Talk:Battle of Okinawa

message: In section 1.1 Allied of this article,  is mention without antecedent:  I assume  was introduced in a now deleted edit.  needs to be set up, but I am not familiar with the subject. The first line in 'External links' mentions Admiral Richard Kelly Turner. — Neonorange (Phil) 06:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. regards Mztourist (talk) 09:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of {{tq|Turner}} with no antecedent in section '''1.1 Allied''' 

message: This has been argued before with NO CONSENSUS for these sensational claims that the vast majority of historians do not support! Please stop adding it in.
>>I was referring to the original journalist's book that claimed the 10K rapes w/o naming any sources. This whole subject is a huge muddle, and until someone publishes the data that support such claims, it shouldn't go in the article, and shame on publishing houses these days that let things like this get into print without demanding some back-up. HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to understand what your point is from the lump of random text above, but the material here is referenced. If the majority of historians state that rape wasn't a problem during the battle, please provide these sources. Nick-D (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  undocumented rape allegations 

message: As 77,166 Japanese soldiers died, maybe we should change "~76,000+ Japanese soldiers" into "~77,000+ Japanese soldiers" (for the Strength field)? I guess it's because of a diversity of the sources. Unfortunately, I'm not able to check the Hastings 2007 source as it's a book, not a website. There exists some probability that "76,000" might be a mistake (technically, "76,000+" (with a plus), isn't a mistake but even "0+" isn't technically a mistake). However, even if "76,000" is as stated in this book, in my opinion we should use also other sources and the logic. Grillofrances (talk) 06:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hastings mentions a total of 77,000 Japanese (albeit without the plus), plus 20,000 Okinawan recruits - "There was still some debate in command messes about whether the Americans would assault their island or Formosa, further south, but the 77,000 defenders recognised the likelihood that they would fight a great battle. Like other units, it was now made up to strength with locally recruited Okinawans, who inspired little confidence, but added 20,000 unwilling conscripts to the garrison’s strength." Loafiewa (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently the info box lists Japanese soldiers and Okinawan conscripts separately in both the strength and losses, which seems even more off with the number of dead exceeding the strength when you figure in the captured (which doesn't split them up, though later in the article it seems to indicate the number is in flux due to thousands who were only surrendered or were captured months later, and the lower end in the 7,000 range is apparently only counting the initially captured Japanese soldiers and not the later ones or Okinawan conscripts.  Looking at the detail later in the order of battle section, perhaps this is explained by the losses but not the strength part including the 9,000 navy members mentioned there?--108.86.122.142 (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  ~76,000+ Japanese soldiers (Strength) vs 77,166 Japanese soldiers dead 

message: 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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion