Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 17

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 16

Archive 17

Archive 18 →

Contents 1 Discrepency 2 Hindsight is 20/20 3 CLEANUP THE LEAD 4 Numbers in introduction 5 Total deaths 6 Simple edit suggestion. 7 Please unlock 8 Just want to say what I think... 9 Failed "good article" nomination 10 Intro 11 Picture legend needs a citation 12 Further reading 13 why dont you put polyanna into the article?

Discrepency

Another account stresses that after General Spaatz reported that Hiroshima was the only targeted city without prisoner of war (POW) camps, Washington decided to assign it highest priority.

-

It is likely that hundreds of Allied prisoners of war also died.[19]

The latter qoutation's cited source has an agenda, and this discrepency makes this article look less legit. You might go ahead, and say something like "Despite what Spaatz reported, Hiroshima was not deviod of any POW camps, and it is likely that hundreds of allied prisoners of war also died." You might go ahead and qualify the agenda sites claims, through research, though not saying that "hundred of allied prisoners likely died" could potentially be controversial, regardless of the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.148.21.191 (talk) 02:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hindsight is 20/20

As I read this talk page, I am struck by the tendency to underestimate the "fog of war" as it existed in 1945. The debate seems to center around the numbers of people killed but the implied view is about the morality of the bombing in the first place.

My suggestions:

1) The fog of war was a factor and individuals can disagree about whether the action was right or wrong. The Americans wanted to end a war that the japanese would not end. The americans didn't know if the bomb would work. The Japanese didn't know the extent of the bomb's destruction and the Americans didn't know if they had a real weapon until Nagasaki. The history of the bombings should acknowledge this fact

2) America did not have a real option to stop the war - only Japan did. It took a second nuclear bombing to make Japan surrender. Had Japan surrendered at any time before Hiroshima, the bombings would not have occurred.

3) The civilian/soldier distinction wasn't clear in a war where most allied soldiers were civilians who were drafted to become soldiers. The argument that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes because they killed civilians fails to take into account that most american soldiers would also be civilians had Japan not embarked on an expansionist war in the first place.

Mileage 05:53, 5 September 2007

The consensus of historians is that Nagasaki was "gratuitous at best and genocide at worst". Therefore comments that "it took a second bombing" are misplaced. Saying that the Americans did not know if the bomb would work is equally strange. The two bombs were of different designs, the first was not tested because it was so simple that it was known that it would work, the second, dropped on Nagasaki had already been tested at Alamogordo, a test that it was argued that the Japanese should have been invited to witness so that they also would know how horrible the weapon was. 199.125.109.19 06:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because it was common to issue invitations to mortal wartime enemies and have them accepted. "Say, would you like to come have a look at our new Top Secret weapon? Do you give your word you'll behave nicely during your visit to the US?" In addition, the United States had three devices (and another that needed parts), none of which they were certain would actually function properly. Imagine if, by some bizarre circumstance, a Japanese official actually accepted the invitation. What if the first test was a failure? What would our visitor report back to Japan? At that point, how could the US even allow him to return home? The use of "Fat Man" and "Little Boy" were desperate acts, driven by the need to bring the war to a swift close before the ground invasion of Japan. Your mythical "consensus of historians" is raw historical revisionism. How many civilians have been killed in Iraq by a military that is actively trying not to engage them? 100,000? 120,000? Imagine the carnage if the US had invaded Japan, where citizens were training with pointed sticks, coaching youths in how to crawl beneath tanks with dynamite strapped to their chests (yes it's documented, in Japan then, in Iraq now). This article must remain NPOV, and anyone who second-guesses the decision to use the atomic bombs on Japan is dangerously naive. Japan and Germany, allies in destruction during WWII, together killed tens of millions of civilians during the war, at least 17 million in China alone. I wonder how the Chinese feel about the Atomic bombing of Japan? strike71 08:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that it can't be said that it is the consensus of historians that the bombings were "gratuitous at best and genocide at worst". Is there context for that quote? Rorschak (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter much, since Japan was on the verge of collapse from submarine blockade and naval mining anyway. Unless the casualties from sustaining such an operation would greatly exceed the number of civilian lives likely to be lost in a nuclear attack then perhaps such a path could have been taken. On another note, if the U.S. was planning on using the atomic bombs against Japan, why bother with costly campaigns to take islands like Iwo Jima and Okinawa? Maybe even the Phillipines could've been bypassed if the U.S. was able to launch the sortie from Tinian Masterblooregard 03:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I want to comment on the "The civilian/soldier distinction wasn't clear and hence there were no war crimes" remark above. (I am not even going to argue whether or not Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes indeed.) I think that the distinction between soldiers and civilians is rather clear: a soldier is a soldier, even if he was drafted, and a civilian is a civilian, even if he could have been drafted. Nazi soldiers were still soldiers, even if they were drafted. All in all, the aforementioned kind of reasoning to justify killing civilians reminds me something like: "if he raped my wife, i should go and rape his." Cokaban 20:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

But surely there was not a clear civilian/soldier distinction being that the general populace were being trained to resist any American soldiers by any means possible. Under that scenario, American soldiers were liable to be under attack from both civilians and soldiers alike. Thats means every Japanese person would be seen as an enemy Rorschak (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

CLEANUP THE LEAD

I am not going to bother wading through all the shit going on above because I don't give a crap, but let me tell you that it has produced a fruitful result for all involved: no-one is going to bother reading this article because the lead is absolutely abominable, one of the worst I have ever read. It screams "Childish Edit War." WP:LEAD provides clear direction on the summary style needed for a good introduction and this is a poster child for why those requirements should be followed. Who thinks it is a good idea to get into the minutiae of estimating overall casualties two sentences into a complex and detailed topic?? This needs to be cleaned up and the adolescent bickering needs to stop because the results are simply awful. Eusebeus 12:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree, its tone reminds me of the opening scene in Airplane! when male and female public announcers argue over the red/white zone. Anynobody 07:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

While I completely agree, please keep your language and tone productive. "wading through all the shit going on" and "I don't give a crap" could be considered relatively hostile statements, and while you are appropriately admonishing the state of the article and the edit warring going on, you should make sure that you do so in a productive and civil way. Even saying "mess" instead of "shit" and "it's irrelevant" instead of "I don't give a crap" would have made this post completely civil and probably more effective. --Cheeser1 15:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

How about making the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs something like this:

The destruction was so great that it is impossible to say with precision how many people were killed. It is commonly estimated that by the end of 1945, perhaps as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima^[1] and 74,000 in Nagasaki^[2] had died, more than half on the days of the bombings. Since then, several thousand more have died from injuries or illness due to radiation.^[3] In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians.^[4][5]

On August 15, 1945 Japan announced its surrender to the Allied Powers, signing the Instrument of Surrender on September 2 which officially ended World War II. The role of the bombings in Japan's surrender, as well as the effects and justification of them, has been the subject of much debate. The experience of bombing led post-war Japan to adopt Three Non-Nuclear Principles, which forbid Japan from nuclear armament.

and pushing the rest:

Several factors make it difficult to estimate casualty numbers due to the bombings. The population prior to the bombings is only roughly known, because of formal and informal evacuations, and unknown numbers of forced laborers. Some victims were burned beyond recognition or their bodies disposed in mass cremations.^[6] Records of military personnel were destroyed, and entire families perished, leaving nobody to report the casualties. According to most estimates, the bombing of Hiroshima killed approximately 70,000 people due to immediate effects of the blast. Estimates of total deaths by the end of 1945 range from 90,000 to 140,000, due to burns, radiation, and subsequent disease, aggravated by lack of medical resources.^{[6] [7] [8]} Some estimates state up to 200,000 may have died by 1950, due to cancer and other long-term effects.^[7] The numbers for Nagasaki are consistently lower, because the valley terrain reduced the impact of the bomb, with immediate deaths estimates ranging from 40,000^[9] to 75,000.^{[2] [10]}

down to a lower section in the article? —wwoods 00:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Overall, that looks good. Some thoughts:

• This sentence "Since then, several thousand more have died from injuries or illness due to radiation.[3] " is not supported by the reference. Most sources I've seen put the number of casualties after 1945 in the tens of thousands--including the one we mention later in the later paragraph.
• When I first came to this article, I was looking for information. I wanted to know how many people had died, total. Not the causalties in 2 months, or 4 years, but the total deaths caused by the bomb. I think that is a common object of curiousity. The unusual aspect of the bomb is radiation and its effects, so that is also an object of curiousity particular to the subject. Many users will come to the article wanting to know those things. So, I would vote for putting numbers closer to a totla in the lead paragraph. But this is a mostly a style point. Bsharvy 04:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Very good. Clear, concise, sums up the most important elements, neutral tone but not too cold... total support. I think the "several thousand" is a wise formulation and allows for enough free interpretation (2,000-xx,000), and for a more precise description further in the body. Now my 2 cents concerning Bsharvy's thoughts :

• It is not completely supported by the reference, true, but the reference traced estimated deaths related to radiation, and is (important!!) accepted by all (or most of the) editors, which seems mandatory for a consensual introduction. According to Q2, Q5, and to Q8 (in the source), the numbers of deaths are somewhere around 2000+-1000. Now it is wise to imagine causes of deaths other than due to radiations (I've been fighting for it :) ), but how much? Several thousands seems a good estimation, in accordance with THIS reference, of course! You say that most sources put tens of thousands, but I havent seen any produced apart from the two books cited by the DOE page... which are these other sources?
• To know how many people died, total, would mean to know the number of people present and their age, and the japanese life expectancies for all ages from 1945 to now, along with the precise record of deaths during all these years. And this will never be precisely known. Personally I think it is more interesting to know how many total victims (and not deaths) there are, dead or still living, and this is the around 650,000 Hibakusha. But that shouldnt probably be in the lead (in my opinion). --Firkenknecht 05:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, RERF's estimates for its study group from 1950–90 are 428 excess cancer deaths (#2), plus 50–100% as many excess non-cancer deaths (#5) equals 642–846 excess deaths. Multiply by a few to get the number for the total population, and by a few more for the deaths 1945–50 and 1990+. That adds up to 'thousands', but not 'tens of thousands'.

Also, while the phrase doesn't have a scientific source, "thousands more succumbed to injuries and illness later" has been part of someone's annual press release for years, so it can fairly be described as "commonly estimated":

• 1999: "The bomb dropped on Hiroshima killed some 140,000 people by the end of 1945, out of an estimated population of 350,000. Thousands more succumbed to illness and injuries later."
• 2000: "About 140,000 people died in the attack, and thousands more succumbed to injuries and illness later."
• 2004: "The bomb had killed some 140,000 people by the end of 1945, out of Hiroshima's estimated population of 350,000. Thousands more succumbed to illness and injuries later."
• 2005: "The Hiroshima bomb unleashed a mix of shockwaves, heat rays and radiation. By the end of 1945 the toll rose to some 140,000 out of an estimated population of 350,000. Thousands more succumbed to illness and injuries later."
• 2006: "The atomic bomb had killed some 140,000 people by the end of 1945, out of Hiroshima's estimated population of 350,000. Thousands more succumbed to illness and injuries later."
• 2007: "The atomic bomb had killed some 140,000 people by the end of 1945, out of Hiroshima's estimated population of 350,000. Thousands more succumbed to illness and injuries later."

—wwoods 06:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• The RERF study only looks at the period from 1950-onward. It only makes estimates for a cohort, not the total population. It only studies radiation-related deaths. This is OR: "Multiply by a few to get the number for the total population, and by a few more for the deaths 1945–50 and 1990+. That adds up to 'thousands', but not 'tens of thousands'." (wwoods). On what authority is the factor to derive 1945-50 "a few"? On what authority is the factor to derive all deaths from radiation-deaths "a few?"
• The phrase "thousands more succumbed to injuries and illness later" doesn't conflict with saying tens-of-thousands succumbed to injuries etc. In order to have a conflict, you need a specific number less than 20,000. This is very clear from your last source which says: "Tens of thousands of elderly survivors, children and dignitaries gathered at the Peace Memorial Park, near ground zero where the bomb was dropped, to remember the more than 250,000 people who ultimately died from the blast." [1] If the source says "thousands more succumbed" after 1945 and also says the total after 1945 is an increase of more than 100,000, the source is not implying that thousands means less than 10,000. And this source, Reuters, is the source in almost all those links.
• So, we have a widely accepted number of roughly 100,000 by 1945-end, and widely reported numbers in 200,000-range for a total. We also have an obligation not to minimize the deaths, so "tens-of-thousands" is fair. We should discuss controversy around these numbers in a later section. Bsharvy 08:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• [reset indent] Huh? Other than radiation, what effect of the bombs is causing deaths years later?
• Hey, I was rounding up! It seems reasonable to assume the death rate in the early years was higher, so the deaths in 1945–50 were more than 1/8 of those in 1950–90.
• No, "more than 250,000" is just a reference to the 2007 Hiroshima cenotaph number, 253,008, given later in the article.

—wwoods 15:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• The main point is that it doesn't matter. We have to know, with referenced sourcing, that the only deaths were due to radiation before we write on that basis. We don't know that, because there is not a single source that says that. But to answer your question: any injury reducing life-expectancy to the time in question. Brain damage, kidney damage, liver damage, spleen damage, etc. Any burns so serious they increased risk of infection. I'm not sure if the RERF numbers include diseases that occurred because of a damaged immune system, rather than directly as a result of radiation. If not, add all those. Finally, the time period in question is not restricted to "years later." It is 1945- onward. That includes people who were dying as soon as 5 months after the bombing.
• The 250,000 figure is for "people who ultimately died from the blast," as stated in the source.

Bsharvy 07:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No. There have been any number of stories which more-or-less imply or report that the annually-increased numbers of 'people who have died' are 'people who have died due to the bombs', and this is one of them. In fairness to the media, it doesn't help that the city governments are putting it that way.

• 2007: "Japan has so far recognized the total number of victims who died of radiation illness and injuries in Hiroshima as 253,008 and in Nagasaki as 143,124."
• 2005: "Including those initially listed as missing or who died afterward from a loosely defined set of bomb-related ailments, including cancers, Hiroshima officials now put the total number of the dead in this city alone at 242,437."
• 2002: "The Hiroshima city government puts the total number of people who have died after being exposed to radiation from the U.S. bombing at 226,870, including 4,977 in the past year."
• 1997: " The number of names listed in the registry of victims killed by the atomic bomb, which is kept in the Memorial Monument for Hiroshima, City of Peace (Cenotaph for the A-bomb Victims) in Peace Memorial Park was 202,118 as of August 6, 1997."
• 1994: "The confusing inflation of numbers in more recent year derives from a complex and highly politicized national policy ... When such individuals die, of whatever causes, they are identified as deceased hibakusha — and their names are inscribed as such at the peace memorials in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As of August 1994, the number of deceased hibakusha thus named in Hiroshima was 186,940. The corresponding figure in Nagasaki was 102,275. (Many of those killed, including thousands of Koreans, naturally remain unidentified and thus nameless and unlisted)."

To accept such numbers as estimates of deaths due to the bombings would require believing that ~8,000 per year were dying of bomb-related causes — and none were dying of anything else! Meanwhile, Japan's national government effectively takes a different view:

• 2007: "As of March 31, 251,834 people had "hibakusha" health books — in principle entitling them to free medical checkups and services. But only 2,242 have been recognized as having illnesses caused by radiation."
• 2002: "As of the end of March 2002, only 2,169 survivors, or 0.76% of the 285,620 survivors carrying A-bomb Survivors Health Books have certified A-bomb-related diseases. About 2,000 certifications in ten years does not show much movement."
• 2001: "As of March, there were 291,824 certified A-bomb survivors in Japan. Of these, only 2,238 were judged by the government to be suffering from A-bomb-related illnesses.

Each year, the government receives 300 to 400 applications from people claiming illnesses from the bombings. The government acknowledged 120 as survivors in 2000."

—wwoods 07:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Another point of view would be to consider that the article is speaking of the Hibakusha, or atomic bomb "victims" and not deads, as it is in fact later mentioned in the article ("The names of 5,221 people who died recently were added to the list of victims, bringing the total number recognized by the city to 253,008."). Dont you think that "people who ultimately died from the blast" is a contraction of "people who lived the blast and ultimately died"? Or maybe a bad translation? Or a journalistic interpretation? --Firkenknecht 10:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• I mentioned the 250,000 figure to show that a press release saying "thousands more died later" doesn't mean much. The source can't intend an upper limit by "thousands" when its figures elsewhere imply over 100,000 more dead. Also, if you argue the source is generally sloppy (I tend to agree) because of the 250,000 figure, it's not fair to argue it is reliable about your preferred figures. I'm not trying to promote the 250,000 number.
• I don't undertand the point regarding the hibakusha numbers. What does the number of radiation sufferers in 2002 have to do with the total deaths after 1945? Bsharvy 22:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[belated response] The point, such as it is, is that according to the Japanese government about 1% of the survivors are suffering from bomb-related conditions. Also, that new certifications are made at the rate of about 120–200/year; but the number is roughly constant (~2,200), so I infer that they're dieing at about the same rate.

—wwoods 00:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to promote the 250,000 number. this has got to be the funniest thing I've read on this page, as the whole page and the archived page say just the opposite.

The point of the Hibakusha numbers are that it includes people that have died after the bombings (e.g. since then) of any causes, as do some of the sources above. I'm not 100% sure but it seems that reading here that there is a deliberate attempt to pull numbers and wording out of sources where it doesn't exist, hoping that the casual reader will not go double check to see what happened...to point out an obvious one "The RERF study only looks at the period from 1950-onward. It only makes estimates for a cohort, not the total population." ignores that the RERF study looked at everyone a certain distance frome the bombing (12km or something like that) to cut off the ones who were not directly affected by it, there is not some huge "missed" population here, rather lack of understanding on what the cohort is. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 14:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Numbers in introduction

2nd edition of wwoods proposal:

As many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki may have died from the bombings by the end of 1945^[1], roughly half on the days of the bombings. Since then, thousands more have died from injuries or illness due to radiation.^[2] In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians.^[3][4]

• What I changed. 1) The source everybody accepts, RERF FAQ, has figures for both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so I changed the source for Nagasaki from Fox news to RERF. (I think the the figures in the Fox story are for immediate deaths, in any case.) 2) I changed "more than" to "roughly", since the range of deaths after the first day is very broad. 3) I took out the first paragraph sentence, because I think that topic belongs in the later discussion. 4) Reworded the sentence giving death estimates so it is in active instead of passive voice. 5) Re the recently discussed part, I changed "Since then, several thousand more have died from injuries or illness due to radiation" to "thousands more" which seems the best compromise as it neither limits nor promotes an upper end.
• In a section on "Effects of the bomb," we should discuss hibakusha, DOE figures and any reliable discussion of 1945-1950 deaths, RERF Lifespan study, difficulties in accurate estimating, secondary disease, and other issues. Bsharvy 02:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"Thousands" is fine with me. I prefer putting "by the end of 1945" in front, but that's a quibble.

—wwoods 00:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I made the changes discussed above. The article is far from perfect, but cleaner than it was before. One problem is that there is no section for discussion of the effects common to both bombings--odd considering the article's subject encompasses both. So, I didn't see a natural place to put this info, which I assume is true of both cities:

"Several factors make it difficult to estimate casualty numbers due to the bombings. The population prior to the bombings is only roughly known, because of formal and informal evacuations, and unknown numbers of forced laborers. Some victims were burned beyond recognition or their bodies disposed in mass cremations.^[5] Records of military personnel were destroyed, and entire families perished, leaving nobody to report the casualties. According to most estimates, the bombing of Hiroshima killed approximately 70,000 people due to immediate effects of the blast. Estimates of total deaths by the end of 1945 range from 90,000 to 140,000, due to burns, radiation, and subsequent disease, aggravated by lack of medical resources.^{[5] [6] [7]}

Maybe the Hibakusha section could be turned into a subsection within a general section on the aftermath of both bombings. Bsharvy 10:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Total deaths

We've got a variety of estimates of deaths in the 1940s, but it occurs to me that the cite we'd like — "As of 2005, an estimated XXX people have died due to the direct and indirect effects of the two bombs." — may not even exist, in any reliable source. All I've come across are a couple of estimates of deaths as of 1950, and a couple of estimates of deaths since 1950.

• There's the much-discussed '200k (H) + 140k (N) = 340k by 1950', made in the '50s, described in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

• And there's this: '119k (H) + 74k (N) = 193k by 1950'.[2] The source for that seems to be "Hamashima Shoten Henshūbu. 1999. Shiryō Kara Rekishi. Nagoya: Hamashima Shoten."[3] I've no idea where to find that.

• There's RERF's estimate of 1950–90 deaths for the study group: 428 cancer (including 89 leukemia) deaths[4] plus 214–428 non-cancer deaths[5] = 642–856.

• And there's this: a German National Research Center for Environment and Health (GSF) estimate of 1950–2000 deaths for the study group: 479 cancer (plus 93 leukemia) deaths, "and it is expected that at least another 500 additional radiation-induced cancers will be seen among the survivors."[6]

Are there any other data points? —wwoods 00:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've gradually changed my feeling that the total deaths to date is an important number. The problem is that excess deaths occurring now are, generally speaking, a reduction in life expteancy from, say, 85 years to 80 years. I think it is a ittle misleading to lump those in with deaths that reduced from life expectancy from 85 years to 21 years, i.e. deaths that occurred in the first five years. It is more meaningfuol and useful to give the deaths in a specified time period. All the evidence I've seen suggests that deaths afer the early 50's probably aren't a very large. If we are going to include later deaths we should specify the time period, e.g. 1955-1990, rather than just trying to lump them in with deaths that occurred 1945-50. Bsharvy 03:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Simple edit suggestion.

Under the subheading 3.2 "The Bombing", "...first nuclear bombing mission on August 6...", is not followed by the year "1945". The article has a gap in speaking of dates, and it is important to include the year "1945" next to this date as reference. User5802 01:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Please unlock

{{editprotected}}
This page has been locked for half a month and I cannot find any discussion relating to the reason for its having been protected. Please unlock the page so that fruitful progress on the article may continue, and/or require that the parties involved in the warring that led to its being protected discuss the relevant issues of contention before continuing their involvement in editing. Robert K S 16:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Declined - To request that the page itself be protected or unprotected, please make a request at requests for page protection instead of using {{editprotected}}. -- JHunterJ 02:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion about the edit dispute appears to be in Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 16. -- JHunterJ 02:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The above template and declining of the request is just patronizing. I'm sorry I'm uneducated on the proper protocol, but the above response was most unhelpful. At some point in the future, one will need to have passed some sort of bar exam to get anything done on Wikipedia. Robert K S 03:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The {{editprotected}} is for immediate implementation of proposed edits to a protected page. That's not what you wanted; you wanted a protected page unprotected. The place to make such a request is [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (as mentioned in the {{editprotected}} textbox). Declining the request may seem patronizing here, but it removes it from the Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests, which is helpful to the maintenance of the encyclopedia. Pointing you to the correct place to make the request is the most help I can give, and I don't understand how it is unhelpful. -- JHunterJ 03:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize... I guess I was most irked by the "Declined" template icon. The proper protocol for requesting unprotection is indeed in the protected template and I just didn't see it at first. I'll go there and submit the request for unprotection. Even so, it's a runaround that I think quite unnecessary, especially after administrator attention has already been brought. Robert K S 04:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand what the issue was that got the article locked for so long. Some disagreement over casualty estimates? Couldn't the warring parties just agree to a table of casualty estimates from the various sources, with those sources listed? Robert K S 04:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just want to say what I think...

First, I was so surprised by this article, because I noticed that the part of it that argued for and against the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had totally vanished. It was truly the ugliest part of this article; it was cut up in two big parts against and for the bombings, and every wikipedian sticked to the side of his/her personal opinions. If anyone from the other side tried to change the opposite side, hell, armageddon and judgement day would break out on the talk page!

Now I see that something truly worse has happened. This has simply been moved to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Great, it us just what we needed! It is damn typical; when wikipedians can't decide on X, what do we get? A brand new article "Debate over X" or sometimes "Criticism of X"! And you say that you have to do this because that part of the article X simply got too long. Ofcourse it got too long! That is simply because you can not agree on the subject, and nor do you bother to try to do so! Examples? Wikipedia! Criticism of Wikipedia! Ahmadinejad! Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad! Islam! Criticism of Islam!

You know that there are more examples out there, so I won't bother giving you the complete list. Just ask yourself what reputation this gives to Wikipedia. Are we truly an Encyclopedia, or just another debate-site going undercover?

So disappointed that don't even bother to sign in and sign this post with my account. 81.170.138.232 12:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

But shouldn't this article be about the bombings themselves. I would say there should be a page devoted to the debate over the justification for the bombings and if it was a war crime or not. I say it is a valid debate, one that we can't answer yet. Rorschak (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The debate over the nuclear attacks existed long before Wikipedia ever did. The public struggle over the validity or lack thereof to the choice is very real; a wikipedia page is right to cover it. Likewise, there are many aspects of Islam that bring passionate disagreement or worse, several of which I myself admit to having gotten into fights over. Just because something is, in itself, THE controversy/fight/loathing/seething hatred over a subject doesn't mean it doesn't FACTUALLY exist, which the fights over the Bombs, Islam, Ahmadinejad and even, on a FAR smaller scale, Wikipedia itself, do. If the fight was solely a wikipedian Edit war, then it would not be noteworthy; but I can only assure, the debates on those subjects, and others besides, are. --Chr.K. (talk) 09:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

In reviewing this article per the GA nomination made, I find it meets at least one of the quick-fail criteria, in this case the presence of multiple {{fact}} tags. Though it's written basically well, it does also need extensive inline citation work. Remember that the bare minimum is a ref at the end of each paragraph and for quotations. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky ^Talk 22:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This is depressing. I just found this page for the first time, and I think it's to Wikipedia's great discredit that we can't even manage to get to 'Good Article' standard for an article on one of the most important events of the 20th Century (and indeed, all of human history).

Then again, The Holocaust isn't a Good Article, either. (Not meaning to imply any moral equivalency - merely regretting Wikipedia's lack of quality articles on these hugely important topics.) Terraxos 02:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Though the intro accurately reflects the horrors related to atomic bombing, it is throughly POV to present numbers without context. Though I personally do not feel that it is adequate justification, WP:NPOV should at least be reflected in presenting both views (or none at all.) Djma12 ^(talk) 03:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's perfectly fine to acknowledge the alternative perspective on the bombings, but if you're going to take that tack you also need to include the rebuttal, which is that the Japanese asked to surrender before the bombings, and the U.S. denied them. Thus, some historians have made the argument that the rationale you included is invalid. VanTucky ^Talk 03:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Could you suggest some wording that would include that without excess verbosity?

Djma12 ^(talk) 04:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on finding the most appropriate source presently, when I figure it out I'll propose any addition (not more than a sentence or two) before adding it. Sound good? VanTucky ^Talk 04:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds perfect. Djma12 ^(talk) 04:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've looking around and, other than some fairly extreme websites, I can't find a reputable source that states that Japan ever asked for a surrender before the bombings. If you have a source that fits WP:V, it would be great to include it both here and in Surrender of Japan. Djma12 ^(talk) 04:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Japanese didn't offer to surrender until 10 August — after the bombings. Some of them had been talking to each other about asking the Soviets to act as their agents in negotiating some sort of ceasefire, but they couldn't even agree among themselves on the immediate need to end the war or on what the terms might be, much less putting a proposal to the Allies.

—wwoods 03:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the POV that had been added to the third paragraph, in the lead. It was not only POV, it did not belong in the intro. This article is about the bombings generally. Please take the time to read the Talk for the last two months. Ninety-percent of the debate here has been about the lead, and only recently was some agreement reached.Bsharvy 09:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the past debate centered around the numbers to present within the lead and "Fog of War" concepts. It never addressed motivation. Djma12 ^(talk) 13:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Djma12, did you read the article Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Oda Mari (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I believe that a full rehash of that article is in no means required for either this article or the intro. Having the intro only state casualties and not intent however is analogous to only listing medication side effects without indications. (Interesting, important, and incomplete.) Djma12 ^(talk) 17:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the intro should be better to mention only what actually happened. As for intent, how about to put into the first paragraph in simpler description? Something like: After six months of intense firebombing of 67 other Japanese cities and the Potsdam ultimatum, Japan did not surrender. President Truman decided to drop the bombsin order to end the war and save both American and Japanese lives. And as for the estimated numbers, it would be better to write somewhere in the article. Or create a new section for the procession of the event. Oda Mari (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I remember Japan was seeking peace and the USA might know that. Oda Mari (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The recent debate centered on death estimates, and also on cleaning up the lead in general. A major concern with the 2n paragraph was the apropriate level of detail for a lead paragraph--a concern which applies equally to the third paragraph. The main problem was that the lead was too bloated--a problem not addressed by trying to add more to it. Bsharvy 03:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Picture legend needs a citation

The legend "The energy released by the bomb was powerful enough to burn through clothing. The dark portions of the garments this victim wore at the time of the blast were emblazoned on to the flesh as scars, while skin underneath the lighter parts (which absorb less energy) was not damaged as badly." needs a citation to the source. It seems not true that the skin under darker closing would be damaged more than under lighter parts, as dark material is usually less transparent for the radiation (for this reason, i believe, people in Africa are black). Cokaban 20:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It was thermal damage to skin, not radiation damage that left the marks. The dark parts of the clothing got instantly hotter than the light parts. Binksternet 20:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe this, that's why a citation to an expert or the source is needed. If the radiation was that strong that it burned the closing (if the closing got that hot under radiation that it burned the skin), the radiation would also burn the skin through the closing. When one stands near a bonfire in a tee shirt, one feels the heat first of all in the form of radiation through the tee shirt, not that much by the temperature of the tee shirt. Cokaban 20:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Flash burns are different than your experiance with bonfires. see a discussion at [[7]] the effect was well established during the above-ground US testing, the woman-with-kimono-pattern photo is merely the most dramatic example. Rick Boatright (talk) 14:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Further reading

Is there any rhyme or reason to the listings in the "Further reading" section? Most of it just seems to be fairly random. I plan to go through it to trim it to the most significant ones, any suggestions would be nice. I also plan to merge it with the "references" list due to the existence of the numerous footnotes. Mr.Z-man 05:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any. Your plan sounds good to me. Oda Mari (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

why dont you put polyanna into the article?

i dont understand. its a holocoust, its totally a genocide. but i dont see any criticism that giving a point to United State's civilian holocousts on overseas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orkh (talk • contribs) 09:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)