Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 →

Contents

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 [1][2][3], 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?

there has been claims that the bombs actually saved more lives by ending the war earlier. but there has never been any real quantification. i recently stumbled upon this one http://sun-bin.blogspot.com/2007/07/net-effect-of-little-boy-and-fat-man.html please consider adding this as a section.


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.[1][2][3][4]

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 Wikipedia 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)

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

Weintraub, Stanley (1995). The Last, Great Victory: The End of World War II. p. 436
[August 6, 1945] '... 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)
MacArthur also wanted to use the bomb during the Korean War. In fact, his insistence that the bomb be used was one of the deciding factors in his being relieved by President Truman.Primium mobile 01:15, 22 July 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)

Actually, calling US citizens "Americans" originated OUTSIDE the United States. It's only been in recent years, with all the United States envy that goes on around the world, that US citizens have come under fire for referring to themselves by the name given to them by others.Primium mobile 18:22, 18 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)

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)