Talk:Battle of Iwo Jima/Archive 1

US perspective
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.

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. &rarr;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))

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? &rarr;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)

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)

Rewrite Feb 2005
I am rewriting this article. Incoporating text from the PD sources listed here 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.
 * &mdash;wwoods 18:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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&hellip; &#9742;   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)

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

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)

How many US soldiers?
This 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
 * "More than 100,000 US"
 * 100,000 US
 * "More than 75,000 US"
 * 75,000 US
 * 70,000 Marines
 * 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!

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)

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: &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * U.S. personnel casualty total = 28,686 &mdash; 6,821 Killed 19,217 Wounded 2,648 Combat Fatigue
 * Marine Casualties 23,573
 * Japanese personnel: 1,083 POW and 20,000 est. Killed

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)

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...

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.

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)

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)

"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:



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)

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

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. &mdash; User: (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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. &mdash; User: (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Jmlk  1  7  06:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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.  Jmlk  1  7  07:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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|}}
 * 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 Lastly, I do not feel comfortable giving this article a GA without the concurrence of another editor.  P G Pirate  01:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.

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)

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.
 * 3) 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.
 * 1) 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.
 * 2) It is stable:
 * Fail The article will be subject to rapid changes as it improves.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) 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)

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)

Wikification
I previously removed the wikification tag because there is no need for formatting and internal linking int he article that I can see. Unless somebody can explain what these links are, then I don't see what can be done. -- Whpq (talk) 12:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Length of the island
At the top of the article it says  "and 9 miles long," I believe that should be kilometers. Ftgoodoa (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg
The image Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --09:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Strategic importance section
This section appears to be from Burrell's The Ghosts of Iwo Jima but without attribution, I cannot be sure. Can someone with a copy of this please confirm and add citations. This section seems to be pushing forward a point of view that the invasion was a waste of time, but doesn't attribute this to a source. The numbers of strike missions flown from Iwo Jima given in Moskin's The U.S. Marine Corps Story (p.373) greatly differ from the comment "only 10 such missions were flown". Can this discrepancy be explained? Moskin mentions "sorties". Does this refer to the number of individual planes launched from Iwo Jima. If so, then that would explain it. Lawrencema (talk) 11:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Polish translation
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?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.242.252  (talk)  23:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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, 17 November 2004 (UTC)

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


 * User:Jakob03 18:17, 23 March 2005 (UTC)

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.102.148  (talk)  23:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Tadamichi Kuribayashi's inspiration from the defense in the Battle of Peleliu
The Battle of Peleliu date is September 15 – November 27, 1944. How could Tadamichi Kuribayashi be inspired by it in June 1944? --Andrzej Gandecki (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

northern summer
I do not understand the expression 'northern summer' from the Background section of the article. Maybe my English is too weak. Could somebody explain it? --Andrzej Gandecki (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

6,821 or 6,825 American dead?
The first number is given in the 'Casualties and losses' summary section, the second number in the 'Aftermath' section. --Andrzej Gandecki (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

full 30% of the 82 Medals of Honor
30% of 82 equals 24.6, so it might be more fair to say that the 23 Medals of Honor are 'almost' 30% not 'full' 30%--Andrzej Gandecki (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How about saying that it was 28%? Binksternet (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Decisive victory?
Surely this battle qualifies as a decisive victory! It was the first EVER capture of a Japanese home island, it demonstrated fully that Japan was entirely vulnerable, and it also led to the destruction of an army of over 20,000 Japanese troops. And no, I'm not American, and I know I have no references, but surely we can come to some sort of consensus! (Trip Johnson (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC))


 * Errrmmm. I'm no historian, but despite massive superiority in arms and men, it cost U.S. forces 26,000 casualties to capture an island with a total area of 8 square miles from a force of 20,000 Japanese. It was a victory - but it was hardly decisive. Megapixie (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't think this is a decisive victory, it was really just a continuation of a downhill slide for Japan, they were on the defensive before and on the defensive afterwords, a "Decisive" victory would have to change the course of the war.

If your looking for a decisive victory go to the battle of midway, before hand the Japanese had 4 aircraft carriers and left with none, the U.S. which had been hurt by the battle of pearl harbor came out as a dominant force after the battle, that is a decisive victory, one that changes the entire course of a war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.182.253 (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Casualties per Burrell 2006
I changed the number of dead, wounded and POW, per Burrell. In The Ghosts of Iwo Jima, Burrell argues skilfully that previous scholars have too often overestimated Japanese defenders, with numbers in the range of 20,000 to 25,000, though most historians settle near 21,000. Burrell's investigation brings to light a quantity of only 18,061 to 18,591 Japanese on the island, with 216 being taken prisoner. I struck an old Ross 1985 reference to make way for Burrell's more scholarly numbers. Binksternet (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

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

___________________

I believe americans think it is the most reproduced photographs because... no freak'n idea. i had only seen the picture once before i saw "Flags of Our Father", and that was when i visited the states. sorry for bad english... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.228.226.5 (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In The Spearhead (the official history of the division published in 1950 and sent to each 5th Division participant in the battle) the author treated the flag events thusly: the flag raising, what people call the first flag raising, is discussed at length, the participants listed, a dozen photographs of events associated with the flag raising included. A colorized version, page sized and next to title page, of Joe Rosenthal's photograph was included. There is no discussion of the flag replacement event, the participants are not listed, and none of the other photographs associated with the replacement event included. --JCH1952 (talk) 03:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Pyrrhic Victory??
I realize that winning this battle was very important for the U.S. war effort, but the marines suffered massive casualties, I think adding pyrrhic, to the "victory" part would describe the massive loss that the American forces suffered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.182.253 (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see your idea, but I don't its quite a pyrrhic victory. While the losses were heavy, the US could absorb them and repeat them. The military was willing to risk an invasion of Japan itself. If Iwo Jima were labeled as pyrrhic simply because of the significant (though not comparatively great) losses, then most Soviet victories would need to similarly be edited. 76.236.177.12 (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Aftermath numbers don't agree with the introduction
In the introduction, the sentence reads Of the more than 18,000 Japanese sol­diers pre­sent at the be­gin­ning of the bat­tle, only 216 were taken pris­on­er. while the Aftermath section Of the 22,786 Japanese sol­diers en­trenched on the is­land, 21,703 died ei­ther from fight­ing or by rit­u­al sui­cide. Only 1,083 were cap­tured dur­ing the bat­tle. I understand there may be shades of meaning between 'captured' and 'taken prisoner' but it does not seem like the Aftermath numbers are backed with a source. Can anyone elaborate on this? I am no historian. --Eeyore22 (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This issue still remains. I can't sort it out either. Please someone help out. 217.235.21.30 (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

All American ?
Is there a need, I wonder, to indicate that not all of the Allied forces involved were American. Iwo Jima was primarily by far and away a US affair, yet - for example - most of the Combat Air Patrol to prevent the incursion of Japanese fighters was provided by Seafires of the Royal Navy. Just a thought.--jrleighton 11:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The battle as it's usually referred to describes mainly the ground battle. Sure there were probably U.S. and British carriers screening the invasion, but that would probably be considered a separate operation Masterblooregard (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Lessons not learned
The lessons learned on Iwo Jima did not serve as guidelines for the following battle of Okinawa and the planned invasion of the Japanese homeland. For example, "because of the casualties taken at Iwo Jima on the first day, it was decided to make the preparatory bombardment the heaviest yet delivered on to a Pacific island".[33] Also, in the plan for the attack on the main islands, it was taken into account that around a third of the troops committed to Iwo Jima and again at Okinawa had died.[34]

did not server? Is this correct. The rest of the section seems to detail the ways in which the lessons learned did serve to guide. Taemyr (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead image
I have removed the lead image, as it lacked a non-free use rationale. In any case, we have free images of the battle, and so one of them should be used in the infobox- the lead image shows the battle as a whole, and so a non-free image should be used only if there are no free images/no free images could be created, as per the non-free content criteria. There is probably an argument for using the image elsewhere in the article, as the photograph itself is discussed at length, but note that a rationale would still need to be written. J Milburn (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Battle of Berlin. AFAICT if this is an iconic picture of the battle, then there is no reason why it can not be in the infobox. I think that J Milburn's understanding of the non-free content criteria, is mistaken, but as we are having exactly the same debate over a similarly iconic picture in the RFC, I see no point in duplicating the arguments here. -- PBS (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Does not compute
"Of the 22,785 Japanese soldiers entrenched on the island, 21,569 died either from fighting or by ritual suicide. (...) After Iwo Jima was declared secured, the Marines estimated there were no more than 300 Japanese left alive in the island's warren of caves and tunnels. In fact, there were close to 3,000."

Zombies? Ghosts? The un-entrenched ones? --Asperchu (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Flame thrower tanks
The reference to flame thrower tanks says they were nicknamed "Zippos" or "Ronsons". I thought these were the nicknames given to all Sherman tanks by American and British troops respectively (Zippo, Ronson) because of the ease with which they caught fire. "The Sharp End of War" by John Ellis, Pub David & Charles, London 1980. Ellis quotes Wilson, "Flamethrower", William Kimber, 1956. Referring to standard tanks Wilson wrote:"When the Churchill was hit it caught fire three times out of five, and it could take up to ten seconds for the fire to sweep through from the engine compartment to the turret. The Amercian Sherman caught fire every time, and the flames swept through in about three seconds ... The Germans called them 'Tommy cookers'."

Ellis says the Allies called Shermans Ronsons because of the firm's claim that their lighters always "light first time".

It may be that the flamethrower nicknames and the Ronson reference above happen to be the same. Does anyone know for sure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Dadoo (talk • contribs) 07:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Raising the flag image
The uploaded files of AP are currently being proposed for deletion but this one is one of two specifically allowed in a 2005 letter: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Marked-ap-letter.jpg AP can revoke other images but the two images mentioned in the letter are specifically allowed. SpeakFree (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

First attack on the 'home islands' - depends, I guess ....
Saipan was considered Japanese home-territory - a colony - for a long time before WW2. Iwo Jima is virtually as far away from Kyushu as Saipan is. . . I would say Okinawa was the first 'true' home islands battle. From what I've read, Saipan was no less considered Japanese than Iwo Jima was at that time by the Empire. Should the lede be adjusted? HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan


 * It wasn't the first attack on the home islands if you include air attacks. That would be the Doolittle Raid. But since Iwo Jima was governed as part of the Tokyo metropolitan area by the Japanese, whereas Saipan was a colony, the case can be made that Iwo Jima was the first attack on the home islands.


 * Not sure I buy that description, but at least it's plausible. --Yaush (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

3/3 Volunteers Ashore As Stretcher Bearers
My father was with 3/3/3 at Iwo Jima.(ref) CPL Lee R.(aka: Leroy) WILSON was a Demolitions Expert with A Special Weapons Platoon. I don't remember the Company, but I do know that members of the 3/3 were allowed to go ashore as VOLUNTEERS ONLY after @8-18 days, as stretcher bearers. My father also helped blow some of the caves, and one of his memories was the FIRST FLAG RAISED, overtaking and Defending the air strip so the Sea Bees could fix it, and the first plane that landed. My father died in May 1983 before I could get him back to Iwo Jima to help try to identify some of the ares where he dropped satchel charges into the mouth of the caves. When he helped take troops back to the beach, he also helped transport some to the ship, and the sharks were in such a feeding frenzy, frothing the water around the hospital ship as they took the wounded out to the ship, and Hospital Corpsmen were dumping body parts overboard from the surgical teams. He joined 3/3 at Guadalcanal; was drafted into the US Marine Reserves in 1943 from the Joplin, MO/Baxter Springs,KS/Picher,OK area. He was born in Rose,OK. His combat ribbons had two stars for Bouganville, Guam, and Iwo Jima. He returned to Guam after Iwo for awhile, then was discharged at Mare Island, CA. 75.205.236.128 (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Ron Wilson SGT/USMC/1968-'74/1982-'85.75.205.236.128 (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Use of naval fire support?
There is one thing I don't understand about this battle. It's possible the difficulties of initial landing were not anticipated. However, the account of battle says that the losses were high on US side were high *throughout*. That's strange. US forces had huge naval guns of the navy at their disposal: 10", 12", 14", etc (not to mention lots and lots of 5" secondaries). The shells from these babies dig craters several *meters* deep! And at the time of WWII, coordinated artillery fire support wasn't anything new - it was well developed in WWI. For me as a layman it is not obvious why US troops did not, say, feign attack on Japanese lane forcing Japanese to come out from caves, then pull back and call in artillery barrage. Repeat as needed.

Having enemy guns and mortar teams on Mount Surabachi firing for hours on US troops looks particularly ridiculous. US Navy had no spotters with binoculars? No radios to talk to people under fire and ask where the enemy is? And hitting a target on a mountain slope from a 12" naval gun should not be hard: (1) you do not need a direct hit, and (2) no pressure: if you miss, you can try again as many times as you want.

I must be missing something - I find it hard to believe that I am more clever than guys actually fighting there... for some reason, they couldn't do that. What that reason was?


 * It sounds like coordinating artillery with infantry looks pretty easy from your armchair. --Yaush (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Did I say "those stupid soldiers, how they didn't figure it out?" Hell no. I admit that it's most likely me who is ignorant. However, this is Wikipedia. People come here exactly for the purpose of stopping being ignorant. I would like to know more about naval fire support on Iwo Jima (or lack thereof). You have problem with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.80.244.172 (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Header
Shouldn't the flag image be the header? It is the most recognized one... --Sam 04:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath Needs better contextual understanding
"To put that into context," follows with casualty figures from battles of similar duration, but does nothing to actually contextualize the battle of Iwo Jima. This battle was fought on an extremely small island, with the Japanese having no possible method of retreat. I can see how the Aftermath section, as currently written, could be interpreted as belittling the carnage there. More significant statistics would relate to ratio of casualties per land area and ratio of KIA to total casualties. I would also suggest that the leading phrase should be restated as follows: "To put this battle into statistical context..." That way, the reader understands we are talking about quantitative, not qualitative, comparisons.Jeffersonlinux (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

US Army in the invasion of Iwo Jima
My father was part of an advance group of the 386th Air Service Group of the U.S. Army that landed on the island on D+5 (I think). However, my father has always held that he and a few of the group were on the beach when the flag on Suribachi was raised. (I can't seem to find a mention of any of them on the beach on D+4. This could be part of the fog of war. I don't know.)

Here is a reference for the group search 386thasg

Richard H. Feuille, Jr., MD Rfeuille (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be really surprised in the men in the 386th Air Service Group (AAF) said they were part of the US Army. That was taboo for airmen to say. Rjensen (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Amphibious
Whoever wrote before was missing amphibious landing and amphibious assault from his vocabulary. Also missing: Amphibious warfare, naval artillery, aerial bomb, machine gun, armored tank, demolition charge, flamethrower, and a host of other terms that come straight from modern amphibious warfare, and amphibious warfare is what the invasion of Iwo Jima was all about.

In the prelude to the actual landings, there was no mention of air raid, aerial bombardment, aerial bombing, naval bombardment, naval gunfire support, and several other items of vital importance to this battle. 98.67.108.12 (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think there should be a section on the Japanese holdouts on the island
If there were still 3,000 IJA troops hiding on Iwa Jima, that must have presented a huge logistical nightmare for the occupation forces. No where could have been safe particularly at night. Were there casualties on both sides once the "official" end of the battle had occurred? were there notable skirmishes between the US troops on the island and the holdout Japs? Likewise were they tolerated, like wildlife, was food left for them to encourage their surrender.

I find this ambiguous period, between war and peace, more interesting than the fighting. Did the Japanese affect the operations on the airfield? Or did the tunnels they use present problems of their own, like the VC tunnels in the 1960s?

I know nothing about this period but someone who does, should consider these points because the fighting on Iwa Jima didn't just end on 26 March 1945.86.180.139.11 (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Controversy
A summary of the arguements that the battle was pointless belongs in the summary. Tuntable (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Japanese casualities
There seem to be some inaccuracies with the Japanese causality counts.

In the third introductory paragraph: "Of the 22,000 Japanese soldiers on Iwo Jima at the beginning of the battle, only 216 of these were taken prisoner."

In Aftermath: "Of the 22,060 Japanese soldiers entrenched on the island, 21,844 died either from fighting or by ritual suicide. Only 216 were captured during the battle." If correct as written, then all 22,000 Japanese soldiers are accounted for via death or capture. But Aftermath then later states, "After Iwo Jima, it was estimated there were no more than 300 Japanese left alive in the island's warren of caves and tunnels. In fact, there were close to 3,000," which suggests to this reader that the causality number should perhaps reflect the holdouts. (approx. 22,000 soldiers - 216 surrendered - approx. 3000 alive in the caves = approx. 18,784 dead)

Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the subject to know where the error or lack of clarity has crept in, but I hope someone with more knowledge might be able to address this. Again, not knowing the subject well, I suppose it's possible the 3000 holdouts were civilians, which would explain the figures. If so, I'd recommend adding "civilians" to the Aftermath sentences on the caves for clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mm1dd2 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I have issues with the "only 216" captured as well. The number of captured Japanese was in the 1,100 range, including Korean laborers who were attached to Japanese units. All the civilians on the island were evacuated before the battle began as stated in the many official after actions reports state. I believe the number of 216 comes from how many Japanese the Marines captured and doesn't include the prisoners the Navy or Army captured during the battle. I plan to get some sources together and change the entry to a more correct number. L Flores — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.37.194 (talk) 23:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

== Direct Contradiction Regarding the 2 Amernoticed in the casualty count for this article says "2 captured but recovered" while in the aftermath section for this it says "2 were captured, though neither of them survived their captivity." This is a direct contradiction that needs to be edited now. The reason why I'm not editing this is I don't know which one is right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McBenjamin (talk • contribs) 19:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately the portions covering Japanese strength on the Island, and the sections discussing Japanese, losses are completely intertwined, due to the fact that Japanese losses are calculated based on the garrison's strength. X number in garrison - Y number captured = Z number presumed Japanese KIA. But by this math, if your starting estimate of Japanese strength is wrong, your losses are then necessarily wrong, too. Given this, it is important to consider carefully what we cite as the probable size of the enemy garrison.

In this respect, the article appears to have some errors. The call-out block states Japanese strength at 22,060. . . but this number is 1,000 higher than even the high-side 'probable' estimate cited in the footnote to the 22,060 figure. (In fact, I see no basis for this number presented.) Burrell actually said that most historians "adhere to the number 21,000", and noted that the best estimate (taken from Bartley) was in the range of 20,530 to 21,060. (The footnote's summary of that source is faulty, as well, omitting his discussion of losses inflicted by Army units.)

The next problem is that losses to the Japanese - as the article is currently written - only include those inflicted when the Marines were involved; it ignored losses inflicted by the Army. Since 867 POWs were taken by the Army, the number presented in the call-out box for Japanese KIA is overstated by that amount.

I suggest a better approach to correct this series of compounding errors. Start with the number of Japanese taken prisoner: 1,083 (216 by Marines + 867 by the Army) and subtract this from the upper and lower 'likely' figures for the total garrison (20,530 and 21,060) which gives a likely range of 19,447 to 19,977 Japanese KIA. This is about 2,000 fewer than listed in the call-out box. Further subtracting the number killed by the Army (1,602), the probable range of KIA inflicted by the Marines is 17,485 to 18,375. . . figures that can then be better used in the article. Before someone objects that this is 'original research', I'd point out that this is essentially the same calculation performed by Burrell, except that he included the 216 POWs captured by the Marines in the total losses for the Japanese, whereas this article's call-out box differentiates between KIA and POWs. 98.255.89.22 (talk) 02:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

US Casualties
I note that the figures for US casualties are lower than those reported by the USN and in Burrel's book. Specifically, this article ignores the 2,000+ 'combat fatigue' casualties that were incurred. (Burrell cites 2,648 cases.)

Is there a Wiki policy on casualties that requires identified tallys of neuropsychiatric casualties be omitted? 98.255.89.22 (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Aftermath
"Iwo Jima was also the only U.S. Marine battle where the American . . . " Whence the "also?" No other unique distinction has been previously adduced in the section, and therefore the "also" seems incongruous. Orthotox (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC) Hihihi

This section seems to be curiously incomplete. Apparently the primary sources were Marine-focused, and what hapened after the 'formal' end of the battle was not included. This section correctly notes that about 3000 Japanese were left alive on the island after the formal end of the battle, however it largely misrepresents their fate. Of these estimated 3,000, 867 Japanese were taken prisoner by Army units in April and May, as well as 1602 further that were KIA. My source for these later casualty figures is pg. 69, Volume XIV, Victory in the Pacific, History of US Naval Operations in World War II.

These omissions then further influence the earlier discussion regarding casualties. 98.255.89.22 (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd aslo take issue with the portion of the Aftermath section that seeks to "put that into context" (i.e., the US losses on Iwo Jima). It's difficult to see how the Battle of the Bulge is in any way relevant to a discussion of Iwo Jima. In fact, it is difficult to understand how any 'context' can be provided without providing a comparative ratio of US and 'enemy' losses. . . which neither of the (unsourced) examples provide. Gross losses are meaningless; it is only when the losses of the two sides are compared that context can be derived. A far, far better method of providing context would be to include 'Table 2, Statistical Comparison of Island Battles in World War II', pg 84 of Burrell's book.

An excellent summary for a context paragraph would be Burrell's observation that the price of the B-29 emergency landing strip on Iwo was greater than that paid for the complete B-29 bases on Guam, Tinian and Saipan. . . combined. (Paraphased; see Burrell's exact wording on pg. 84.) 98.255.89.22 (talk) 04:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

sorry
i would just like to apologize for the false and may be hurtful information, sometimes people put stupid things, i was away from my laptop and someone must of put information in, so i would like to apologize and clear up any mishaps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.138.183.240 (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2014
Please change the '3000' to 3,000 for consistency with the above numbers over 999 where commas are used.

14.200.68.118 (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

✅ - if you'd set up an account when you started editing, 6 days ago, you could have done it yourself. Arjayay (talk) 09:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Strategic Importance Section Bias
The entire Strategic Importance section is written with an anti-invasion bias and needs to be fixed. Throughout, the negative opinions on the battle are given as absolutes, with any argument in favor of the battle couched in conditionals, and vague negative speculation.

Can someone please fix this so that the article reads more neutrally? As written, the entire article now sounds like there was no reason whatsoever for the Marines to have lost so many lives in the assault. DeeJaye6 (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Unit formatting
Can someone explain why the metric units are displayed first in this article? I'm pretty sure that it's supposed to be the other way around... Magus732 (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Because only 3 countries still refuse to use the metric system, USA Liberia and Myanmar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.237.13.78 (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

~Concur wholeheartedly with Magus732. The Battle of Iwo Jima was a United States Armed Forces operation, and as such, deserves to be written as Americans write. Most of the article does use BEUs (British Engineering Units), but much still favors metric. That is not as it should be. DeeJaye6 (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Needs more about Japanese perspective
This article seems to be very much from a US perspective (especially the pictures). I suggest that some content should be scavenged from the Japanese page --Ozhiker (talk) 08:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Given the very small number of survivors on the Japanese side, I would not expect to see any Japanese photographs of the battle. And, in fact, there are none even at the Japanese page you link. So there is no reasonable hope of balancing the photo selection; it's just how it is.


 * The same is true of other aspects of the battle, though perhaps not to the same extent. I think the article has made a credible effort to do what it can, including quoting the Japanese summary of the strategic position at some length early in the article. Perhaps the weapons section could say more about the giant spigot mortar (though this is already briefly mentioned in the "Japanese preparations" section) and the "Japanese preparations" section could be expanded to say more about the fortifications. It might also be good to include the story of the Japanese officer who managed to escape from Suribachi only to be nearly summarily executed for deserting his post.


 * The biggest problem I see with the article as it stands is the undue weight given to the skeptical point of view in the "Strategic importance" section, which also smacks of synthesis or original research. --Yaush (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There was no synthesis or original research regarding the strategic importance. Original research means there are no citations, which is not the case here. Synthesis means that ideas are presented that did not actually exist in the Reliable sources. There are no such ideas: experts of the time, and historians ever since have debated the point. When the decision was made to invade, it was based on the assumption that there would be far fewer American casualties, so the analysts have to consider the possibility that the planners were wrong and the invasion was a mistake. For example, William O'Neill (1995) says, "The painful truth is that Iwo Jima should have been bypassed, the failure to do so being rationalized afterward by citing the ... and expert assault divisions simply to secure emergency landing fields might have loomed as a gross strategic error." For a review of the literature see Burrell, Robert S. "Breaking the cycle of Iwo Jima mythology: a strategic study of Operation Detachment." The Journal of Military History 68.4 (2004): 1143-1186.Rjensen (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

this fourth paragraph makes no sense, "Japanese combat deaths numbered three times the number of American deaths, although uniquely in the Pacific War, American total casualties (dead and wounded) exceeded those of the Japanese.[10]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.50.141 (talk) 04:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it makes sense. The Americans suffered more total killed AND wounded than the Japanese, but of the total Japanese casualties, almost all were KIA - ergo, there were three times as many Japanese KIA than American KIA at Iwo Jima. But the Americans suffered more total casualties than the Japs.  Azx2  16:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Battle of Iwo Jima. 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/20090720132646/https://history.sandiego.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/LUTZ/iwo.html to http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/LUTZ/iwo.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

147th Infantry Regiment (United States)
On the 147th Infantry Regiment (United States) page, it states that the 147th Infantry Regiment was at Iwo Jima from the time the battle began through to three months after Iwo Jima was declared secure. I am curious as to why their involvement is not included in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.131.138 (talk) 04:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Battle of Iwo Jima. 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/20071212233438/http://worldwar2database.com:80/html/letters_from_iwo_jima.htm to http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/letters_from_iwo_jima.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100707082542/http://www.nps.gov:80/archive/wapa/indepth/pactheatercamp/iwo/chronology.htm to http://www.nps.gov/archive/wapa/indepth/pactheatercamp/iwo/chronology.htm
 * Added tag to https://www.denverdonate.com/iwo-jima-john-burgeen.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070226225615/http://www.articlemyriad.com:80/57.htm to http://www.articlemyriad.com/57.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Battle of Iwo Jima. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/letters_from_iwo_jima.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.military.com/NewContent/0%2C13190%2CNI_Iwo_Jima2%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nps.gov/archive/wapa/indepth/pactheatercamp/iwo/chronology.htm
 * Added tag to http://ftp.metalab.unc.edu/hyperwar/USN/rep/Iwo/Cominch/Iwo-2.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211215607/http://www.mcnews.info/mcnewsinfo/marines/2007/20072nd/onliberty/Suribachi.shtml to http://www.mcnews.info/mcnewsinfo/marines/2007/20072nd/onliberty/Suribachi.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205095231/http://multimedia.tbo.com/flash/iwojima3d/index.htm to http://multimedia.tbo.com/flash/iwojima3d/index.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.articlemyriad.com/57.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Iwo Jima. 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/20090211055959/http://www.nps.gov/archive/wapa/indepth/extContent/usmc/pcn-190-003132-00/sec10.htm to http://www.nps.gov/archive/wapa/indepth/extContent/usmc/pcn-190-003132-00/sec10.htm
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20140406050537/http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/Mar/13/iwojima-veteran-visit-reunionofhonor/ to http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/Mar/13/iwojima-veteran-visit-reunionofhonor/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100416171255/http://www.ww2-pictures.com/iwo-jima-pictures.htm to http://www.ww2-pictures.com/iwo-jima-pictures.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Use of language
"Two US Marines were captured during the battle, neither of whom survived their captivity." As the book Flag of Our Fathers makes clear, captured meant being tortured and mutilated to death... Also Bushido as a code of 'honour', I remembering hearing (I think in the British documentary 'Hell in the Pacific'), Imperial Japan removed any notions of caring for the weak and helpless (which existed in the original medieval Bushido) in the ruthless Imperial Japanese military. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.174 (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Names transposed?
Shouldn't "Henry Hansen was misidentified as being Block" be: "Block was misidentified as being Henry Hansen"? Greeseyparrot (talk) 08:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Use as Airbase to Provide Fighter Cover to US Long-Range Bombers?
I just watched a Youtube video of a old US Military produced film (hxxps://(YT)/CKxxbqynRIU, in case anyone is interested), which claimed that the strategic value of Iwo Jima was that it could be used to provide fighter support to US long-range bombers on their way to Japan. The Lede of the Article goes straight to debunking it's strategic value, and does not mention this possible use. Assume the people that wrote this Article knew enough to know that it was not used for this purpose, but the absence of it's possible use is a bit confusing. Why is the US Military claiming it has a value as a fighter base, but the Wikipedia Article doesn't even mention this possibility? Posting this, in case something was overlooked.Tym Whittier (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * While it would have some tactical value in this regard, the main strategic value was 1) the airstrip was big enough for B-29 raids on the Japanese mainland and 2) as a staging area for the eventual invasion of Japan that was still thought necessary at the time. 50.111.50.240 (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Pyrrhic Victory
Can it be argued that the victory was a pyrrhic victory? In the intro it mentions heavy losses were incurred as well as that the airstrips were useless. Lord David, Duke of Glencoe (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the sources (RS) state that the airfields were not 'useless' - quite the contrary. While if the atomic bomb would have been known to 'work' and would be available soon, the battle of Iwo Jima would not have occurred, at the time and in that war-environment, it was thought necessary. WW2 was full of extremely costly battles. The article covers both sides of this equation pretty well, I think. 50.111.50.240 (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2019
Please rotate the image "1945 view of Iwo Jima" 180* (2x clockwise) the picture appears to be upside down. 161.146.227.233 (talk) 06:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * How do you know it's upside down? It's an aerial photo with virtually vertical angle. It has no up and down. If your complaint is that it's not orientated with north being up, this is not a map, so I don't see why it is necessary to heed mapping conventions. Melmann (talk) 08:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: No good reason given. As Melmann said aerial photos usually don't have a "right" orientation. --Trialpears (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2019
Under OUTCOME, your statistics for causalities and the source you reference are incorrect. please refer to: https://www.nationalww2museum.org/sites/default/files/2017-07/iwo-jima-fact-sheet.pdf Cmrogel237 (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ You have a good source, but the numbers it gives closely match those already in the article (~7,000 marine dead + ~20,000 wounded; ~18,000 Japanese, of which 216 prisoners and the rest dead) so no change is needed. A2soup (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Marine Corp Memorial Iwo Jima.jpg

USN Seabee's
Seabee's of the 133rd mcb attached to the 4th Marine Division landed and fought along side Marines starting with the first wave at 0859. They built many structures to include Chapel, Chowhall, runway, repair of the Japanese rock crusher, laying of miles worth of pipe, the list carries. I'm terrible at citing, referencing and fixing pages. Would it be possible for someone more talented and skilled than me to consider adding information about the Seabees to this article? They wore greens and shed blood just the same. They landed in waves as well from 0859 to 1600. They lost men. Blah blah blah

See: Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 133, Seabee and Seabees in World War IIMcb133aco (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Fighter escort missions
These two statements seem contradictory to me: "These [long-range fighter] escorts proved both impractical and unnecessary, and only ten such missions were ever flown from Iwo Jima." and "1,191 fighter escorts ... were flown from Iwo Jima against Japan." What is the difference between them? GA-RT-22 (talk) 05:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Headline needs controversy mentioned
I put a summary in a paragraph up there, and pulled out the strategy bit from the battle bits. Iwo Jima is a very significant battle precisely because it is almost a cliche for generals fighting battles just because they can. That needs to go in the lead.

(There was another even later battle on Borneo where Australian troops nearly mutinied -- nobody wants to be the last casualty in a war.) Tuntable (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

POV
This is an opinion but the POV does not seem entirely neutral. There seems to be a historical revisionist approach to the article with complete disregard to pre-atom bomb culture and information. A second opinion is that the article should be  split. One to give the factual account of the battle the second to give the postwar analysis. I think there is a small issue with the statement that the airfields saw limited use with all the fighters assigned to Iwo. The VII Fighter Group was there with its P51s and at least 2 night squadrons of P61s. So I again question the POV. Another statement that raises questions of accuracy is "3 Japanese airfields", D-day there were two, the Seabees made the third.Mcb133aco (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC) mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The seabees completed the third. The Japanese began work on the third, but Kuribayashi halted that work. I don't think the article should be split. While VII did base a number of fighters there, their efficacy was limited at best. This article provides an interesting viewpoint on this. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The article states that the airfields saw little use or in plain English were parking lots. There efficacy is a postwar analysis. Mcb133aco (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

sp their Mcb133aco (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really. The article that I linked to shows the operational problems they had in operating VII from Iwo Jima. Further, that such operations yielded comparatively limited results, especially as compared to the casualties endured in taking Iwo Jima. By the time of the end of the battle, Japan simply didn't have much of an air force with which to thwart B-29 raids. These were known things during the war, not just after the war. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

POV remains an issue. All the numbers and issues you want to include are premised upon the war ending when it did. The Generals had no crystal ball and had the Atomic bomb been a dud the war would have continued and the numbers you want to cite would be problematic. That makes their inclusion to start with problematic in my opinion. This is Wikipedia not FacebookMcb133aco (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no numbers or issues I'm trying to include. I haven't edited the article itself in quite sometime other than to undo vandalism or breaking edits. The point remains that during the war it was a known fact that air cover over Japan was becoming increasingly sparse and incapable of stopping B-29 raids. That's just simple fact. There's no post war analysis that is needed to come to that conclusion. The U.S. knew this during the war. Operation San Antonio (fully three months before the Battle of Iwo Jima began), the first B-29 raid on Japan proper, saw one plane lost to enemy action. The Japanese air defenses had great difficulty in deploying fighters that could intercept the B-29s. Even late war models of fighters such as the Kawanishi N1K or the Nakajima Ki-84 lacked speed that clearly outmatched a B-29's top speed sufficient to easily intercept them. Had the war continued without a surrender, the air cover situation over Japan simply would have become even more grim, as more production plants and (critically) oil refining and distribution became more of a problem. By August 1945, Japanese refinery production was below 10% of normal production. Thus, the fuel situation with Operation Ten-Go. By June 1945, Japan was effectively out of oil. It was so bad that when the U.S. sent soldiers to arrest Hideki Tojo, his attempted suicide almost succeeded because an ambulance with gasoline could not be found to transport him. Meanwhile, the U.S. had very ample fuel supply lines. Had the war continued, Japan simply would not have been able to send planes to defend against B-29s because they had no fuel to do so. The fuel situation was a known issue during the war. The blockade of Japan by U.S. submarines was a strategy designed to strangle Japan's ability to fuel its war machine. In fact, this oil situation was the entire predicate of how the war in the Pacific began. No post war analysis is needed to reach this conclusion. It was a known fact even before the war began in the Pacific. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Whatever your point of view, the controversy demands mentioning in the lead, which I have done. That said, it was pretty obvious that Japan was beat long before Iwo Jima. Tuntable (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Two Kamikaze air attacks hit the USS Bismarck Sea according to its own Wikipedia page
... therefore, this sentence should be corrected on this page ... "There was also a kamikaze air attack (the only one of the battle) on the ships anchored at sea on 21 February, which resulted in the sinking of the escort carrier USS Bismarck Sea..." That is, "(the only one of the battle)" should be deleted. Rjr1960 (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

simplified Opposing forces; moved OOB detail to separate page
Hi, everyone. Given the level of detail that we have for the Marine Corps, I thought it was time to create a separate OOB page and strip down the material in the main article. See what you think. Hungrydog55 (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

B-29 crew lives saved
There seems to be a bias that very few if any of the B-29 emergency landings were really emergencies. This does not seem like neutral POV. Simply being low on fuel constitutes an emergency when flying over water. B-29s took off with enough fuel for a round trip. If they needed to stop they probably had good reason to think so. Early B-29s were not terribly reliable; and engine fires were both common and frequently fatal. A crew deciding to stop for "routine" engine maintenance was perhaps merely being prudent. While it is certainly the case that some of the landings were not necessary, it is a rush to judgement to suggest, as the article does, that most were. Grenley (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)