Talk:Hiroshima (1995 film)

Added infobox

I'm siding with the original poster DirkvdM on this one. The article needs improvement and fact-checking (isn't it really a USA TV movie, not a Japan/Canada film?). Anyway, I added the infobox and took out the IMDB ext. ref at the bottom since it's in the box. The movie seems to be important, even it has been forgotten, and was nominated for awards at the time of its release. Slowmover 19:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Direct the argument to the main page

As this is an article about a film, it is not the place to vent about the justification or lack of it for the bombing. Kindly put that material in the main page on the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Note that U.S. properly has full stops; that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are cities, not towns; and that it would be quite impossible to have an actor portray a bomber, which is a kind of aircraft, not an individual. Let's not make Wiki a laughing-stock! --Cubdriver 21:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

If the section is a description of the arguments laid out in the film then it belongs here. (I don't know—I hadn't even heard of it before.) I don't see the point of a spoiler warning, though.

—wwoods 21:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, what I wrote is what was just a description of what happens in the film. I also wondered about the spoiler warning. They're historical facts (I presume - if not make sure to point that out (in a separate section) because the film pretends to be historically correct). But, although documentary in style, it's still a film and not knowing precisely the things that are dealt with in it will increase the enjoyment of it. Cubdriver, about those periods, there is no consensus on that, but I've written it in EE and the Abbreviation article states "Many British publications have gradually done away with the use of periods in abbreviations completely." That includes 'US'. I wasn't sure what to call crew members of a bomber and wasn't sure if 'bomber' itself was correct, but I was being bold (that's what the rules say), assuming someone would correct me (the point of those rules, I presume). Not delete most of the article. :( By the way, it's not actors playing the crew members, but the guys themselves. I thought my writing was clear on that. You're right those weren't towns but cities. Other than that I'll just revert your deletions. If you guys haven't seen the film, I advise you to, because it's a good film (on imdb it scored an 8 - I'll add that link). Oh, and what made you think the length of the film was incorrect? DirkvdM 08:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

So you got excited about a film and posted an article in an encyclopedia about it? Not the best approach. My objection to this article is that it expounds at length on a theory of history, based on one film out of thousands, and will influence naive readers by giving Wiki's imprimator to this truly obscure film. I Googled "Hiroshima film" and the first page of responses dealt mostly with the classic Hiroshima Mon Amour, and I saw no reference to this Canadian docco. I see that nobody has rated it on the New York Times website. --Cubdriver 11:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

If I'm correct, your argument is that the film should not have a Wikipedia article because people who know little about the bombing might be influenced by the theories presented therein? If so, I disagree entirely. All manner of quackery and nonsense is documented on this site. I think the prose could certainly be cleaned up, and in the process it could be made clearer that the filmmakers are presenting an interpretation of the events. However, I think it's an overreaction to get rid of the article without any attempt to improve it. --djrobgordon 06:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

POV flag

Cubdriver just put up a POV-flag, but hasn't given a single argument for it (unless it be something like the use of periods in abbreviations - see above). The flag states that discussion on this can be found on the talk page, but that is not the case, so I'm inclined to remove it, but I'll wait to see what happens. DirkvdM 08:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What is your interest in this film? Thousands of doccos exist. Why are you plugging this obscure one here and on the a-bomb page? Something doesn't smell right. You either have a political agenda or a financial or personal interest in the production. --Cubdriver 10:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the plot section (plot seems like the wrong word, but I mean the part inside the spoiler warnings) needs to be characterized as the film-makers' POV, somehow. "As seen by the film-makers..."? "The film-makers present the positions of the Japanese as..."?

I do think there are some errors of fact in the article as written, though it may accurately present the film's position. For instance, Emperor Hirohito was not as powerless as stated, nor were the Americans clueless about his status.

On June 22, the Emperor summoned the Big Six to a meeting. Unusually, he spoke first. "I desire that concrete plans to end the war, unhampered by existing policy, be speedily studied and that efforts made to implement them." It was agreed to solicit Soviet aid in ending the war. (Surrender of Japan)

And some scientists opposed the use of the bombs, but others were for it.

—wwoods 09:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Cubdriver, I just happened to have seen a film and written a synopsis of it. The reason I watched the film is that at imdb it had gotten an 8 (pretty high for a non-drama on imdb) and that several reviewers praised it for its historical accuracy (so 'obscure' is not quite the word, I'd say). I've already got thousands of edits to my name at Wikipedia and if I had had a political agenda here wouldn't I have already been active at the article about the subject itself? Most of what I know about the subject is from this film and a BBC documentary I once saw. Your sense of smell is way off :) . But still, you give no arguments for putting up that pov-flag.

The secretary of war suggested leaving the Japanese their emperor, so there was indeed some awareness of his position, so that might be added (I still wonder, though, why the US then insisted on his abdication anyway - that seems almost like asking a people to give up their religion, or am I now overestimating his status?). What I got from the film is that he indeed tried to make contact with the USSR as mediator because he himself could not negotiate. And even this contact was to be made secretively, behind the backs of the military because they would not have allowed it.

Being a 'science-lover' I gave extra attention to the scientists (they got much less attention than the politicians in the film and were actually presented in a nerdy and undiplomatic sort of way, which may still be realistic, though). Of course what I wrote is a selection of the things that drew my attention. I can't remember anything about scientists arguing for the use of the bomb in the film. Maybe because those arguments were already represented by others. And there really is just one argument: the Japanese had it coming. It's the arguments against that require explaining and thus naturally get more attention, I'd say. DirkvdM 10:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[deindenting]

The US didn't insist on the abdication of the emperor; the terms of surrender spelled out in the Potsdam Declaration didn't explicitly mention him at all. The Japanese of course wanted a guarantee that the imperial system would remain, but the military hardliners wanted much more than that.

And the approach to the Soviets was done through the Foreign Ministry. The top leaders of the military, had approved the venture but hadn't committed to supporting any particular deal that might come of it. Indeed, they couldn't even agree among themselves what terms they would propose, much less accept.

(And the Americans were reading all the diplomatic and military radio messages, so they knew what was going on.)

—wwoods 22:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, if the US didn't insist on the abdication of the emperor then it is odd that the secretary of war mentioned dropping that demand (in the film that is). Maybe he succeeded in getting his way and that wasn't shown too clearly. Also, in the film the emperor himself didn't seek the contact with the USSR but commissioned his 'right hand' (maybe that was the foreign minister, I don't remember), giving him full authority to deal on his behalf. Oh, yes, there was some laughter when in the US they talked about how they could hear all the Japanese were saying.

Speaking of which, one thing that was left hanging in the film was Stalin's cool reaction to Truman's mentioning the 'big new bomb', as if he already knew. Did he?

But ultimately, I'd say, if you're this much into the subject, go see the film. Just have a look at the raving reviews at imdb. I'm just the first editor of this article and, as always, expect others to expand on what I started.

This thread, though, is supposed to be about the POV flag. I haven't seen any reasoning for it, so is it ok if I remove it? DirkvdM 07:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Re Stalin: See Klaus Fuchs, Ted Hall, etc. —wwoods 20:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

No. The article is opinionated and unbalanced, and much too long for the signficance of this minor, made-for-TV film, which in my judgment shouldn't be in Wiki at all. --Cubdriver 10:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You might visit Der Untergang and see how an important movie is handled. Reprising the subject matter is just not on. Either cut it back to 50-100 words or make it an an article about the film. --Cubdriver 11:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The suggestion of not having an article on the film is of course nonsense. And a size limit doesn't make much sense either (in the sense of 'so many words'). What should be in the article is a different matter. You say 'make it an article about the film'. But since the film is about the bombing any descrioption of the film will automatically be about that too.

So basically what you say is that the film is POV? Is that the reason for putting up the flag? But that's not what it's for. You keep on downplaying the film. But look at the raving revies at imdb, almost all praising its historical accuracy and balance (!) (also by self-proclaimed history buffs, but then we can't verify that (same goes for you or anyone else, by the way :) )). Why do you cal it minor? It's over 3 hours long (you still haven't explained why you removed that). It may not have been a commercial success (I don't know), but that is irrelevant. So what is minor about it that is relevant here? And what has being a tv film got to do with it? I've seen remarks before (at imdb) that suggests tv films are of a lower quality. But in practise it only usually means a lower budget, meaning it's less flashy. Which forces it to be good in different respects. Which is why I often like tv films. They're forced to be interresting for different reasons, such as content. But this is just generalisation. What should be discussed is the film itself. And if there are any inaccuracies, that is just more reason to point that out. DirkvdM 12:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Minor = unimportant, not widely viewed or reviewed or be-laureled. About the film = cast of characters etc. A good solution would be to ditch the entire discussion of Hiroshima. There is an article for that. --Cubdriver 15:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm going to repeat myself now. Not widely viewed = irrelevant. Not be-laureled? Read the reviews. Not sure what you mean by 'cast of characters'. And about ditching the description of the film, that would be an excellent place to point out inaccuracies in the film.

And, once again (I'm shouting now, because this is still not getting through it seems), WHY THE POV-FLAG? WHERE'S THE POV? In the film? In that case see the last sentence in the previous paragraph. DirkvdM 17:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

As I said, it would probably help to label the movie's argument as such, and clarifying whether it's a documentary or docu-drama. I'm handicapped on saying what that is by not having seen the film; I'll try to remember to look for it at the library. Is it more like Tora! Tora! Tora! or Pearl Harbor? The IMDb comments do make it sound promising.

—wwoods 20:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen 'Pearl Harbour' and it's been a while since I've seen 'Tora(3x)', but I've got that on tape and might have another look. I'd say this film is a bit more documentary-style. I'll add something about that to the intro. By the way, Tora(3x) and this film make for an interresting combination; about the start and the end of the US military involvement in the war, both rather documentary in style and directed by two separate crews, with the Japanese filmed by the Japanese (if I'm not mistaken).

I'm not sure what you mean by the movie's arguments. The film is about the decisionmaking process concerning the dropping of the bomb(s) and this is largely done through characters presenting arguments. Of course there is a selection of arguments and who bring them forward, so in that sense there is a POV aspect to the film (not the article), but I'd say that is obvious. And that section is marked with the 'spoiler' warning.

And I'm still in the dark concerning Cubdriver's POV. It seems like a nice balance, giving the reasons why cities were bombed 'in stead of' military targets and why no prior warning was given, the two biggest problems people will have with the bombings. DirkvdM 06:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Cubdriver makes two arguments here. The first is that the film is minor. I don't see what that has to do with POV, but I'll address it anyway. The level of notability a subject must attain to be included in Wikipedia is very low. For an example, see: Wikipedia:Schools#Current proposal for schools. Keep in mind that verifiable in this case means that the content was in the film, not that it is an accurate depiction of history.

That leads to my second point. Cubdriver's contention is that the article doesn't accurately depict the Hiroshima bombing. That's neither here nor there. In this case, a POV tag should should indicate that the article depicts the film inaccurately, not that the film depicts history inaccurately. If an editor feels the film is biased, he should find a source that makes such an argument and incorporate it into the article. However, I question Cub's ability to make this judgement, as he doesn't claim to have seen, or even to have heard of the film.

As I said above, I do think the article needs copyediting and a clearer disclaimer stating that the "plot" description documents the bombing only as it is presented in the film, but I believe the article should stay. --djrobgordon 06:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Link to here

Cubdriver, I see you've removed the link to here from the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article. Now, you may disagree with the contents of this article, but removing the link is no excuse for that - if this article exists, it should be linked to from there (from where else?). And I don't suppose you'd suggest there should be no article on this film? DirkvdM 09:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot, you have suggested exactly that. DirkvdM 09:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct. This article cheapens Wiki and would better be excised. It is opinionated and badly written. Nor should there be a link to it from the important Hiro-Naga page. It is your hobby, nothing more. --Cubdriver 14:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

In that case, Cub, you should flag it for deletion. The POV tag is intended to be a temporary measure until the language is improved. If the article doesn't belong, use AFD. If it's badly written, by all means please improve it. Could you provide some examples of "opinionated" language? — that will help evaluate the POV you're alleging. In the meantime, the link from the main atomic-bombing page should probably be in "cultural notes" rather than see-also. (I came here because of the RFC; I have at present no opinion about the neutrality of this article or the notability of its subject.) —Wahoofive (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC Comment: My opinions on this subject are along the same lines of Wahoofive. If there are specific POV problems in the language, please point them out and suggest improvements. However, most of the comments I've read from Cubdriver seem to point to AfD rather than a POV problem, so he should tag this page via the directions at the bottom of the AfD page and let the community come to a consensus on it. (However, please read the deletion policy- non-notability is a reason for deletion, bad writing and POV is not.) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The article ends with the flat statement: But huge amounts of money had already been spent and they had to have something to show for it.

That could be an editorial in an anti-nuke pamphlet! As for improving the language, the individual who created this has already demonstrated that he will simply revert any changes. Deletion of course would be the best option. (Laurels = Oscar, Palm d'Or. Cast = names of actors.) It doesn't confirm to Wiki's style in the Film Project. Und so weiter. --Cubdriver 10:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That taxpayers would want to see something for all their money that had been invested in this is an argument that was used several times in the film, so I included that. My representation of the fiulm is of course limited, but, like I said, the idea is that others can expand on other people's work. I'd say, go see the movie and do your thing. Or if you think that constitutes origianl research, read reviews of the film and use those as a basis. Adding cast and such (so that's what you meant above?) is even easier; copy that from imdb or where-ever. If it doesn't conform to the style, do something about that. Don't complain, contribute! I reverted your edit because it was simply a deletion of most of the article. Including the duration of the film (something I still don't get - was that a mistake?). DirkvdM 14:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I just had a look at the history and I now notice that I made some mistakes. Looking at the times I suppose my first revert of your edits was an edit conflict I didn't notice. Mabe that pissed you off and got us off at a bad start. Next, I thought I had corrected the town/city thing, but apparently I didn't. Minor thing, though, I'd say. I've corrected that now. DirkvdM 14:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The article does need to be cleaned up (the writing is not very clear and is not very encyclopedic), but as a topic it is certainly valid. I have not seen the film myself, otherwise I would contribute. But the "plot description" is not very helpful at all and is, I suspect, not very accurate. --Fastfission 20:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's a three hour film and I didn't watch it with the writing of this article in mind. I started doing that afterwards and wrote down what I remembered as the main issues dealt with. Of course that will be limited and (worse) biased. But, like I said, following the 'be bold' rule, I made a start for others to take up. DirkvdM 06:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

RfC

In the spirit of WP:Be bold I have removed the POV flag. Having read both the article and the talk page, my conclusion is that the only POV problem exists in the mind of one editor. If this editor believes the article should not exist then AfD is an option. However, the precedent at AfD has been to keep any article about a film that is in the IMDB, and sometimes to retain films that aren't in IMDB if it can be verified that they screened at a major film festival.

In the spirit of candidness, these are the personal factors that might influence my perspective: I am a United States citizen and a war veteran who served overseas. Durova 06:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This is indicative of something that might be a very central problem with Wikipedia; the different languages make for biases that are related to the region where the language is spoken (I really notice this when I read articles in various languages). This is less true for English because there are contributors from all over the world. But still, by far most editors will be from the US (because it's by far the biggest English speaking country with a good internet coverage). And this film is Canadian. And Canadians may very well be tempted to deliberately focus on aspects that are left out in the US. This is, however, speculation. And even if it is true it would not be encyclopedic to point it out in the article. But the 'spoiler' section can be used to point out issues and possibly even inaccuracies. Although I doubt if there will be many - it'll mainly be a matter of shifted focus, I suspect. DirkvdM 07:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The film may or may not be biased. What matters here is that the article is neutral. I'm not sure what you consider "a very central problem with Wikipedia." Durova 09:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What I meant is not really something new here. With, say, the Dutch Wikipedia, the contributors will be almost exclusively Dutch and Belgians. So whatever is the worldview in those two (culturally rather similar) countries will determine the bias. In the English Wikipedia contributors will come from all over the world, so there will be some balancing out of the bias. But still, most contributors are from the US. Now in the case of these bombings, the US is the major factor, so the view in the US is more likely to be biased. And a Canadian film will then be 'out of whack' (if that is the right word). There are certainly cultural similarities between the two countries, but from the point of view of Canada, there is also some 'animosity' (maybe not the right word). Canadians make a clear effort to present themselves as different from the US. And that may very well have an effect on the pov of the film (there is of course always some pov in a film. more than (should be) in an encyclopedia). DirkvdM 08:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I should clarify my initial disclosure. I have a background that probably makes me a good detector of anti-U.S. bias. I don't perceive any such bias in this article. It may exist in the film but that's irrelevant to whether the article deserves an NPOV flag. Durova 23:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, I speak of a pro-US bias, but of course the opposite can also happen. And we need people from different countries to have some guarantee of neutrality. Which is why I work on the English language Wikipedia in stead of the Dutch one. As do a lot of other people, which in turn makes our reasons valid. A self fulfilling prophecy, except in a positive sense here. DirkvdM 09:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

What part of But huge amounts of money had already been spent and they had to have something to show for it don't you understand? The article is not about the movie but reprises its arguments, or at least what the author took away from it. Anyone reading the article will come away believing that the only reason the bomb was dropped was that it represented a large investment. That is a fatuous misstatement--and, if worth discussing, ought to be discussed in the Atomic Bombing Of article. --Cubdriver 18:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Responding belatedly, the key difference is that this is part of the synopsis rather than an editorial statement. Any reasonable reader will reach the conclusion that these things represent the filmmaker's POV, not absolute fact. Durova 06:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is an alternate way to flag its weaknesses:

{{Cleanup|date=February 2006}}

Would the OP prefer that? (I think both the Attention flag and the POV flag are justified.) --Cubdriver 18:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the third party comments above I'd say a decision has already been reached. So I could leave it at that, but I'll react to your comments anyway because you came up with something new.

The whole point of the movie is to present the arguments. So when the article is about the movie it automatically does that. I don't get the impression you've seen it, so how can you comment on it? The attention flag might be justified if it presents the subject at hand in a messy way. And the subject is the film. So if you haven't seen it, how can you judge that? (Well, one way would be to read reviews of the film.) You claim that people might get the impression the bomb was only dropped because it had already cost so much. But that is just one short sentence way at the end. It's starting to look like you haven't even read the article. :) DirkvdM 08:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This entire section: <<From the point of view of the USA, there were several dilemmas>> to <<But huge amounts of money had already been spent and they had to have something to show for it>> has nothing whatever do say about the film. It simply regurgitates an argument that the filmmakers may or may not have made, the way high-school sophomores "review" books by summarizing them. Quite frankly, it's crap. It also makes a POV argument about the atomic bomb, which interested readers can get with better results in the Hiro/Naga A-bomb article. If you'll remove all of it, I'll remove the POV flag. --Cubdriver 16:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The description of the course of events and the arguments covered in the film still needs work, but the film itself is a good account. It simplifies somewhat as it condenses 5 months into 3 hours, and seemed somewhat rushed from the Soviet attack to V-J Day, but I found it well worth watching. —wwoods 02:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I see you removed the spoiler warning. But since this is a film as much as a documentary (it can be watched in both capacities) and people who haven't watched it yet cannot be expected to know all these things, I'd say a warning makes sense. You've also removed a bit about the complicated political structure in Japan. I don't know if I wrote that well, but it is a very central theme in the film, so there should be some words on it, especially the power of the emperor the the perception of it in the US, which caused much of the misunderstandings between the two countries. DirkvdM 07:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

But since it is a docudrama, with no fictional characters or events, about one of the most famous episodes of the 20th Century, I don't see how one can really 'spoil' the story. "It's about the end of World War II". "Ooh, don't tell me how it turns out!"

Yeah, the description of the situation needs work, but I wanted to put up something--as much as anything in an attempt to head off more of the back and forth reverting.

—wwoods 09:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You just don't seem to understand the difference between explaining a point of view and advancing that point of view. The latter is what this article attempts to do. Either the entire argumentative section must go, or it must be flagged. You might check Der Untergang to see how a controversial film is intelligently handled. --Cubdriver 19:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Cubdriver, knock it off. I know Wikipedia is not a democracy, but you're the only one in favour of flagging the article (or section). And you haven't even seen the film, I understand, so what basis do you have? I'll just remove the flag now, but if you put it back again without good support I'll consider it vandalism, as I already pointed out on your talk page. DirkvdM 06:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, but the section cannot stand. It should go or be flagged. Please read my comment above again and act on it instead of getting into a reversion contest. Move the ball forward, please! --Cubdriver 11:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've ordered up the film and will undertake to revise the section myself. Please, no more reversions! See Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. Thank you. --Cubdriver 16:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Needs reviews

Was the film ever reviewed? I've Googled it to no avail. I did find it on the NYT "All Movies" list, and have referenced that, but the listing says nothing about the content. Wiki articles are supposed to be verified, but it's hard to verify something without published references. Perhaps in Canada? --Cubdriver 10:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary newspaper/magazine for that far back may not be commonly available on-line. Searching for "hiroshima canada 1995 kenneth welsh", I found http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00002IJ36/002-9892210-5412823?v=glance&n=130 -- not exactly what you meant, but some of the viewers' reviews are interesting, and http://www.pulpanddagger.com/movies/h2.html, "The Great Canadian Guide to the Movies (and TV)":

Fascinating, and suprisingly ambivalent, docudrama rehashes familiar terrain with remarkable freshness precisely because of the emphasis on the politicians (rather than on the scientists), the bi-national approach, and an odd mixing of dramatization, newsreel footage, and even a few talking head interviews with people who were there. Solid performances (Welsh is particularly good)....

—wwoods 11:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The Great Canadian quote is good. The Amazon Reader Reviews I think are off limits, as is the case with Netflix (which has several) because they are explicitly noted as copyright to the writer. You might add "rehashes familiar terrain with remarkable freshness" to the article and the website to External Links? --Cubdriver 11:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)