Talk:Battle of Iwo Jima

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Battle of Iwo Jima was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Japan / Military history (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 23:52, July 23, 2014 (JST, Heisei 26) (Refresh)
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the joint Japanese military history task force.
 
Pritzker Military Library WikiProject (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 

USN Seabee's[edit]

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

Aftermath[edit]

"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)

Unit formatting[edit]

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)

sorry[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Yes check.svg Done - 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)