Talk:Enola Gay/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Possible etymology

To support what's said in the history of the word Gay about being also a name, it should also be said the Enola Gay was named with the pilot's mother name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.90.237.74 (talk) 00:28, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is already mentioned briefly in the article. Anything more then that takes away from the real purpose of the article, which is the plane and its mission. If anyone else has thoughts about this, please chime in. Davidpdx (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a sidenote: I'm a little confused at when the above message by 84.90.237.74 was posted. Based on the actual timestamp in the history section it was left on January 18th, but the signature line states that it was left August 20th 1997. I have my doubts about which one is actually correct. Davidpdx (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, that was my bad. The comment was moved from the Gay talk page by myself as i thought it would help this article. Benjiboi 13:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand what happened now. It didn't make much sense at first though. Davidpdx (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Enola Gay or Little Boy

The following sentece was in the Lead:

"Due to the nuclear device's role in the atomic bombings of Japan, the bomb's name has become synonymous with the bombings themselves."

This seems a bit odd, especially since the article is about the plane, not the bomb, and the Lead paragraph should be about the article's main topic. My suspicions were comfirmed when I checked the History. This diff contains this sentence:

"Because of its role in the atomic bombings of Japan, its name has been synonymous with the controversy over the bombings themselves."

This sentence seem to place the emphasis on the subject of the article, which would be the Enola Gay. It was followed by:

"The plane gained additional national attention in 1994 when an exhibit at the National Air and Space Museum of the Smithsonian Institution was changed due to a controversy over its historical script."

That makes it clear to me that the original sentence was about the bomber, not the bomb. Therefore I am restoring the original sentence, with changes to make it clear it is discussing the "Enola Gay".

One last thing: I've eliminated the paragraph break between the first paragraph and the single sentence about Tibbet's mother. Generally, paragraphs of only one sentence are not recommended. - BillCJ (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

EnolaGay at Kelly AFB, Texas ?

Was not the EnolaGay, after WWII, once at Kelly AFB, Texas ? Even temporarily ?

Spencer Vallance email: spncrvall@netscape.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.62.102 (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Barbeque ?

I recall reading that the crew of the Enola Gay had a barbecue to celebrate the mission after they'd landed. Can anyone verify this anecdote ? I'm not trolling, I'd just like to know whether what I read had been fabricated for a story or if it has any basis in fact. TIA. 98.30.49.10 (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Link Removal

Richard H. Nelson linked to a pope, but the pope was not involved in any sort of nuclear bombing. - Ted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.249.18 (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your notification - much better than unexplained brackets removal only. And it was a bishop, not pope. --ja_62 01:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible Copyviol

I have noted a number of instances where verbatim copying of information was inserted, these are now amended but there needs to be a check on the article from this point on. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC).

A Mistake?

"Mission personnel" section says: Enola Gay's crew on 6 August 1945 consisted of 12 men.

But the crew list in this article includes 13 men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.32.118 (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, corrected. Bzuk (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC).

Copyright problem

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Challenge to some of our information

User:Atomicjohn has challenged some of the statements in Enola Gay. See diff. His comment was posted in the article itself and has now been removed. I have posted a message on Atomicjohn's Talk page to alert him to removal of his comment and invite him to make suggestions and comments about Wikipedia articles on the article's Talk page.
Anyone with access to the information in Enola Gay that Atomicjohn has challenged should check to see what is stated in the article, what is stated by Atomicjohn, and which is the better view to be expressed in this article. Dolphin (t) 02:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The comment previously in John P. Merrill saying Merrill had been the flight surgeon aboard the Enola Gay, and implying he had been aboard on the mission to Hiroshima on August 8, 1945 has now been removed. See diff. See discussion at Talk:John P. Merrill#Enola Gay flight surgeon. Dolphin (t) 06:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

What was on the Indianapolis

"Along with two containers that housed the "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" atomic bombs ([N 2]) welded to the deck of the USS Indianapolis, a "dummy" "Little Boy" assembly was dropped off at Tinian on 26 July 1945.[6]"

This is not entirely accurate. According to the actual handwritten and typed Los Alamos documents reproduced in my book Atom Bombs:The Top Secret Inside Story of Little Boy and Fat Man, the partially-assembled Little Boy combat weapon L-11 was contained inside a 41” x 47” x 138” wood crate weighing 10,000 pounds that was secured to the deck. Unlike the six U-235 target discs, which were later flown to Tinian on three separate planes arriving July 28 and 29, the assembled projectile with the nine U-235 rings installed was shipped in a single lead-lined steel container weighing 300 pounds that was securely locked to brackets welded to the floor of Captain Charles McVay’s quarters. There was no Fat Man assembly of any kind on the Indianapolis. The only Little Boy assembly dropped off on Tinian on July 26 1945 was this actual combat unit with the projectile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.217.165.167 (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Atomicjohn (it's you, isn't it?), if you find something wrong in the text and have got sources that confirm that, then by all means go ahead and fix the frigging article! :-) Don't worry too much about the correct wiki-syntax, citation templates etc; just put in the info and the source, and somebody else will come along and tidy things up. That's how Wikipedia works and, by the way, it is decent editors like yourself that the project needs most (only one note: it's easier and clearer if you log in, before making changes, so that your edits don't come up as made by an anonymous IP number). Cheers! --Giuliopp (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, tis me. I'm new at this and when I made some corrections a few days to the John P. Merrill page directly ago I got my fingers slapped. I'll wait for a response from you before I go in and edit this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomicjohn (talk • contribs) 21:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Nah... nobody really meant to slap your fingers. Unfortunately you made your changes right after some vandalism by another anonymous user (see the history); you were a newly-registered user and also made some changes later as anonymous user; your changes involved the deletion of significant portions of text – all things that made established editors mistake you for a vandal. Some hints and tips in no particular order: write as it would read on an encyclopedia article (i.e. opinions like "This statement about Merril is wrong" are for this place: the discussion page, not the article body); put a word or two about yourself on your user page – it clarifies who you are and makes your user name come up as a blue, 'ordinary' editor, instead of a 'red link' – so typical of vandals; when writing on here (the discussion page), put four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post, to automatically sign it with your user name. Happy editing! --Giuliopp (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The?

The aircraft is referred to both as Enola Gay, and more frequently, The Enola Gay. Is there any good reason why that "the" is there? Can we choose one version of the name, and stick to it? TheMadBaron (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It is common in American English to attach a "the" in front of prominent objects: the USS Eisenhower, the Empire State Building, the Statue of Liberty. However, when describing components of it, "the" is dropped: "USS Eisenhower aircraft flew in Operation ...", "Empire State Building employees went on strike", "Statue of Liberty guests were treated today to a fireworks show...". I see nothing in the article that is grammatically incorrect. Buffs (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

== William Sterling Parsons spelled his nickname "Deke". All references to him and all biographical information about him in print or online - save for here on Wikipedia - lists the spelling that way. I've been reading about the Manhattan Project since I was 12, am now 51, and have *never* seen it spelled any other way until now. So, his Wikipedia article is wrong, not my edit. I will now change both.Uncle Bubba (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Controversy Section

The section on the exhibition controversy gives only one perspective, namely, the critics'. After or before the sentence that starts "Critics of the planned..." there should be a sentence that succinctly describes the curators' intentions. Even the very first sentence of the section, which appears to be purely factual, subtly takes a partisan position by stating that the purpose of the exhibit was to *commemorate*. It was the critics who argued that the purpose of the exhibit should be commemoration; the curators, in contrast, thought that commemoration was akin to celebration, and wanted instead to spark critical reflection. It is ironic that the exhibit's critics, who claimed that it was unbalanced, should have their perspective reproduced in an unbalanced way on Wikipedia. Jesse Ramirez (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source for what the curators' intentions were? I can incorporate it into the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the subsection on "Exhibition controversy," as an ex-military aviation historian, who was an aviation industry reporter reporting on the affair, I regard the current paragraph on that topic as appropriately neutral (WP:NPOV), if a bit vague. The controversy was extremely hot, at the time, and neither side was behaving with the sober discipline and objective approach called for in a national history museum. It was one of the worst moments in American historiography and museum curation. Both sides did horrible disservice to the traditions of honest and sober historiography, each side pushing largely vindictive, narrowly factional views of history. No doubt, both factions will have advocates who will attempt to sabotage and/or slant this story, on Wikipedia, but as the paragraph stands, now, as of Jan. 5, 2017, it is presented accurately, fairly, and realistically. Thanks to the mature, disciplined, responsible, sober editors who made it so.

~ Zxtxtxz (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

This section should also go on to discuss the later controversy that arose around 2003 when the aircraft was placed at the Smithsonian Institution Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center . Lee De Cola (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Since you supplied a source, I have added additional material on this to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Measurements and other info apparently in error

(NOTE: This title added, by another editor, to the following text, to separate it from the previous text which is apparently unrelated to the following comments.)

~ Zxtxtxz (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

There is obviously some bad information in this article. I would edit it, but I am not aware of the correct information.

Here is what I am referring to: "After leaving Tinian, the aircraft made their way separately to Iwo Jima, where they rendezvoused at 2,440 meters (8,010 ft) and set course for Japan. The aircraft arrived over the target in clear visibility at 9,855 meters (32,333 ft). Captain William S. "Deak" Parsons of Project Alberta, who was in command of the mission, armed the bomb during the flight to minimize the risks during takeoff. His assistant, Second Lieutenant Morris R. Jeppson, removed the safety devices 30 minutes before reaching the target area.[13]

The release at 08:15 (Hiroshima time) went as planned, and the Little Boy took 43 seconds to fall from the aircraft flying at 31,060 feet (9,470 m) to the predetermined detonation height about 1,968 feet (600 m)"

No one measures aircraft altitudes in meters, it's always done, around the world, in feet, so that all pilots and controllers are talking the same language, to avoid confusion.

In addition, no device measures altitude so precisely as "8010 feet', or "32,333 feet", or even '9,855 meters'..

It appears obvious that someone without knowledge of aircraft operations but a great sense of english-metric conversion thought he was doing some good, but actually screwed up the page.

I also strongly doubt that a Captain Parson was in charge of anything but the actual bomb. He was heavily outranked by Colonel Tibbits, who I believe was a full bird colonel. Cap[tain Parsons is listed as 'Weaponer' on at least one web site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2002:1890:797B:0:5CC8:AF98:3FF9:8AC9 (talk) 04:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Info on Captain Parson, and a picture that might help the article, as it lists and shows all crew members.

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Photos/Tinian/image1.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.121.123 (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

A captain in the Navy is the same as a colonel in the Air Force. They wear the same silver eagles. But Deak Parsons was senior in grade, having been promoted in June 1943, and outranked Paul Tibbets, who was promoted to colonel in January 1945. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

B-29

The enola gay was not used for the bombing of Nagasaki. It was used only for Hiroshima as the bockscar was used for nagasaki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakeH02 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

It didn't drop the atomic bomb Nagasaki, but it did fly weather reconnaissance during that mission. - BilCat (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Exhibit

This says the exhibit opened in 1994:

https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/december-2003/historians-protest-new-enola-gay-exhibit

-- Steve -- (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

No, it says The current controversy continues the acrimonious debate about exhibiting the Enola Gay that began in 1994. In that year curators at the Air and Space Museum planned to exhibit the aircraft It refers to the controvery over plans to exhibit the aurcraft. The dates in both the Wikipedia article and that one are correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Jacob Beser discrepancies

This article lists Jacob Beser as flying on Enola Gay for the Nagasaki mission, but the articles on Jacob Beser and Bockscar both list him on Bockscar. They also disagree on his rank (first lieutenant or second lieutenant). Can someone with access to the sources correct these? -- gparker (talk) 07:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Y I have all the sources. I checked the sources listed, and also consulted some others, including Beser's own account. He was on Bockscar on the Nagasaki mission. And his rank was first lieutenant. I have corrected both articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Date format

I see that the article uses Template:Use dmy dates but I find that a bit strange. This is an article about a plane manufactured by an American company, flown by American pilots for the US military, named after an American woman, and on display in multiple US government-run museums. For all intents and purposes, an American plane. Surely, with all that, it would make more logical sense to use the standard American-style dating format of month-day-year, as is prescribed in MOS:DATETIES. Based on that I'm tempted to be WP:BOLD and make the change myself, but I am curious if there is a reason why the article is currently formatted in this way that overrides this policy and for which those hypothetical edits would/should be undone. QuietHere (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The US military uses the dmy date format. WP:MILFORMAT: In topics where a date format that differs from the usual national one is in customary usage, that format should be used for related articles: for example, articles on the modern US military, including biographical articles related to the modern US military, should use day-before-month, in accordance with US military usage. . Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. We use the DMY format in almost all American military aircraft articles from at least the WWII period forward. The main exception would be military aircraft that are variants of civilian aircraft, such as the Beechcraft Model 18 (Twin Beech), if they are covered in the same article under the civilian name. If the military variant has a separate article, it will use DMY, while the civilian article will use MDY, as with the C-47 and DC-3 articles. BilCat (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

That I wasn't aware of, thanks for clarifying. Case closed! QuietHere (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

No problem. BilCat (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)