Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MONGO (talk | contribs) at 08:51, 17 July 2007 (→State Terrorism edit confict: :). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Template:FAOL

Japan A‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 11:35, January 10, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related A This article has been rated as A-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Misplaced Pages into English. Assess unassessed articles

Military history: Aviation / Technology / Weaponry / Asian / Japanese / North America / United States / World War II Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force Asian military history task force Japanese military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force World War II task force

Archives
Discussion archive 1 Discussion archive 2 Discussion archive 3 Discussion archive 4 Discussion archive 5 Discussion archive 6 Discussion archive 7 Discussion archive 8 Discussion archive 9 Discussion archive 10 Discussion archive 11

Salaskan

Salaskan has been repeatedly moving this page to "Hiroshima and Nagasaki genocide". I've protected the page for now.
—wwoods 18:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I proposed discussing it here repeatedly , but Wwoods wouldn't accept any resolution. Anyway, let's debate.

The page should remain under "Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki"; Rational WP:NC "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." --Philip Baird Shearer 20:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

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 (genocide), but it was a massacre). 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 Armenian Genocide and Holocaust. SalaSkan 19:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you propose to rename all the articles in {{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".

—wwoods 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. SalaSkan 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 No. 5 Group RAF delivered their bomb loads on target within two minutes each one fanning out from a pre-determined point in a syncronised fan shaped pattern. --Philip Baird Shearer 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. CodeCarpenter 21:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Combatant civilians... Interesting. --Merat 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 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. BeL1EveR 20:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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. Gtadoc 21:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Prevailing international opinion?

This statement in the OP is incredibly badly sourced and stands as simple POV without reliable sources:

Although it remains a very controversial issue, the prevalent international opinion seems to be that the bombings were war crimes indeed.

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 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.

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.

I only wrote so much because I predict a silly revert war taking place and I wanted this ready when it begins. Rebochan 20:58, 14 June 2007 (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. SalaSkan 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.

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.

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.Rebochan 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. SalaSkan 20:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Aftermath of the bombings

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? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.181.226.186 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Radiation

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. Gtadoc 22:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

McArthur Statement

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?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.175.156 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Weintraub, Stanley (1995). The Last, Great Victory: The End of World War II. p. 436

'... Theodore White ... 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.'

—wwoods 06:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Japanese Defense Chief: Atomic Bombing 'Couldn't Be Helped'

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.

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.

Questions on POV

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'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.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.123.251.35 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Icedevil14 (talk • contribs) 14:59, July 2, 2007 (UTC)

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. CodeCarpenter 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. Gtadoc 19:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Icedevil14, your objectivity is doubtful, based on your vandalism on the page United States, 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 Image_talk:Buzz_salutes_the_U.S._Flag.jpg "== 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 Bonds, "Barry Lamar Bonds (born July 24 1964 in Riverside, California) is a Major League Baseball designated hitter with the San Francisco Giants." 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 User_talk:Icedevil14 for details. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to trash America for the fun of it. CodeCarpenter 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)Icedevil14 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.

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. CodeCarpenter 13:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree here, User:Icedevil14 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. Gtadoc 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.Oda Mari 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. Oda Mari 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 WP:V: "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. -- Boracay Bill 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.Oda Mari 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. LordAmeth 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. --Flying tiger 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 .

Oda Mari 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. LordAmeth 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". --Flying tiger 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 SeiteNichtGefunden 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 Chongqing, Nanking and Changde and Manila who were bombed, raped, killed and plagued....Maybe you should begin by looking to the vivisections performed on humans by Shiro Ishii. Do we need to add the word "terrorism" to all these articles ?!--Flying tiger 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, SeiteNichtGefunden 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 assume good faith.

• 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 NPOV 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 Adam Smith 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? LordAmeth 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? 202.172.114.158

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. LordAmeth 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 here. 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. -Theanphibian 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 Antandrus 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 WP:OR) 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. LordAmeth 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 neutral point of view policy. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 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. { Ben S. Nelson } 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? --MattyC3350 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 war crimes, crime against humanity, and/or state terrorism. " 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.Giovanni33 07:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop plastering my name around everywhere. Stop POV pushing.--MONGO 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. They also center around claims that the attacks were militarily unnecessary, and transgressed moral barriers.

Historian, Howard Zinn 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, Michael Walzer 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."

Zinn, quotes the sociologist Kai Erikson:

Mark Selden, a professor of sociology and history at Binghamton University and professorial associate in the East Asia Program at Cornell University, 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, Hugo Chavez 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 Princeton University has written in some detail about Hiroshima and Nagasaki as instances of state terrorism. 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:

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.Giovanni33 07:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Only the last mentions "state terrorism".Ultramarine 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)?Giovanni33 08:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33, are you incapable of reading...stop plastering my name around in heading!!!!--MONGO 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.Giovanni33 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.--MONGO 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.Giovanni33 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.--MONGO 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. Cla68 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 ad hominem 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 red herrings at attempts to poisoning the well 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.Giovanni33 08:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You think anyone is fooled by your block log?...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.--MONGO 08:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

1. "War crimes - have we learned anything?". BBC News. 20 April 2005. 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. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |accessdaymonth= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
2. "Truman was a war criminal". Workers World. 5 August 2005. They were both war crimes, of course. And they were both based on a Big Lie. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |accessdaymonth= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
3. "The War Crimes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki". Future of Freedom Foundation. September 1995. Actually, the bombings constituted war crimes for which the perpetrators should have been tried and sufficiently punished. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |accessdaymonth= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
4. "Hiroshima Mon Amour - Why Americans are barbarians". Antiwar.com. 8 August 2001. 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. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |accessdaymonth= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
5. "Atomic Bomb: Decision — Target Committee, May 10–11, 1945". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
6. Eisenhower, Dwight D. (1963). The White House Years; Mandate For Change: 1953-1956. Doubleday & Company. pp. pp. 312-313. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
7. "Hiroshima: Quotes". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
8. "Bard Memorandum". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
9. "Decision: Part I". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
10. ^ Freeman, Robert (2006). "Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Necessary?". CommonDreams.org. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
11. "United States Strategic Bombing Survey; Summary Report". United States Government Printing Office. 1946. pp. pg. 26. {{cite web}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
12. Walzer, Michael (2002). "Five Questions About Terrorism" (PDF). 49 (1). Foundation for the Study of Independent Social Ideas, Inc. Retrieved 2007-07-11. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |name= ignored (help)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• A-Class Japan-related articles
• Top-importance Japan-related articles
• WikiProject Japan articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class military aviation articles
• Military aviation task force articles
• Start-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
• Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
• Start-Class weaponry articles
• Weaponry task force articles
• Start-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• Start-Class Japanese military history articles
• Japanese military history task force articles
• Start-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• Start-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• Start-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles