Jump to content

Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27

Allied victory

Another constructive, rational and reasoned suggestion, which will be dissipated in the ether of post-truth patriotic ideals. How can a bombing have a victorious party? A bombing is a bombing, a dropping of bombs over a military target. It's just a military fact or action, it's not a war nor a battle. There's no winner, it's just a military operation, successful or unsuccessful. Am I right? And why allied and not merely US? It was a US military operation. João Pimentel Ferreira (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

We normally use the template:Infobox military conflict for air raids, such as the Schweinfurt–Regensburg mission, Raid on Taihoku and Doolittle Raid. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
There was British participation, which was present to ensure that it was an Allied operation. President Truman emphasised this aspect the bombing in his announcement. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
The British participation was military or do you refer to the Quebec agreement? João Pimentel Ferreira (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
As the article points out, there was a British contribution to the Manhattan Project, British authorisation for the bombing, British participation in the selection of the target cities, and British observers in one of the aircraft on the Nagasaki mission. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Agreed! Contrary to most of you, I'm here trying to be by the side of the Truth and a neutral Point of View. João Pimentel Ferreira (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
João, please try to be civil.-- Thnidu (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hypocenter

Section Events on the ground included the sentence

Eizō Nomura was the closest known survivor, who was in the basement of a reinforced concrete building (it remained as the Rest House after the war) only 170 metres (560 ft) from ground zero (the hypocenter)<!--Hypocenter (as in "Nagasaki Hypocenter Monument") means below-center and is appropriate, being at ground level. In seismology, epicenter would be the right term.--> at the time of the attack.

However, the article Hypocenter begins

Hypocenter (Focus) and epicenter of an earthquake
A hypocenter (or hypocentre) (from Ancient Greek: ὑπόκεντρον [hypόkentron] for 'below the center') is the point of origin of an earthquake or a subsurface nuclear explosion. It is a synonym of the focus.[1]
Confusingly, the term hypocenter is also used as a synonym for ground zero, the surface point directly beneath a nuclear airburst.

It seems clear to me that given the choice between a term that is ambiguous and obscure and one that is straightforward and well known, we should prefer the straightforward term, rather than using the ambiguous one and defending it with an appeal to etymology and the name of a single structure. I have deleted "(the hypocenter)" and the HTML comment.

References

  1. ^ The hypocenter is the point within the earth where an earthquake rupture starts. The epicenter is the point directly above it at the surface of the Earth. Also commonly termed the focus."Earthquake Glossary - hypocenter". United States Geological Survey. Archived from the original on 15 March 2010. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

--Thnidu (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Thnidu: I've removed the "Confusingly" part from that article as it's a weasel word and not supported by any sources. On the other hand, use of the term "hypocenter" in relation to nuclear explosions is used in multiple reliable sources: UCLA, National Geographic, in Radiation Risk Estimates in Normal and Emergency Situations (a medical publication from Springer, a respected scientific journal publisher) [1], the Encyclopedia of Distances (also published through Springer) [2], Merriam-Webster, Oxford Dictionary, and Collins Dictionary. It's not "ambiguous", "obscure", or even confusing. I disagree with your removal. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
"Hypocentre" is also the term used, commonly and frequently, at English language memorials in Hiroshima. There's a small memorial marking where it occurred. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I've been there. It's a sobering place. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Opinions Do you think the article deserves a promotion to FA class? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eltomas2003 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Propaganda

After many contributions to WP, and after talking about these issues before (hidden in the background of this talk), this article continues to be the most despicable and cherry-picked american propaganda of historical hygienization. Specially when one compares this article with articles like 9/11 or the Holocaust, or even the attacks on Perl Harbour. For the first time in Mankind's history Man uses atomic power against civil population, and instead of the humanitarian consequences, this article provides us with the "american process" to it! Therefore, being objective and constructive as a WP contributor should be (and kindly do not erase my comment as you wish and did, because in that case you're indeed trolling me) this article needs more media of casualties, piled corpses and destroyed infrastructure, like for example the Holocaust or the 9/11. For the sake of encyclopaedic coherence! João Pimentel Ferreira (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any images of piled-up corpses at Hiroshima or Nagasaki? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd say the majority of these are already copyleft. João Pimentel Ferreira (talk) 10:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Your strong opinions have been expressed in the past, but your complaint goes against the way that the reliable sources describe the bombing. There is a lot of information published about the process. This is an indication that the reader is very interested in the process. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not saying you should remove the description of the process, I'm saying this article has a huge problem with WP:POV. João Pimentel Ferreira (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
It's always fascinating to see some people never change, João Pimentel Ferreira, for example a great deal of those photos in your "majority of these are copyleft", a great deal of those photos aren't even from Hiroshima or Nagasaki. For example the picture in your google list that contains the back of a black car, that picture was taken in Tokyo after Operation Meetinghouse. In any event, speaking about propaganda there was a journalist and photographer dispatched to H&N in order to take pictures of the destruction/"corpses" and then publish these photos in a particular japanese newspaper, the photographer was directed by the Japanese imperial government to drum up anti-american propaganda. So the most graphic pictures of inhumanity were sought out. So as ever, I would urge you to actually look at your own POV. This was a war-time event, pretty much everything on both sides was kind of about propaganda.
Moreover I don't think it really necessary to show photos of burnt corpses, as well, they're not very "atomic bombish", they're just your typical scene from any city that burned. I think most readers want to know what was different about this bombing and for that reason the article focuses on videos of injuries and building damage that make these bombings different. Random incinerated corpses like those at the bombing of Dresden, Tokyo etc. etc. those kind of photos, they all look the same.
Boundarylayer (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree, regarding the graphic content, if you had the same approach on other media around WP. And you don't! Are there any Guidelines on WP about it? Can't you say mutatis mutandis that the media in the Holocaust are just corpses left into a pit, thus not relevant in war time? Can't you say mutatis mutandis that the media in 9/11 are just destroyed buildings and injured people, similar to any other building demolition? Therefore there is indeed a huge problem with POV. João Pimentel Ferreira (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Media of the bomber's crew

Is it relevant to have media of the bomber's crew posing to the camera? Would you find mutatis mutandis relevant in the article of Holocaust to have media of the concentration camps's personnel smiling to the camera? And the Nazis were taking photos of everything, as they were experst in propaganda! I'd say those two medias are encyclopeadic irrelavant and should be removed. We have already the media of US propaganda in the chapter Preparations, which in that context is acceptable and relevant. João Pimentel Ferreira (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly appropriate for the topic, despite your opinion that the crew are war criminals. Looks to me as if the crew photo is perfectly relevant to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
My opinion doesn't matter, what I'm saying, for the sake of coherence, why the media is focusing merely on the attackers and not on the victims, whilst in the Holocaust is exactly the opposite? Clearly not fulfilling WP:POV! João Pimentel Ferreira (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
It's probably best to not feed this troll. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
That's what you call people when you disagree with them? João Pimentel Ferreira (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I think a balance of photos is necessary, to that end I think we're close to that. Though while I laid out why I think we don't have photos of corpses above, in my previous reply. A rationale that I hope they can understand? If Ferreira can find definitive photos of H&N corpses, then I wouldn't object to their addition. There are photos like this out there, in fact I have a few from researching this over the years. Though I don't know if these photos are also on wikimedia. So by all means Ferreira, if you want to do the research and add these definitive photos, then I don't think anyone would object.
What we are instead strongly objecting to, is your belief that this is all US propaganda and your desire to intentionally draw equivalence to the holocaust. An act that was not designed to end a war. So there is a bit of a difference. Without getting into it, though I could be wrong, but I think that's why Nick referred to you as a troll.
Boundarylayer (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
According to the Nazis, the Jews were enemies of the state and Germany was at war, and they believed the Jews conspired against Germany, thus the "final solution" was "justifiable". You always find rhetoric to justify your most inhuman actions. I will search for media though. João Pimentel Ferreira (talk) 10:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Aftermath

The aftermath on the ground should be a separate main chapter (the third or fourth: Background, Preparation, [Bombing], Aftermath), with subchapters for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and for each city subchapers with casualities, radiation, destroyed infrastructure, etc.; and not merely a sub-middle-chapter for each city. That is most relevant, in terms of historic relevance. João Pimentel Ferreira (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. The layout we have today provides a pause for reaction after the Hiroshima bombing and before the Nagasaki bombing, which is how the two bombings are presented in many of the reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

My point is that you focus, with this chapter's structure, really on the American POV. It is not even an universal POV, nor even a western POV, it's purely American. I'd say we cannot neglect the events on the ground, with all the radiation and effects on human health and infrastructure, as a mere sub-chapter of a military mission. And it's not a question of what I think, it's a question of post-war encyclopedic historical relevance. You will not see me having the same approach for the bombings of Tokyo which indeed provoked more casualties. Here is different though. In the same way that the Nazis killed more Russians than Jews, and the Holocaust has a more historical relevance, due to the used methodology, than operation Barbarossa. Therefore, this article as it is, has a severe problem with POV João Pimentel Ferreira (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. It has an American POV because it was the result of an American military operation conducted during wartime. A change in POV does not substantially improve the facts as presented. However, I'd like to see an update on the long term effects of the bombings. Medical research and clinical studies are missing (e.g., statistically significant increase in bone marrow diseases, but not in birth defects). MUnderwood 19:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor 3833 (talk • contribs)

Scared decision

In the section Surrender of Japan and subsequent occupation, I quote: "No consensus had emerged by 02:00, but the emperor gave his "scared decision" [emphasis mine],[1] authorizing the Foreign Minister, ..."
I can't check the source but assume this is supposed to be "sacred decision", no? Prinsgezinde (talk) 10:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Info Box

This wasn't a battle, it was an attack on a civilian population. Nobody fought back. Why does it have a battle info box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.194.203.18 (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The battle box is normally used for mltary operations like air raids. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
By this same logic, then all the bombings on German cities will fall under the same definition. Fact is, Hiroshima held a significant strategic value in a war. Battle box is appropriate for me. MUnderwood 18:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor 3833 (talk • contribs)
In my opinion battlebox is indeed quite out of place then air raid faces no resistance, meaning that there is practically no "battle". Operation infobox like used in Operation Opera would be more fitting in such situation.--Staberinde (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Only in hindsight can this air raid be said to have no resistance. This air raid was considered by the USAAF as an extension of the many firebombing missions that had been going for a half year, but with a bigger bomb of special type. There could have been anti-aircraft fire or fighter defenses, just like previous air raids. I think the Template:Infobox military conflict is appropriate. The fact that Japan chose not to challenge the B-29s is circumstantial. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Note that the raid on Nagasaki was engaged by the AA batteries. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Operation Centerboard I
Operation Centerboard II
Part of the Pacific War of World War II
Two aerial photos of atomic bomb mushroom clouds, over two Japanese cities in 1945.
Atomic bomb mushroom clouds over
Hiroshima (left) and Nagasaki (right)
TypeNuclear bombing
Location
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Empire of Japan
Planned byTarget Committee
Commanded byUnited States William S. Parsons
United States Paul W. Tibbets, Jr.
United States Charles Sweeney
United States Frederick Ashworth
TargetHiroshima, Niigata, Kokura, and Nagasaki
DateAugust 6 and August 9, 1945
Executed by509th Composite Group
Manhattan District
OutcomeHiroshima and Nagasaki heavily damaged.
CasualtiesHiroshima:
  • 20,000 soldiers killed
  • 70,000–126,000 civilians killed

Nagasaki:

  • 39,000–80,000 killed
Total: 129,000–226,000+ killed
I don't find it circumstantial, battlebox creates impression that there was a "battle" while in practice it is quite hard to describe this operation as battle. Not to mention that this infobox doesn't treat it as a normal air raid anyway, in air raids strength is practically always counted in planes involved, not in personnel. Also this infobox has absolutely the most disproportional commanders I have seen in any wikipedia conflict infobox, one one side we have weaponeers and pilots of specific bombers, and on other side we have Field Marshal who was in charge of ground and air units covering half of Japanese home islands.--Staberinde (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Added an example of infobox which would be more fitting in my opinion.--Staberinde (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Hata directed the forces and the relief efforts on the ground. Tibbets was the pilot of the Enola Gay, but he was also the commander of the 509th Composite Group, the formation that carried out the raids. Only Spaatz was between him and the Chief of Staff of the Army, George Marshall. Similarly, Parsons was the weaponeer, but he was also the commander of the Project Alberta. As such, only Groves (represented on Tinian by Farrell) and the Military Policy Committee (represented on Tinian by Purnell) were above him. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I much prefer Staberinde's infobox. The bombings do not fit the definition of a battle. This was explicitly not an engagement between opposing forces but rather minor resistance to a targeted (and intentionally low-key) operation. There was no possibility of a counterattack or a "defeat" by the US, only an operational success or an operational failure. At most, the defence with AA-batteries in Hiroshima can be seen as a skirmish ("A minor battle in war, as one between small forces or between large forces avoiding direct conflict.") if in fact there was an exchange of fire between the two sides. One could easily argue that other bombings like the London Blitz are distinguished enough by their length, participants and the number of engagements. You only need one plane dropping an atomic bomb and any "battle" is over. Prinsgezinde (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Vague statement re: Nagasaki bombing

In the section on the bombing of Nagasaki discussing the letters dropped with the instrumentation package, the following sentence is present: "In 1949, one of the authors of the letter, Luis Alvarez, met with Sagane and signed the document." The document that was signed is totally unclear and no context is provided in the rest of the paragraph. Could someone who knows what is being mentioned here replace "the document" with an appropriate description of whatever document is being mentioned? 128.101.142.135 (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

So you looked at the source, and what did it say? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2018

Make the word "kokutai" a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokutai Dave734 (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

 Already done The first instance of the word is already linked, in the second paragraph of the Potsdam Declaration section. Generally, only the first occurrence of the term is linked. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

"They remain the only use of nuclear weapons in the history of warfare."

The above sentence (from the lede) is not factually accurate. As these devices are weapons, all their usages, including tests, are by definition part of the "history of warfare". Even if a particular country were at peace with every other country in the world, building and testing a nuclear weapon is still part of the "history of warfare". There's been multiple simultaneous wars worldwide since possibly forever, but certainly since nukes were developed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.196.22.146 (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I would contest this, saying that "history of warfare" indicates against an enemy force, but if you really think it needs to be clear, then maybe replace with "in armed conflict to date"?WelpThatWorked (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
"In the history of warfare" means "at any time since the advent of warfare", which would include all test detonations. Your suggestion "in armed conflict" is closer to being accurate, but is still beating around the bush (and "to date" is redundant assuming the word "remain" remains). "Against human beings" or "for waging total war" are more descriptive of what exactly makes these bombings unique.
 Not done. Please establish consensus for this change before requesting an edit. It might help to read the lead at warfare. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Shush.
 Not done. "in armed conflict" would make a lot more sense. It definitely incorporates the other concerns. DimensionQualm (talk) 09:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2019

change the name Japan to imperial japan ShrekBoiii69 (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Not critical, since it's the same people, the same country, and the official name has always been Japan. The term "Imperial Japan" is a construction made up by historians. Binksternet (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Code name of the operation (or operations)

Operation Centerboard redirects to the discuused article, but nowhere the codename is mentioned. My attempt to add the codename with two sources got reverted by colleague Binksternet without, it seems for me, a sound argumentation (for the reference, the article is currently 89k characters of prose while WP:SIZERULE sets an approximate limit of 100k, so there, I think, is a place for one brief paragraph indeed).

Searching the archives of this talkpage turned up only an older copy of the infobox from last year mentioning the codenames, but no information on why these were removed. I argue that the codename definitely should be presented in the article in one way or another (I don't insist that there has to be a full paragraph). Ain92 (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Given the redirect, that the code name is referred to elsewhere, and that it is something that a reader might want to know, it should be mentioned in the article. I have restored the text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Focus on the cities and their populations, not the planes and the bombs

The bombs killed many thousands civilians. I do not see the point of naming individual POWs who got killed, or explaining so much detail of the flight (ie, he landing of the planes after the bombing which are anecdotal.)

Please keep the military paraphernalia to other websites, and pay respect to those who lost their lives. The bombing of cities need to be focused on the damage done to their population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.162.174.52 (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2019

196.194.105.103 (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

denoted is the word but editor used detonated this is the miss using of word

 Not done. Not specified where in the article this is. El_C 14:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not done "Detonated" is the correct word here (as in "explode"). I don't see any cases where it should be changed. aboideautalk 15:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The bombings could be considered war crimes

Considering that Pearl Harbour was considered a war crime and only killed 2 people, should there at least be a mention of the atomic bombings being war crimes? Seeing how they were done without warning and that they were done more so out of sick curiousity I think this should have a section on the article. It IS mentioned, but only briefly and it should be discussed more. CatCet 18:19 5 August, 2019 (UTC)

@CatCet: We have a whole separate article titled Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This article provides a link to that article. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually, 2,403 Americans were killed in the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The Tokyo War Crimes Court ruled that it was not a war crime, but a crime against peace, under the Kellog-Briand Pact of 1928. The bombarding of cities is not a war crime per se; under the Hague Convention of 1907, it was only a crime to bombard an undefended city. A Japanese court found that this was the case in 1963, but since that defies common sense, given the huge garrison, it was removed from the article, leaving the legal discussion to the Debate article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

video deleted?

Hi, can someone help me determine why this video was deleted from commons? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzDJb_JVhxk&t=85s Victor Grigas (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The sections on the bombings themselves are written entirely from the perspective of American bomber crews.

This is so preposterous, I shouldnt need to say it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:65D6:551B:85B:6DBC:6193:8838 (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Why should a historical summary about a major war event have only one perspective? Should we not see the human cost of war? Don't we spend a great deal of time/effort describing the human cost of all battles? Help me understand why the POV of this article is "preposterous." MUnderwood 13:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor 3833 (talk • contribs)
The POV is preposterous because it's very, very one-sided. I don't think the American perspective should be removed, but there is no mention of the immediate effects of the bomb. So you're criticizing the other poster for demanding that the summary mention anything other than American bomber crews for advocating "only one perspective"? I'm at a loss here. What is the human cost you are alleging he is trying to make people "not see"? The human cost of the psychological damage the people in this bomber crews sustained after they murdered thousands of civilians?
Yes, we should see the human cost of war. I don't understand how describing it from the American perspective is furthering this goal, though. Most of the human cost you mention was of people, and things, on the ground in Japan. I'm really baffled by your response.Vandergay (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Nagasaki

That was a city that were bombed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.64.170.41 (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Russia -> Soviet Union

"Russia responded to the U.S. tests" this should be "The Soviet Union responded". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4D01:8B70:4978:31C8:75C4:F214 (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2020

The word ordinance is not spelled correctly and sends the user to the wrong page in the section on Nagasaki during the war. 67.161.158.28 (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Ordnance is spelt correctly in the article. 'Ordinance' is the spelling when referring to a law, rather than ammunition. As for the link, there is no wikipedia article for ordnance, it's just a disambiguation page. Because of this, I think the Wiktionary link is the next best thing. - QuadColour (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2020

In the section Events August 7 to 9, there is an important error. The relevant sentence is "Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov informed Tokyo of the Soviet Union's unilateral abrogation of the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact on August 5."

The correct date is April 5, which appears on the Wikipedoa sites discussing related topics. 47.154.86.129 (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Split article

I'd argue that that the bombing of each city is notable enough to merit its own article. Wandavianempire (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Photographs of the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the Manhattan Engineer District.

Commemorating the 75th anniversary, I have prepared an online facsimile edition of this document, for which see https://anesi.com/med_thumb.htm -- as in the original, quality of photographs ranges from good to bad. Perhaps of most interest are the post-strike maps, which can be viewed in high detail, showing locations of the Mitsubishi works in Nagasaki, and the military targets in Hiroshima. This is mobile-friendly, though of course viewing is better on a larger screen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwoGunChuck (talk • contribs) 03:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

witness documentation

Kyogikai's two volume work is online http://ne.jp/asahi/hidankyo/nihon/english/weapons/pdf/the_witness_of_those_two_days_Vol1_all.pdf http://ne.jp/asahi/hidankyo/nihon/english/weapons/pdf/the_witness_of_those_two_days_Vol2_all.pdf 100.15.127.199 (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm getting 404's on those links. Is there another way you can post the URLs? Netherzone (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2020

In the section called Pacific War, 3rd paragraph the sentence "By the middle of 1944 the U.S. had over a hundred aircraft carriers in the Pacific...." is incorrect and should read "By the middle of 1944 the U.S. had up to 70 aircraft carriers in the Pacific". Using articles from wiki and the appendix from William T. Y'Blood's book The Little Giants I added the number of all carriers that could possibly be in the Pacific by July 1944. This number probably still includes escort carriers on trials and working up in the Atlantic. 174.101.241.4 (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2020

Remove the line: "It is the the most significant example of state terrorism to date." 73.50.200.16 (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Has been removed – Thjarkur (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Mass-murder and terrrorism

NICK-D]] (TALK) 03:33, 8 AUGUST 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia article talk pages are not forums for debating the subject of the article. The topic here is famously controversial, and a separate article summarises the extensive debate which has taken place over the years. User:Nick-D

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

United States' very aim was to make Japan surrender by causing immense destruction and terrifying their government. That's in the article and as known reason for the bombings. And they knew the killings wouldn't be small if unleashed, especially after the first bomb. So how come this is not state terrorism and mass-murder? It's common sense that it was. Axis were the bad guys doesn't mean that the Allies didn't commit evil acts. 07:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk • contribs)

The article summarises the debate over this issue, with the Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article going into further detail. Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
How is it debateful? If any country kills civilians it's mass-murder which is indisputable. Only accidental/collateral killings are not regarded as such. Nagasaki and Hiroshima weren't important militaristically. Although it had military and industrial activity, the real target was always finishing the war without any invasion. So it falls under state terrorism too as US wanted to make Japan surrender. Those are facts which I can even back up with sources. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
No, it is not indisputable, it's your uninformed opinion. The Hague Convention explicitly permitted the bombardment of cities. The two cities were important military targets. All military activity is based on the objective of bringing a war to a conclusion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Nowhere it is said that the US command decided to bomb because of military importance. It was done to beat Japan without a fight, in fact but is even said so in the article. The second bombing was only done because Japan refused to surrender. Only Hiroshima had significan military presence. Nagasaki didn't, hence the low military deaths there. Nagasaki was only an industrial base which could easily be smashed without an atom bomb. Dropping an atom bomb that kills civilians en-masse would be easier instead of smashing Japanese towns in air raids. Hague convention never protected any deliberate killing of civilians. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
The Choice of targets section does say that the cities were selected for their military importance, and gives the specific reasons for that importance. The article tells you the reason for the bombing of Nagasaki: that the bombing of four cities was ordered. It is true that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki could have been devastated by fire raids which would have killed just as many civilians. And they would have been had the war continued and the atomic bombs not been dropped on them first. Because the Hague Convention explicitly permitted the bombardment of cities, and anyone who is in or on a military target is a legitimate target. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
No it wasn't. If you read it carefully only Hiroshima is said to have significant military activity. But it wasn't the only features of that city. Nagasaki is said to be a military port (per source it was because hub of repairing), but didn't have any any significant military activity. You really think Americans didn't know there's little actual military there? But thing is you forgot to look at one important thing - The same section you cite about has conditions to be met for targeting. Military activity isn't mentioned anywhere. Also the same section has the additional reasons for targeting - "psychological effect on Japan". That is asides from the fact many of the targets were just into manufacturing like Kyoto. You just yourselves helped me prove its terrorism. And it also says they wanted to destroy these towns significantly, ie intentional mass murder of civilians. Hague Convention didn't protect that. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I didn't just read it, I wrote it. Military targets include ports, airfields, railways, oil refineries and armament factories, and both the installations and their workers are legitimate targets, which is why the conventional bombing campaign targeted not just the installations , but the workers' homes as well. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harry S Truman's 25 July 1945 diary entry re the impact of the atomic bomb

The reference [100] to the quote from the diary entry of Harry S Truman (HST) linked to the HST Library, but the link is broken. I've put an alternative link to an indirect reference to the diary entry. I've tried to search the HST Library archive but cannot find a digitized copy or transcript of that entry. Can anyone help find it?! Kitb (talk) 11:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've had a reply from the HST Library - they have had a recent redesign of the website & bits of the old site (incl. the later diaries) are not yet available. They will become so again at some point, but not for a while, yet. Kitb (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Decisive Allied Victory?

The article states the bombings were an Allied Victory, but shouldn't it be a decisive victory, considering it led to the complete destruction of two Japanese cities and surrender of Japan (end of WWII). Azaan H 17:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on countless other pages has established that a source describing it as such is required for this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Okay thanks. In fact I seem to only be able to find sources which want to prove that the bombings were not a decisive victory, so I won't make any changes to the article. Azaan Habib 09:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the modern literature tends to stress that the atomic bombings were one of several factors which led to the Japanese surrender. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Role of the Avro Lancaster

Resolved
 – 21:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

There's some interesting information regarding the secret 'Black Lancasters'. At the time when A-bombs were being developed, there were no US bombers capable of carrying the weapons, and the B-29 was under development and needed a redesign of its bomb bay. There was concern that the B-29 would not be ready in time, so there was a backup plan in place for using Avro Lancasters with British crews. (More info here from historian Mark Felton). I don't know if/where/how to include this detail. Thank you for your consideration. --2606:A000:1126:28D:4010:D10A:69ED:7785 (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is required here, but it is referred to in the Silverplate and Manhattan Project articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. --2606:A000:1126:28D:4010:D10A:69ED:7785 (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

POWS Lost in Bombings

Questions regarding the "Newly-discovered[when?] photo of the bombing of Hiroshima"

Hello, I noticed that the last photograph in the Gallery section, with the caption "Newly-discovered photo of the bombing of Hiroshima" was tagged recently with the word [when?]. I know that there was a photographic survey, and that a couple years ago the International Center of Photography in NYC had an exhibition of a collection photos of the bombings that were "newly discovered." However I'm not sure if the image in the article is from this collection, and I am curious about its provenance.

Wondering how we can ascertain that the image in the article is authentic, as when I had a look at the image on Commons, the source was eBay. This surprised me; who was the seller, and why was it being sold on eBay rather than being offered to an archive or a museum? Is there a scan of the back of the photo that might have more information? How can we determine its authenticity? Pinging @Julianhall: (who tagged the image) and Tlconan who added the image to the article on September 2, 2019.[3]. I looked through the Talk history and could not find a previous discussion about this. Thank you, and hope some editors will contribute their thoughts. Netherzone (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm short on time and can't find anything of any real value in it just yet, but i've located the eBay listing. Julianhall (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Don't click on the Buy It Now link because it's US $1,989,989.33! I noticed the eBay listing says, "Update! Photo is noted on Wikipedia. Several photo website have articles on these items." I'll see if I can find any additional info than what is on the eBay link. Thank you for your quick reply. Netherzone (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Result and debate

I think that there was not exactly a fight to say that it was an allied victory. The result was the destruction of the two cities by the atomic bombs.
Also maybe you should add that it is one of the most cruel and tragical events of the WW2 and that it was a mass destruction and murder of innocent people. The article is talking about debate over the bombings. It is discussing talking about a debate. The fact that the Allies were right, doesn't mean that they had the right to kill instantaneously 200,000 civilians with two bombs. So it was a war crime, controversies and disputes about this are ridiculous, it's not an opinion but an objective truth. I suggest to change the result from allied victory to destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to delete the part is talking about a debate and to seem clearly that it was a mass-murder of civilians and war crime at the beggining of the topic.

Killing large numbers of people does not in itself constitute a war crime. Under the Hague convention, it was only a war crime to bombard an undefended city. Given the large garrison of Hiroshima and the presence of antiaircraft batteries, this claim is difficult to accept. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, bombing of cities during the WW2 it's not a war crime. But here we are talking about atomic bombs. And of course a lot of civilians died during the war. But not 200,000 at one moment. The cities were actualy undefended because anybody could resist at this power, the fact that there were some garrisons doesn't mean that they could defend themselves. According the International Criminal Court, directing attacks against civilians is a war crime. But if something like that cannot be claimed, at least you could talk about mass murder and remove the title debate. We cannot talk about a debate, I don't think that anybody would say that this attack was right. Also I had mentioned the allied victory. I don't think that there was a fight to talk about victory. It was a destruction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.55.93.171 (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of people who would argue that the attacks were right. The debate is covered in a separate article. It goes well beyond legality and the events of August 1945, into issues of necessity and morality, whether or not nuclear weapons are special, subsequent development and proliferation, environment aspects of nuclear testing, and the acceptance of nuclear weapons by later generations in exchange for peace and prosperity. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

What about the result? You only answered about the debate. I also suggested the change of the result. It was not a fight but a bombing. So we are not talking about a victory but about a destruction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.55.71.125 (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The infobox template may only use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Request to eliminate the words "a very costly" in the first line of the second paragraph with regard to the planned invasion of Japanese mainland

Greetings


This is a request for the edition of this article, specifically in the first line of the second paragraph:

"In the final year of World War II, the Allies prepared for a very costly invasion of the Japanese mainland. This undertaking was preceded by a conventional..."

The request is for the elimination of the words "a very costly" that serve as adjective for the invasion, resulting in the new phrase:

"In the final year of World War II, the Allies prepared for the invasion of the Japanese mainland. This undertaking was preceded by a conventional..."

The reason for this request is that such idiomatic cue is far from neutral in the context of the debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Furthermore, the fact that this non-neutral stance happens so early in the beginning of the article might influence the perspective of readers new to this debate.

Kind regards, Jorge Mahecha (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Jorge Mahecha

I've never seen any doubt at all in the reliable sources about the notion that an invasion of Japan would lead to massive loss of life. There's long been a consensus among historians on the topic, with recent research judging that casualties would likely have been higher than what was previously believed. This isn't an issue I've seen contested in the debate over the use of atomic bombs - the arguments against their use relating to a ground invasion tend to stress that there were alternatives to invading Japan (continuing the naval blockade and/or 'conventional' air bombardment) rather that invading Japan would not result in mass casualties. Can you provide any reliable sources which say that the invasion would not have been costly in human lives? Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. I haven't seen sources arguing that an invasion would not be costly. Deleted "very" per WP:PEACOCK. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Reply

Greetings. My request does not imply denying the cost in human lives that an invasion on Japanese mainland would have had. That was never the issue. The issue is the qualification of this particular invasion as "costly". As you may know, one of the main issues on whether there was any justification for the nuclear bombings of these two cities is that it was most cost-effective bombing them than invading them. Hence, this early reference to the cost of the invasion in unnecesary and constitutes taking a side in the debate of whether the hypothetical cost of the invasion justified the bombings.

The readers might weight how sound the arguments for either option are in the debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I must point out that all land invasions are costly. However, there are no references to costs for actual invasions such as the d-day or others. Highlighting the issue of the cost of the invasion here is a particularly sensitive issue, as the moral justification for the bombings relies exclusively on hypothetical estimates of the cost of the invasion. Jorge Mahecha (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Jorge Mahecha

That is not the case; but I do want to avoid any implication that there was a calculation at the time of what the most cost effective alternative was. The plan was to bomb, and to invade, and to blockade, and to starve, and to have the Soviets invade. Whatever it took. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
There really isn't any debate in the sources that an invasion would have been costly, with most sources (including many people who argue that the atomic bombings were unjustified) agreeing that casualties from the invasion would have been higher than those which resulted from the atomic bombings. D.M. Giangreco covers this issue well in his book Hell to Pay: Operation Downfall and the Invasion of Japan 1945–1947, where he notes that the American decision makers didn't have firm estimates of casualties, with work on developing/updating them being underway at the time the bombs were dropped. A key issue is that the Americans were realising in August 1945 that they'd dramatically under-estimated the scale of the likely resistance to an invasion of Japan, and were in the process of recalibrating their planning. This work was for obvious reasons abandoned on 15 August, with the updated casualty estimates never being completed. From memory, Giangreco argues that the likely outcomes of the updated plans would have been that the Americans used firepower even more indiscriminately in the invasion, and would also have likely used chemical weapons. Nick-D (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Reply 2

Please take a look at the list of invasions of world war 2. If you revise them closely, you will see that none of those invasions are presented early in the article as "a costly" invasion. Costs are discussed in some cases. But again, none of those invasions are presented as "costly invasions". They are presented as military operations. Their costs are discussed, yes, in some cases. But that is another discussion.

Let me very clear that I am not discussing whether such an invasion would have been costly (I kindly ask you to stop providing evidence on this issue; it is not my point). My contention is that it is not adequate/neutral presenting this particular invasion as "a costly invasion", as all and every invasion is costly. It is not fair to frame this particular and hypothetical invasion as "costly" when the main justification for the bombings relies exclusively on its cost, and no other invasions on Wikipedia are framed as "costly invasions" Jorge Mahecha (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Jorge Mahecha

All the references I've seen say it would have been costly. Keep the word here, please. It's valid, supported, and fairly represents the topic. Binksternet (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Again, I'm not contesting that the invasion would have been costly. All military invasions are costly. I'm arguing that it is unfair to characterize the invasion as "a costly invasion" given that its cost is what justifies the bombings. All I'm asking is the word "costly" to be removed. Plenty of discussions on cost can be given elsewhere.Jorge Mahecha (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Jorge Mahecha
A great many sources justify the American actions by talking about the cost of invasion. One of them is certainly Giangreco's Hell to Pay which puts the cost in the book title. Giangreco details how American planning for invasion and occupation of Japan began in 1943. The high cost of invasion was feared by the Americans who therefore blockaded Japan with naval forces, starving the people, and they fire-bombed Japan, all with the goal of killing Japanese people, destroying military resources, and reducing their defensive power. The concept of cost is critically important. Binksternet (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
This highlights the risk of using an adjective to summarise a complex situation – people interpret the adjective in different ways. There's a good case here for removing "costly" and spelling out what it was that was considered costly. This would also draw attention to the calculation being based on Allied/US casualties, not Japanese, which may help to address the objections expressed above. EddieHugh (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
We can use the adjective and we can also describe the elements culminating in that adjective; we can do both.
One of the costs that is not currently discussed in our article about the nuclear bombings is that the American people were getting worn out on the war effort by June 1945. In general, the Americans at home were losing their focus on productivity and efficiency. They were complaining to the politicians about rationing. They wanted the war to end as soon as possible, using whatever methods were available. I don't recall which of our book sources cover this aspect, but some do. The political cost of continuing the war as it diminished, as it became less of an existential threat, all the way through to an invasion that would kill a lot more sons and husbands. If Truman could avoid an invasion he certainly would do so. Otherwise the political cost would undermine his presidency. Binksternet (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. The book I'd recommend on the subject is Charles F. Brower Defeating Japan (Palgrave, 2012), which discusses at length the political and military aspects of the decision to invade. It is more germane to the Downfall article. The atomic bombings were not aimed at avoiding the invasion of Japan so much as facilitating it, which is why they were directed at cities which would play important parts as ports, transportation hubs, and source of suicide boats. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The sources you provide are U.S centric and are not relevant to my request. Once again, I am not arguing that this hypothetical invasion would not have been costly, please stop providing arguments on costs which are not relevant to this discussion. I kindly ask you to remain on the substance of my request: it is not fair to present this, and only this invasion, as "a costly invasion" when the main justification for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is precisely that the invasion was costly. Presenting the invasion as costly provides de facto justification for the bombings. Not only this is far from neutral, but as I pointed out (and you ignored) all other invasions in Wikipedia are not characterized as "costly" invasions.

Please remember that my original request is changing the phrase "In the final year of World War II, the Allies prepared for a costly invasion of the Japanese mainland. " to the phrase "In the final year of World War II, the Allies prepared for an invasion of the Japanese mainland." This is all I'm asking. I'm not asking to have history rewritten nor I am asking for denying that the hypothetical invasion would have been costly. Jorge Mahecha (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Jorge Mahecha

Binksternet... "We can use the adjective and we can also describe the elements culminating in that adjective; we can do both"... we could, but we don't in the lead – we use only the adjective, hence the problem(s) described. EddieHugh (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
To add to your point EddieHugh, the issue of "describing the elements culminating in the adjective" is of no relevance here. The adequate page for that discussion is the page on the Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorge Mahecha (talk • contribs) 20:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Long ago it was decided that this article was to remain tightly focused on the bombings. The invasion of Japan gets five paragraphs in the Background section solely in order to give context to the bombing. Detailed discussion of the operation properly belongs in the Operation Downfall article, which the reader is referred to. This is then condensed into one sentence in the lead, which is all that is warranted. Three paragraphs of casualties estimates (both US and Japanese) have been condensed into a single word: "costly". Saying more in the lead is undue, but I am unwilling to remove it without a consensus to do so, and I am not seeing that here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
To reach a consensus we need to be absolutely clear on what is it that we are discussing. I sincerely hope it is clear now that the issue under discussion is not whether the invasion would have been costly.
The issue at hand is whether it is fair to describe this particular hypothetical invasion as "a costly invasion", given that what actually happened (the bombings) is a very controversial issue precisely because there is a debate on whether the cost of the invasion made the bombings the moral alternative, as it is commonly justified in many U.S. mainstream narratives. I think it is not fair or neutral. I think no adjective is necessary to describe the invasion, since there are whole articles discussing this issue. Presenting the invasion as "a costly invasion" implicitly justifies the bombings from a U.S. perspective. Again I remind you all that all I'm asking is for the removal of the adjective "costly" in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the article. I apologize for repeating myself, but I think it is necessary given that despite my best efforts some of you insist on diverting this debate to the issue of whether the invasion would have been costly, and that is not the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorge Mahecha (talk • contribs) 16:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Military casualties resulting from invasion are certainly a cost, but only one of many costs associated with an invasion strategy. Obviously and undeniably, proceeding with invasion plans would have prolonged the war, causing a host of additional casualties to both sides, disregarding any direct casualties from invasion: Japanese military and civilian casualties resulting from continued air attack; Japanese civilian casualties from malnutrition and disease (this had become a major problem in Japan); Japanese military casualties in bypassed areas (starvation and disease); Civilian casualties in Japanese-occupied areas (the Japanese were not treating people nicely -- see the Manila Massacre); Allied (U.S., British, Russian) military casualties, from disease, losses at sea, and so on. Economic cost of prolonging the war also huge, of course, and would have wasted resources on war that could be better spent in peaceful pursuits. It is entirely accurate to observe that an invasion strategy would have been "very costly." It is extreme tunnel vision to just tally up expected casualties from invasion and compare them to the casualties in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. TwoGunChuck (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

A common misunderstanding is thinking that atomic bombs were employed as an alternative to an invasion. That wasn't the case. The plan was to blockade and starve the population, and to bombard and torch the cities, and bring in the Soviet Union, and to invade the home islands, and to use atomic bombs. To throw everything the Allies had at Japan in the hope that it would surrender or be completely destroyed. Whatever it took. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2021

Could someone add a split article template? The bombings should be split into two pages rather than a single page with numerous headings. Sideshowsimpson (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. If the article needs a split, then the suggestion should go through a discussion among interested editors, at the very least to determine how the split should be handled, and also if it should even be done. Although, at nearly 200 kB, the article might indeed require a split. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
The article only contains 85 kB of readable text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
The literature also generally (though not always) covers both rather than one of the atomic bombings. Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

FAQ section in this talk page

Hillary Clinton's talk page has an FAQ so that new editors can have easy access to answers to questions that are commonly asked. The editors most familiar with this article might be wise to create a similar feature on this talk page. Questions like "why aren't these two separate articles" (which I'm sure must get asked a lot) would be more easily answered with the existence of such a feature. SecretName101 (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@SecretName101: I already created one for Manhattan Project. I have created one for this article too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: Thank you for creating it. Great job! SecretName101 (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2021

remove the phrase “ nuclear weapons” and replace with “Atomic Bombs” as there are very distinct differences between the two forms of weapons. Just as there are differences between an atomic weapon, Hydrogen weapon, and thermal nuclear weapons. 74.215.176.25 (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ Hasegawa 2006, pp. 209–210.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki/Archive_25&oldid=1256733183"