Talk:Battle of Iwo Jima

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Battle of Iwo Jima was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: April 25, 2008
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Japan To-do:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Iwo Jima article.
Article policies

What about the Japanese? The text right now is written from an US point of perspective. Possible topics: Why were the Japanese on Iwo Jima. How many involved, how many died... There were around 27,000 American deaths. The word 'kamikazi' on this page should be 'kamikaze'. Kami (god/divine) Kaze (wind).

Actually this entire article is about Japanese forces. American forces, and the battle itself, appear to be all but ignored. And no, there were not 27,000 American deaths. That's total casualties, including minor wounds. I take it, you're Japanese? Actually, I would be interested in something on the history of the island, and how the Japanese literally stole it.68.5.64.178 22:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Conquering lands during war is not "stealing." If it were, every single country on the planet would be guilty. LordAmeth 10:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
It is stealing and "every single country on the planet" is guilty.

Could You format Polish version: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitwa_o_Iwo_Jime I can't do it. Or put this request in a right place?

Could You make a language link?

Contents

[edit] casualties

  • there are conflicting numbers of casualties for American and Japanese deaths in the battle of iwo juma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadamichi_Kuribayashi says only 282 survived, this article says a thousand.

How many US casualties are there? The "aftermath" section says more than 20000, the statistics i the box used to say 6000. I cahnged that to 26000, but I'm not sure I'm right.

I looked at a couple of the web references listed and cited the U.S. casualty figures in the infobox. Please feel free to do more research and continue to improve the article, it needs it. Cla68 01:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw that it was 6821 dead, so it's wrong in the article.

User:Raul654 removed the clause in Japan from the first paragraph and summarised thus:

While Iwo Jima is considered part of the Toyko Prefecture, calling it "in Japan" is dishonest

I am not sure I understand Raul's objection perfectly. Iwo Jima is a Japanese island, but there is not a single mention of its geography in the article. The article also needs a better context. If it was the phrase "in Japan" - that would suggest being part of the main land - that was the problem, I hope it is okay to call it a Japanese island. Chancemill 08:53, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was talking about. Iwo Jima something like 600 miles away from the main islands. Saying it is "in Japan" is like saying Guam is "in the United States" On the other hand, the new version of the article is fine by me. →Raul654 09:13, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
The Japanese government forcibly occupied it about 80 years before. It wasn't originally Japanese at all.68.5.64.178 22:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Gahh .... I just realised that I added missing info to a section that duplicates the section that I added the same missing info to ages ago. It was only when I wondered what idiot removed the bit about the picture being a reenactmemt and examined the page history that I realised that, for no good reason I can think of, there are in fact two sections about the photo. The first one is better, but the second one is in the right place. Seeing as I am tired enough to be messing up all sorts of things right now, I'll leave it to some other kind soul to make sense of this duplication. I had better get some sleep! (I hate Fridays. Tannin 10:25, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC))

[edit] Question to Gentgeen re: picture

Gentgeen - your picture looks better in the article (IE, it is better proportioned for the table), but mine definetely looks better zoomed in. Is it possible to display your picture while linking to mine? →Raul654 20:16, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

I thought the same thing to, but I don't think you can do that. I posted both pics at the picture's article Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. Gentgeen 20:19, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Leyte

This article contained the sentences:

Months earlier, the Allies had landed on Leyte in the Philippines, only to find it empty of Japanese resistance. The timetable for the operation was sped up by 8 weeks as a result.

This is wrong: the battle of Leyte involved more than 50,000 Japanese. So what is the real version of events? Gdr 11:23, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)


[edit] Current and historical flag

This article uses the current Japanese flag, however the flag of the Japanese empire was different, containing additinal red beams radiating from the central red circle. They are seen as a symbol of the military aggressive politics like occupying neighbour Asian countries by the Japanese empire of that time. I think it would be more accurate to the historical context to use the historical flag.

It's not a national flag, but a naval ensign. Japan has never changed the national flag and the naval ensign.


Actually the Hinomaru isn't "officially" the Japanese ensign. But in context, the Nazi ensign is used when discussing the European theater, so I would say that the "rayed" Japanese ensign would be appropriate.Ceabaird 08:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite Feb 2005

I am rewriting this article. Incoporating text from the PD sources listed here [1] Ydorb

While the paragraphs about agriculture and biology aren't necessary, the physical geography part seems relevant, if perhaps a bit long:
While the northern part of the island was barren but habitable, the southern half of Iwo Jima was essentially uninhabitable. Near the narrow southern tip of the island stands Mount Suribachi, an extinct volcano, which rises to an elevation of about 550 feet. To the north of Suribachi, inland from the beaches, the ground terraces successively upward to form a broad tableland occupying most of the central section of the island. The area between the northern base of Suribachi and the dome-shaped northern plateau is covered by a deep layer of black, volcanic ash so soft and so much subject to drifting that even walking becomes a problem. Wheeled vehicles cannot negotiate such ground; tracked vehicles can move across it only with difficulty.
The northern plateau consists of several elevations; the highest of these is Hill 382, located just east of Motoyama Airfield No. 2, halfway between Motoyama and Minami; two other hills reach a height of 362 feet. Much of this terrain consists of rough and rocky ground, interspersed with deep gorges and high ridges. Sulphur vapor permeates the entire area with a characteristic smell of rotten eggs. The ground itself is hot in this part of the island.
The beaches of Iwo Jima from Kitano Point, the northernmost tip of the island, to Tachiiwa Point, two miles to the southeast, are steep and narrow with many rocky shoals offshore. They border terrain that rises sharply towards the northern plateau. Rough and broken ground is typical of all beaches on northern Iwo Jima, in numerous instances with cliffs that drop off sharply towards the water's edge. Beaches along the southwestern and southeastern shores of the island vary in depth from 150 to 500 feet and generally are free from rocks offshore. The terrain would be level, rising gradually towards the interior, if it were not for the existence of sand terraces created by the action of waves. These terraces, which differ in height and width, are undergoing a constant change depending on the surf and winds. Surf conditions at Iwo are unfavorable, even under normal conditions. The island does not possess any anchorage or other inlets to protect ships from the fury of the sea. Steep beaches bring breakers close to the shore.
—wwoods 18:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How Many Soldiers

I was kinda wondering how many soldiers were in the battle. It might be in the article but could somone post it soon. THNX

Jakob03 12:15, 23 MArch 2005

[edit] WHAT ABOUT THE BATTLE?

The article is very lop-sided in favor of "preparation for the battle". I'm surprised it doesn't say which Japanese soldier dug how many square inches in which cave. There is all of this build-up about who was brought in, what their objectives were, how they carefully planned everything out...then, it's over. The only thing I remember reading about the actual Battle is, they used "flame-throwers and grenades". It doesn't say what happened to any of the specific players in the battle, you know, from the point-of-view of the actual participants? Nobody said what it "felt like" to be there. There isn't a single, subjective account by a single Marine, Japanese soldier or general, which would have been very interesting, to bring the account to life. For example, I read a book about Iwo Jima when I was a kid, and it said, when the Marines waded ashore, there was no sound, just an "eerie silence": no bombardment, no shooting, no banzai attacks...(Sept.)

Yeah, I agree with the guy above here, or girl, it seems like an anti-climax, theres a huge build up, knowing seeminlgy, every detail about the preparations, contrastly, a very short recount of the actual seizure of the island
My impression too. A bit more geography ? Where were the landing strips ? A map perhaps ? Sub-headings on the preparation section ? Wizzy…☎ 17:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
This article is bizarre. It's very well written, good language, entertaining, interesting, detailed - and then BOOM - nothing - wtf? Gardar Rurak 07:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
It looks to me that someone was working hard on the article, but stopped after finishing the "preparation" section and never finished the actual "battle" section. There was a lot more to the battle that isn't mentioned like the last "Banzai" charge that took the U.S. by surprise, thinking that they had the island secured and that came from an area of the island that the U.S. thought no longer was occupied by Japanese troops. Hopefully, all of this information will be added soon. There's plenty of resources out there with info on this battle to use. Cla68 12:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate plan

"which provided for acbcvbcv landing on the western beaches." Can someone please correct this? Skunkoceros 11:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last Japanese Soldier

User: Sigmund1989 I found out last year that there was one soldier from the Japanese Imperial Army that remained hidden until the late 60's. He thought that the war was still going on. When American troops went to set up the memorial, he fired on them. They called out to him telling him that the war had been over for nearly 20 years. Amazing, huh?

I don't believe this is true. Do you have a reference? However, Japanese stragglers were found into the 1970's. On Guam there was Shoichi Yokoi and Hiroo Onoda was in the Phillipines. Ydorb 18:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The probability of anyone "firing on them" with 25 year old ammunition under those conditions is supremely unlikely.

Not at all. Check out the article of Onoda. People still shoot themselves accidentially with WWII amunition... DevSolar 11:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How many US soldiers?

This [2] reference lists the US forces as 30,000 Marines landed the first day. I believe that the number of US Marines on the island reached a maximum of about 70,000. (Can't find a reference right now.) If you include all the sailors and airmen supporting the operation, the number could be in the 100,000 neighborhood. Ydorb 17:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The number should relfect the total number of men that fought - i.e. the sum of all reinforcements. I see various numbers from:
  • "More than 100,000" total [3]
  • "More than 100,000 US" [4]
  • 100,000 US [5]
  • "More than 75,000 US" [6]
  • 75,000 US [7]
  • 70,000 Marines [8] [9]
I just read William Manchester's WWII autobiography "Goodbye, Darkness" and I think he said 100,000 (I'll check later).
Stating Day 1 numbers is a little misleading since it doesn't reflect the actual number of men that it took to take the island. Does anyone have a definitive source(s) for total numbers (including replacements sent into units) ? Megapixie 00:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Flags of our Fathers (pgs 126-127) puts the number at a combined 100,000, of which 70,000 were "assault-troop marines". Raul654 00:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Schmidt deserves credit


I think General Schmidt deserves the respect and credit for the Command of the Amphibious Operations on Iwo Jima.

Quoted from:

CLOSING IN: MARINES IN THE SEIZURE OF IWO JIMA

MARINES IN WORLD WAR II COMMEMORATIVE SERIES

BY Colonel Joseph H. Alexander, U.S. Marine Corps (RET)

Printed in 1994 Marine Corps Historical Center Building 58, Washington Navy Yard Washington, D.C. 20374-5040


Unfortunately, two senior Marines shared the limelight for the Iwo Jima battle, and history has often done both an injustice. Spruance and Turner prevailed upon Lieutenant General Holland M. Smith, then commanding Fleet Marine Forces, Pacific, to participate in Operation Detachment as Commanding General, Expeditionary Troops. This was a gratuitous billet. Schmidt had the rank, experience, staff, and resouces to execute corps-level responsibility without being second-guessed by another headquarters. Smith, the amphibious pioneer and veteran of landings in the Aleutians, Gilberts, Marshalls, and the Marianas, admitted to being embarrassed by the assignment. "My sun had almost set by then," he stated, "I think they asked me along in case something happened to Harry Schmidt." [...] General Schmidt, whose few public pronouncements left him saddled with the unfortunate prediction of a 10-day conquest of Iwo Jima, came to resent the perceived role Holland Smith played in the post-war accounts. As he would forcibly state: "I was commander of all troops on Iwo Jima at all times. Holland Smith never had a command post ashore, never issued a single order ashore, never spent a single night ashore....Isn't it important from an historical standpoint that I commanded the greatest number of Marines ever to be engaged in single action in the entire history of the Marine Corps?" General Smith would not disagree with those points. Smith provided a useful role, but Schmidt and his exceptional staff deserve maximum credit for planning and executing the difficult and bloody battle if Iwo Jima.

All of the above was but a small excert from the very informative and interesting commemorative series written by Colonel Alexander(Ret). I think it is vitally important that the person that was the backbone of such an operation is not overlooked. Clearly General Schmidt was the driving force of this operation and deserves the majority of the credit. H60Hadgi 03:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I find this information very usefull for my Social Studies project at school!

[edit] Not accurate to say Japanese only used ground units.

There is a statement: "Japanese only used ground units; no planes or boats of any kind were involved" My father told me that he witnessed kamikazi attacks on ships at Iwo. I believe I also read this in a biography of Nimitz.

You are correct. The Saratoga was damaged and the Bismark Sea sunk by enemy aircraft while providing direct combat air support for the Marines on Iwo Jima. On 21 Feb, Japanese aircraft ("Kamikaze") did attack landing and naval craft at the Island of Iwo Jima. (See pages 171-174 of "The Sacred Warriors: Japan's Suicide Legions", Warner, Denis, and Peggy Warner. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1982.) - Thaimoss 13:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question on Numbers on Troop strength, casualties, prisonser

What references is being used for the number in the infobox? From the University of San Diego History Department, casualties:

  • U.S. personnel casualty total = 28,686 — 6,821 Killed 19,217 Wounded 2,648 Combat Fatigue
    • Marine Casualties 23,573
  • Japanese personnel: 1,083 POW and 20,000 est. Killed

— ERcheck (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] B-quality

Why is the article B-quality? It seems much better than that. Colonel Marksman 21:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Most are, no matter how good. Join the wikiproject, write some articles and you'll see why.--Buckboard 12:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at why it failed, and fix it. I think this could absolutely be an A-class article or better relatively easily. It just needs more inline citations, and a better balance towards the battle itself (over preparations). LordAmeth 10:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of "B" quality. Take a look at http://506thfightergroup.org/battleofiwo.asp. It would appear that this entire web page was stolen and placed here. (Not cool) Woodsstock 14:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Scroll down to the bottom and you'll see that they have that section referenced from this Wikipedia article. So its actually the other way around. 209.107.127.5 09:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US force strength

I have changed the US force strength to

77,000 marines
100,000 total

Which I believe accurately reflects the sources listed in the above sections. Megapixie 02:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a discrepancy in the article. The 2nd paragraph says there were 6k allied losses, but in the aftermath, it says 27k? Am I missing something? Nm, I misinterpreted a casualty as a death.

Yes, you are misinterpreting. Casualties, the larger figure, commonly refers to both deaths and injuries. Typically, injuries which require retiring from the field of battle. The losses, obviously, are deaths.

There is a spelling mistake on the Japanese commander's name on the right under the picture of the raising of the flag. It isn't Tadfuamichi, it's adamichi. I don't know how to fix it. Thanks

Sorry, I meant Tadamichi...

[edit] Protection

I temporarily protected the article due to frequent vandalism. -- Kguirnela 02:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh well... we got another big brother... -- Kguirnela 02:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

casualties= K.I.A.+W.I.A.+M.I.A. On Iwo, 6000 Marines and sailors KIA there, more than 15000 others is either WIA or MIA on Iwo.

[edit] Reference for Background Section

Does anyone know which reference contains the good information contained in the "Japanese preparations" portion of this article? It's all uncited. Once someone tackles this article and tries to bring it up to FA standards, if they can't find the reference to use to cite that material, it will all have to be deleted. Cla68 23:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guide to books on the battle

Since there are a lot of books listed in the reference section for this article, I thought I'd provide a guide for those interested in doing more reading on the battle, based on my own research into how these different books cover the subject. Cla68 (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Definitive" accounts

The following books appear to try to provide both the U.S. and Japanese perspective of the battle as well as good historical perspective:

[edit] Japanese perspective

  • Kakehashi, Kumiko (2007). So Sad to Fall in Battle: An Account of War Based on General Tadamichi Kuribayashi's Letters from Iwo Jima. Presidio Press. ISBN 0891419179. 

[edit] Picture books

[edit] Personal/unit stories

  • Allen, Robert E.; Zell Miller (2004). The First Battalion of the 28th Marines on Iwo Jima: A Day-by-Day History from Personal Accounts and Official Reports, with Complete Muster Rolls. McFarland & Company. ISBN 0-7864-2158-4. 
  • Lucas, Jack; D. K. Drum (2006). Indestructible: The Unforgettable Story of a Marine Hero at the Battle of Iwo Jima. Da Capo Press. ISBN 0-306-81470-6. 
  • Overton, Richard E. (2006). God Isn't Here: A Young American's Entry into World War II and His Participation in the Battle for Iwo Jima. American Legacy Media. ISBN 0-9761547-0-6. 
  • Shively, John C. (2006). The Last Lieutenant: A Foxhole View of the Epic Battle for Iwo Jima. Indiana University Press. ISBN 0-253-34728-9. 
  • Toyn, Gary W. (2006). The Quiet Hero: The Untold Medal of Honor Story of George E. Wahlen at the Battle for Iwo Jima. American Legacy Media. ISBN 0-9761547-1-4. 

[edit] Forrestal on Iwo Jima???

the part of the article stating Secretary of the Navy Forrestal was present on Iwo Jima and the whole story about the two flags sounds incredible. Can someone confirm it? Or else that para should be deleted. --Caparbio 12:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Underground Defences

Shouldn't "Caves and Tunnels" be part of "Underground Defenses" ? Woodsstock 17:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How many miles of tunnels? Definitive reference

There was a recent edit to the introduction that changed the miles of tunnels from 11 to 17. In the main body of the article, the number of miles is 11. Both places are unreferenced. I've reverted the change and asked for a citation. — ERcheck (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Units of length

The article has a mix of km and miles, m and ft for primary units of measure. These units should be consistent as to primary units. I propose that miles and ft be used. I'm certainly open to differing opinions. — ERcheck (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fiction creeping into fact?

"According to letters written by Japanese soldiers who had served on Iwo Jima and had survived to the very last days of the fighting, Kuribayashi ordered his aide to cut off his head as a part of the Japanese suicide ritual, but the aide was killed by an American sniper before he could finish the job. Kuribayashi then shot himself with a pistol that had been presented to him during a visit to the United States of America before the war broke out. His body was buried by a Japanese soldier named Saigo and was never found."

I think this whole bit is from the movie "Letters from Iwo Jima", which took some hollywood liberties with the story. I don't think their are any actual historical facts to support this statement. Perhaps someone should delete it if no reference can be found. - Arch NME 21:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw "Letters from Iwo Jima" and, save a detail thats pretty much what happened in the movie. But, in real life I dont think there was a "Saigo", and I am pretty sure they have no clue what happened to Kuribayashi's body. In other words I wouldnt hesitate to delete this - infact I would delete this for you but I cant find it and I think its already been deleted. Yojimbo501 (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article length

This article is overly lengthy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and users should be able to gain an understanding of the subject matter without having to read pages and pages of information.

This article should be streamlined with most of the in-depth details removed or placed into another article dealing with specific aspects of the battle. As the article currently stands, readers looking for an overview of the battle will turn to other sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.99.52.75 (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Per a couple of discussions on this page, I have broken out a subarticle, Planning for the Battle of Iwo Jima, and written a summary here. Hopefully, this will encourage more detail on the actual battle here. - BanyanTree 09:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties and Strength

Can someone change back the strength and casualties of the battle? I think someone screwed them up.

[edit] remaining Japanese soldiers

...of the 22,000 Japanese soldiers present at the beginning of the battle, over 20,000 were killed, and only 216 taken prisoner.

What happened to the other 1,784 Japanese soldiers? Did they manage to get off the island without being captured by the US navy?Brentt 01:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say these are rough estimates. "Over 20,000 killed" could mean the final number was close to the estimate of the 22,000 present at the beginning of the battle (which could have been less).
In the source Iwo Jima:Amphibious Epic, Chapter IX there is sentence: "In April and May, however, aggressive patrol and ambush activity by the 147th Infantry netted 867 prisoners and 1,602 Japanese killed." It should be added to article I believe. It is somehow out of timeline but would give fuller picture. --Tigga en 12:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Photo...

Can't anyone get the famous Mount Surbachi "raising the flag" photo for one of the sub-headings? There should actually be an entire sub-heading for the photo, lot of things to say about it. Who took it, when, how, who raised the flag, hyperlinks... I know there is an article on it, but make a bigger mention of it, with the actual photo. - NoUser 20:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the article should at least have the famous photo somewhere, if not its own sub-heading with a reference to the main article on the flag raising.

I think the phrase "is the most reproduced photogragh in history" is a claim that is very hard to verify and tends to be said of many photographs. Would it not be more precise and accurate to simply say: "one of the most reproduced photographs of the world?" -Prisme

[edit] How far to Iwo Jima?

Insert non-formatted text here

Iwo Jima (island) article says "The island is located 1,200 kilometers (650 nm) south of Tokyo... ." Battle of Iwo Jima article says "Iwo Jima is a volcanic island about 1,800 km (1118 miles) south of Tokyo... ."DougRWms 02:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Google Earth agrees with Iwo Jima (island) article. I'll change numbers. --Tigga en 06:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name of the Island

According to the new article, the name was changed "due to protests from former island residents." Is there any historical references for this? I wonder, since the name was only changed recently, and that other islands have the "-jima" suffix, i.e. "Hachijo-jima." Japanese tends to go with words that flow more easily, so that words like "-shima" (island) become "-jima" according to certain prefixes.

We need some historical confirmation, I am currently searching old maps to see what the actual name should be.

UPDATE - I have received a copy of a 1926 US Navy chart showing the name as "Iwo-Jima" I'm looking for some Royal Navy confirmation.Ceabaird 08:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] contradiction

There appears to be a contradiction in this article. It says in the beginning summary that "of the 22,000 Japanese soldiers present at the beginning of the battle, over 20,000 were killed and only 216 taken prisoner." yet in the infobox on the battle lists "1000 captured". How did 216 become 1000? Matt. P 22:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone changed this... See also few threads above. --HanzoHattori 00:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] contradiction 2 (Suribachi cut off)

I just skimmed through the aritcle and at one point it says Mount Suribachi was cut off because of the charge of the 760 marines on the first day. In the next section however it is stated that Mount Suribachi was cut off effectively only on the fourth day. Does somebody know more facts about that..? --91.7.142.101 (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested more on Mount Suribachi

I changed to the name of section from "taking" to rasing flag", because it's mostly about this by now and nothing is said about the fate of the Japanese holed down underground after they were cut off. Someone should write something more about what happened besides the flag, like the mass suicides and the mass breakout attempt (the first banzaii charge?) I learned of from the movie. --HanzoHattori (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Movie's aren't always exactly historically accurate though. Jmlk17 06:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

1. "...the first of an eventual 300,000 Marines of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Marine Divisions..." 300,000? Do US Marine divisions have 100,000 men each?
2. "The Japanese on Iwo Jima had radar with which they notified their comrades at home..." Surely they would have used their radio? GrahamBould (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The first does seem a bit out there. As for the second, I bet that is a miswording. Jmlk17 07:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ernest borgnine in the article

I think some one's has been messing with the article. Where it talks about the photo that was taken of SIX service men, there are 7 named; the seventh being Ernest Borgnine. This doesn't seem legit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.65.63 (talk) 18:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it GrahamBould (talk) 19:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GAN

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
in February 1944 both Army and Navy=> in February 1944, both Army and Navy
“February 19,” doesn’t need to be wikified since it isn’t a full date.
final assault{ =>final assault
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Geography of Iwo Jima needs a citation
Quote in this section needs citation
“Japanese staff officers described the strategy applied in the defense of Iwo Jima in the following terms:” needs citation
.,[1] => the , needs to not be there.
“A photograph of this "first flag raising" was taken by photographer Louis R. Lowery.” => needs citation
A lot of paragraphs and sections do not have citations.|:Geography of Iwo Jima needs a citation::Quote in this section needs citation
“Japanese staff officers described the strategy applied in the defense of Iwo Jima in the following terms:” needs citation
.,[1] => the , needs to not be there.
“A photograph of this "first flag raising" was taken by photographer Louis R. Lowery.” => needs citation
A lot of paragraphs and sections do not have citations.|}}
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  3. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
No fair use for WW2_Iwo_Jima_flag_raising.jpg
Needs updated Public Domain tag: Iwo Jima - Landing Plan.jpg
No fair use for WW2_Iwo_Jima_flag_raising.jpg
Needs updated Public Domain tag: Iwo Jima - Landing Plan.jpg|}}
  1. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Overall, I agree with this reviewer's assessment to place this on hold. A couple of additional comments to help clarify the review. The article really fails miserably on reference citations. There are entire paragraphs and sections in the article with zero inline citations, which is key in verifiability. I notice that there are a lot of non-inline items listed under 'books'. So it looks like citations shouldn't be hard to find, but these items should be cited inline, so that it is clear where material came from in the article. Please delete the two subsections under 'references' -- instead, you could have one main section entitled 'notes' for the inline citations, and another main section entitled 'references', which contains an alphabetical listing of all items that are cited inline. Items that are not cited directly by the article should actually be moved to a 'further reading' section so that they are not confused with reference citations.

There's a couple of very short sections, which should either be expanded, or combined with other sections. Another issue is that there are a lot of section and subsection headers, and some of these sections should be re-examined to see if they are actually necessary. To make an article easier to read, it's better to put more information and prose into fewer section/subsection headers, rather than the other way around.

Check the manual of style for information on section header naming conventions. Some of the names are pretty long, and the TOC would be easier to read if they had shorter titles. A title like 'Strategic Importance' should actually be written as 'Strategic importance', only capitalizing the first letter of the title. The title 'The battle in audio/visual media' could almost certainly be shortened to something more descriptive.

Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have done some editing to clean up the article and have added some citations (took a trip to the library though) and I will put more in. I need some clarification though. On the issues with the images I looked at them and they seem to be documented with tags but since images are not my specialty I need clarification on what is needed to bring them up to passing. Also, this article failed due to prose and MOS which would indicate that it needs a complete rewrite not a hold status. If there are specific issues with the prose and or MOS then let me know and I will adjust. If it requires a complete rewrite though I do not have that kind of timem right now.--Kumioko (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

More comments

  • I assume this is the Battle of Iwo Jima not USA USA
  • There are still a lot of very short paragraphs. They need to be combined or something.
  • There are photos that still need fair rationale.
  • I believe the lede needs work. The last paragraph about the Raising of the Flag, shouldn't be that long. Ledes are a full summary of the whole article.

Lastly, I do not feel comfortable giving this article a GA without the concurrence of another editor. PGPirate 01:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

  • Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?


  • If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?


  • Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?


At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

This article has been in the quee and on hold for 19 days, twice the alloted time for an On Hold article. Since the above GA issues do not appearto have been addressed well at all during that time, the article must undergo a final review. We much move the GA quee along.


GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)
  1. It is reasonably well written:
    Fail
    1. There are still many short sections, which need to be expanded or merged. Also, there are many one-sentence paragraphs which need to be expanded or merged into other paragraphs.
    2. The lead should not have any ctations in it. It should simply restate facts in the body briefly. This is the only section that should be unreferenced.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:
    Fail
    1. The main problem. There are entire sections of the article completely unreferenced. Every paragraph and statistic should have at least one reference at the very least.
    2. Not enough of the reference material is used. There are plenty of books cited for "further reading", which is good, but they are not used in the article, and they should be referenced using inline citations.
  3. It is broad in its coverage:
    Pass no problems there.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:
    Fail
    1. The article's narration has a clear slant towards the viewpoint of the American forces. Coverage should include intricate details of the Japaneese defense of the island, as well.
  5. It is stable:
    Fail The article will be subject to rapid changes as it improves.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
    Pass No problems there.
  7. Overall:
    Fail This article has serious GA potential, but there are many significant improvements that should be made before it is passed. Once they are dealt with, consider renominating it. -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 18:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Ensured that the article is: within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)