Talk:Battle of Leyte

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 20, 2014, October 20, 2015, October 20, 2018, and October 20, 2020.

Military history: North America / United States / World War II

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force

Tambayan Philippines: History High‑importance

	Philippines portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Philippine history task force.

Missing heading

Why is the article title Battle of Leyte when the text discusses Battle of Leyte Gulf? -- Zoe 03:37, March 10, 2003

Good point. IIRC, the Battle of Leyte was the land battle that followed. This should be moved to Battle of Leyte Gulf Tannin 03:40, March 10, 2003

Photo in Inbox

The photo in the infobox in this article was not taken at Leyte, but in Lingayen, Luzon during the landings there. All other photos of MacArthur wading ashore at Red Beach in Palo, Leyte show President Sergio Osmeña to MacArthur's right (which would be the left of the photo) with Carlos P. Romulo behind the general. Osmeña is not in this photo. Therefore this isn't the Leyte, Landing photo of October 20, 1944. On the other hand, other sources like LIFE magazine list this as a photo of MacArthur wading ashore in Luzon. This photo was originally taken by LIFE Magazine correspondent Carl Mydans on January 1945. Here's a website crediting Mydans with the photo. --Harvzsf 17:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of civilian casualties

There should be some note of the high number of civilian casualties during this campaign, either in the information box or in the general text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.28.20 (talk) 09:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My edit

I edited a sentence in the "Aftermath" section which read "Their losses in the campaign were heavy..." to read "Japanese losses in the campaign were heavy...". Without this edit, the antecedent of "their" would seem to be "American." I'm pretty sure my edit was correct, but someone should check me. Mcswell (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese losses were much greater than the Allies - but the Allies lost thousands of lives and many wounded - this was a bloody victory and the casualties should not be under-estimated.50.111.19.178 (talk) 02:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

MacArthur Landing Site.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leyte Gulf losses

Does the Japanese casualty number include Leyte Gulf? Will Tyson for real (talk) 02:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Enemy"

Referring to someone as "enemy" in a Wikipedia article on any military topic is extremely likely to be bias (of the type that invalidates the article, not the type that is necessary for reasoned discourse). There are rare exceptions – for example "In its history, this army has killed millions of enemy soldiers" is a neutral fact – but neutral uses for "enemy" in military-related articles really are rare. The word shows intentional disrespect by refusing to acknowledge a name or identity, and presumes that all readers must agree with the writer's bias. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]