Talk:Iwo Jima

Template:Findsources3

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)

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)

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 Template:Sc Template:Sc name until the WWII generation's grandkids are gone and probably not even then) or Iōtō (which will never be the Template:Sc Template:Sc 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)

Sources for future article expansion

• .

This is a fantastically clear, well-researched, and careful workTemplate:Mdashas far as the initial sections anywayTemplate:Mdashand should probably be used for almost all of the historical sections up to the name change.

• .

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.

• .

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

• .

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 Template:Sc) 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)

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)