Talk:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Even so, 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.
April 16, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted
Peer review This History article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).


Contents

[edit] Image Link broken

The link to the image of sovjets putting the flag on the reichstag (at the see also part) is broken, could someone upload it? I do not have the permission to do so. Image is in public domain and available at http://www.famouspictures.org/mag/index.php?title=Image:Reichstag_flag.jpg Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiAtze (talk • contribs) 22:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The camera used

From what I understand, the Camera Joe Rosenthal used to take the picture currently resides at the George Eastman House. That might be something interesting to note, If it is in fact true, I would be willing to bet the GEH would be more than happy to supply a photograph of said camera. 70.101.92.136 06:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] first settlers

The first settlers, outside of whaler crews, were the Hawaiians who live there to this day. -- 01:38, 16 July 2007 (66.215.44.189

  • What are you talking about? Haha Jima, to the north of Iwo Jima was colonized by a mixed group of folk (English, portuguese, Italians, and Hawaiians) in 1827 after the island group was visited by American and English whalers. Commodore Perry topped at Chichi Jima in 1853 on the way to Japan to force open their country to trade. In 1861 Japan made claim to the Volcano Island chain (of which Iwo Jima is a part) and dispatched colonists there in 1887. No other government challenged Japan's claim to the islands. Foreign settlement was banned from the island chain in the early 1900 - those living on Haha Jima, including the Hawaiians were forced to leave. The Japanese colonists on Iwo stayed until a few months before the battle when the Japanese military packed them up and sent them to the Japanese mainland. The US military controlled the island until the late 1960s when they returned it to the Japanese. The Japanese have since controlled the island, but have banned anyone from living on the island. This is a very touchy subject with the Japanese that were forced to leave during the way. They wish to return and have been fighting their governemnt for years regarding this issue. A small victory was won by this group of want-to-be returnees when they won a fight in June 2007 to rename the island Iwo Jima (or Io if using correct Japanese Roman alphabet spelling) to Io To (basically the same translation in English - Sulfur Island). Hawaiians living on Iwo Jima? Nope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.83.230 (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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

I realise this is sourced, but the source does only say "possibly". Image:Guevarakorda3.jpg ? 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] 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] 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)
It's going to get a negative/positive either way we go. Jmlk17 04:53, 21 February 2008 (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)
Maybe not totally wrong. As Fiedler is talking about the first flag raising which was posed and had to be stopped in mid, "raising" while Lowery changed his film. Which could have been mistaken for taking it a second time because of the wind. -- RabitsVinge 06:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
“ ...Lowery wanted drama for his shot, motioned to Jim Michels, who crouched dramatically in the foreground with his carbine.

Then, a glitch:Lowery shouted, "Wait a minute!" to the posing Marines. He'd run out of film and needed a second to reload. Lindberg scowled and grunted at him to hurry up:Men holding flags were easy targets.		 ”
 
— Bradley, James (2006). Flags of Our Fathers. Bantam; Reissue edition, Page 311.. ISBN 0553384155. 


[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)

Joe Rosenthal himself identified that photo as the "Gung-Ho" picture (Uncommon Valor, Common Virtue: Iwo Jima and the Photograph That Captured America, Hal Buell 2006). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.83.230 (talk) 04:44, 15 March 2008 (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)
I haven't seen any sources besides the coast guards discredited source that mentioned marines hauling a huge pole up from the bottom of the volcano. In Bradley's book they say:
“ ...[Mike Strank] directed Ira and Franklin to look for a length of pipe [on top of the volcano] ... The pole that Ira and Franklin were dragging was a length of drainage pipe that weighed more than a hundred pounds [100 pounds (45 kg)] ”
 
— Bradley, James (2006). Flags of Our Fathers. Bantam; Reissue edition, Page 318-9. ISBN 0553384155. 

-- RabitsVinge 07:17, 20 July 2007 (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)


OK, But a seems to sound better, at least for me. No one's gonna say a history is wrong, but some people might say an history is wrong, (which it isn't) They're both correct: http://www.betterwritingskills.com/tip-w005.html but i think a history sounds better, especially in the first sentence of a featured article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.74.163 (talk) 03:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LST-758 or LST-779

The claim that LST-758 supplied the flag for the second raising should be removed as the source Robert L. Resnick, "USCG Veteran Provided Stars and Stripes for U.S. Marines" has major dispcrencies in his story:

  1. While it is confirmed Rene Gagnon took the second flag to the top of the volcano. It is never mentioned that he also dragged a, "21-foot galvanized steel steamfitter’s pipe. It weighed more than 150 pounds, Resnick said. Gagnon slung it over his left shoulder, tucked Resnick’s flag under his right arm, and headed up the volcano as Resnick stood on the deck watching history unfold." [7]
  2. Resnick claims that it only took 20min to get from his ship, LST-758, to the top of the volcano, "Renee Gagnon struggled mightily but the sand at the base of the volcano was too soft and Gagnon barely made any headway,” notes Resnick. “Then he dropped the pole and pulled it by its nose. Evidently, he called up to the summit and two other Marines shouldered the pipe and Gagnon carried the flag the rest of the way up."[8]
  3. As shown by almost all sources only the soldiers doing the actual flag raising noticing the second raising yet Resnick claims that everyone cheered, "As LST-758 began leaving the beach in reverse, Resnick heard, “a tremendous and sudden ovation from every man on the beach.” “There was a whooping and hollering — a tremendous cheer as the flag went up,” said Resnick. “Every ship tooted its horn,” he said. “The memory is very clear and compounded by great sentiment and great apprehension as I recall the sites of death,” said Resnick.[9] The great cheer that everyone talks about was when the FIRST raising took place which didn't involve Gagnon or Ira who weren't on top of Suburachi at the time.

Maybe a marine got a flag from Resnick on ship LST-758 but it wasn't Rene or Ira who carried it up and it wasn't the second flag that Joe Rosenthal captured in his famous picture. It wasn't the first flag either as according to lieutenant Greeley Wells the first the 54-by-28 inch (137-by-71 cm) American flag was from their transport ship, the USS Missoula (APA-211).

All references to the flag being from LST-758 should be removed from the article and only refernces from Marine history should be used. -- RabitsVinge 07:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The US Coast guard historian's office counts it as part of their official history, so it merits a mention in this article. Raul654 12:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Even if that account is wrong? -- RabitsVinge 22:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)