Talk:Iwo Jima/Archive 1

message: Since the movie is entirely based o this island, should we make some sort of connection between the two?
Probably not because Flags of our Fathers is a movie and even though it is based on iwo jima it really has nothing to do with it. M_1 12:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flags of Our Fathers

message: This article has no reference to the occupation of the United States Coast Guard on Iwo Jima from 1945 to 1993. The U S Coast Guard operated the Loran C station from the time it was constructed in 1963 (the re-constructed in 1965) to it's decommissioning in 1993. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dmoore31 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Reference 

message: When comparing the present article with the version one year ago, I notice that most of the useful information on history,
geography, climate, vegetation etc. has gone. I have no time right now to recover it, but this should be done before further
effort goes into improving the article. 86.103.203.124 23:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost Information 

message: I think a lot of people will search for "Iwo Jima" and expect to receive the page on the Battle.  Shouldn't there be a disambiguation link at the top of this page for that purpose? toll_booth 01:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Iwo Jima 

message: "On the first day of fighting on Iwo Jima, there were more casualties than in all of Normandy during D-Day, which is not a widely known fact."
That statement is missing any references, and after a quick fact check, appears to be incorrect.
American casualties at Iwo Jima: 26,000
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,NI_Iwo_Jima2,00.html
Allied casualties at Normandy: 209,000
http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/faq.htm#casualities —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.168.129.4 (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing reference / Incorrect Fact 

message: Shouldn't that be suribachisan ? I would have assumed that the last character is pronounced in it's on form. But then, my japanese is not very good.
Tprosser 11:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have checked and double-checked the reading in several (Japanese) sources, and they all gloss the name of the mountain Suribachiyama. What is the basis for assuming that the last character is pronounced san? In Japanese, it can go both ways: 浅間山 Asamayama, 立山 Tateyama, 三原山 Miharayama, etc. Although one can usually assume that ~san is right, there are exceptions. There is no real rule, though—which is correct, is totally arbitrary; so a source of some sort always needs to be checked. Even native readers of Japanese don't always get it right. HTH, Jim_Lockhart 12:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suribachisan or Suribachiyama?

message: Anyone know the extent of the tunneling system on Iwo Jima? Is it still extant? After seeing Flags of Our Fathers I was intrigued, I have a thing for tunnels. Anyone know anything about them? The movie made it sound like it was a pretty massive tunneling system, seeing as there were no barracks and all. Brentt 01:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tunneling System

message: I feel it is necessary to have a seperate section to explain the name change. Chris 18:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the name change requires a section separate from the section already devoted to the island's name. Doing so gives way too much weight to the name of the island, seemingly implying that the name is one of the most important things about the island. That may seem to be the case based on the discussion page, but that is not an accurate reflection of reality. I have, therefore, merged non-redundant material from your section into the ==Name== section, here. Cheers, Tomertalk 20:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Cool. Chris 00:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  name change section created 

message: ::I provided the English pronunciation provided by Webster's, and mojibake reverts it back because he believes that Webster's is wrong? On what authority? Who is trumping one of the largest and most-used English dictionaries in the world? --tortdog 14:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please re-read the message. I removed it because it did not display correct, ie mojibake, as stated in the response. Perhaps your copy / paste did not work correctly. I can only speculate. Try again. Bendono 14:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, his pronunciation symbols are off and did not turn into mojibake. The problem is that M-W uses an idiosyncratic rendering for pronunciation in its web edition. Wikipedia uses IPA. If you hadn't deleted it, I would have. Jim_Lockhart 14:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The pronunciation symbols are those used by M-W Online, and are accurate. It is ("E-(")wO-'jE-m&) and that is NOT mojibake. E is ea as in easy. wO is w+o as in go. jE is j + ea as in easy. m& is m + & as in a and u in abut. The symbols are correct. Perhaps you don't agree with Webster's phonetic symbols, but your disagreement does not make Webster's wrong. Go to the site at http://m-w.com/dictionary/iwo%20jima and confirm the pronunciation. It is correct (and how I've heard it as well). 
So we can fix this pronunciation to conform to online Webster's, right? Or does someone have a better source than Websters? --tortdog 15:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's just stick to IPA.  [ˌi·wo 'dʒi·ma] or [ˌi·wo 'dʒi·mʌ].  I pronounce it the former way, MW seems to be suggesting the latter.  (Unless MW uses & for /ə/, which is just plain crazy. ;-) Tomertalk 17:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this looks right—though I too wonder about the second pronunciation. Jim_Lockhart 02:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Phonetic rendering

message: It’s been a long time since I bothered checking it, but this discussion—plus the comment above by Tokek, motivated me to take a look at :ja:硫黄島 (東京都). It has a rather long explanation of the changes in the reading of the island’s name and how they evolved (sans the details about phonetic and orthogpraphic changes), as well as a content-rich section on the island’s pre-war history. Maybe those of us who read Japanese should have referenced it earlier—doing so might have saved a lot of typing!Anyhow, the article says that at one time, the islanders and the Japanese army called it Iōtō, while at the same time the Japanese navy (IJN) called it Iōjima! It says that the US got the Iwojima reading from the IJN, and that even in the post-war period, the pronunciation given on government-published maps has gone back and forth between the two. The latest change resulted from a petition by former inhabitants and their descendants that found its way up through the Ogasawara Village council (via a council resolution) to the MoLIT*/GSI, which approved the change on the basis of a law that allows municipalities to ask the government to establish the name used by the locals as the official one. (IMHO, the existence of such a law is further evidence of the elasticity of Japanese geonyms.) Anyone for harmonizing the “Name” and a “Pre-war history” sections with the Japanese article? Just a thought... Jim_Lockhart 13:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of name, history in Japanese Wikipedia article

message: There seems to be this constant fear that if this page is moved, the relating Battle of Iwo Jima page will also be moved. Well the Battle.. won't ever be moved. My examples - Battle of Stalingrad and Siege of Leningrad, as you can see, they haven't bee moved to Battle of Volgograd or Siege of Saint Petersburg. My point is, Battle of .. pages are not retroactively re-named. GoodDay 17:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of that I had no doubt.  However, the fact remains most English speakers know of this by one name and our guidelines state that it is this name we should use.  Rklawton 17:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fair to say that the guideline is open to interpretation in regards to this particular case.  Exploding Boy 21:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Who has this fear?  I searched for "battle" in this talk page and the only time this issue has even come up is when people who want to move this page attribute it to people who want the page to stay.  Every argument I've seen for keeping the page at Iwo Jima cites English common usage, not a fear of changing the Battle of Iwo Jima page.  Millions upon millions of English speakers know this island as "Iwo Jima".  The reason is clearly the battle.  But a historical reason for modern common usage does not somehow de-legitimize the fact that "Iwo Jima" has become the accepted English name for this island. CES 18:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no doubt that "Iwo Jima" is the accepted English version of "Iōjima."  But that's no longer the island's name.  Exploding Boy 21:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this matter of interpretation.  You say "Iwo Jima" is the accepted English version of "Iōjima".  I say "Iwo Jima" is the accepted English name for an island in the Pacific--a name spawned from but no longer tied to the original Japanese name (much like the name "Japan" itself).  We have voted twice and the clear consensus favors the latter interpretation.  Unless anyone has anything new to add, it appears that this article should stay at "Iwo Jima." CES 22:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess so.  Now the question becomes what spellings to include in the opening paragraph.  Exploding Boy 22:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Very well, I take it back (suggesting a 'fear factor'). I don't wan't this discussion (page movements) turning into a political-historical debate. Besides, the 2 current 'Surveys' are quite clear in their desires for the page to remain Iwo Jima. On that undisputable note, I accept Iwo Jima. GoodDay 18:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle of Iwo Jima

message: Since Hepburn romanization is strictly phonetic, 硫黄島 would be written as Iōtō, not Iwōtō. —Tokek 13:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. As discussed above, the w is retained from the historical spelling (いわうじま Iwōjima, but actually pronounced [Io:jima] ) before the modern spelling reform. The word was introduced into English before then. Now the official name is いおうとう which is, as you write, Iōtō. The only issue is that adding the w makes it seem sort of like the older form, which is probably why some people choose it. Bendono 14:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure it was いわうじま and not いをうじま, "before the modern spelling reform"?  From the news coverage I've read (weak as a reliable source, I admit more readily than most) "before the modern spelling reform" it was far more likely いをうとう than either いわうじま or いをうじま.  Tomertalk 14:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Bendono 14:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   Tomertalk 14:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm just saying, you're arguing about "strictly phonetic", yet you're transliterating わう as "wō" instead of as "wau", and then claiming that "wau" has magically become ō (おう) because of a spelling reform. Cite a source, pls. Tomertalk 14:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The kana spelling をう never existed. Bendono is correct: it was わう, which was (and is) pronounced おお; hence: wō. Jim_Lockhart 14:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, this isn't a Japanese class, but I still don't understand how "wau" would have come to be transliterated as "wō".  A citation would still be nice.  Tomertalk 14:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, this is not Japanese class. However, I will humor the request. Historical /au/ contracts into [o:]. Draw yourself a vowel triangle, place /a/, /u/, and /o:/ on it. Notice the proximity of /o:/ in relation to /a/ and /u/. In uncareful or slurred speach, /au/ contract into [o:]. Over time (centuries), this resulted in /au/ becoming /o:/. It took a little longer to update the spelling system. It is a standard phonological process not unique to Japanese. Any other questions on the matter, please leave a note on my talk page. Bendono 15:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you access to a decent J-J dictionary? Most also list the historical spelling in addition to the modern. Here is one example: Daijin. Bendono 15:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: But if you want to know how わう becomes wō, you’re going to need a Japanese class—or at least one in Japanese kana orthography. Before the 1946 reforms, all non-verb combinations of a-gyō and u or o were rendered as a long o vowel: か+う kō, さ+う sō, etc. This is still evident in, e.g., adjectives in their form when conjugated with ございます: あか（赤）い＋ございます⇒あかう＋ございます⇒あこうございます。If this doesn’t convince you, I’ll dig out a reference somewhere; nonetheless, it (wō) is correct. HTH, Jim_Lockhart 14:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Addendum: see Historical kana usage#Spelling reform. Though wa+u > wō isn’t shown in the table, you can see the change illustrated with other gyō.  And (to add to what Bendono describes above) this phenomenon is still observable in particularly the western dialects of Japanese, where the a+o and a+u to ō liaison is still evident in the vernacular. HTH, Jim_Lockhart 15:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Haruo Shirane: Classical Japanese: A Grammar.  Exploding Boy 15:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup thanks.  My Japanese is almost exclusively spoken, unfortunately.  Tomertalk 15:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The book is conveniently written in English.  Exploding Boy 06:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There are two 硫黄 entries in a Sanseido's Japanese dictionary published in 昭和9年(1934). いおう and ゆわう. And ゆわう is the main entry.Oda Mari 15:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The dictionary is mixing modern and historical spellings. Most likely this is because the word ゆわう is archaic and obsolete, so it is being quoted in the historical spelling. いおう, on the other hand, is the modern pronunciation, even in the 1930s. Modern いおう has a historical spelling いわう. ゆわう is the historical form of what is now ゆおう (if the word were to still be used). /i/ ~ /y/ is an often found variation in Japanese phonology. A few examples off the top of my head include: yuku ~ iku, yoi ~ ii, ime ~ yume. I may have a more complete list at home. This is getting really far off topic. If you wish to pursue it further, leave me a message. Bendono 00:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you are reading the historical kana wrong. Doesn't the dictionary say ゐわう? It might look like ゆ but it is ゐ, archaic kana for /i/. --Butakun 19:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You really have no idea what you are talking about. The historical spelling of いおう is いわう . An older word for it is ゆわう, which if it still existed would be spelled ゆおう . It is not ゐわう or ゐおう, and ゐ is not the archaic kana for /i/, but for /wi/. They both coexisted as separate sounds originally. /wi/ weakened into [i] long ago and is now spelled as い. But it has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. Bendono 21:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Iwōtō looks like a mistake

message: I've removed Iwo To and Iwoto from the opening lines. The Page Movement Surveys (above) clearing show that editors here, prefer Iwo Jima as the only English name. Having the other English names, contradicts the Page's title. What does everyone think? PS- This 'talk page' needs to be archived (it's getting too long). GoodDay 20:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The neoarchaic name is well-covered in the ==Name== section, where it should be.  Tomertalk 20:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  "Iwo Jima" is the only name commonly used in English. CES 00:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening lines 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
There seems to be no support (and rightly, in my opinion) for moving this page to Iwo To.  As several users have pointed out, such a spelling would be inconsistent with modern pronunciation and romanization anyway.  
This survey is to guage levels of support for moving this page from Iwo Jima to Iōtō.  Exploding Boy 15:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a specific reason for this survey, as noted above.  It wasn't a frivolous exercise and it doesn't help anything to suggest it was.  Exploding Boy 17:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My Google counts are fine.  If you feel anything wrong, go ahead and filter them out, then show us the outcome... I'm all ears.--Endroit 17:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore Endroit's Google hits for Iōtō are only 14 distinct pages; of those 14, one is not in English, and six of the others say things like "Iwo-Jima (Japanese 硫黄島 Iōtō, or Iōjima, meaning 'sulfur island') is a volcanic island in Japan, part of the Volcano Islands (the southern part of the"; which indicate that they are both stating Japanese usage, and are likely to be mirrors of this page, not filtered out by "- wikipedia". So there are still five orders of magnitude difference. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Can we close this survey now? It's clearly opposed by almost all. Bobo12345 09:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 05:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, the consensus was a nearly unanimous decision in diametrical opposition to the proposal...i.e., do not move, not "no consenus"... Tomertalk 06:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey 2

message: The island has been officially renamed to "Iwo To" which was the original name before WWII. Any thoughts on chaging the name of the article?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,285005,00.html
--unsigned
:The official name got changed in the local language, however on Wikipedia, English placenames are given preference  over local placenames (on cases where there is an estabilshed English version of said place, for example). So by this logic, Iwo Jima, Japan, and Venice are preferred over Iōtō, Nihon, and Venezia.
:So no, that alone would not be enough of a reason to rename this article. —Tokek 13:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, look immediately above this topic for many thoughts. Bendono 14:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... Japan has not changed the spelling of the name in Japanese.. just its pronunciataion.  announces the name change and also uses it (Iwo To, not just the Ioto transliteration), so the conclusion may not be so foregone. It's not clear that this is really analogous to Venice etc. -- Evertype·✆ 14:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In different contexts, the Iwō Tō romanization is justified; e.g., in reference to the pre-war "Iōtō" discussion, so (Evertype) please stop reverting it. I think you should leave such fine differences (in the discussion of how the name’s pronunciation has changed over the years) to people like Bendono and me, who are familiar with the changes. Jim_Lockhart 14:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Stop reverting it"? I'd only made one change. And I know a little something about romanization and transliteration. Iwo Jima and Iwo To are spellings in English. Both should be in the article. The romanization of the kanji as Iojima and Ioto is another matter. Both of those should be in the article as well. -- Evertype·✆ 14:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I respectfully disagree. Actually, the romanization variations should be outside the parentheses, for one thing, since 1) what’s inside the parentheses is intended to illustrate the two possible pronunciations in current Japanese, and these are Iōtō and Iōjima. The alternate English renderings, Iwo Jima and Ioto or Io To, should appear outside the parentheses to separate them from the romanizations of the Japanese pronunciations.With respect to my “please stop” comment, I must admit that I was a bit hasty and I apologize: It looks like several of us were editing at the same time, and I had harmonized and reharmonized our versions several times, only to repeatedly get the “simultaneous edits” warning (very frustrating, especially since my edits were the most pervasive). HTH, Jim_Lockhart 15:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I reverted your edit, as the usage of the word "unify" did not sound natural in English (to my ears at least).  It is interesting to note that in your citation, the last part of the sentence is 呼称を「いおうとう」と変更することとした。 ... which talks not of "unifying" the name at Iōtō but changing the name to Iōtō (to create consistency).  There is likely another way to word it, but for now I reverted your edit. CES 11:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename?? 

message: *Strongly oppose Our guidelines, one of which is quoted above, are based on the fact that this is an English Wikipedia, intended to be understood by English-speakers. When (and if) English usage changes, our article should be moved; one of the signs that English usage has changed is that this will provoke little or no resistance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you?  Well then once again consider the many, many, many examples where English does use the native form of names, including, yet again, Mumbai, Myanmar, Kolkata, et al.  Exploding Boy 16:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then, someone better tell Wikinews. They've given the impression Iwo To is an English form. GoodDay 22:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See below, where I've addressed just how irrelevant your valid point is to this discussion.  Tomertalk 00:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a sec, Iwo To is the English form (not a Japanese form). Of course I prefer English (see bottom of talk page). GoodDay 17:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Encarta, another well-known encyclopedia, has formally updated the name of their article from the historical Iwo Jima to Iwo To. To quote a few passages:
*Iwo To, formerly known as Iwo Jima [...]
*In 2007 the Japanese Geographical Survey Institute announced that it was renaming Iwo Jima as Iwo To, the name given to the island by its original Japanese inhabitants.
This should not be a surprise since the name of the island officially changed last June.
As discussed earlier, Battle of Iwo Jima should not change because the name is appropriate in historical context. And Encarta does precisely that: . The Wikipedia situation is rather ironic in face of the verifiable official announcement as well as numerous English-language news reports, and now another encyclopedia. Bendono 07:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of your opinion, the information is official, verifiable, made big news in many (many) newspapers, and as a result another (English language) encyclopedia has since updated their information. Bendono 06:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And regardless of your opinion, the rulings of Japanese agencies do not determine the common name in English and neither do the practices of Encarta have any direct bearing on Wikipedia. older ≠ wiser 08:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, of course not. But another professionally edited (English language) encyclopedia, along with numerous (English language) newspapers should have a huge bearing on the issue. Regardless, the issue is not about being common; the name Iwo Jima is now historically. Bendono 09:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, one of Wikipedia's naming guidelines is to use common names, which is not necessarily the "official" name. older ≠ wiser 10:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am well aware of that guideline. Here is another one: WP:NCGN. More importantly, though, is WP:V in which all of this is verifiable, especially in regard to the Encarta entry. Bendono 10:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not an expert on Iwo Jima, but skimming the Japanese Wikipedia page it appears there are no permanent residents, and only military personnel and support staff are allowed on the island.  Before the war, it says that sulfur (hence "Iojima/to" meaning "Sulfur Island"), sugar, fishing, and cocaine (!) were among the primary economic activities ... but it doesn't seem like any of that goes on anymore.  CES 11:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Mmmmmm!  Fish, sugar, and cocaine!  DougRWms 13:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CES is right.  There's a deleted-and-then-retrieved history section here. Talk:Iwo Jima/History etc (working page). It needs a lot of copyedits and clean-ups.  please help and work on it. Oda Mari 14:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encarta updates to Iwo To, adds Sulfer Mines and Sugar Refineries 

message: After I fixed a problem with a Bulletin of Atomic Scientists citation (more or less), DougRWms asked in a subsequent article edit summary, "Is the original article available anywhere?" I actually cited the archive link and date of a Wayback Machine (Internet Archive) copy in the restored citation, but I used a format that has yet to be implemented for the  citation template. It adds the "archiveurl" and "archivedate" parameters already in use in  and other templates. But it won't actually show up in the References section until an admin with template expertise decides to implement it, because the template is protected from editing by mere mortals, for obvious reasons. ☺ I recommend folks who wish to see this done say so at Template talk:Cite journal#template expansion needed. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for trying Jeff Q.  My concern was just that the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists and ancillary page sited in footnote 7 are decidely anti-nuclear, and subsequently represent a biased view.  But the assertion that there were nukes on Iwo Jima is clearly attributed as the studied opinion of the authors of the cited article, and not as fact.  Obviously it would be nice to have the full article, so that people can read the conclusions in context, but I think it meets Wikipedia guidelines as is.DougRWms 04:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing archived copies of journal webpages 

message: This article says "The island is located 1,200 kilometers (650 nm) south of Tokyo... ."  Battle of Iwo Jima article says "Iwo Jima is a volcanic island about 1,800 km (1118 miles) south of Tokyo... ."
I love that we have 20000000 words on what to call the damn thing, and we don't even know where it is...  Maybe we should be calling it "Hawaii"?DougRWms 02:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [This site] indicates that Iwo Jima is 656 miles (~1050 kilometers) from Tokyo.  This would be consistent with the map on this page. CES 02:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What you wrote likely indicate that someone looked at "1200km" and simply replaced "km" with "miles" and copied the number. If US stopped using mile-system, we wouldn't have any more of such confusions. --Revth 02:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How far to Iwo Jima? 

message: Is there anyone who lives on Iwo today? if so how many?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.182.253 (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Residents??

message: See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima
And compare the numbers of total Japanese troops and the number of surrenders.75.185.147.252 (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese troop counts in articles contradict 

message: Check number of Japanese soldiers and casualties in this article and compare to the current article, they're different:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.147.252 (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers don't add up 

message: Have remains of U.S. and Japanese war dead been removed from the island? I don't see any evidence of cemetaries in Google Map imagery. --Virgil H. Soule (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  War Dead