Talk:Iwo Jima

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iwo Jima article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 31 days

Japan: Geography & environment / Military history / Tokyo Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of 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, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 23:45, January 31, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the Geography and environment task force.

This article is supported by the joint Japanese military history task force.

This article is supported by the Tokyo task force.

WikiProject Japan to do list:

Peer review: None
A-class review: None

Featured content candidates –

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One
Add requested images to articles that need them.
Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions.
Improve and expand Japan-related stubs.
Create some requested articles.
Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English.
Assess unassessed articles

Volcanoes Mid‑importance

	Volcanoes portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects 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.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islands

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands 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.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

missing...

The article on the Iwo Jima rail says the Island once had forests. This article doesn't mention them, at all. A sad omission. Maybe RS don't cover this aspect of the Island very well. The Iwo Jima rail article cites references that either were never online, or have gone 404. The references I looked at say the deep dome of lava, under the Island, keep expanding, pushing land out of the sea... that land that was at beach level when benchmarks were installed, is now over 100 feet above sea level. Apparently the Island is one of the top volcanic sites overdue for a huge blowout. This should also be in the article. Geo Swan (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This issue was raised quite a while ago, so I don’t know how much the article has changed in these respects, but it’s forested past and a few more of these things are currently mentioned under Geography -> Eruption History, but don’t really expand much on the topic.

I agree on how the islands significance for vulcanism research/observation is under-emphasized. SkSlick (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DoN't uSe CaMeL cAsE oK~

There's extensive discussion in the archives of trying to get the page moved to Ioto (which will never be the COMMON ENGLISH name until the WWII generation's grandkids are gone and probably not even then) or Iōtō (which will never be the COMMON ENGLISH form ever but might show up more and more in political and scholarly use). Even when they were thinking about using Iwoto, no one ever discussed the current page's "IoTo"... because it's so obviously completely wrong. I assume it's from a Japanese editor or overenthusiastic teenager trying to "helpfully" show where the characters are but that's not how any of this works. It's not ToKyo. It's not ShangHai. It's not IoTo.

Pick any of Iōtō (correct fwiw), Ioto, Io To, Io-to, or Io-To but don't try to turn the islands into an ioPhone. — LlywelynII 22:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for future article expansion

Eldridge, Robert D. (2014), Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S.–Japan Relations: American Strategy, Japanese Territory, and the Islanders In-Between (PDF), Quantico: Marine Corps University Press.

This is a fantastically clear, well-researched, and careful work—as far as the initial sections anyway—and should probably be used for almost all of the historical sections up to the name change.

Iwo Jima in 45 Eruptions.

This just seems to be a blog entry but it also seems very well done, certainly better than the current article even patched up. It could possibly be used to search for the right sources to include more of the right details in the article if Eldridge doesn't cover them.

O'Rourke, Patrick Jake (June 2004), "Sulfur Island", The Atlantic, Washington: Atlantic Monthly.

This is a personal essay but fantastically well-written and includes details for its era that could be helpfully included.

Caldwell, Thomas (14 March 1995), "Iwo Jima: Island Nobody Wanted", Official site, Washington: United Press International.

This is kind of the opposite: it seems serious but is so ridiculously lazy and hackish he talks about De le Torre as Detores and makes up various details to the actual account. It could, however, point towards some details about the battle and aftermath (get real sourcing elsewhere though: this isn't an RS) and be used as an example for some of the various mistakes people have just repeated from one another over the years. — LlywelynII 10:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Highest elevation

In the 'geography-box': "172 m (564 ft) -> Mount Suribachi." The linked reference speaks of 169/554, first crawled in Apr 2014 with this value.

Under 'initial text': "The highest point of Iwo Jima is Mount Suribachi at 169 m (554 ft)". There seems to be no reference, but [1] may be used.

Under 'geography': "The most prominent feature is Mount Suribachi on the southern tip, a vent that is thought to be dormant and is 161 m (528 ft)" This links to [1] (pre Apr 2014).

Nasa says it's 167m (546 ft), it was first crawled in Feb 2023 Bookwormeater (talk) 07:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]