Revision as of 08:51, 17 July 2007 editMONGO (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers76,644 edits →State Terrorism edit confict: r← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 08:12, 12 December 2024 edit undoGnomingstuff (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers45,552 edits rv test edit | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{Skip to talk}} | ||
{{Talk header|search=yes|disclaimer=no|bottom=yes}} | |||
{{FAOL|French|fr:Bombardements atomiques d'Hiroshima et Nagasaki}} | |||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|1= | ||
{{ |
{{WikiProject Japan |importance=Top |history=y |milhist=y}} | ||
{{WikiProject United States |importance=Mid |USMIL=yes |UShistory=yes |UShistory-importance=Top}} | |||
|Japanese-task-force=yes | |||
{{WikiProject Military history |class=GA |A-Class=pass |b1=y |b2=y |b3=y |b4=y |b5=y |Aviation=y |British=y |Canadian=y |Japanese=y |US=y |Weaponry=y |WWII=y}} | |||
|US-task-force=yes|Weaponry-task-force=yes | |||
{{WikiProject Death |importance=High}} | |||
|WWII-task-force=yes}} | |||
{{WikiProject Environment|importance=High}} | |||
{{WikiProject Human rights |importance=Top}} | |||
}} | |||
{{Controversial}} | |||
{{Calm}} | |||
{{FAQ|collapsed=yes|quickedit=no}} | |||
{{American English}} | |||
{{Article history | |||
|action1=GAN | |||
|action1date=16 October 2007 | |||
{| class="infobox" width="200px" | |||
|action1link=/Archive 17#Failed "good article" nomination | |||
|- | |||
|action1result=not listed | |||
!align="center"|]<br>] | |||
|action1oldid=165069775 | |||
---- | |||
|- | |||
| | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
|}<!--Template:Talkarchives--> | |||
|action2=GAN | |||
|action2date=15 July 2011 | |||
|action2link=/GA1 | |||
|action2result=not listed | |||
|action2oldid=502316521 | |||
|action3=GAN | |||
|action3date=20:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
|action3link=/GA2 | |||
|action3result=listed | |||
|action3oldid=576904194 | |||
|action4=WAR | |||
|action4date=11:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki | |||
|action4result=Approved | |||
|action4oldid=591228091 | |||
|action5=FAC | |||
|action5date=16:57, 29 March 2014 | |||
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/archive1 | |||
|action5result=Failed | |||
|action5oldid=601656539 | |||
|action6=FAC | |||
|action6date=2018-03-07 | |||
|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/archive2 | |||
|action6result=failed | |||
|action6oldid=829155215 | |||
|action7=FTC | |||
== Salaskan == | |||
|action7date=14:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
] has been repeatedly moving this page to "Hiroshima and Nagasaki genocide". I've protected the page for now. | |||
|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Featured topic candidates/History of the Manhattan Project/archive1 | |||
<br/>] 18:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
|action7result=promoted | |||
:It's definitely a POV page-move, but it probably would have been best to ask an uninvolved admin to protect the page. In any case, I don't think there's any problem in this particular situation. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">] (])</span></font> 18:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Well, I proposed discussing it here repeatedly , but Wwoods wouldn't accept any resolution. Anyway, let's debate. | |||
|ftname=History of the Manhattan Project | |||
The page should remain under "Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki"; Rational ] "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." --] 20:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
|topic=Warfare | |||
|currentstatus=GA | |||
|otd1date=2005-08-06|otd1oldid=20437828 | |||
|otd2date=2006-08-06|otd2oldid=68039680 | |||
|otd3date=2007-08-06|otd3oldid=149589076 | |||
|otd4date=2008-08-06|otd4oldid=230098139 | |||
}} | |||
{{Top 25 Report|Aug 2 2015|Aug 2 2020}} | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
===Discussion=== | |||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
Let's start the discussion here then. I personally think that we could ''at least'' call this "Massacre of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" (as it wasn't really meant to kill one specific race (]), but it ''was'' a ]). The entry on "massacre" says "individual events of deliberate and direct mass killing" (can't be denied, it was clearly no accident, haha), "especially of noncombatant civilians or those without any reasonable means of defense" (that was definitely the case), "these would often qualify as war crimes or atrocities" (is POV, but outside of the US the bombings were considered to be a war crime). Yes, it may be "POV", but so are ] and ]. <b>]]</b> 19:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
|maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
|counter = 27 | |||
|minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
|algo = old(365d) | |||
|archive = Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive %(counter)d | |||
|small=yes | |||
}} | |||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
|target=Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive index | |||
|mask1=Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive <#> | |||
|mask2=Talk:Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive <#> | |||
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template= | |||
|small=yes}} | |||
{{Annual readership}} | |||
== New reference work for Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki == | |||
: Do you propose to rename all the articles in {{tl|WWII city bombing}}, or just this one? On what basis would you distinguish them? I don't understand your point about the Armenian Genocide, unless you're saying it should be "Armenian genocide". | |||
:] 15:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Well, these bombings happened within seconds and were nuclear, whilst the others were not (and both sides did regular bombing). And the article title "Armenian genocide" is POV, as not everyone agrees on whether it was a genocide or not (e.g. the Turkish government disagrees), so if a POV (despite it being widely accepted) in the title is strictly prohibited, that title should change too. <b>]]</b> 10:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::Have you any idea how fast the RAF and the USAAF could bomber groups syncornise there bombing runs by 1945? For example during the bombing of Dreaden, in the first wave, 243 Lancasters from ] delivered their ] on target within two minutes each one fanning out from a ] in a syncronised fan shaped pattern. --] 12:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::Hmm, since the countries were at war, they were not non-combatant civilians, but combatant civilians. Second, since there was air defenses around the cities in question, they were not without a reasonable means of defense, or as stated earlier in these discussions "undefended". Finally, your direct rejection of the validity of any US POV shows that you are not being neutral. These were atomic bombings, and that is a neutral statement. To call it a massacre inserts a POV. So, in my opinion, the title should not change. ] 21:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::Combatant civilians... Interesting. --] 03:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::Calling it a massacre is factually accurate, regardless of whether or not it was justified. I agree that at the same time it could constitute POV, but equally so does dictating that it cannot be allowed to change. Wwoods is right, it is a question of convention, but equally, convention should be applied regardless of the instigator. In other words, the Turkish view of the Armenian genocide should be given an equal weighting to the American one of the Hiroshima bombing. Both were despicable acts, regardless of whether or not they were done for "good" or "necessary" reasons. But to classify the acts as being of different degrees of severity for political reasons is POV. | |||
The best and most authoritative book on this subject has long been Robert Jay Lifton and Greg Mitchell's 1995 classic, "Hiroshima in America: 50 Years of Denial." I am surprised that this work is not listed in the bibliography, nor in Lifton's Wiki entry. | |||
::::The internationally accepted naming of the Hiroshima incident is the Hiroshima bomb (and to a lesser extent it's similar for Nagasaki). Therefore, wikipedia naming conventions dictate that the title of the article shouldn't change. However, reference to a massacre probably should be made in the opening paragraph for the reasons I've stated. ] 20:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
Good article though. | |||
:::::I would also like to add a no vote to the 'massacre' title. Besides being pov we'd also have to add it to just about every large bombing campaign in WW2. Why these two are singled out and called war crimes is beyond me as they were not nearly as bad as much of the conventional bombing carried out by both sides during the war. ] 21:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
Cliff Meneken ] (]) 04:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
==Prevailing international opinion?== | |||
== information about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki == | |||
This statement in the OP is incredibly badly sourced and stands as simple POV without reliable sources: | |||
Easy and short information about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ] (]) 16:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
Although it remains a very controversial issue, the prevalent international opinion seems to be that the bombings were war crimes indeed.<ref name="bbc">{{cite web |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4456043.stm |title=War crimes - have we learned anything? |accessdaymonth=] |accessyear=] |authorlink=John Simpson |date=] ] |publisher=] |quote= You can't seem to turn the television news on at present without seeing black-and-white pictures of past horrors (...) and Hiroshima and Nagasaki still to come in August.}}</ref><ref name="workers">{{cite web |url=http://www.workers.org/2005/world/hiroshima-0811/ |title=Truman was a war criminal |accessdaymonth=] |accessyear=] |authorlink=John Catalinotto |date=] ] |publisher=] |quote= They were both war crimes, of course. And they were both based on a Big Lie.}}</ref><ref name="fff">{{cite web |url=http://www.fff.org/freedom/0995g.asp |title= The War Crimes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki |accessdaymonth=] |accessyear=] |authorlink=Jacob G. Hornberger |date=] |publisher=] |quote= Actually, the bombings constituted war crimes for which the perpetrators should have been tried and sufficiently punished.}}</ref><ref name="antiwar">{{cite web |url=http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j080801.html |title= Hiroshima Mon Amour - Why Americans are barbarians |accessdaymonth=] |accessyear=] |authorlink=Justin Raimondo |date=] ] |publisher=] |quote= Justice in wartime is the justice of the victors. This is why the war crimes of the Allies were not allowed to be introduced into evidence at the Nuremberg trials, or the trials of the Japanese leaders.}}</ref> | |||
== Soldiers killed in Hiroshima - reference? == | |||
As it is, none of the sources provide an international opinion at all. The edit was made on the tenth as "reliable sources", but you couldn't get much worse. One at a time: | |||
The United States Strategic Bombing Survey estimated that only 6,789 soldiers, out of 24,158 in Hiroshima, were killed or missing because of the bombing. In the infobox and the article body it claims that in Hiroshima there was an upper figure of 20,000 soldiers killed. The cited source in the article body was Wellerstein 2020, but I cannot find that upper figure of 20,000 in the linked article - perhaps someone else can find it, else the figure needs to be removed. ] (]) 05:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
* The first source links to a BBC article talking about war crimes in general. There is only one passing reference to Hiroshima in the introduction, but it is not even discussed at all, let alone described as a war crime. | |||
* The second source is an opinion piece. Furthermore, it is so clearly biased and lacking in any kind of reference that it fails as a reliable Misplaced Pages source. It also only discusses the author's opinion and the opinions of two other '''Americans''' and does not support the argument that the '''international''' opinion agrees with them. | |||
* The third source has the same problem as the second source and is also written by an American in the context of one American's perspective. | |||
* The fourth link has the same problem as the last two - terribly biased, only discussed his own opinion, and he's an American. | |||
== Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2024 == | |||
So I'm striking the sentences discussing the prevailing opinions from the introduction of the article until sources that can actually address the content of the sentence can be added. I'm also taking out an earlier sentence suggesting that the prevailing Japanese opinion is against the bombing because the sole source provided is only a book and not a passage from the book to support that the book actually said it. The same is true of a sentence discussing the American reaction. Furthermore, since this article already has a very lengthy section discussing the reaction to the bombings that *does* source reliable sources that discuss both American and international opinion, there's no reason to be so redundant. | |||
{{Edit semi-protected|Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki|answered=yes}} | |||
I only wrote so much because I predict a silly revert war taking place and I wanted this ready when it begins. ] 20:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
Change "60,000 and 80,000 people in Nagasaki" to "60,000 to 80,000 people in Nagasaki" ] (]) 14:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I provided four American sources stating that the bombings were war crimes. Give me four Japanese sources stating that the bombings were justified, and we'll delete it. <b>]]</b> 17:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
:They were four sources that did not invoke any kind of international standard, and one of them didn't even talk about Hiroshima at all. Also, all four sources were editorials, which are by their nature not impartial sources. I have a very hard time believing there hasn't been an official opinion poll somewhere that actually consults people outside of America on this issue. Furthermore, going into debate in the introduction is not very constructive considering there is a whole section later in the article dealing with it and that section uses impartial sources and quotes. | |||
:{{done}} Changed as suggested. ] ] 18:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
I hate to say it, but I question your motive for editing the article based on your past history of edits. Please try to look at this as not a place to promote your personal opinions and as a place to impartially document a historical event of grave consequence. | |||
== Add link to Daniel A. McGovern == | |||
Finally, I took the Japanese and American sentences out again because you still haven't proven that either of them are documenting a '''consensus''' of opinion. There are sources later in the article that do this in the proper section.] 17:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks for properly motivating your revert. All I have to say about the Japanese/American sentences is that I did not add or edit them, so I have no idea whether they are appropriate in the lead sentence. <b>]]</b> 20:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
Correct the error. | |||
"A member of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, Lieutenant Daniel McGovern, used a film crew to document the effects of the bombings in early 1946." | |||
== Aftermath of the bombings== | |||
to | |||
I have heard that there are 5 known photographs to appear from the day of the bombing. Does anyone have a link to a website for that, or, better yet, post some of them here? | |||
<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 17:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small> | |||
Beginning in September 1945, just a week after the ], ] ], a member of the ], led a film crew to document the effects of the bombings.<ref name="BBC">{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-68656372|title=Oppenheimer: Monaghan man who captured nuclear devastation|website=BBC News|date=31 March 2024}}</ref> ] (]) 14:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
==Radiation== | |||
: {{done}} No error: he was a lieutenant at the time and not promoted to lieutenant colonel until after the war. Added link to new article. ] ] 18:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
I removed a comment in the intro about a large number of people dying from radiation. This is actually a common misconception. The latest BEIR report places the total combined number of deaths from radiation as ~260 acute deaths from leukemia and about 600 later deaths from solid tumors above the normal background for the population. The actual explosion is what the argument should be about, as comparitively the radiation effects were rather small. ] 22:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Done? You haven't done anything! The sentence is still inaccurate: "used a film crew to document the effects of the bombings in early 1946." He might have used a film crew in 1946 but he arrived just one week after the surrender of Japan = 9 Sept 1945. He is credited with being the first person from the Allied side to document the aftermath of bombings. Mcgovern made copies of the films he made because he was worried that the US Government would censor them. Oppenheimer watched them. They did lose the originals, his copies were revealed in 1967. Likewise, the term U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey is not even linked to its own article ]. There is zero interest on this site to give people (ie the reader) information. It's always about which team controls the article narrative. ] (]) 12:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey ''is'' linked. ] ] 17:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{reflist-talk}} | |||
== Commanders == | |||
What exactly is the problem with having commanders in the infobox? What's the point even discussing this? ] (]) 17:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
:It's a stable infobox compromise that reduces the military (glorification) side of what many people see as (in part) a massacre of civilians. ] (]) 10:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
::It doesn't, in any way, glorify The event by listing who commanded the operation. This argument is nonsense. And "stable infobox" doesn't mean it's perfect, flawless and cannot ever be changed or improved. ] (]) 15:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::It's disappointing that you've reverted to your additions on this page yet again (four times now). I ask you (again) to undo the additions and seek a talk page consensus. Disagreeing with an established consensus and opposition to your proposed changes doesn't mean you should make those changes unilaterally yet again. ] (]) 15:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Seeking a talk page consensus is ridiculous when everyone ignores the discussion. There is nothing wrong with listing who commanded the operation. These are just people who commanded it and that is all. It is always better to name the commanders anyway as it only adds to the article and saying it glorifies the event is even more ridiculous. Might as well remove the names of those who perpetrated other actual and deliberate crimes against people from the infoboxes of the articles about those events because by this logic, that also glorifies those events. This event is not any more special than those. ] (]) 11:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2024 == | |||
== McArthur Statement == | |||
{{Edit semi-protected|Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki|answered=yes}} | |||
The article claims Douglas McArthur was against the bombing of Japan. Can someone please supply me a reference for the sake of an argument I had? | |||
In paragraph 3 of the introduction, please change "On 6 August a Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima. Three days later a Fat Man was was dropped on Nagasaki." to "On 6 August Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima. Three days later Fat Man was dropped on Nagasaki." ] (]) 06:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
<br/>{{unsigned2|16:37, 27 June 2007| 71.202.175.156 }} | |||
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> Little Boy and Fat Man were ''types'' of bombs, not names of individual bombs. This is discussed in the second paragraph. ] (]) 07:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Inconsistency in numbers of dead == | |||
: ] (1995). ''The Last, Great Victory: The End of World War II''. p. 436 | |||
:: '... ] ... interviewing General MacArthur in Manila, ... listened to the general, ... blame the Bomb as likely to end the days of heroic warfare. "Scholars and scientists" had stolen future wars from military professionals and made "men like me" obselete. There would be "no more wars" of the kind he knew, MacArthur mourned.' | |||
:] 06:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
There appears to be some inconsistency regarding the numbers of dead in this article. | |||
==Japanese Defense Chief: Atomic Bombing 'Couldn't Be Helped'== | |||
The lead states that an estimated 90,000 to 146,000 people died in Hiroshima and that 60,000 to 80,000 died in Nagasaki by the end of 1945, while the "Post-attack casualties" section says that it was up to 140,000 in Hiroshima. What is the source of this difference of 6,000? | |||
'''Defense Minister Fumio Kyuma said the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan by the United States during World War II was an inevitable way to end the war, a news report said Saturday, June 30, 2007.''' | |||
Also, the infobox uses an end-of-1945 figure for Nagasaki (which corresponds to the info in the Nagasaki "Events on the ground" section), but uses an unqualified figure (presumably immediate deaths?) for Hiroshima. Those figures of 70,000 and 126,000 don't appear to be sourced anywhere in the article. The Hiroshima "Events on the ground" section doesn't use the source which states 90,000 to 140,000 by year's end, and contradicts itself by using a different source which appears to incorrectly state that the immediate deaths were 80,000 to 140,000. | |||
Kyuma, who is from Nagasaki, said the bombing caused great suffering in the city, but he does not resent the U.S. because it prevented the Soviet Union from entering the war with Japan, Kyodo said. | |||
This also effects the headline figure of 129,000 to 226,000. The first is presumably from 70,000 + 90,000 (should be 130,000?) and the second presumably from 126,000 + 20,000 soldiers + 80,000. — ] (]) 23:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:A appears to be a solid historiographical account of the varying casualty figures and their sources. It identifies a "low cluster" which is best represented by the 1951 Joint Commission Report, led by U.S. occupation forces: about 70,000 deaths within 3 months in Hiroshima, and 40,000 in the same period in Nagasaki, for a total of 110,000 dead. The article also identifies a "high cluster" best represented by a Japanese-led 1977 symposium which estimated 140,000 deaths in Hiroshima by the end of 1945, and 70,000 deaths in Nagasaki, for a total of 210,000 dead. As the article states, the latter figures are likely superior because they considered three categories of non-residents who were omitted from the American studies: military victims, conscripted Korean workers, and commuting workers. | |||
==Questions on POV== | |||
:Right now we mainly rely on from the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF), which has evidently been updated with a somewhat higher top figure for Hiroshima. This is 90,000–166,000 deaths in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 deaths in Nagasaki, for a total range of 150,000–246,000. According to the Bulletin article, the RERF is the organization which has continuity with the Joint Commission, and it appears to have incorporated the 1970s re-evaluations into what it reports on its website today. Although it isn't directly cited, the RERF figures appear to be what is used by the in their main page on the bombings. I think the RERF is the best-available source and should be used throughout our article, from lead to infobox to body. — ] (]) 16:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I think some of the confusion here is stemming from the military dead in Hiroshima. The body says that the 1946 U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey estimated there were 24,000 soldiers in Hiroshima, of which 7,000 died, then cites the 2020 Bulletin source, which mentions that the 1970s re-evaluations added perhaps 10,000 deaths to account for military deaths, which were omitted from most American studies. We then appear to add 7,000 and 10,000 to get ~20,000 military deaths, which I think is an error; the mortality rate isn't this high for any group in estimates. I think both the Bombing Survey and 1970s re-evaluations must be talking about the same 7,000 to 10,000 deaths, not additional ones. — ] (]) 16:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:In an attempt to clear all of this up, I have made ] which cite the Bulletin and RERF sources throughout the article and add more detail on the different reports and their conclusions. — ] (]) 17:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
== No mention of the black rain == | |||
I'm not against mentioning that this may be considered a war crime if it were done today (although if we were in war to the scale of WWII qualifications might change). I'm also not against mentioning that civilians were massacred (although one could argue this on semantics, because in massacres the point generally is the killing of civilians because of a conflict with the civilian population, while in other cases they're casualties of total war, same as other city bombings), I'm also not against mentioning that as an incident of war, the most human beings died in that incident than in any other in history. But the statement "To this date, the United States has been the country to kill the most number of human beings during war in a single day" is silly and out of place because its trying to get political props, as if countries are competing in some Guinness Book of World Records, and it matters to assert a statement in an encyclopedia asserting which country wins the honor for the most deaths in one day. How its worded is completely political, as if whoever wrote it is trying to take attention away from other countries war crimes, by creating a Hall of Shame and putting the US at the top. Mentioning a massacre may or may not be POV, but the way this statement is worded is definitely POV and political. That it was a US action is redundant (and explained in the article), the wording just underscores a political point. | |||
I don't really have time to be doing extensive editing right now, but I noticed that this article doesn't seem to mention the radioactive black rain that fell on parts of Hiroshima shortly after the bombing. This rain apparently contributed substantially to the radiation doses that some victims received (e.g. ). I think this is something that should be mentioned. ] (]) 20:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
I'm that knowledgeable about what happened in Armenian massacres but if there's an alternative name I would use it for the article, and create a separate article titled Armenian genocide which redirect to the main article which has sections on it as a political issue about genocide. I don't think there needs to be a similar second topic for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, because the political issue is a lot less moot, people everywhere agree what happened, the only thing left is whether its worded to be POV, and wording should be neutral.<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 02:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small> | |||
: It may be silly but it's the truth and the truth must be stated in the first paragraph. It's a genuine fact that the United States of Americans killed the most number of human beings in a day and must be put in context. It's not Point Of View. It's a FACT. Unless you can prove me wrong.<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 14:59, July 2, 2007 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small> | |||
::I agree regarding the record for most deaths in one day. It is neither a record nor a necessary comment. Especially in the opening paragraph. ] 13:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
::: Also agree to removing the sentence, its not factually accurate as conventional bombings from both sides were often much worse (for an example of an allied one:Dresden). Agree about the political motivation. ] 19:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::], your objectivity is doubtful, based on your vandalism on the page ], stating "This is because the country doesn't have a proper name, thus it uses the name of two continents to refer to the people of thier nation.". Your grasp on reality is doubtful, based on your comment on ] "== God == God never wanted that flag to be on the moon. And rightfully, he took it off.". Your grasp of objective knowledge is doubtful, based on your comment on ], "'''Barry Lamar Bonds''' (born ] ] in ]) is a ] ] with the ]." For the record, The United States of America has a proper name, the American flag is still on the moon, and Barry Bonds plays in the National League, which does not have a designated hitter. Your talk page is littered with vandalism warnings, so I am not the first to notice. See ] for details. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to trash America for the fun of it. ] 16:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::::Compared to all other countries, it very well has a proper name..... right? It uses terms from the english lanuage and refers the country as "United States" ... then "of America" -- sometimes I question myself but I find it funny that most Americans, as they would like to be called, actually think "America" is orginated from ''THE'' United States. And that the continents are named after ''THEM''. It always doubted me whenever I was a teenager, why is this whole america named after the country.. AMERICA. I did some research see that either way (North, SOuth, Central, East, West), everyone in this part of the world are Americans. So I was like, why the fuck are they calling themselves americans when there is people in america (''CONTINENT'') who are americans... Then I thought, oh yea....they dont have a proper name! (and Yes I do have alot of time in hand)] 01:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Thank you for your input. I believe the "of America" is similar to "of York" in "Duchess of York". It clarifies the location of the United States, so that other places, such as the United Arab Emirates, could have used United States in their name. They are a part of the American continents, and therefore, can use America in their name as well. The Florida Marlins are in Florida, but they are not the only team in Florida. It is understood that they are a part of Florida, not that Florida is a part of them. | |||
<p> | |||
However, this is a divergence from the original point, which is the bombings were not done to win some kind of deaths-in-a-day contest, but to end the war without a costly (in men, materials, time, and occupation difficulty) invasion. Had America been trying to be punitive, they could have bombed Kobe or Tokyo, or aimed for the Emperor himself. They chose smaller city targets to make the point that the Allies would not invade, but instead would use long range weapons (both conventional and atomic) until the Empire was destroyed. ] 13:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I have to agree here, ] after looking at your userpage/talkpage and your edit history it looks like you are more interested in vandalising pages than legitimate discussion. As the added content you want is factually incorrect I don't see how it needs discussed further. If I am wrong then feel free to do some more research on the topic and then post your thoughts on the discussion pages before editing the mainpages. Thanks. ] 17:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Misinformation == | |||
I delete the US forewarnings of bombings Section. OWI notice #2106 has nothing to do with the atomic bombings. The notice is an ordinary air raid warning. Neither the name 廣島/Hiroshima nor 長崎/Nagasaki are printed on the notice. They are just two of 35 cities the leaflet was dropped. Some of the cities printed on the notice were actually air raided. 水戸/Mito and 八王子/Hachioji were on Aug.1, 富山/Toyama was on Aug 2, and 前橋/Maebashi was on Aug.5. ] ] And please read this ]. You will understand the reason of my deletion.] 05:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Additional info. These are the 12 cities printed on the leaflet:from upper left 長野/Nagano, 高岡/Takaoka, 久留米/Kurume, 福山/Fukuyama, 富山/Toyama, 舞鶴/Maizuru, 大津/Otu, 西ノ宮/Nishinomiya, 前橋/Maebashi, 郡山/Koriyama, 八王子/Hachioji, and 水戸/Mito. 福山/Fukuyama was on Aug.8 and 久留米/Kurume was on Aug. 11 air raided. ] 05:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::I won't argue your decision to remove the section on editorial grounds, though I personally do feel that it should stay. Regarding the charge of "Misinformation", as it says in ]: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is '''verifiability, not truth.'''" I posted verifiable information supported by an arguably reliable source, which I cited. If you have information from another reliable and verifiable source which contradicts the information which I posted, it would have been better IMHO to add the information to the article about the information conflict between the two sources. That cannot be done in this article, of course, if the section is removed from the article for editorial reasons. Personally, I think that if what you say is verifiably the case, then one source or the other has reliability problems. | |||
:::I looked at my cited source again, and I see that they provide an email contact form. I have emailed them the information that the information which I cited from their web page has been challenged. -- ] 08:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::Though the source is reliable, there was no mention about atomic bombs or a new weapon, whatever the word is, in the section you posted. That picture was posted in the article air raid in jp.wiki. And the word misinfo. may be not appropiate. As you might noticed, I'm a Japanese and my English writing is not good enough. No ill meaning. Please accept my apology for my choice of the word.] 10:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::I do not know anything about the details - which number was assigned to the air raid notice or anything like that - but I do believe that the government, if not the people of these two cities, was forewarned. My temptation would be to suggest that we leave the details about the specific OWI notice out, and cite (i.e. find a source that says this, and quote from it) simply that notices were dropped, that the people were forewarned. ] 10:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
I agree. The point is american B-29 dropped on Japanese cities millions of leaflets, written in Japanese, and 7 millions alone revealing the terms of the Potsdam declaration, which was hidden to them by the Showa regime. The point is not if people from Hiroshima and Nagasaki were warned of atomic bombings but that Japanese people from many large cities were warned of future bombings, informed of the conditions of surrender and called on to make direct appeals to emperor Showa. --] 13:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
:To Boracay Bill. Please look at these. , page14, page7, and . | |||
:To LordAmeth and Flying Tiger. Please look at Advertising the Destructionof Hiroshima and the bigger picture . | |||
:] 19:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Okay, well, I guess it would seem that the warnings did not specifically indicate Hiroshima as a target. This makes sense, actually, as the US did not want to give the Japanese military an opportunity to move American, Chinese, or other POWs into the area. In any case, I stand by my previous assessment, that there is no need to specify exact OWI document numbers. As Flying tiger points out, the issue is not whether or not the name "Hiroshima" was specifically mentioned in the warnings, but simply that, in general, efforts were made to alert the Japanese populace as to what was going on - the surrender terms, and that certain cities were among the targets if the government didn't surrender. Also note that the warning document specifies that "America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people" and that "We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked." Were there warnings specifically pertaining to Hiroshima and to an atomic weapon? I don't know. But were there warnings in general, that innocent Japanese civilians should understand the US's purpose in the war, and that getting out of the cities would be a good idea? Yes. ] 20:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
The ''Lemay leaflet'' of August 1 was the one I was referring too. It doesn't talk about "atomic bombings" but refer to a list of cities. We should put this image in the article, precising that leaflets were dropped by americans, warning the Japanese people of imminent bombings and telling them about the Potsdam ultimatum, without refering to "atomic bombings". --] 22:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
== American bias == | |||
I added the term '''terrorism''' to this article because as it is defined: violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals. I know this will be reverted by some biased pro-American. I suggest we discuss this. Thanks ] 22:38 08/07/2007 (GMT) | |||
Once again, this accusation of "terrorism" is the typical "out of context" comment. The ENTIRE war was terrorism!! Ask about it to citizens of ], ] and ] and ] who were bombed, raped, killed and plagued....Maybe you should begin by looking to the ] by ]. Do we need to add the word "terrorism" to all these articles ?!--] 22:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Usage of the word terrorism to describe these attacks == | |||
The definition of terrorism is: ''violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals''. I believe the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki match this definition. Altough it was commited during war-time it is still an act of terrorism. If I am correct, murdering innocent civilians for a political/military goal is still an act of terrorism. Please let us discuss this issue so we can reach a solution. Thanks, ] 23:21 08/07/2007. | |||
::Yeah, thanks for accusing everyone of being "biased" before we've even said a word. I may be an American, but I am also a scholar of Japanese history. Please ]. | |||
::* The issue is still a very hot topic in scholarship, and there is far from any agreement on the justifiability of the event. No matter what we discuss here, that would not change the fact that scholarship, and the world as a whole, remains quite divided on the issue. It would be inappropriate and not ] to represent it otherwise. | |||
::* Terrorism is a fairly new term, or at the very least, it has very particular and powerful connotations in the more recent post-war context. One of the most crucial things that a historian must avoid is reading backwards into history, applying the morals or attitudes or terms of today to yesteryear. | |||
::Though there are historians who have described it as a war crime, as unjustifiable, as unnecessary, as cruel and inappropriate, it was still done for military strategic reasons, and not for "political or ideological reasons". Whatever you may personally believe about American imperialism or whatever other kind of ideological conspiracy theories, the majority of the world does not believe that this was done for ideological reasons, and thus, even by the definition you present it is not terrorism. | |||
::This isn't about being pro-American or pro-Japanese; it's about approaching history objectively and understanding the context within which events happen. The world has changed, and we must consider the events of the past within the context of the attitudes and precedents of the day. Just as my advisor reprimanded me yesterday for talking about "free market capitalism" in a 17th century context before ] was ever born, so it's the same here. Our 21st century attitudes about war, about Japan, about nuclear weapons, about terrorism, cannot be applied so easily to an event which took place in a completely different era politically, culturally, and ideologically. Or are Genghis Khan, William the Conqueror, Alexander the Great, all the Crusaders and everyone else in all of history who ever killed for ideological or political reasons a terrorist too? ] 22:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::*So, free-market did not exist before Adam Smith formalised it and gravitational forces did not exist before Newton discovered them? ] | |||
:::Just to be absolutely clear on my position and my intent, I will point out that there is already a lengthy section on the controversial nature of the attacks and the debate over them both at the time and since then. Personally, I believe this section needs to be cleaned-up and tightened up considerably, but I am by no means oppposed to a scholarly, objective discussion of the scholarly debate over the issue, and I imagine that most editors on this page would agree. ] 22:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
:You know, you're right. Since we're on this English Misplaced Pages, we really can't have an unbaised perspective. So I asked on the talk page for the Japanese article . If THEY have a consensus as to weather this can or can not be called a terrorist act, will you drop the issue? I'll translate the comments, or you're welcome to do so on your own. -] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 22:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::No, I'm afraid I will not. Firstly, I do not believe there is any inherent bias in an English wikipedia, as people from all around the world, including quite a number of Japanese, contribute here. Secondly, it doesn't matter what is agreed upon at the japanese wikipedia any more than it matters what's agreed upon here. As ] points out below, standard reference works (i.e. reliable, published, scholarly sources) do not bear any consensus on calling this "terrorism", and so we should not either. The purpose of Misplaced Pages is not to invent history (see ]) but to simply represent it the way the professional scholars have determined it to be. As I said before, I am not arguing "for" a pro-American point of view; I am trying to be as unbiased as possible. I certainly admit that the bombings could be viewed as excessive, unjustified, unnecessary, even, maybe war crimes. But terrorism is a highly-charged and loaded term with powerful contemporary connotations which should not be applied to a historical situation, as Antandrus says. ] 11:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Response to Seite (following from the request on my talk page): you're attempting to apply a contemporary usage of a highly-charged and loaded term to a historical situation. | |||
::Please read about the history of the Second World War, paying close attention to the scale, scope, and intensity of the actions of both sides as it drew to a close. Both sides used every weapon they had available in that colossal death-struggle. Nothing about the actions of either side is comparable in any way to "terrorism" in the common sense in which that term is used today. I would not even use the word to describe the Blitz, the bombings of Coventry, the destruction of Rotterdam, or even the ovens at Auschwitz. It's the wrong word. | |||
::Once standard reference works on the Second World War use the word "terrorism" to describe those attacks, then we may cite it and use it; until then it is an original coinage, original research, and a violation of Misplaced Pages's ] policy. Thank you, ] ] 22:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
::: Two quick comments. First, it is not necessary for any Wikipedian to have to agree or disagree whether or not the act was one of terrorism. SNG's argument based on definition, even if true, is not alone sufficient warrant to state anything in the article. Second, the counter-arguments by Antandrus etc. -- appealing to "the scale, scope, and intensity of the actions of both sides", historical issues, etc. -- are irrelevant for exactly the same reason. The issue is not the truth about whether or not the act was one of terrorism. Rather, it is an issue of ''who in the community of scholars says what, and whether it is verifiable''; and in both instances, both criteria have been satisfied. In addition, the counterargument simply invents of standards to shut out a significant and respectable minority's point of view. "Consensus" is not a requisite in a section of an article which is explicitly set up to discuss POVs. We can discuss a "consensus" when presenting things in the objective third-person voice as facts; when discussing POVs in a neutral way, no such thing is required. ] 03:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Hiroshima / nagasaki == | |||
I'm an Japanese Wikipedian.Hi.I suppose this page should separate Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Because This page is good writing, | |||
but,it's difficult for read or know to understand by this page.If this page is separated , we can understand this history more | |||
== Burnt Shadow == | |||
I heard a while ago now that someones shaddow from the blast was shown on some stairs and still excists today. Is this true? and if so does anybody know where I can find more information about it? --] 02:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
==State Terrorism edit confict== | |||
I added this characterizing term, as many have used it, and as such is notable and fair to state, in the following opening sentence under the opposition section: "A number of notable individuals and organizations have criticized the bombings, many of them characterizing them as ]s, ], and/or ]. " Mongo has reverted my addition--now twice-- even the softened compromise version added by another editor (which I accept). I have reverted Mongo, as I feel his justification is not valid. He states "POV" but that is exactly what NPOV calls for--that we report on all the notable POV's, using reliable sources. To supress some POV's that you don't like, in fact, is POV pushing itself. But, in the spirit of discussion and not edit waring, I bring my case here and invite Mongo to make his. I'm sure we can reach consensus on the dispute.] 07:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Stop plastering my name around everywhere. Stop POV pushing.--] 07:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
Well, its your name, and its not everywhere. Its in this talk article about your edit waring, POV pushing, to remove valid edits on my part, that I wish to discuss with you and reach consensus. To this end, I present the following notable sources that support the addition of this term into the sentence. | |||
The arguments center around the targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal. Specifically, the fact that the Target Committee on May 10–11, 1945, rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective, choosing a large civilian population to create a psychological effect that would be felt around the world. <ref>{{cite web | title=Atomic Bomb: Decision — Target Committee, May 10–11, 1945 | url=http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html | accessmonthday= August 6 | accessyear= 2005 }}</ref> They also center around claims that the attacks were militarily unnecessary, and transgressed moral barriers.<ref> | |||
{{cite book | |||
| last = Eisenhower | |||
| first = Dwight D. | |||
| authorlink =Dwight D. Eisenhower | |||
| title = The White House Years; Mandate For Change: 1953-1956 | |||
| publisher = Doubleday & Company | |||
| date =1963 | |||
| pages = pp. 312-313 | |||
| id = }}</ref><ref name="Hiroshima: Quotes"> | |||
{{cite web | |||
| title=Hiroshima: Quotes | |||
| url=http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm | |||
| accessmonthday = August 6 | |||
| accessyear= 2005 }}</ref><ref name="Bard Memorandum"> | |||
{{cite web | |||
| title=Bard Memorandum | |||
| url=http://www.dannen.com/decision/bardmemo.html | |||
| accessmonthday = May 8 | |||
| accessyear = 2006 }}</ref> | |||
<ref> | |||
{{cite web | |||
| title=Decision: Part I | |||
| url=http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm | |||
| accessmonthday = August 6 | |||
| accessyear= 2005 }}</ref><ref name = "CD"> {{cite journal | |||
| first =Robert | |||
| last =Freeman | |||
| coauthors = | |||
| year =2006 | |||
| month =August 6 | |||
| title =Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Necessary? | |||
| journal =CommonDreams.org | |||
| volume = | |||
| issue = | |||
| pages = | |||
| id = | |||
| url =http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0806-25.htm | |||
}}</ref><ref> | |||
{{cite web | |||
| url = http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS-PTO-Summary.html#jstetw | |||
| title = United States Strategic Bombing Survey; Summary Report | |||
| accessmonthday = July 28 | |||
| accessyear = 2006 | |||
| author = | |||
| last = | |||
| first = | |||
| authorlink = | |||
| coauthors = | |||
| date = | |||
| year = 1946 | |||
| month = | |||
| format = | |||
| work = | |||
| publisher = United States Government Printing Office | |||
| pages = pg. 26 | |||
}}</ref><ref name = "CD" /> | |||
Historian, ] writes on the point: "if "terrorism" has a useful meaning (and I believe it does, because it marks off an act as intolerable, since it involves the indiscriminate use of violence against human beings for some political purpose), then it applies exactly to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." "Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan," writes Professor Mark Selden. | |||
Similarly, ] wrote of it as an example of "...war terrorism: the effort to kill civilians in such large numbers that their government is forced to surrender. Hiroshima seems to me the classic case."<ref>{{cite journal | |||
| author = Walzer, Michael | |||
| name = Dissent Magazine | |||
| title = Five Questions About Terrorism | |||
| publisher = Foundation for the Study of Independent Social Ideas, Inc. | |||
| date = 2002 | |||
| url = http://www.uni-potsdam.de/u/LpB/Lehre/WS%2002-03/Walzer%20on%20Terror.pdf | |||
| volume = 49 | |||
| issue = 1 | |||
| accessdate=2007-07-11}}</ref> | |||
Zinn, quotes the sociologist Kai Erikson: | |||
{{cquote|''"The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not 'combat' in any of the ways that word is normally used. Nor were they primarily attempts to destroy military targets, for the two cities had been chosen not despite but because they had a high density of civilian housing. Whether the intended audience was Russian or Japanese or a combination of both, then the attacks were to be a show, a display, a demonstration. The question is: What kind of mood does a fundamentally decent people have to be in, what kind of moral arrangements must it make, before it is willing to annihilate as many as a quarter of a million human beings for the sake of making a point?"''}} | |||
Mark Selden, a professor of sociology and history at ] and professorial associate in the East Asia Program at ], author of “''War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century (War and Peace Library)'',” writes, "This deployment of air power against civilians would become the centerpiece of all subsequent U.S. wars, a practice in direct contravention of the Geneva principles, and cumulatively ''''''the single most important example of the use of terror in twentieth century warfare."''''' | |||
Professor Selden writes: “Over the next half century, the United States would destroy with impunity cities and rural populations throughout Asia, beginning in Japan and continuing in North Korea, Indochina, Iraq and Afghanistan, to mention only the most heavily bombed nations...if nuclear weapons defined important elements of the global balance of terror centered on U.S.-Soviet conflict, "conventional" bomb attacks defined the trajectory of the subsequent half century of warfare." (Selden, War and State Terrorism). | |||
Heads of State have also repeated the claim. President of Venezuela, ] paid tribute to the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, calling the dropping of the A-bomb, '''''"the greatest act of terrorism in recorded history."''''' | |||
Richard Falk, professor Emeritus of International Law and Practice at ] has written in some detail about Hiroshima and Nagasaki as instances of ]. He states that '''''“The graveyards of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the number-one exhibits of state terrorism.”''''' Falk discusses the public justifications for the attacks, as follows: | |||
{{cquote|'''"Undoubtedly the most extreme and permanently traumatizing instance of state terrorism,''' perhaps in the history of warfare, involved the use of atomic bombs against the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in military settings in which the explicit function of the attacks was to terrorize the population through mass slaughter and to confront its leaders with the prospect of national annihilation....the public justification for the attacks given by the U.S. government then and now was mainly to save lives that might otherwise might have been lost in a military campaign to conquer and occupy the Japanese home islands which was alleged as necessary to attain the war time goal of unconditional surrender..."But even accepting the rationale for the atomic attacks at face value, which means discounting both the geopolitical motivations and the pressures to show that the immense investment of the Manhatten Project had struck pay dirt, and disregarding the Japanese efforts to arrange their surrender prior to the attacks, the idea that massive death can be deliberately inflicted on a helpless civilian population''' as a tactic of war certainly qualifies as state terror of unprecedented magnitude''', particularly as the United States stood on the edge of victory, which might well have been consummated by diplomacy. As Michael Walzer putis it, the United States owed the Japanese people "an experiment in negotiation," but even if such an intiative had failed there was no foundation in law or morality for atomic attacks on civilian targets" (Falk, State Terrrorism versus Humanitarian Law in War and State Terrorism).}} | |||
Given the many notable figures I list above who use this term, its POV pushing to exclude its incorporation here into the opposition section that deals exactly with these critics POV over the use of the A-Bomb on civlilians.] 07:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Only the last mentions "state terrorism".] 08:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
::They all claim it as terrorism, and they are talking about this State action. Hence, State terrorism (unless you are going to argue that they are not talking about this action, or that the action was not that of a State)?] 08:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Giovanni33, are you incapable of reading...stop plastering my name around in heading!!!!--] 08:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
::But, is it not your name? Is it not accurate? Why are you pov pushing and accusing me of doing so? If you don't like your name then you are free to change it. But this is about your edit warring here, and not discussing this conflict on the talk page. You are also acting contrary to consensus. Experiened editors such as yourself should know better.] 08:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::Look, I am most definitely not going to argue with you about adding my name to the heading. Knock it off now.--] 08:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::Well, I'll give in to this, but I must say that its not very persuasive when you order people to do something yet fail to provide any reasons for doing so, esp. since you are without any authority here to make such orders, and fail to give a reason for others doing what you want. It usually doesn't work that way. But, since its besides the real issue here, I'll relent on it. I highly recommend that you do give reasons and make your case on talk before you revert other editors again. As you can see, consensus is against you on this point, and ordering people, I doubt will work for article content. Let reason prevail instead.] 08:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::Giovanni33, you have one of the most extensive block logs for violating 3RR and POV pushing of any active editor on this website. Why you weren't permabanned for tenacious editing long ago is bewildering to me. Your abuse of socks to evade 3RR is well known and is ongoing and if you continue in this crusade of yours to rewrite history to fit your radical agenda it will ultimately lead to your indefinte ban. I have seen it many times so I suggest you cease and desist from misusiung Misplaced Pages as a soapbox and advocacy platform and instead start adhering to the NPOV policy.--] 08:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::::Please discuss user conduct on each other's user talk pages. Debates over characterizations of these bombings is common and normal on this talk page. There have been many debates on this page over whether the atomic bombings were terrorism, war crimes, crimes against humanity, or, on the other hand, fully justifiable, necessary, appropriate, etc. Those of us who participate on this page are used to it and willing and able to engage in debates on the issue, even if the same points of view are repeatedly brought up by different editors. ] 08:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::: Typical response, sadly, I must say, on your part, Mongo. I wont respond to more of this rather immature reasponse from you but I will note that instead of addressing the argument itself, you instead engage in yet another ] fallacy by attacking me, and threatening me with an indef. block. Sorry, bullying doesn’t work. No wonder you were de-sysoped! I suggest it shows the very real weakness of your case; your ] at attempts to ] fail to fool anyone here. Last time I ever violated the 3RR was perhaps last year, or longer, and same goes with using any sock. I adhere to NPOV, and edit by consensus. Two things you would do well to follow yourself. You regularly edit war, and POV push, and are incivil. In fact, instead of discussing and making your case on talk (as I have) your choice is to edit war, reverting not just me, but two other editors for a total of 3 reverts. Need I remind you of the 3RR rule? And you top it off with making more personal attacks. At least I'm from the US and you can't attack me for my country of origin, as you do for others. I suggest you start using and applying the WP policies you accuse others of violating.] 08:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::::You think anyone is fooled by your ...you were just blocked for 3RR on June 29...did you forget that one? Or did you feel that since it was just over 24 hours, you didn't really violate 3RR? You were only unblocked because the page was protected, thanks in no small part to your ceaseless edit warring, which you do everywhere, all the time.--] 08:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 08:12, 12 December 2024
Skip to table of contents |
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27Auto-archiving period: 12 months |
This level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
faq page Frequently asked questions
Organization
Q1: Why are Canada and Britain listed in the infobox? Wasn't the Manhattan Project an all-American effort?
A1: No, the Manhattan Project was a multinational effort, controlled by the United States, Britain and Canada. British personnel participated in the bombings as observers. British permission was required to conduct the attacks, per the Quebec Agreement.
Q2: Why doesn't the article cover post-war debate over the atomic bombings?
A2: To keep the article to a manageable size, it is restricted to the bombing itself. Post-war debate is covered in the article on Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; the subsequent development and proliferation of nuclear weapons in Nuclear warfare; popular culture depictions in Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in popular culture; Japan's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons can be found in Japan and weapons of mass destruction.
Q3: Why doesn't the bombing of Hiroshima and that of Nagasaki have separate articles?
A3:Much of the article is devoted to background and preparations for the raids, which is common to both.
Q4: Why is William S. Parsons listed ahead of Paul Tibbets? Wasn't Tibbets in charge?
A4: Parsons outranked Tibbets, being a US Navy captain, and as the weaponeer was in command of the mission. Tibbets commanded the 509th Composite Group, and flew the plane.
Q5: Why does the article say a Little Boy and a Fat Man was dropped? Weren't these the names of the particular bombs?
A5: No, these were the names of the types of bombs used. Multiple ones were produced of both types. Production continued into the post-war period. See their respective articles for details.
Q6: Why are the casualty figures so vague?
A6: The best efforts were made by the US and Japanese authorities to provide figures, both in 1945 and subsequently. Assessments were complicated by uncertainty about the numbers of people in the cities at the time, particularly Koreans. There was also the problem of counting people who subsequently became ill or died from their injuries. The figures represent the best estimates available.
Historical
Q7: Who ordered the bombings?
A7: This is a question with a complicated answer, depending on what "ordered" means. In a strict sense, the _strike order_ was issued by General Thomas T. Handy to General Carl Spaatz on July 25, 1945. The order is reproduced in the article. This was issued as a formal order at Spaatz's request. The strike order was formally authorized by the Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, and General George C. Marshall, Jr.. Accounts indicate that President Harry Truman was aware that an atomic bomb would be dropped sometime after August 3, but he gave no formal order, and undertook no explicit decision about the use of the bomb, except non-intervention in existing plans. The actual strike operations in Operation Centerboard was undertaken under the authority of Curtis LeMay, although many of the specifics (like the date of the second bombing) were made by Thomas Farrell, and the specific mission orders, like Operations Order No. 35 (Hiroshima) and No. 39 (Kokura/Nagasaki) were signed by Operations Officer Major James I. Hopkins, Jr. In general, most historiography has moved away from the that Truman "ordered" the atomic bombs to be used, and instead emphasize that there were a number of people involved in the planning and use of the bombs.
Q8: Why was Nagasaki bombed so soon after Hiroshima?
A8: The original strike plan was to have one bomb (the Little Boy) ready to use around August 3, 1945, and a second bomb (the Fat Man) ready around August 10. Weather conditions over Japan were not favorable for visible bombing, however, and this pushed the first bombing back to August 6. A forecast suggested that poor weather would continue on August 10, and so the preparations for the second bombing were accelerated. The decision for the latter was made by Thomas Farrell and other forces on Tinian, and were made exclusively on an operational basis. The strike order from Handy to Spaatz (see above) specified that the first atomic bomb would not be dropped before August 3rd, and that "additional bombs will be delivered on the above targets as soon as made ready by the project staff," leaving it open to the discretion of the 509th Composite Group.
Q9: Was Hiroshima warned of the impending bombing?
A9: Warning leaflets were dropped on many Japanese cities as part of a psychological warfare campaign by the United States, including Hiroshima. These did not warn of specific attacks by atomic bombings, or specific attacks against any of the atomic bombing targets. Leaflets with information about the atomic bombing of Hiroshima were prepared and dropped on many cities after the attack on Hiroshima, but they were not coordinated with the atomic bombing campaign, and no specific warnings were given to the other cities that were slated as possible atomic bombing targets (Kokura, Nagasaki, and Niigata). Because of these scheduling snafus, Nagasaki did not receive its atomic bomb leaflets until the day after it had been atomic bombed. See the Leaflets section for details. The Potsdam Declaration contained a warning of "prompt and utter destruction" should Japan not surrender, however the knowledge that this was a reference to the atomic bomb was not revealed until after the Hiroshima attack. In short, the Japanese were not warned of the atomic bombing attack: the secrecy and surprise of the operation was considered paramount to the enhancement of the psychological impact of the attack and very deliberate. The possibility of warning Japan, or demonstrating the atomic bombs in a non-violent way, had been considered and dismissed by the Interim Committee by the spring of 1945.
Other issues
Q10: I added something to the article but it got removed. Why?
A10: In all probability what you added was trivia, unsourced information or information cited to an unreliable source; such information is usually removed quickly because of the article's Featured Status. Articles on Misplaced Pages require reliable sources for an independent verification of the facts presented, consequently any information added to an article without a reliable source is subject to removal from the article at any Wikipedian's discretion.
Q11: I tried to edit this article but couldn't. Why?
A11:This article has been indefinitely semi-protected due to persistent vandalism or violations of content policy. Semi-protection prevents edits from anonymous users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has ten or more edits to Misplaced Pages) or confirmed. Such users can request edits to this article by proposing them on this talk page, using the {{editsemiprotected}} template if necessary to gain attention. They may also request the confirmed userright by visiting Requests for permissions.
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is part of the History of the Manhattan Project series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
New reference work for Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
The best and most authoritative book on this subject has long been Robert Jay Lifton and Greg Mitchell's 1995 classic, "Hiroshima in America: 50 Years of Denial." I am surprised that this work is not listed in the bibliography, nor in Lifton's Wiki entry.
Good article though.
Cliff Meneken 2601:1C0:8300:2E11:F598:C309:287B:5331 (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
information about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Easy and short information about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 185.80.143.114 (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Soldiers killed in Hiroshima - reference?
The United States Strategic Bombing Survey estimated that only 6,789 soldiers, out of 24,158 in Hiroshima, were killed or missing because of the bombing. In the infobox and the article body it claims that in Hiroshima there was an upper figure of 20,000 soldiers killed. The cited source in the article body was Wellerstein 2020, but I cannot find that upper figure of 20,000 in the linked article - perhaps someone else can find it, else the figure needs to be removed. 182.239.146.143 (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "60,000 and 80,000 people in Nagasaki" to "60,000 to 80,000 people in Nagasaki" Saiashishdas (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Done Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Add link to Daniel A. McGovern
Correct the error.
"A member of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, Lieutenant Daniel McGovern, used a film crew to document the effects of the bombings in early 1946."
to
Beginning in September 1945, just a week after the surrender of Japan, Lieutenant colonel Daniel A. McGovern, a member of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, led a film crew to document the effects of the bombings. 147.147.221.228 (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Done No error: he was a lieutenant at the time and not promoted to lieutenant colonel until after the war. Added link to new article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Done? You haven't done anything! The sentence is still inaccurate: "used a film crew to document the effects of the bombings in early 1946." He might have used a film crew in 1946 but he arrived just one week after the surrender of Japan = 9 Sept 1945. He is credited with being the first person from the Allied side to document the aftermath of bombings. Mcgovern made copies of the films he made because he was worried that the US Government would censor them. Oppenheimer watched them. They did lose the originals, his copies were revealed in 1967. Likewise, the term U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey is not even linked to its own article U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey. There is zero interest on this site to give people (ie the reader) information. It's always about which team controls the article narrative. 147.147.221.228 (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey is linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Done? You haven't done anything! The sentence is still inaccurate: "used a film crew to document the effects of the bombings in early 1946." He might have used a film crew in 1946 but he arrived just one week after the surrender of Japan = 9 Sept 1945. He is credited with being the first person from the Allied side to document the aftermath of bombings. Mcgovern made copies of the films he made because he was worried that the US Government would censor them. Oppenheimer watched them. They did lose the originals, his copies were revealed in 1967. Likewise, the term U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey is not even linked to its own article U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey. There is zero interest on this site to give people (ie the reader) information. It's always about which team controls the article narrative. 147.147.221.228 (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
References
- "Oppenheimer: Monaghan man who captured nuclear devastation". BBC News. 31 March 2024.
Commanders
What exactly is the problem with having commanders in the infobox? What's the point even discussing this? MylowattsIAm (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's a stable infobox compromise that reduces the military (glorification) side of what many people see as (in part) a massacre of civilians. EddieHugh (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't, in any way, glorify The event by listing who commanded the operation. This argument is nonsense. And "stable infobox" doesn't mean it's perfect, flawless and cannot ever be changed or improved. MylowattsIAm (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's disappointing that you've reverted to your additions on this page yet again (four times now). I ask you (again) to undo the additions and seek a talk page consensus. Disagreeing with an established consensus and opposition to your proposed changes doesn't mean you should make those changes unilaterally yet again. EddieHugh (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Seeking a talk page consensus is ridiculous when everyone ignores the discussion. There is nothing wrong with listing who commanded the operation. These are just people who commanded it and that is all. It is always better to name the commanders anyway as it only adds to the article and saying it glorifies the event is even more ridiculous. Might as well remove the names of those who perpetrated other actual and deliberate crimes against people from the infoboxes of the articles about those events because by this logic, that also glorifies those events. This event is not any more special than those. 86.50.70.58 (talk) 11:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's disappointing that you've reverted to your additions on this page yet again (four times now). I ask you (again) to undo the additions and seek a talk page consensus. Disagreeing with an established consensus and opposition to your proposed changes doesn't mean you should make those changes unilaterally yet again. EddieHugh (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't, in any way, glorify The event by listing who commanded the operation. This argument is nonsense. And "stable infobox" doesn't mean it's perfect, flawless and cannot ever be changed or improved. MylowattsIAm (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In paragraph 3 of the introduction, please change "On 6 August a Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima. Three days later a Fat Man was was dropped on Nagasaki." to "On 6 August Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima. Three days later Fat Man was dropped on Nagasaki." ColdPear5289 (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not done: Little Boy and Fat Man were types of bombs, not names of individual bombs. This is discussed in the second paragraph. Jamedeus (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Inconsistency in numbers of dead
There appears to be some inconsistency regarding the numbers of dead in this article.
The lead states that an estimated 90,000 to 146,000 people died in Hiroshima and that 60,000 to 80,000 died in Nagasaki by the end of 1945, while the "Post-attack casualties" section says that it was up to 140,000 in Hiroshima. What is the source of this difference of 6,000?
Also, the infobox uses an end-of-1945 figure for Nagasaki (which corresponds to the info in the Nagasaki "Events on the ground" section), but uses an unqualified figure (presumably immediate deaths?) for Hiroshima. Those figures of 70,000 and 126,000 don't appear to be sourced anywhere in the article. The Hiroshima "Events on the ground" section doesn't use the source which states 90,000 to 140,000 by year's end, and contradicts itself by using a different source which appears to incorrectly state that the immediate deaths were 80,000 to 140,000.
This also effects the headline figure of 129,000 to 226,000. The first is presumably from 70,000 + 90,000 (should be 130,000?) and the second presumably from 126,000 + 20,000 soldiers + 80,000. — Goszei (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- A 2020 article from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists appears to be a solid historiographical account of the varying casualty figures and their sources. It identifies a "low cluster" which is best represented by the 1951 Joint Commission Report, led by U.S. occupation forces: about 70,000 deaths within 3 months in Hiroshima, and 40,000 in the same period in Nagasaki, for a total of 110,000 dead. The article also identifies a "high cluster" best represented by a Japanese-led 1977 symposium which estimated 140,000 deaths in Hiroshima by the end of 1945, and 70,000 deaths in Nagasaki, for a total of 210,000 dead. As the article states, the latter figures are likely superior because they considered three categories of non-residents who were omitted from the American studies: military victims, conscripted Korean workers, and commuting workers.
- Right now we mainly rely on this source from the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF), which has evidently been updated here with a somewhat higher top figure for Hiroshima. This is 90,000–166,000 deaths in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 deaths in Nagasaki, for a total range of 150,000–246,000. According to the Bulletin article, the RERF is the organization which has continuity with the Joint Commission, and it appears to have incorporated the 1970s re-evaluations into what it reports on its website today. Although it isn't directly cited, the RERF figures appear to be what is used by the Atomic Heritage Foundation in their main page on the bombings. I think the RERF is the best-available source and should be used throughout our article, from lead to infobox to body. — Goszei (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think some of the confusion here is stemming from the military dead in Hiroshima. The body says that the 1946 U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey estimated there were 24,000 soldiers in Hiroshima, of which 7,000 died, then cites the 2020 Bulletin source, which mentions that the 1970s re-evaluations added perhaps 10,000 deaths to account for military deaths, which were omitted from most American studies. We then appear to add 7,000 and 10,000 to get ~20,000 military deaths, which I think is an error; the mortality rate isn't this high for any group in estimates. I think both the Bombing Survey and 1970s re-evaluations must be talking about the same 7,000 to 10,000 deaths, not additional ones. — Goszei (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- In an attempt to clear all of this up, I have made these revisions which cite the Bulletin and RERF sources throughout the article and add more detail on the different reports and their conclusions. — Goszei (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
No mention of the black rain
I don't really have time to be doing extensive editing right now, but I noticed that this article doesn't seem to mention the radioactive black rain that fell on parts of Hiroshima shortly after the bombing. This rain apparently contributed substantially to the radiation doses that some victims received (e.g. this article ). I think this is something that should be mentioned. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Categories:- GA-Class level-4 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in History
- GA-Class vital articles in History
- GA-Class Japan-related articles
- Top-importance Japan-related articles
- WikiProject Japan articles
- GA-Class United States articles
- Mid-importance United States articles
- GA-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- GA-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- GA-Class United States History articles
- Top-importance United States History articles
- WikiProject United States History articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- A-Class military history articles
- A-Class military aviation articles
- Military aviation task force articles
- A-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
- Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
- A-Class weaponry articles
- Weaponry task force articles
- A-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- A-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- A-Class Canadian military history articles
- Canadian military history task force articles
- A-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- A-Class Japanese military history articles
- Japanese military history task force articles
- A-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- A-Class United States military history articles
- A-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
- Successful requests for military history A-Class review
- GA-Class Death articles
- High-importance Death articles
- GA-Class Environment articles
- High-importance Environment articles
- GA-Class Human rights articles
- Top-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
- Misplaced Pages good articles
- Warfare good articles
- GA-Class Featured topics articles
- Misplaced Pages featured topics History of the Manhattan Project good content
- High-importance Featured topics articles
- Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report