Talk:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

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

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

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

Just what do they teach kids in school now?

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

This is not a talk page or blog; it is for discussion of the encyclopedia article itself (changes to be made, requests for clarification, etc.). Comments like this would be more suitable on a personal web page. Thanks. Matt Deres 04:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right, Matt Deres, but do you have to be such a goddam, condescending bitch about it?? Elizabeth R

No kidding! In regards to the article-- I had heard that this photo was staged. True/False?

Ah, that should be covered in the article. No, it was not staged, but that rumor has dogged the picture. Allow me to explain. There were two flag raisings that morning. The first flag, however, was too small. So (second plantoon?) E company was dispatched to replace it with a much bigger flag. That second flag raising was the one caught in this photo. Afterwards, everyone was so excited, Rosenthal had them all pose and took a picture of them (here's a photo of Rosenthal taking the posed picture). So Rosenthal sent his film to Guam to be developed. On guam, they developed the photo, realized how amazing it was, so they wrote back to Rosenthal asking if "it" was staged. Rosenthal didn't realize they were asking about hte flag *raising* picture, he thought they were asking about the group photo after the flag raising. So he wrote back and said that yes, it was. That's why this rumor has dogged the photo. There's also video footage the marines raising the flag that corrolates *identically* with the flag raising photo. Thus, the picture was demonstrably not posed. Raul654 06:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Flag Raising

The well known picture of an American flag being raised on Mount. Suribachi on Iwo Jima is a picture of the second flag raising. Five Marines: Mike Strank, Franklin Sousley, Rene Gagnon, Harlon Block, and Ira Hayes along with Navy Corpman John "Doc" Bradley are the six men who raised the glorious symbol of our country for all their fellow soldiers to see, for the second time. The reason for two flag raisings is that the first flag that was raised was small and hardly visible to the naval fleet that was present at the time. The second flag was much larger and much easier for all marines on the island to see.

NetBSD

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

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

Reichstag picture? Come again?

File:Red army soldiers raising the soviet flag on the roof of the reichstag berlin germany.jpg

Picture in question

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

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

Well, these are two famous WW2 photos featuring a flag. I don't see why it shouldn't be linked.  Grue  06:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Meh, I suppose, but I wouldn't call the resemblance "striking." How about a see also, pointing to "another notable WWII flag pic" instead of the comment I took out? --Easter Monkey 06:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It symbolizes the Russians triumph over the Germans, much like the U.S's triumph over the Japanese in a major WWII battle. Oh and I also updated the links with the Commons version. - Hbdragon88 07:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, meh...What does the Russian storming of the Reichstag have to do with the U.S. securing Iwo Jima? Not much, the only similarity that I can see is that they are both famous WWII photos of flags being raised. The context is completely different, the stories behind the photos is different, the numbers of people in the photo are different, etc. The Russians taking the Reichstag symbolized the complete victory over Germany. The capturing of Iwo Jima, although very significant in that the island would surely be used as a jumping off point for an invasion of the Japanese home islands, is not quite as significant. That is to say, capturing Iwo Jima does not equate capturing Berlin. Of course the Battle of Iwo Jima was extremely important not only to those who fought and died there but to the greater war effort, but saying that the two photographs resemble each in a striking fashion is misleading at best. If the U.S. had invaded Tokyo, and a photograph had been taken of a U.S. soldier or Marine raising a flag over the Japanese parliament HQ or other prominent governmental building, then yes, that photo would indeed bear a striking resemblance. But these two photos? I say no, and that is also part of the problem, no citation or scholarly source. If you can find a source then my arguments are of course moot. But, that they are two very famous WWII photos of flags being raised I don't have an issue. A See also: other WWII flag photos link, would be very appropriate I think. --Easter Monkey 07:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the picture should probably be mentioend in the article somewhere, but I don't have strong feelings one way or the other. However, this article *will not* have a see-also. See-also's are evil, mindless, degenerate writing that has no place in a featured article. Raul654 07:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Point well taken. It would have looked stupid as a one line See also section. --Easter Monkey 08:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, both are iconic flag-raising photographs from WWII, indicative of the Allies triumphing over the Axis, but the compositions are not all that similar (flagpole up from bottom right to middle, with soldiers at the base of the flagpole, but the flags are flying in different directions, the backgrounds and points of view are different). A citation comparing or contrasting the two would be great, though.

Other Example of homage or parody?

Surely there are other examples of homage or parody, other than the cover of Monstrous Regiment? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes there are. Status Quo, the music group, had a song called 'In the Army Now'. The cover is obviously a homage to it. Douglasnicol 15:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Dammit

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

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

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

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

"Ronson" sherman

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

I think this is a coincidence: the tanks were certainly know as "Ronsons" for their tendancy to light on the first strike; however, the flame-throwing equipment that was added to these tanks was known as the Ronson system. See the caption to the image here - A Marine flame tank, also known as a "Ronson," scorches a Japanese strongpoint. The eight M4A3 Shermans equipped with the Navy Mark 1 flame-thrower proved to be the most valuable weapons systems on Iwo Jima. Department of Defense Photo (USMC) 14075. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh silly me! I didn't click the article for the "Ronson system". Gothca. --Ashmole 20:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Whither the first flag?

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

One of the references for Hank Hansen has a list and a photo - [1] - First Lieutenant Harold G. Schrier, Platoon Sergeant Ernest I. Thomas Jr., Sergeant Henry O. Hansen, Corporal Charles W. Lindberg, Private First Class Louis C. Charlo and Private First Class James Michels. The (less famous) photograph was taken by Sergeant Louis R. Lowery. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

With that being said, shouldn't there also be an article about the original flag raising? It's an extremely significant moment because without the first raising, there never would have been a second. There is one man on the planet who I think would agree. His name is Charles W. Lindberg, the last surviving member of either event. I may just create that article myself. J-Dog 00:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you going to call it? Raising the First Flag on Iwo Jima? Hbdragon88 03:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a good question. Kinda does present a problem doesn't it? I don't know what to call it. But there deffinately should be an article about the event. To the men that fought there, the first raising was a helluva lot more meaningful. I think your name idea sounds pretty good actually. Thtat's what Charles W. Lindberg calls it. J-Dog 11:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The raising of the first flag surely deserves mention. Bradley's book, and Eastwood/Spielberg's movie adaptation of the book, both do a wonderful job of emphasizing the emotional and important raising of that first flag. Part of the complete story of the famous raising is the odd circumstance that brought about its fame. It would do well as a stand-alone section here, in the 'Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima' wiki, or as its own. - Thaimoss 00:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't see why you can't just have a headed paragraph in the article listing the names of the original flag raisers. Currently the article only mentions two by name, in different sections, and sort of in passing only. If nothing else it provides context and cohesivness to the first flag raising, and clarifies who was/wasn't involved (which I lost track of in the Eastwood film). There can't be too much more to be said that's not already in the article so a new one probably isn't necessary (but if you want too ...) The Yeti 17:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Peacock words in the lead

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

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

Dead Kennedys

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

Confederate flag

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

I do want a page number, because this is the first time I've heard *any* source indicating this and I have a great deal of trouble believing it. Raul654 20:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll look it up next time I'm at the library. You can delete it if you'd like until I can come up with a better citation/info. And even then, it may be trivial; then again, it seems weird and interesting to me. I'll get back on it.. Pfly 21:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the soldiers who flew the confederate flag at Iwo Jima were not doing it as some kind of symbolic act so much as a way to have fun with an unofficial symbol that was popular among some units. The higher ranking officers were not pleased. But again, I'll have to recheck for the details and I'll check Coski's sources too. I'm not a supporter of the confederate flag so much as just curious about it, after seeing its use in many ways during a trip through the South recently. Pfly 23:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to follow up, I got the book again and discovered I was wrong -- the Confederate flag was raised from the ruins of Shuri Castle upon the fall of Okinawa, not Iwo Jima and Mount Shuribachi. My mistake; sorry. Pfly 00:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Picture now available

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

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

Removal of Dead Kennedys reference.

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

I found an image of the Dead Kennedys cover [2] and it appears to have very little connection to the Iwo Jima photo. Sure, it shows a flag raising, but a completely different one. I have removed the above paragraph accordingly. --HappyDog 12:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

For those curious, the "rule" applies to all words beginning with a pronounced "H." If the accented syllable is the first syllable (e.g. HANDsome, HIStory), it's preceded by "a." If it's after the first syllable (e.g. hysTERical, hisTORical), it's preceded by "an." I think this rule is considered archaic now, so it really doesn't matter. Just letting you know where it comes from.RC Cola (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

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. pp. Page 311. ISBN 0553384155.

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)

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)

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)

memorable

I mentioned that this isn't really 'memorable' a week ago but nobody has done anything about it since...? Should I flag up a country bias or something? Duh, I don't even know how to do that, but... americans, tut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeygirl (talk • contribs) 21:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant Article

But I was thinking, shouldn't it have some mention of the film, by Eastwood? --83.141.77.130 (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It already does: As a catharsis, James Bradley spent four years interviewing the families of all the flag raisers, and published Flags of Our Fathers, a definitive book on the flag raising and its participants.[43] This book inspired a 2006 movie of the same name, directed by Clint Eastwood. Raul654 (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

But it doesn't tell you if the films any good. The film by Eastwood, I mean. --83.141.77.130 (talk) 11:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC) And who was the main guy in it again?

What happened to the flags?

Considering the second flag was raised after a request that the first flag be retained as a souvenir, I was wondering if anyone knew what became of the two flags raised on Mt. Suribachi and might add that information to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DirkLangeveld (talk • contribs) 03:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If you had read this article, you would know the answer. Raul654 (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This photograph was taken in February, 1945 by men who worked for the bureau that eventually became NOAA. I believe it would be the same flag seen in the Rosenthal photograph. You can how much damage it had endured in just a few days. One interesting thing, I know many Marines who scaled Suribachi in the days after the flag events, including my father, and none of them remembers seeing the wooden contraption seen in this photograph:

http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/bigs/theb2972.jpg (JCH1952 (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC))

Citation needed

In the article you write that the both falgs are located in the National Museum of the Marine Corps. but the museum itself ([3]) talks about having only the second flag, not the first one. Do you have any better source for that pecae of information? 89.138.149.248 (talk) 10:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As I found out during my visit there, they have 3 flags, actually - the flag raised during the first flag raising, the second flag raising, and the third flag. (Although not mentioned in this article, the third flag replaced the second after the second was damaged by wind.). The flags are rotated in-and-out of the same display case so that no one of them gets too worn from display. Raul654 (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

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. pp. Page 318-9. ISBN 0553384155.

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