Talk:Battle of Peleliu

message: How come the detail of the battle is missing?
:Expansion request. —Viriditas | Talk 13:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article is rather POV and definitely needs to be expanded in light of the abundant source material available.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.231.247.123 (talk) 01:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: This article needs to be rewritten so that it flows. Halsey's recommendation goes in the middle somewhere, not in Aftermath. The sentence starting "To settle this dispute..." makes no sense because both commanders wanted to attack Peleliu. It's obviously addressing the Nimitz/MacArthur strategy difference, not Peleliu. And what was Nimitz going to Peleliu for, anyway? 
Clearly, there's a need for a blow-by-blow account of the battle in between Background and Aftermath. I'm not the Peleliu expert, so I'll leave the task to someone else. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article sentence order and structure

message: The article states that the heavy cruiser Columbus participated in the bombardment of the island. But the Wikipedia page for the ship states Columbus was not commissioned until June 1945... well after the battle.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tradermort (talk • contribs) 03:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  USS ''Columbus'' 

message: The info to the picture with the two soliders, is sais that the participate in the mopping up operation on the 14th of SEPTEMBER, when the battle didn't begin until the 15th of September. I do not know the exact date so I leave thet to someone else, but I'm pretty sure it's not the 14th.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.78.219 (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture info (line 105) 

message: The article says that the Umurbrogol contained some 500 limestone caves. Is limestone correct? Other sources say or imply that Umurbrogol was made of coral.Llezsoeg (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limestone? 

message: The Battle of Peleliu is discussed to great extent in the recently-published best seller book "Code Talker: The First and Only Memoir By One of the Original Navajo Code Talkers of WWII" by Chester Nez, who is the last surviving member of the original Navaho-speaking Code Talkers, and was present during most of the Battle of Peleliu. Perhaps this could be mentioned in the article. --Saukkomies talk  13:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Code Talker" book 

message: Do we really need this section? I'm inclined to judge the cultural impact of the battle of Peleliu negligible, even if it features in a moderately popular video game. --Yaush (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In popular culture" 

message: The Japanese commander is listed as "Kunio Nakagawa †", with no reference as to what the superscript ("†") is for - it does not reappear in the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.234.112.12 (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It means that Nakagawa died during the battle, what is mentioned as On 24 November, Nakagawa proclaimed "Our sword is broken and we have run out of spears". He then burnt his regimental colors and performed ritual suicide. The Banner talk 23:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  orphaned superscript 

message: If both strategies included the invasion of Peleliu, as stated, than these sentences seem irrelevant to the background of this battle:
:"There was disagreement among the U.S. Joint Chiefs over two proposed strategies to defeat the Japanese Empire. The strategy proposed by General Douglas MacArthur called for the recapture of the Philippines, followed by the capture of Okinawa, then an attack on the Japanese mainland. Admiral Chester Nimitz favored a more direct strategy of bypassing the Philippines, but seizing Okinawa and Taiwan as staging areas to an attack on the Japanese mainland, followed by the future invasion of Japan's southernmost islands. Both strategies included the invasion of Peleliu, but for different reasons."
The only reason to go into this here would be the differing rationales for this invasion, but those aren't even given!  As it is, the matter of the U.S. strategy for the Pacific seems best left to articles about the broader theater of this war.
Taking away that broader material from the existing content would leave this:
:By the summer of 1944, following American victories in the Southwest and Central Pacific, the Mariana Islands campaign (June—August 1944) secured air bases from which American bombers began striking the Japanese main islands. Now, before General MacArthur could recapture the Philippines, the Palau Islands, specifically Peleliu and Angaur, were to be neutralized and an airfield built to protect MacArthur's right flank. The 1st Marine Division was chosen to make the assault.
Any reason why I shouldn't make this change?
- Zulu Kane (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: New Documentaries 2015 Revisiting a Forgotten Battlefield - Peleliu Island (Full Documentary)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgAU1demn6k  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.225.98.208 (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viedo record of  Battle of Peleliu 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Peleliu. 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.usmcmuseum.com/Exhibits_UncommonValor_p15.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: On the map there is a landing from the 323d Inf on October 15th . But it is nowhere in the article.
ThePro (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  323d Inf ? 

message: There is a dispute between me and Coltsfan on the number of American Military losses on both the Battle of Peleliu and the Second Battle of Guam articles, for convenience sake I will use just one talk page to settle both. I'm requesting some of the users that have edited these articles in the past or have written extensively on WWII battle articles in general to weigh in, so we can reach consensus, which admittedly should have been my first course of action: Nick-D, YahwehSaves, Fortunatestars, Nick.mon, Roddy the roadkill, Mike Peel, AntonyZ, TwinkleMore, and TimothyBlue, your thoughts would be appreciated.
Both figures of American casualties on Peleliu and Guam (before I revised them) came from the same source - "Pride and Patriotism: Stamford’s Role in World War II, Online Edition" by the The Stamford Historical Society.  Each one linked to a separate webpage: this is the one for Peleliu , and this is the one for Guam .  As you can see, this isn't from a published work but rather from an exhibit, apparently held May 2006 through June 2007 about Stamford, Connecticut's role in WWII.  In and of itself I don't think this qualifies as a reliable source, but regardless it HEAVILY contradicts with the established published sources on this subject, especially in the case of Peleliu. On the Peleliu article I revised this using "The Battle of Peleliu" by Kimberly J. Miller, 1994 (backside/page 2) as a source and also (if we are using webpages) the Naval History and Heritage Command website , the former of these is a factsheet I own (but still a written published work, unlike the current source), and was meant to be temporary while I compiled the other sources since I've read in multiple other sources the same lower figure.  This was immediately reverted by [User:The Banner|The Banner] without actually giving an explanation, which isn't acceptable. When I changed it back I was then reverted by Coltsfan,  saying "you didn't use any source; just placed some 'title' and a page with no consequence. again, use the talk page and show a better source than 'that'" leaving aside the obvious problems I just mentioned with the source previously in use, I reverted this since I gave not one but two sources so that's an objectively false pretext, which he then acknowledges in the same sentence, but claims citing the books name and page number isn't acceptable (except there are multiple articles that do just that).  
For starters the sources I replaced *themselves* had replaced the previous figures, which I have re-instated(although with different sources in the case of Guam), without any discussion on the talkpage of either articles, the reason given by The Pittsburgher being that the higher figure was "far more common" in the case of Peleliu (I can find no evidence for this),  while for the Battle of Guam the revision in question not only wasn't discussed on the talkpage, there wasn't a reason given for it on the actual edit .  If there was no discussion on it to begin with and it was just accepted I want to ask why mine was unacceptable yet not the the ones in question being replaced?  The original lower figures that I am in effect reinstating are these: in the case of Guam, which is a webpage, so I figured I would replace it with "Mighty Endeavor: The American Nation and World War II" by by Blaine T. Browne (published in 2019) page 194 and also "Guam 1941 & 1944: Loss and Reconquest" by Osprey Publishing page 163, although according to Coltfans, who reverted again while I'm writing this, I am supposed to include the ISBN and author name in edits, although I've seen sources cited with the title and page number before, so I apologize for possible technical errors, but the fundamental truth has not changed. In the case of Peleliu the evidence is overwhelmingly against the current figures: aside from the ones I've cited, "United States Naval Administration of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands" page 158 by the United States Navy Department, Naval Operations Office (published in 1957) gives the same figures I added, as does  "With the Old Breed
At Peleliu and Okinawa" by Eugene Sledge  and "Brotherhood of Heroes: The Marines at Peleliu, 1944 : the Bloodiest Battle of the Pacific War" by Bill Sloan  in the case of the Marine casualties specifically. - 199.102.136.186 (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet another source that backs up the lower figure (it doesn't include the navy dead which is why its slightly lower than the ones I used) - "An Encyclopedia of Battles: Accounts of Over 1,560 Battles from 1479 B.C. to the Present" by David Eggenberger (2012) page 327 -- losses are broken down as 6,526 casualties for the 1st Marine Division(of whom 1,252 killed) and 1,393 casualties for the 81st Infantry Division(of whom 208 were killed).  Also I didn't realize the Japanese casualties on the articles were also from Stamford, but this source offers an alternative: 13,600 Japanese killed (including reinforcements from nearby islands) and 400 captured. - 199.102.136.186 (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable to me, if its an unreliable source it shouldn't be used. -- Roddy the roadkill (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Coltsfan asked for demonstration as to why the previous source was unreliable and for a proper reference for the new sources, so I will do that on both pages. -- Roddy the roadkill (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I am seriously worried about this situation. To me, it looks like a tag team active here. The Banner talk 12:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: My interpretation was a disagreement over proper referencing that could be resolved by using either another source already in use on the same page or in use elsewhere on Wikipedia instead of the iffy title and number proposed by an anonymous user.  If you seriously think that however I will undo my editing. -- Roddy the roadkill (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing this I think there is a bit more going on. The Banner talk 22:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute on U.S. casualties suffered on Peleliu and Guam 

message: I recently MOS:DATEUNIFY audited this article with , based on nearly-equal instances of  and  formats, and that per MOS:DATERET, the article was mostly  throughout its editing history (including its first non-stub quality edits).
Supporting 's position at Talk:Surrender of Japan, I think the article's date format should change to . Looking to get consensus.  — sbb (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing date format from mdy to dmy? 

message: Postwar statisticians calculated that it took US forces over 1500 rounds of ammunition to kill each Japanese defender and that, during the course of the battle, the Americans expended 13.32 million rounds of .30-calibre, 1.52 million rounds of .45-calibre, 693,657 rounds of .50-calibre bullets, 118,262 hand grenades, and approximately 150,000 mortar rounds.
How about, for curt constants X and Y: 
Postwar statisticians calculated that it took US forces, in rough terms, X of this and Y of that. 
I might add that overuse of "over" reeks of mouth-breathing PR flacks who misplaced their statistical breath mints, but it's so ubiquitous in our highly commercialized society that I've given up the cause, and secretly wear a nose pin under my covid mask. — MaxEnt 14:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the relevance of that section?? The Banner talk 19:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

text: My question is what is your point, MaxEnt? You think "over" is overused in society? Noted. But what is your reference for saying it shouldn't be used in THIS CASE? Postwar / post battle calculations of the amount of munitions expended was a very common thing. Since we are unsure of the number of Japanese Imperial soldiers that were killed by American bullets and the number that died by other means, saying "over" is a perfectly legitimate use. I am 99% positive that the stats from Hasting book, which this sentence cites, are direct quotes pulled from post-war battle reports.Ckruschke (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  False precision 

message: How is it possible that the infobox says US casualties were 7,900 when the text says that only the 1st Marine Division incurred over 6,500 losses and the 81st Infantry Division also suffered 3,300 casualties? And that's without counting any other land, sea or air units involved. Merrybrit (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox is using Eggenberger as a source, and those numbers are close to those in other accounts of the battle. Hallas lists around 6,500 Marine casualties and around 1400 Army casualties, which comes close to the Eggenberger number. I notice the main article doesn't list any sources for its casualty numbers. It's possible the 81st Division numbers include casualties that occurred after the island was declared "secured." But without sources listed it's hard to say. Intothatdarkness 02:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what sources were used for the main article but according to Ian Toll's Twilight of the Gods: War in Western Pacific, 1944-1945, there were "about 1,800 killed and 8,000 wounded" which matches the above. He also writes that the 1st Marine Division suffered 6,786 casualties. The infobox seems to undercount casualties by about 25%. Merrybrit (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Hallas and Alexander (listed in the article bibliography) have numbers that are close to what the article gives for the First Marine Division. There is some variation in the numbers, and Toll seems to be using the higher estimate. If you're really wanting to make adjustments, I'd look into the numbers given for the 81st Division for the reason I gave before. Intothatdarkness 15:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Casualties 

message: I'm not seeing anything on the article talk page about the very recent removal of all OOB information from this article and the creation of a separate OOB page. For changes of this scope, it might be wise to discuss first. Intothatdarkness 22:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Changes 

message: This article, like too many other writings on Peleliu, almost completely ignores the Army's role in taking the island.  That's not to diminish the grit and bravery of the Marines who fought there, but after all the casualties inflicted by the Japanese, they could never have taken the island on their own.  That's why the 81st Infantry was sent in to lend a hand.  That's one of my pet peeves, since my father was in the 81st.2602:FE43:0:332D:102:60C1:F1BB:650 (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The 81st is mentioned multiple times in the article but I have to agree that - optimistically spoken - the info provided is meagre. When you have prior published sources, I invite you to expand the info. The Banner talk 13:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't a lot out there about the role of the 81st Division on its own when it comes to Peleliu, although I believe there may be a recentish study on the subject. Intothatdarkness 14:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the Army? 

message: The info box says the Japanese had about 10k troops, but also suffered over 20k deaths. 2601:140:8283:6560:3B71:2E06:364E:5D4A (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese Strength