after) the off-sale date.--Wehwalt 16:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whither the first flag?

Should there be a mention of who was in the first group of flag raisers? -HiFiGuy 19:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

One of the references for Hank Hansen has a list and a photo - [7] - First Lieutenant Harold G. Schrier, Platoon Sergeant Ernest I. Thomas Jr., Sergeant Henry O. Hansen, Corporal Charles W. Lindberg, Private First Class Louis C. Charlo and Private First Class James Michels. The (less famous) photograph was taken by Sergeant Louis R. Lowery. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
With that being said, shouldn't there also be an article about the original flag raising? It's an extremely significant moment because without the first raising, there never would have been a second. There is one man on the planet who I think would agree. His name is Charles W. Lindberg, the last surviving member of either event. I may just create that article myself. J-Dog 00:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
What are you going to call it? Raising the First Flag on Iwo Jima? Hbdragon88 03:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a good question. Kinda does present a problem doesn't it? I don't know what to call it. But there deffinately should be an article about the event. To the men that fought there, the first raising was a helluva lot more meaningful. I think your name idea sounds pretty good actually. Thtat's what Charles W. Lindberg calls it. J-Dog 11:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The raising of the first flag surely deserves mention. Bradley's book, and Eastwood/Spielberg's movie adaptation of the book, both do a wonderful job of emphasizing the emotional and important raising of that first flag. Part of the complete story of the famous raising is the odd circumstance that brought about its fame. It would do well as a stand-alone section here, in the 'Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima' wiki, or as its own. - Thaimoss 00:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't see why you can't just have a headed paragraph in the article listing the names of the original flag raisers. Currently the article only mentions two by name, in different sections, and sort of in passing only. If nothing else it provides context and cohesivness to the first flag raising, and clarifies who was/wasn't involved (which I lost track of in the Eastwood film). There can't be too much more to be said that's not already in the article so a new one probably isn't necessary (but if you want too ...) The Yeti 17:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peacock words in the lead

I consulted a couple of friends from various countries of Eastern Europe. Neither had seen the picture before it appeared on Main Page, accompanied by the peacock statement that it is the most significant and recognizable image in history. I would add a disclaimer: "American history". The picture of the taking of the Reichstag above, while documenting a more historically "significant" event, is known to every kid in the former Soviet Union. It's not good to proclaim either the U.S or S.U. image "the most recognizable in history", unless it is specified in which country it is so recognizable. Systemic bias should be avoided. Perhaps we should mention that both pictures, while illustrating the concept of Romantic nationalism, nod to Liberty Leading the People, as Adhemar reasonably points out above. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

And I consulted a few friends from Australia, New Zealand and the Phillipines and they were all very aware of the picture. It was heavily imaged during their World War II history courses (exuse me if I don't call it the "Great Patriotic War" - what a LAUGH). So I guess the world doesn't revolve around the former Soviet Bloc, either. MapleLeaf

[edit] Dead Kennedys

It occurs to me that while the part of the entry discussing the Dead Kennedys' use of the picture is a valid example of its counter-culture usage, this part of the entry should be shortened, or otherwise edited. It seems rather too extensive, and the level of background given is unnecessary and disrupts the flow of the entry.

[edit] An versus A

This is getting ridiculous. The rule is that 'an' precedes a word starting with a vowel sound, and 'a' precedes one starting with a consonant sound. "Historic", depending on whether or not you aspirate the 'h', can start with either -- so it's correct either way. So stop changing it already. Raul654 17:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

See also: http://www.betterwritingskills.com/tip-w005.html Raul654 17:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to revert the change (back to ‟a historic”), because ‟an historic” sounds so wrong to me. Now I learned both are right, I’ll refrain myself. — Adhemar 18:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confederate flag

I added the sentence "A Confederate flag was raised upon Suribachi after its fall, but was quickly replaced with the Stars and Stripes." I learned this in the very well researched book Coski, John M. (2005) The Confederate Battle Flag: America's Most Embattled Emble. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-01722-6. It surprised me, but Coski has many excellent sources for this event and for the popularity of confederate flags among the troops in general. I thought it was worth mentioning here. I'd quote the page number but I just returned the book to the library. I hope the sentence doesn't annoy anyone. Pfly 19:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I do want a page number, because this is the first time I've heard *any* source indicating this and I have a great deal of trouble believing it. Raul654 20:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll look it up next time I'm at the library. You can delete it if you'd like until I can come up with a better citation/info. And even then, it may be trivial; then again, it seems weird and interesting to me. I'll get back on it.. Pfly 21:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, the soldiers who flew the confederate flag at Iwo Jima were not doing it as some kind of symbolic act so much as a way to have fun with an unofficial symbol that was popular among some units. The higher ranking officers were not pleased. But again, I'll have to recheck for the details and I'll check Coski's sources too. I'm not a supporter of the confederate flag so much as just curious about it, after seeing its use in many ways during a trip through the South recently. Pfly 23:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Just to follow up, I got the book again and discovered I was wrong -- the Confederate flag was raised from the ruins of Shuri Castle upon the fall of Okinawa, not Iwo Jima and Mount Shuribachi. My mistake; sorry. Pfly 00:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fiedler

Hiya, I am reading a biography of Leslie Fiedler, one of the most noteworthy commentators on American culture in the 20th century, who was in fact present at the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima. Dunno if you can use this quote, I like it a lot:

Because the wind was wrong the first time, the entire ritual had to be photographed a second time. He [Fiedler] saw "the photographer (no doubt dreaming of a Pulitzer Prize) gesticulating frantically as he urged his weary amateur cast to act once more - and this time get it right - themselves in their historical roles". ("Remembering", 3) (...) "To be authentically American," Leslie writes, "an icon had to be at least partially fake."

This is from Mark Royden Winchell: "Too Good to Be True". The Life And Work Of Leslie Fiedler. University of Missouri Press: Columbia 2002, pp. 40-41. The Reference is to "Remembering Iwo Jima: A Trip Though Time", said in the appendix to be a "Typescript in the author's possession". --Janneman 19:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Erm, no. It's flatly wrong, and totally contradicted by (literally) every other piece of evidence in the record. Raul654 19:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC) (also, as a side note, I find that last sentence rather insulting, actually).

maybe, but pithy & true all the same. --Janneman 20:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who named the "Gung-Ho" Picture

I have deleted the note that claims James Bradley was the one responsible for naming the group picture of Marines beneath the flag the "Gung-Ho" shot. Rosenthal always called it this. It is called this in the 1995 book "Shadow of Suribachi: Raising The Flags on Iwo Jima" (a copy of which I have before me) by Parker Bishop Albee, Jr. and Keller Cushing Freeman, so it definitely was not nicknamed by James Bradley in his 2000 book "Flags of Our Fathers." Sir Rhosis 20:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robeson - First or Second Flag Raising?

PFC James "Chick" Robeson was involved (or not involved, as the case may be) in the first flag raising, not the second. The Japanese officer attacking from the cave occured during the first. By the time the second was raised, things had calmed down on the top of the mountain. Robeson is interviewed fairly extensively about his role in the first flagraising in "Shadows of Suribachi: Raising The Flags on Iwo Jima" by Parker Bishop Albee, Jr. and Keller Cushing Freeman, 1995, Praeger Publishers, ISBN 0-275-95063-8. Sir Rhosis 22:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

From what I read, it was the fist raising that used the pipe for an improvised flagpole, the second and more famous raising used a pole especially designed for that purpose. ---kchishol1970 04:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect. Raul654 04:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture now available

I was at my gilfriend's parents' house this weekend. While there, we took a day trip to the new Marine Corps museum in Virginia, so I got a picture of the flag from the second (more famous) flag raising. The conditions of the flag (absolutely positively no flash photography, and lots of overhead lights on the glass) made it hard to get a good picture, but it's passable. I think this is a BIG addition to this article. Raul654 01:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Its a great addition, thanks. I hope you don't mind me doing a few edits to crop the photo and take some of the reflections off the glass. If not, feel free to revert to your image. SteveHopson 03:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing/replaced frames on video?

Stepping through the video of the flag raising, I notice a skipped sequence right about the point where the video most closely resembles Rosenthal's image, which has been replaced by earlier frames. The flagpole lurches at first, than repeats part of its motion over a half second or so. It's as if the very image that most resembles Rosenthal's has been edited out and then replaced with others to make the break in the sequence less noticeable. (There are also several frame duplications and skips throughout the sequence which I presume may have something to do with mapping frame rate differences between film and ogg format, but that's not what I am talking about.). Any known explanations? Boris 17:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't know about the video linked to from this site as I've never watched it, since I have all of Genaust's footage in original color, and like you have "stepped" through it frame-by-frame. There is only one edit in the original film, and that is done "in camera." Genaust first filmed the guys holding the pole, awaiting Schrier's command to raise it (and lower the other). During this sequence Franklin Sousley ambles over from off frame and is the last of the six to join the group. After Sousley is in place, the film "jumps" (Genaust stopped filming, and moved to a slightly more "head on" position beside Rosenthal) and the next frame shows the guys starting to push the pole upward. There is no edit in the original film as the flag is raised and the guys steady the pole. Genaust was afraid of running out of film and stopped filming until the flag was really ready to be raised, plus he moved to a better filming angle. Sir Rhosis 23:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cropped version

Why was the cropped version of the picture removed? (If memory served it used to be here.) While the one currently on the page is, indeed, the photo Mr. Rosenthal took, the cropped image is the one that ignited the imagination of the country. Some (well, maybe just me) have argued that without the cropping, the photo simply does not have the same impact. Let's give credit to the editor who knew what to throw away and what to keep. Jinian 21:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A versus An, round two

I see people are at it again, despite previous discussion on the matter. I will say it again - please do not change the first sentence. It's correct either way. Raul654 23:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Dead Kennedys reference.

One such example is from Hardcore punk band The Dead Kennedys artwork for the back cover of their album Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death. The picture depicts a mock version of the original photo, with the American flag replaced by a Coca-Cola flag. The re-interpretation of this famous image signifes the band's ideology and belief in the evils of the corporatizing of America and the world.

I found an image of the Dead Kennedys cover [8] and it appears to have very little connection to the Iwo Jima photo. Sure, it shows a flag raising, but a completely different one. I have removed the above paragraph accordingly. --HappyDog 12:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/i/Talk%7ERaising_the_Flag_on_Iwo_Jima_48dc.html"