Talk:Mount Fuji

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Older comments[edit]

Isn't Mt. Fuji an inactive volcano? One paragraph says it's a dormant volcano, and another says "As an active volcano...". Someone needs to change/edit that. It's wrong. Other websites claim it's dormant, not active. ~Jkata 2.7.08

It's categorized as an active volcano since 1968 in Japan. Oda Mari (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Should this specific article keep its Kunrei-shiki? What are your arguments for it? Against it? Keep this relevant to this specific article. WhisperToMe 16:22, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Should the actual article be Mount Fuji? Abbreviations are not the standard when naming articles and almost all the other articles on named mountains that begin with Mount are not abbreviated to Mt. RedWolf 21:59, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what Wikipedia prefers but having read the article on Mount St. Helens, that's what I was expecting. A-giau 06:11, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Quite a few words on the name, etymology, myths. Would be great to see a bit more on the geology, biology, tourism aspects.... A-giau 06:11, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The etymology part has detailed explanation of Taketori Monogatari. It's better to be on The Tale of the Bamboo Cutter, I think. Kusunose 17:35, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Volcanic Eruption[edit]

Scientists have now predicted Mount Fuji to erupt pretty soon and analysists have concluded that when Fuji does erupt, most of Tokyo would be destroyed. Anyone have sources and updates? If not I'll see what I can do..--Nissi Kim 00:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I've never heard any scientific predictions of an eruption anytime soon. F.g2 00:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC) --Nissi Kim 02:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. As you can see, the article does not have any scientific predictions of an eruption anytime soon. If you're looking at things like "about every 300 years" and noting that it has been 298 years, please do not worry. When scientists say things like "about every 300 years," they might be looking at a record in which the average interval is 300 years, but the timings might be 20 years, 700 years, 150 years and so forth. Just because we're two years below the average is not a cause for alarm, nor is it a scientific prediction of a pending eruption. Volcanic eruptions are not timekeepers the way some geysers are. Fg2 02:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


Quite a fancy etymology section we got there. However I came here seeking information about the volcanic aspect of the mountain and the article barely mentions the fact that it is an active volcano. When was the last eruption? How frequently does it erupt? What kind of eruptions are they? etc... Just a few ideas for someone who might know. --Bjarki 14:12, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, more geology info would be nice. However, in answer to your first question, see the "history" section:
The volcano is currently classified as active with low risk of eruption. The last recorded eruption occurred in 1707 during the Edo period. At this time, a new crater, along with a second peak, named H?ei-zan after the era name, formed halfway down its side.
Anyone have any more info? --Carl 15:08, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know what effects Mount Fuji had on humans and the enviroment last time it erupted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

See Hōei eruption of Mount Fuji. Oda Mari (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


The following things are clear:

  1. The -san in Fuji-san has nothing to do with the title -san as in Tanaka-san (Mr. or Ms. Tanaka).
  2. Fuji didn't come from the Ainu huci or something. This was already clear in 1932!
  3. 富士 was used before the rise of the samurai.

- TAKASUGI Shinji 05:49, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

It is John Bachelor (1854-1944) who mistranslated huci (maybe intentionally) to explain the etymology of Mt. Fuji. Perhaps he misunderstood the name of the Ainu fire god, Ape-huci-kamuy, which literally means fire-grandmother-god.
- TAKASUGI Shinji 09:50, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC

I'm not familiar with the Japanese language, but san is Korean for mountain. I think the -san in Fuji-san might need some correction. Smashingparadox 23:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Smashingparadox, and thanks for mentioning this. I'm not sure exactly what needs correction. As the article says, san is Japanese for "mountain." This pronunciation comes ultimately from Chinese. Japanese and Korean have many similar words that are borrowings from Chinese. (Japan's native, that is non-Chinese-derived, word for "mountain" is yama.) So this part is correct. Does the article say something else about san that needs correction? If you let us know we'll be happy to work on it. Thanks Fg2 00:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see in the article where it says the Japanese for mountain is 'san'. It does claim that 'Those affectionate about the mountain itself refer to it as,"Fuji-san."'. This could lead people to think that the 'san' is a term of endearment, like 'Shimizu-san', etc. In this case 'san' is the on-yomi for the character 山, which is otherwise read as 'yama'. Maybe if you didn't hyphenate it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The hyphen in "Fuji-san" should probably be removed, as this implies that '-san' is a suffix (which it's not). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

So grateful for this part of the article, which (basically) graciously explains that the term "Fuji-yama" is the handiwork of ignorant foreigners. I tried to get Fujiyama removed from the encarta world dictionary years ago, and was told it had to stay because it was in use. Fine, then say it's a wrong use!! Anyhow, thanks Wikipedia for setting the record straight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

lock this article[edit]

I'm tired of reverting vandalism -Iopq 14:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a historical article and is a target for vandals. --Zzz sleeping 05:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


Does anyone have sources for the statement "The Atari and Infiniti logos are both stylized representations of Mount Fuji."? Fg2 21:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if we have sources but it's pretty obvious as Mount Fuji is a Japanese cultural icon. -Iopq 00:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
It might be obvious to you, but it's not obvious to me. Nissan's logo appears to be the road ahead, two lines converging. One of Nissan's competitors is Fuji Heavy Industries, makers of Subaru. It's unusual for a business to adopt a logo that is the name of one's competitor. But stranger things have happened. As for Atari, I have no intuition. If there's a reliable source, then we can put it back. Fg2 00:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

what is that mountin called[edit]

in some shows they show a mountin in japan it all flat on top what is it called? plees help!

Mount Fuji looks like it has a flat top from some angles. Maybe that's what you're thinking of? Or, if you know the name of the show, let us know. Someone might remember which mountain is in it. Fg2 06:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Climbing mountain section[edit]

Most of this section read like a tourist guide, this would be better in WikiTravel. I removed most of the section, here's what it was like before I changed it.

"The most popular period for people to hike up Mt. Fuji is from July 1 to August 27, while huts and other facilities are operating. Buses used to get to the fifth station start running on July 1. Bus times frequently stop running after 3:00pm and cost around $28.00 US dollars. If you miss the bus as a late arrival, you can use a taxi to get to the 5th station and the cost will run you about $60.00 US for each trip. Busses coming back from the mountain don't pick up from the mountain until 11:00 am so if you don't use a taxi to get back prepare yourself for spending some time around the fifth station having breakfast. An estimated 200,000 people climb Mount Fuji every year, 30% of whom are foreigners. The ascent can take anywhere between 3 and 7 hours while the descent can take from 2 to 5 hours. There are new paths that you can take that have an ash slide decent. This will not decrease the time it takes to get to the summit. The time it takes to descend to the fifth station is depending on how adventurous you are, but it is a much easier decent. The hike is divided into ten stations and there are paved roads up to the fifth station, which is about 2300 meters above sea level. To start at the very bottom of the mountain the First Station, it will take anywhere from 10 to 12 hours to reach the summit. From the 1st to the 5th station is just a very windy road with a steady incline. Some paths leading up to the stations will have a sub 6th station. This first 6th station is usually just an observation area and a place to use a restroom and restock up on water. To use a restroom on Mt Fuji will cost you a dollar. The restrooms at the 5th station are the best. Most of them will come with a heated seat, are very clean, and smell great. Huts at this station are not usually manned at night for night time climbers. This station is for day hikers just looking around and may not have any wish to make it to the summit. Thousands climb Mt. Fuji during this two-month period. Most climb during the night to watch the sun rise in the morning. The best time to leave the 5th station to reach the summit is 9:00pm. This is a non stop hike to the 8th or 9th station. Staying at the 8th or 9th station till 2:00am and making the last push to the top will get you to the sunrise which happens around 4:15am. Between the 8th and 9th station there is a major temperature drop that makes staying outside of the huts very uncomfortable. If you want to push yourself to the 10th station plan on using the huts there to stay out of the cold. The huts cost can run about $40.00 - $50.00US dollars for a night stay. You can also try to negotiate for an hourly rate if you just need to get out of the cold. At the huts you can sleep, but as a foreigner with all of the noise and the coming and goings of arrivals I would not rely on this having to be a sleeping stop. The sheer number of climbers each year has created a litter problem on the road to the summit, but this has not decreased the mountain's popularity. --GrahameS 20:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Mt. Fuji Does it Again[edit]

Mt Fuji is one of the Creative mountains.

GA in zh.wikipedia[edit]

Please add {{Link GA|zh}} in interwiki section. Thanks! -- Givegains 13:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Google Maps - Google Earth[edit],138.726425&spn=0.166014,0.234180&t=k&hl=en

Does anyone know why the Google images show the mountain as if it's erupting? It doesn't look anything like the NASA image. The Google Earth and Google Maps show the same thing. I searched the Google Earth community, and apparently, these images have been around since at least early 2006. - smadge1 13:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I was up there yesterday, and I'd say that what you're seeing is just red volcanic stone. Large sections of the mountain are composed of it. I'm pretty sure that's not what a volcanic eruption would look like from the air either. - 08:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Image Gallery[edit]

I think the two images by User:Domitori and with women posing are not appropriate for this article. I believe a better example of a photo of the mountain from the Suriga bay can be found or added. Cafe Nervosa 18:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have cleaned out and streamlined the images, also to reflect what is post in the Japanese Wikipedia Mount_Fuji#Gallery. Only quality images should be posted. Gryffindor (talk) 10:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

No information on how facilities operate[edit]

There appear to be facilities and services at (or near) the top. Where do the employees live? How does food, beverages, and supplies get sent up the mountain? The article appears to be very tourist-centric. -Rolypolyman 21:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of the employees live in the same site as where they work (hotels, research facilities, offices). I did take photos killing time, etc. They have full internet with wi-fi. Supplies are driven up on tracked vehicles (hitching a ride can be very tempting). I did take a photo of this (looked like a Nodwell). It was driving up the descent trail (Kawaguchiko route). (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


In the first paragraph it says "A dormant volcano that last erupted in 1707" but later on the mountain is described as active ("It is also an active stratovolcano" and "classified as active with a low risk of eruption"). That seems to be a contradiction... Ywanne (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

By defintion of "Scientists usually consider a volcano to be active if it is currently erupting or showing signs of unrest" and "Dormant volcanoes are those that are not currently active (as defined above), but could become restless or erupt again" Mt Fuji is dormant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Britannica Online says it is defined as active by geologists. It does indeed show occasional signs of seismic unrest. --DAJF (talk) 06:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Britannica Online clearly states that Mt. Fuji has been dormant since 1707. Expressed in other words: "Mt. Fuji is classified as active, but has been dormant since 1707." Dormant can be considered a subcategory of active, thus it's more accurate. Other sources supporting this: Encarta, —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Active Volcano -- More detailed information in user-friendly format follows:
An anonymouns editor changed "active" to "dormant" ... and I'm posting these links as support for what I've done. Also, I can link here in the edit summary when this comes up again. --Tenmei (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
University of Tokyo says it's active. See this. Oda Mari (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The anonymous IP is guilty of selective quoting; the next sentence in the Wikipedia article that they quoted but neglected to include is, "Many scientists also consider a volcano active if it has erupted in historic time." In other words, if anyone can even remember when it last erupted it's considered active, and since it had activity in 1707 (which is pretty recently geologically) it's considered active. Just thought I'd throw that in to clarify things. -- Atamachat 15:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Transportation template?[edit]

Template:HakoneFujiIzuTransit was added to the article on Mount Fuji. The template seems to be tailored to providers of transportation services, but looks out of place in the middle of the article on the mountain. Is it best to keep the template in the article? Fg2 (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

And could someone add a bit of authoritative information about access by other modes of transportation than airplane? Trains and buses come to mind. . . . jalp (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Place in Japanese mythology[edit]

Can this section be expanded? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Effusive or explosive?[edit]

Is Mount Fuji an Effusive volcano or an explosive volcano? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Explosive. However, it has erupted lava flows before. If you check The GVP record of Holocene eruptions, you will notice that Fiji has both erupted explosively and that lava flows have been erupted. Guanlong wucaii 06:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Guanlongwucaii

Page reorganization[edit]

The page seems much less relevant than it was before the reformatting of the page. The page before was more technical, and this is more like an advertisement of all the "fun things" people do at Fuji. I think that Mount Fuji in how it relates to art is much more important than hang gliding off of it. Paraplegicemu (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

mount fuji is known for what. thats something people should learn to write about........................................... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


What months is the Fuji normally covered with snow? This would be a nice additional information. -- (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Elevation and prominence[edit]

Mt. Fuji is an island highpoint. Thus by definition of topographic prominence, its elevation and prominence are equal. The fact that the two sourced fiqures differ when quoted to the one hundredth of a meter is evidence that one or both the sources are simply not accurate to the centimeter, and what we have here is a case of overly precise quoted figures.

Fortunately this is a straight forward fix: If we round to the nearest meter, we get 3,776 m for both elevation and prominence. This is a commonly accepted value and it is consistent with virtually every other mountain on Wikipedia where elevation and prom are generally stated in meters (to the nearest meter, conv. to feet or vice versa). More importantly, we get equal values for elevation and prominence.

I'm going to make this change in the infobox only. No information will be lost. The "precise" elevation of 3,776.24 m will remain in the lead and the original data for elev. and prom. are preserved in the sources in any case.--Racerx11 (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Should "Sakura blossoms" be changed to "Cherry blossoms"?[edit]

Just noticed the image is captioned with "Mount Fuji with a Shinkansen and Sakura blossoms in the foreground", I was just wondering if this should be changed to cherry blossom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course it should. This is the English Wikipedia. JIMp talk·cont 05:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


The intro to the article gives [ɸɯꜜdʑisaɴ], the correct phonetic pronunciation in Japanese. The infobox gives [fujisan], clearly erroneous (IPA [j] is "y" in "yacht", whereas the j in Fuji is pronounced as in "jam"). So, this must be amended, but the question arises -- which is more appropriate for the infobox, a phonemic or phonetic rendition, and if phonetic, should it use the Japanese phones or the slightly different English ones (since this is an English-language article)? (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The IPA is amended see:Wikipedia:IPA for Japanese. QuentinUK (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Article needs a labeled topographic map[edit]

Article needs a labeled topographic map. The rotating 3D is cute, mildly amusing but offers limited information. (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Aokigahara - Update suicide stats[edit]

The articles states the the suicides peaked "with a high of nearly 80 bodies in 2002" However, the Aokigahara article Aokigahara states that "In 2004, 108 people killed themselves in the forest." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Foto for infobox[edit]

Foto for infobox was changed by vesion. I think the poto (Mount Fuji from Lake Kawaguchi) is not good quality. The foto for infobox should be changed to the better one. Please recommend better photograph from Wikimedia(Mount Fuji).Alpsdake (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed the low quality photo.Alpsdake (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I prefer the old photo, its quality looks good enough to me. Viewfinder (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems that the photograph(<1>) is not focused. In the case of small size the not-focused situation may be not conspicuous.--Alpsdake (talk) 09:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
<1>The shape of Mount Fuji seen from Lake Kawakuchi is without balance.
<2>It seems that the photograph is focused.
<3>The shape of Mount Fuji seen from Lake Yamanala is with balance. --Alpsdake (talk) 10:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Another photo[edit]

Another photo is used in the infobox of another language. In many language <1> is seemed to be copied from the English edition. There are better photos suitable for infobox in other sites, and may be uploaded in the future.--Alpsdake (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Suicide popularity[edit]

This page says: "Aokigahara is the world’s second most popular suicide location after San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge.[36] ".

But the page for the Golden Gate Bridge says: "The Golden Gate Bridge is the second most used suicide site in the world, after the Nanjing Yangtze River Bridge.".

These statements can't both be correct?

See the List_of_suicide_sites. Perhaps at the time (2005) of the publications to which the Aokigahara claim is sourced, the number of suicides at the Chinese site was not generally known, or has increased since then. Viewfinder (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

mount fuji is 3776 metres above sea level — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mount Fuji. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mount Fuji. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)