Talk:Enola Gay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WPMILHIST 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 Military aviation task force
United States military history task force
World War II task force


This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Enola Gay article.

Does wikipedia have a policy about linking to subscription-only material? (The "Eye Witness" link goes to time.com). --David Battle 20:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

It's allowed, but if you can find a free version of the same material, you're encouraged to link to that instead. Shouldn't be possible here, so no biggie. Meelar (talk) 20:38, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know what book Enola Gay Tibbets was named after? Wikipedia seems to be the only place where this is mentioned. Patrick 09:16, August 13, 2005

Contents

[edit] Enola Gay in Pop Culture Section

Does anyone have thoughts on the Enola Gay in Pop Culture Section? My feeling is what is there now is ok, except for removing part of The Simpsons comments "obviously similar to" which I agree with one other user is wordy and not necessary.

Above and beyond that, my concern is that the section not be overly cluttered, as it takes away from the true purpose of the article. It's fine to state there are some connections to modern day pop culture, but I think we have to becareful not to let the section get too large. I hope people would take that into consideration when adding to that section of the article.

Just in case anyone wonders why I care, I have a personal connection to this article. Davidpdx 04:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think your concern is justified. It seems this sort of stuff can overwhelm an article, depending on how its popularity engenders a kind of "me, too" response. That said, it is relevant information and can be a great resource for people legitimately researching how something significant resonates in the culture. But when things get out of hand (an undefined threshold) in any article, perhaps a secondary "Some Phenomenon in popular culture" article should be created and reference by the main article. -- Kbh3rd 05:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I agree the threshold is definately undefined. It seems like quite a bit has been added lately. That's why I have put the caution out to people in terms of what they post in the section. Right now it's ok, but I agree with you that if everyone has a "me, too response" it could become out of hand. This is one of the articles I keep a close eye on, I hope you will as well. Just a side note, I was the person who took out "obviously similar to" portion on The Simpsons comments. Davidpdx 15:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is vs Was

It seems like several people have changed the wording in reference to the plane "was a B-29 Superfortress bomber" instead of "is a B-29 Superfortress." The plane DOES still exsist and has been fully restored. The Enola Gay is sitting in a museum near Washington DC therefore it still exsists. I'm not sure why people are justifying changing it to past tense. If there are issues in regards to those diffrences please discuss it on the talk page rather then simply reverting it. Thanks... Davidpdx 06:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't really care one way or the other, but my rationale for advocating past tense is that, presumably, she is no longer an active member of USAAF. Lucidish 02:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
That's true, but the plane itself is still around and has been fully restored. I honestly am more comfortable with "is" being used. Other then that, the rewrite is good. Davidpdx 07:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It's universally done to speak of museum pieces as they were on active duty. A B-17 is always a B-17 Flying Fortress; a Bf-109 is always a Bf-109. To use the past tense would puzzle or amuse readers who are familiar with these aircraft. It would be like saying of Michelangelo's painting in the Louvre that "this was the Mona Lisa." --Cubdriver 11:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if considering it to be in active duty is the convention, then I don't mind putting it in present-tense. But, just to make a moot comment: the rest of the paragraph doesn't address the issue: the criterion not having to do with the make of the plane, but rather to do with active duty status. Lucidish 17:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
"Michelangelo's"? Not related to Enola Gay or anything, just found it a bit funny =) Daniel Lindsäth 09:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right! What if it read: "is the B-29 Superfortress of the USAAF that dropped" or something like that? --Cubdriver 21:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Lucidish 22:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm ok with that Cub. There is some duplicate information though in the first paragraph that is contained again later in the article. This was due to a recent edit. If someone could clean that up as well it would be nice. I'm not sure what to do about it.
Can you guys also look at my comments down in the "Revisiting the issue of Pop Culture Section." I've posted some more ideas. Thanks! Davidpdx 23:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revisiting the Issue of the Pop Culture Section

To continue the conversation where we left off about 3 months ago, I guess there is now someone who wishes to remove the entire section of Enola Gay in the Pop Culture. I really have no problem with it, but I think other's might.

I do agree that the whole thing is getting out of hand. Putting game codes in because they use the same words is pretty useless information. At some point, I think we need to figure out how to make this section work so it doesn't become a mess. If anyone has suggestions, I'm open to them. You can leave a message on my talk page if necessary. Davidpdx 08:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the Waterworld one, with just Enola, no Gay, should be removed. Also, the song being played as a cover in the first one is not relevant enough. I'll make those changes, and if they don't stick, so be it.--ragesoss 15:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The Utah Philips song is also confusing: "namesake of a song"? Is it the name of the song, or is the song named something related. In either case, it should be made clear what the name of the song is (in quotes).--ragesoss 15:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
As for removing the whole thing, I don't think it's completely worthless. But as you recognize, the problem is drawing the line, so it doesn't fill back up over time. I think careful monitoring and judgment calls about new additions are appropriate, assuming we reach consensus on keeping it at all.--ragesoss 15:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, this discussion seems to be in two places, so I'll repeat what I just posted above: There was a similar problem on the Flying Tigers (American Volunteer Group) page, called in that case "Trivia." These things seem to be magnets for -- well, for trivia. I'd vote for simply deleting the section, which is what I finally did with the AVG Trivia. It may since have reappeared, but I don't think so. History is important; trivia isn't. --Cubdriver 15:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I just got a little irritated with the section and nuked it (so to speak) because these sorts of things simply become laundry lists for every time a famous thing is mentioned in a cartoon or a videogame (I mean, the thing is rather famous, it is not surprising that there are tons of references to it in pop culture, and I don't see the value in enumerating them). I think one could also make the argument that all of these sections are violations of WP:NOR unless the subject actually has been written about in a text specifically about its influence/appearance in pop culture (see, i.e. Nuclear weapons in popular culture, a well-written about topic). But anyway, I understand that some people like these sorts of sections and apparently derive some value from them that I don't, so I won't be a hard-ass about it. --Fastfission 16:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the trimmed section is better, but the problem I see is that we need to make some kind of guideline or requirement for what should be added to this section.

Then comment needs to be added before that section that is invisible, but can be seen when someone edits it which says to check the talk page before adding anything to that section. Many times I've seen this done with <>.

Anyway, I'd appreciate any suggestions in terms of these idea. Davidpdx 00:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Another thing I noticed is that the items put on this category are often done by people who are do not bother to register for an account. Certainly, it would be easier to communicate with them if they would bother to register. Since they just edit based on the IP address, it does make working with them more difficult. Davidpdx 02:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to add to my comments above, I think we should put a note (the invisible one) at the top of the article and also at the beginning of the Pop Culture section asking people to look at the talk page.

Also we should come up with some critera in terms of what should be considered main stream enough to be added. It should be a pretty high bar due to the fact that people are adding things that just don't make sense. I'm not sure how to quantify what should be there and what shouldn't be there, but I think we need to come to a consensus to prevent the section from being overly cluttered.

It's worth noting that Factfission brought up a good point about WP:NOR. I came across this discussion in a Google search in two places [1]and [2].

In terms of the critera, I was playing around on Google, in terms of searching for specific strings of words that are used in those sections. When I Googled {Simpsons, Krusty "Enola Gay"} I recieved 1,140 hits. The reason I had to put Enola Gay in quotes was because I was getting a lot of porn sites, so it wasn't accurately measuring how many hits. [3] I did the same for Nicola Six with 548 hits. [4].

I think a minimum 10,000 hits on Goggle should be needed to add to this section. Does that seem too high? What about 5,000 hits? Here is what Wikipedia says about Wikipedia:List of ways to verify notability of articles Davidpdx 07:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The first thing that comes to mind for me is that a) the references have to actually be relevant, i.e., are referencing the Enola Gay as a plane and not just the use of the words; and b) the venues have to be really popular: television shows, monuments, etc. Google hits won't work for trivia because, well, the information is trivial. ;)
a) for instance covers a certain kind of referencing: in satire, in a documentary, etc. By contrast, if it is just added to a TV show or something without making any allusion to the plane itself, it's probably not worth anything. Same with video game codes. Lucidish 19:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Lucidish, I totally agree with you. The problem is can we set guidelines for this to make clearer what should be and what shouldn't be added. As you stated it seems that people want to put in everything that relates to the words "Enola Gay." Also what do you think about Fastfissions statement WP:NOR? Davidpdx 23:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I think invoking NOR on this one, which perhaps technically applicable, is just one way we might use to justify getting rid of material that we know is silly for other reasons. I don't think it, as a complaint, actually stands on its own merits in this case. That is to say, when I picture OR, I think of detectives snooping in the hedges and collecting material, busybodies writing opinion columns, or User:Licorne writing about Einstein -- in other words, stuff that would actually be disputable or surprising to informed people. But this is really just reporting what are, one hopes, fairly mundane facts. I'd prefer a Relevance test to weed out the bull instead of a NOR test. Lucidish 04:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I agree. How can we put together a relevence test? Davidpdx 23:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
You have to take it on a case-by-case basis. Some will be obviously relevant; some will need sourced interpretations; some will be obviously irrelevant; and some we just don't have enough information to judge. For instance:
  • the Krusty the Klown / Simpsons mention is satire, so it's obviously relevant. The Utah Phillips song is also an obvious reference to the plane.
  • The OMD song isn't obviously relevant, since the lyrics aren't about any plane, or about the mission. But we have to presume that they're making a veiled reference, hence the choice of song title, and the intentional use of the words "little boy" (the name of the atom bomb that the EG was carrying). Still, in this case, it's too opaque on its own: to keep it around, we would need to cite an art critic or songwriter to interpret it.
  • Game codes are obviously irrelevant, since they only make mention of the name "Enola Gay" without using them in any substantive way.
  • I'd need more information about the book London Fields in order to judge what was going on in the naming of the character. Lucidish 02:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The problem I see with going on a case by case basis is that in the end, too many things that are unrelated are going to bog down the article and then someone is going to come along and just chop the whole thing out (which did happen).
I'm trying to think of something proactive that can be done. Either that or as someone else suggested make a separate article for Enola Gay in Pop Culture. I'm not sure, what should be done. I think to simply leave it on its own makes me wonder if the same people (who are anon IP's) will just keep sticking things like game codes in the article.
Actually looking at the works to the OMD song, there is a direct link just in that it talks about "8:15" which is the time the bomb detonated. It also references the name "little boy" which is the nickname of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
If it's on a case by case basis, it should be upto the person who posted it, to provide a reference or some kind of a statement saying how the pop culture reference is related to the plane. In the case of the book, I'd say remove it until it can be proven. Davidpdx 08:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, sure, the song references Hiroshima. If some song writer through emotion or cynicism references the Holocaust, does that justify have a Holocaust in Popular Culture section in an encyclopedia? Since I lived through this history, I feel that the bombing was completely justified, but I recognize that it was one of the most awful moments in human history, and I cringe whenever I see the heading in question. I think I would feel that even more strongly if I had lived through August 1945 in Japan instead of the U.S. --Cubdriver 11:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Cub, you bring up an excellent point. However, I think we should becareful and try to avoid the history debate altogether (even though I agree with you 100%). I'm trying to come up with a solution and not feeling like I'm getting much help here. If indeed the song shouldn't be here, that's fine with me. However, I think we need to come up with a criteria that is less subjective. One person could say, it belongs here, while another could remove it. Can you guys see the potential problem? Davidpdx 12:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Cub: The Holocaust analogy is interesting, and does bring conflicting intuitions. But there are two disanalogies between a hypothetical "Holocaust in pop culture" section and this one here. a) While the Holocaust, along with Hiroshima, is far from obscure, the name of the planes involved are less well known. b) The bombing of Hiroshima and the Holocaust are direct references to humans and human suffering. Nobody wants to objectify persons or tragedies, which is why a "Holocaust in pop culture" section might be distasteful. But the plane that performed these acts is, at the end of the day, an object: a plane.
Dave: you're right that the burden of proof is on whoever posts the entry, but on the other hand, doing a little legwork (book reviews, say) won't hurt anyone. Re, the OMD song: I never noticed the 8:15 reference, thanks for pointing it out. With these peices of evidence, the OMD song can be said to be on the border between being explicit and implicit. Lucidish 16:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I see another "song" has been added to the section. In my view, that makes it more offensive by 20 percent (whatever). Can't we in all decency get rid of this section, which only encourages shock/schlock jocks to exploit Hiroshima one more time? --Cubdriver 11:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Cub, I totally agree with you (of course you know that), but I just wonder if taking that out will cause more problems with people putting it back in. There is just no reason this BS belongs in the Enola Gay article, so I'm going to take it out and leave a message on the talk page. At the same time, I'm going to leave the rest of the section alone
I again urge someone to propose guidelines for posting in that section. If not, the same thing will keep happening. Davidpdx 14:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
About Enola Gay song by Andrés Calamaro I want to say that is not a song on Enola Gay (I've said is a critical song with the states and their politics with the link of Hiroshima bombing in Davidpdx discussion), but there is a direct reference in the lyrics: "do you know what the Enola Gay is?, es el avión que tiró la bomba sobre Hiroshima"; i.e. "do you know what the Enola Gay is? is the plane that dropped the bomb over Hiroshima". Thank you: Ferrys Llíria (note:this comment was moved from another section to make sure it was included in the most recent conversation)
I see, there is a little bit stronger link then. The problem was that most people can't tell that because there was no sourcing (plus the song was in Spanish). I would urge you if possible to see if you can find any articles about Calamaro on the internet. What would be even better is if you could find and interview with him talking about the song. Also check to see if there is an English Wiki article about Calamaro.
I'll look for Calamaro talking about the song, but it'll be difficult because is not a very succesful song on El Salmón album and this album contained 103 songs, so I don't think he'll talk a lot about the song. I think it will be easy to find something in internet about the song, but it will be more difficult to find something in english. Gràcies Ferrys Llíria.
If you do a little leg work, putting it back in might not be a bad idea. Does anyone else have a take on this? Davidpdx 13:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
My only concerns have to do with whether or not it counts as a pop culture reference. Whose "pop culture" is being talked about? What's popular in Latin America may be unknown elsewhere. Lucidish 20:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Possible guideliness

There are three categories of possible additions, one of which requires keeping the item, one which could go either way, and one of which requires discarding the item. The categories are: "Obviously relevant", "requires interpretation / sourcing", "obviously irrelevant".

  • An addition is obviously relevant if it includes an explicit mention of the name, and makes use of it with a non-trivial intent (i.e. as an allusion, allegory, satire, etc.), or is a means toward a serious discussion of the event;
  • It requires interpretation if there is an explicit mention of the name, but it isn't clear whether or not the reference is trivial or not;
  • It is obviously irrelevant if it is merely a trivial mention of the name without any intent to discuss the plane or its historical significance.

If something requires interpretation, and cannot be looked into on Google, and no source has been provided, then it may be discarded until a source is given. Lucidish 18:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Lucidish, I like it. That seems pretty clear. If people can't follow that, then they shouldn't be posting stuff.
I recommend that these be put in right underneath the section that says "Enola Gay in Popular Culture" heading with the arrows that make them invisable. Does anyone else have a take on the guidlines? Davidpdx 00:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I had just said this on Lucidish's talk page, but I think it's worth saying here as well:
I know a few people are getting utterly annoyed at some of the stuff that is being put in there and want to cut the entire section. My thought is someone will just come along and put it back in anyway. It's better to have it there with specific guidelines then have to struggle with people readding the entire section. And it does have some relevant qualities. Davidpdx 01:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pop Culture Entries

I just added the Mechwarrior part, I thought it was important to show just how wide spread the useage of the name was, across many medias, TV, Music, now videogames. Thanks - Seth 24.118.254.26 19:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC) [note this was moved by Davidpdx]

I just reverted the entry of the videogame codes. My take on this is just because the mear words "Enola Gay" are present, doesn't make a strong enough argument that it should be part of the pop culture section. The main problem with this is if everything is added to this section that has even the slightest link to the words, the section will become unmanageable and overshadow the article itself.

Please keep in mind, this is an article about a historic plane in WWII. While the pop culture section is useful, I think it can also become cluttered with things that don't have any relation to the article. Davidpdx 04:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Pop Culture Section

Some may have noticed that the pop culture section was removed by myself. This is due to the constant abuse of unregistered users adding entries about anything slightly related to the article. My feeling is that people don't take the time to read the talk page, but instead quickly add the reference and disappear never to be heard from again.

We've discussed this numerous times with no real solution. It's getting rediculous that we have to keep reverting because of people's carelessness. If someone has an issue with this, please air it out here and let me know what you think. Davidpdx 00:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. David. I 100% endorse your actions here --rogerd 00:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I provided a solution, which David commended. But I really don't care enough to pursue the matter. Lucidish 02:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Lucidish, I think your solution is good, but if people don't follow the directions, then it's not feasible. The problem is 95% of the entries made to this section are put there by unregistered users who come and go and don't follow the directions to see the talk page. Either they don't care or can't read. Then it's left to us (whomever has the page on their watchlist) to "police" it. It simply doesn't work. Davidpdx 04:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I guess the policy would have to be wikipidia-wide in order to have the kind of enforcement you're worried about. Maybe someone should try to make it official policy or somesuch. Lucidish 19:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of a reference to the OMD song

I've seen the discussion about the pop culture, but I believe that a reference to OMD's song is relevant to this article, since it deals with the bombing of Hiroshima. I think that adding just a line or two either at the beginning of the article before the table of contents, or at the end of the section about the bombing of Hiroshima will be enough. This way an important reference to the plane in pop culture is mentioned, but without opening the floodgates to pointless things like a cheat code in a game. --Marvin Monroe 10:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, however if someone comes in and adds a pop culture section, which will happen, then that pretty much makes people think they are entitled to put anything there regardless of what it is.
The pop culture section is a big problem with this article. Granted I realize having no pop culture references is a bit harsh. The problem is no matter how hard those of us work to put notes in the article(and we have put note in the article that can be seen while editing the article which most people simply ignore), someone comes a long and messes it up. After awhile the pop culture section becomes large and overwhelming so much so, it detracts from the real purpose of the article itself.
If you look back at the talk page, this has been discussed before. I hate to say it, but it's opening a very large can of worms even if we do it the way you suggested (which is quite creative by the way). Davidpdx 10:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name of aircraft that dropped the Nagasaki bomb

There is some debate about the spelling of the aircraft that dropped the Nagasaki bomb, either "Bockscar", "Bock's Car" or "Bocks Car". The National Museum of the United States Air Force, which has that aircraft, and is run by professional historians and curators, calls it "Bockscar" [5]. That should be authoritative enough for us. rogerd 01:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Rodger, good catch. I've noticed that has been changed a few times. I'm not sure if they are serious editors or if this is someone just looking to vandalize the article. Certainly, assuming it is the former they are at best ill informed in terms of their edits. Hopefully before they revert again they will see your notes. Davidpdx 04:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/n/o/Talk%7EEnola_Gay_ca17.html"