User talk:Parkinsons

Hi -- I'm sure your recent attempts to edit Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are well intentioned, but you aren't going about them in the correct way. I suggest you look more carefully at the way the article is currently written, and also read through Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Briefly put, encyclopedia articles about controversial subjects have to be written in a way that describes the controversy. This means presenting all sides of the issue without wording the article in such a way that any side is presented as "correct" or "true." KarlBunker 19:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Your persistent and identical edits of Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki now indicate that your edits are probably not well intentioned, and are vandalism. Hence the following warning:

• Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. KarlBunker 20:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There are many facts on that page. It does not consist solely of opinion.So many other people have added information without presenting two sides to it.

I have studied Japanese political history very extensively. That the Japanese War Cabinet decided to continue the war after the bombings is a matter of little known but certain historical fact. It was the Soviet invasion that made them decide to cease the war. There are no two sides to this. So two sides to it can not be presented as you have suggested. How somebody interprets those historical facts is up to them.

You have obviously never studied what took place during the Japanese War Cabinet meetings. Adding well researched historical fact you bizarrely describe as "Vandalism". Yet you remove historical fact, and do not describe that as "Vandalism". I am neither Soviet, Japanese or American. I have no political allegiances or personal opinions regarding the merits of the bombings. However, it is obvious that you do because you want to censor definite facts that do not fit in with your biases or misconceptions, and ban anyone that provides those facts, so that your own misconceptions and biases can persist.''''

If you don't alter the way you word your edits to Wikipedia, then your efforts to apply your knowledge of this subject to Wikipedia will go to waste. This is not my opinion; it is the policy of Wikipedia. If you add content that isn't worded in a neutral way, that content will be removed as quickly as you add it.

For example, the following wording is problematical: "The Japanese War Cabinet subsequently decided to surrender when they were notified of the Soviet invasion of Japanese territory.", you need to use something more like "According to [some document], although the Japanese War Cabinet held meetings after being informed of the bombings, they did not formally resolve to surrender until [xx] days later, which was after they were notified of the Soviet invasion of Japanese territory." And you need name the document that supports the statement. With that wording, you avoid "reading the minds" of the War Cabinet, and simply state verifiable events. As for sentences like this: "Rather than check themselves precisely what was said at the Japanese War Cabinet meetings, many people have chosen to believe what suits their political sympathies." That is a statement that makes an assumption about why some unnamed number of unnamed people believe what they believe. Obviously that isn't neutral, or a statement of verifiable fact. KarlBunker 21:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no political biases concerning this subject. I am English, not Soviet, Japanese or American. I have never supported any political persuasion. My interest is the facts. I do not even have a certain opinion as to the merit or lack of merit in the bombings. Having studied all of the relevant history it is a far more complicated issue than people assume. Why for example are the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima considered so terrible, and yet the conventional bombings of Tokyo that killed far more people rarely get a mention.

1. I can not write "according to some document" because it was all said during the Japanese War Cabinet meetings rather than exchanged in official documents. I have not read the minds of the Japanese War Cabinet. They made a definite decision to continue the war after the bombings. They made a definite decision to cease the war after news of the Soviet invasion.

2. The number of days later that they decided to surrender does not alter the reason why they decided to surrender.

3. The U.S. Government did not at the time know what occurred at the Japanese War Cabinet meetings.They dropped bombs hoping to end the war. The war ended soon after. So they (falsely) assumed that the bombings brought about the end of the war. History is full of myths. People usually believe what they choose rather than what the facts dictate. Most people never examine the facts. They instead readily trust what is dictated to them by people that often have a reason for assuming one thing rather than another.' ''''

Hi, Perhaps you are not aware of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:3RR. If your edits keep being reverted by other editors, probably the best thing to do is to bring the matter up on the article's talk page (Talk:Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EricR (talk • contribs) 15:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The most obvious problem with your version of events is that the Soviet invasion began before the bombing of Nagasaki, not after.

By the way, putting your words in boldface doesn't actually add much to their persuasiveness. —wwoods 22:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, You appear to be new to Wikipedia and because no one has welcomed you, let me be the first, by directing you to this page: Welcome, newcomers. (Others welcome newcomers with a template that magically provides a lot of direction, but I don't know how to do that.) Your comments on the atomic bombing pages are valid but lack documentation, which is necessary, especially with such a zealously edited article that allows little beyond the official U.S. government justification for the atomic bombings, and with no real examination of its effects. You will find that the history book by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa provides the war cabinet documentation on how the war ended, and some of the argument you are trying to make is online here, referencing Hasegawa: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm In addition, I am sure you have resources that you have not cited specifically. It takes facts and lots of time to argue against conventional wisdom. Happy editing! Best wishes, skywriter 21:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Skywriter - Thank you for all this. The book I used concerning what was said in the Japanese War Cabinet was in a large Japanese library I used a long time ago whilst studying Japanese history at the University of London. Given that just about everybody, including me, thought that the atomic bomobings brought about the end of WW2 I was very surprised to find that it was the Soviet invasion that actually forced the surrender. That doesn't fit in very well with U.S. Government propaganda which is probably why still hardly anyone knows about it. If it is up to KarlBunker that is how it will remain. Parkinsons / Emperor Hirohito

Okay, Parkinsons, I didn't realize you are also Emperor Hirohito! Pretty funny. Talk about a lost cause! Galactic arrogance and lack of empathy is the way I think of Hirohito. Imagine concerning yourself with a title and throne while hell rains misery on the people of the land. Arguments in areas of Wikipedia where there is controversy get pretty heated. People start dissing and threatening each other and then emotion prevails. Each side's position is fixed, reminding me of a wall poster of three bears. The inscription was "It's my opinion and it's very true." That sums up how some people argue a viewpoint, without data or verifiable citations. Or they throw out cheap shots in the form of personal attacks. The world is made up of all kinds, some very aggressive. Hasegawa has the standing and his book the documentation to support the argument you try to champion. But this is also true: you point blank can't use long direct quotes on Wikipedia. Arguments must be summarized. In London, there's an even greater sensitivity to penalties for libel, slander and copyright violations. The Times of London postponed publishing for 13 years its investigative series on the known effects of the drug thalidomide because of a prepublication lawsuit filed by the drug manufacturer. As soon as such a suit is filed in Great Britain, publication ceases! The thalidomide story was finally published in book form in 1969 after the litigation ended. But the delay was horrible because it took place while the drug companies continued to sell the drug that prevented proper fetal growth, resulting in horrific birth defects in thousands of children around the world. So you see, publication concerns are important. Publishers must tread carefully. While the reach of the Internet prevents keeping facts like the thalidomide, and later the very similar Bendectin story a secret for very long, still a free press is both delicate and must be preserved. Historians and journalists have discussed the differences between Frank and Hasegawa in a number of print venues. Frank acknowledges the Soviet role in bringing Hirohito to his knees but says it was not decisive. Hasegawa says the two atomic bombs did not persuade Hirohito war mongers to surrender. Both arguments should be presented sufficient for readers to decide which is more persuasive. Hasegawa documents that Truman dropped atomic bombs to get Japan to end the war quickly and before the Soviet Union had standing enough to demand a say in the occupation of Japan. These sorts of things will be argued for a long, long time, and fights over how to present (or not present them) can not be taken personally. The pro-U.S. Cold War arguments tend to prevail in the English version of Wikipedia without acknowledging that there are valid other versions of each story. This will change over time. By the way, do you know how to use sign your posts? It took me awhile to figure this out-- there's a little squiggly thing called a tilde-- look for this ~ on the keyboard. (On my keyboard, it is on the top line, upper left, just below the function keys.) When you press it four times (with caps locked) it signs your name with a time/date stamp. Take care. skywriter 05:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I still think that the copyright issue was a smokescreen for censorship. I am not in the U.S. so I am not subject to U.S. copyright law. If Fastfission or Wikipedia is in the U.S., and so is subject to U.S. copyright law, then all he needed to do was to reword what I added. We can all alter what is added. However, he spent far more time than it would have taken trying to argue with me about copyright. I have learnt little about the atomic bombings from this site, but I have learnt a lot about human nature. Some people put nationalism way before the truth. Others clearly find it stressful to have their misconceptions proven wrong. Having studied Japnese history extensively, I am surprised that they ever surrendered. The Japanese military put "honour" whatever that is before survival, which is the first rule of Western ethics. If I had advised the US government at the time I would have told them that the only we you will stop the war is to decimate Japan - start with Tokyo, then Hiroshima, then Nagasaki, then the rest. With hindisght I would have waited for the Soviets to start overrunning the Japanese Empire. Even then I would have expected them to act like the knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail - with his arms, legs and head chopped off he still wanted to fight ! --Parkinsons 13:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, again. You seem like you are on a tear. Let's talk about this: On the morning of August 6, 1945, the United States Army Air Forces dropped the nuclear weapon "Little Boy" on the city of Hiroshima, Japan, followed three days later by the detonation of the "Fat Man" bomb over Nagasaki. The estimates of the combined death toll from the bombings range from 100,000 to 220,000, with some estimates considerably higher when delayed deaths from radiation exposure are counted. More than 90% of the casualties were civilians.

My take on the above is this is pretty good wording until we have a more explanatory summary source. It is 17,000 short of the AP (Hiroshima mayor) number but 20,000 higher than the high in the earlier version. My further take is let's be patient until we find the definitive answer. While the life and death of each and every person has value, when we start talking in such high numbers, they do not resonate. Readers remember individual stories, not big numbers. However, I do give the Hiroshima mayor some credence because his number is quite specific. That suggests there is a basis for what he says, and who more than the people of Hiroshima would have that number most precisely. So, while the estimate in the existing article is not perfect, it is an unsourced compromise.

On copyright

Without copyright protections, writers like me would not be paid. Artists would not be paid. How would we make our way in this world?

In Canada, this is the rule http://www.library.ualberta.ca/copyright/copyingright/index.cfm It gives copyright owners -- usually authors or publishers -- the sole right to copy or to authorize someone else to copy their works. Moreover, copyright law is international. If a work is protected in any one of over 100 countries, it's covered by copyright here.

Here's what many countries, including Great Britain and the U.S. follow: [[1]] The Berne Convention establishes a general and minimum period that lasts the life of the author and fifty years after his (or her) death. Cinematographic works and photographic works have a minimum period of protection of 50 and 25 years upon the date of creation, respectively. This applies to any country that has signed the Berne Convention, and these are just the minimum periods of protection. A member country is entitled to establish greater periods of protection, but never less than what has been established by the Berne Convention.

So, what does all this mean? This means that if a copyright statement reads, "© Copyright 1998, 1999 John Smith" and John Smith is from a country that has signed the Berne Convention, he created his works in 1998 and 1999, and his copyright is not going to expire until at least fifty years after he dies (this period may be greater - remember that member countries may establish longer periods of protection). Until that time his works are not in public domain.

So you see, dear Emperor, if everyone did what you want (ignoring copyright law and the Berne Convention), then all writers would be hungry and homeless. As it is, we are mrely poor. In my self-interest, I must oppose your views on copyright. Please change your viewpoint. I hate it when I'm hungry.

On your desire to have others rewrite long quotes, yes, I often wish others would obey me but alas I have never been influential in this area. (Even my children are disobedient.) I'm not sure you would want others to summarize for you because you might not agree with what they write. Nothing is written without a point of view, even those claiming neutrality. The very facts brought to the table indicate a choice of viewpoint.

With temperatures rising, it is best to walk away for a time and not allow the disagreements to breed anger which leads to disease in one's own body and mind. I see you reverting and getting reverted so often these last days. I know you must be feeling stress. (I felt it throught the entire month of February in another article, and have walked away for awhile.)

On the issue of signing onto Wikipedia with various names or not using a user name at all: this is all traceable, and it is not considered good practice. Look over on the left side of each of your user pages and see where there's navigation leading to other pages. Look for "what links to this" and you will see others are wondering about your use of various names. It's best to choose one name and use it continuously. That way respect for your reputation can be built over time. Other writers and editors will see that you have made contributions in other areas and it will not be so easy to dismiss you. Maintain one identity and let go of the others. Climb hills before mountains!

Perhaps when you find time, you will read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_war

What can individual writers and editors gain for better or worse from the more or less democratic process on Wikipedia?

Answer: to sharpen one's negotiating and mediation skills and to master the art of compromise.

I have been writing for Wikipedia for about a year mostly contributing to and maintaining one biography for most of the year, then in the month of February I worked intensively on another, and then on to a number of articles on African American history. Some of my effort has been trashed, mostly it appears for political or racial reasons. I am giving what has happened some thought and wondering whether I should continue to give free service to Wikipedia in light of this.

So enough about me. Tell me why have you chosen the name Parkinsons?

Best wishes, skywriter 19:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violations

If you continue to re-insert copyrighted text from another webpage, you will be permanently blocked.

You have two options here. One is to re-write the facts in your own words and try and lobby for that to be in the article. I don't necessarily agree with everything you probably want to add but that's an entirely different issue and I'm happy to talk about it with you.

Or, you can try and re-insert the same text and try to claim that you know copyright law better than everyone else on here. At which point I will have you permanently blocked as a persistent poster of known copyrighted material to which you do not own the copyright.

You are subject to Wikipedia's policies if you want to be a participant. Below every editing window says "Content must not violate any copyright." A little further down the page it says "Only public domain resources can be copied without permission." It is pretty straightforward. The reason for these policies is simple -- Wikipedia's content servers are located in the United States and are subject to U.S. copyright law. So obviously we don't allow anything which would violate U.S. copyright law.

So it's up to you. I think I've been pretty clear, very patient, and put up with nothing but endless abuse and insinuation from you. You can follow the really quite simple rules, take up the clear and relatively easy alternative approach (rewriting the text yourself), or you can get blocked. It's completely up to you, but this is really pretty close to your final warning on this. --Fastfission 03:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Content of your Hiroshima/Nagasaki edit

Hi Parkisons --

If you're willing, I hoped we might discuss the edit you've been trying to add to Hiroshima/Nagasaki some more. My focus here is on the content of the edit, rather than the copyright issues.

To start with, let make sure I correctly understand the point or meaning behind the edit. Briefly put, it's that the thing that finally brought about the surrender of Japan was the Russian advances rather than the atomic bombings. Correct so far?

Further, you've said that you don't personally believe that the Russian advances were the sole reason for the surrender. When I pointed out a quote in the article from someone who expressed that latter opinion, you said you disagreed with that. In the current edit you refer to the Russian advances as being "the final straw" in the decision to surrender.

If that's all basically correct then we have some grounds for agreement. I think that something to that effect might be a worthwhile addition to the article.

Where I have a problem is with the actual text of your edit. Actually I have 3 problems, though not all of them are hugely serious; perhaps you can give me some further input that will get me past those problems.

1) You present the chronology of topics discussed by the War Cabinet. I see this as interesting, but don't see how, by itself, it tells us anything with certainty. When people discuss a decision, the last topic discussed is not necessarily the most important topic upon which the final decision is based. On the other hand, as you've said, it does show that, for a time at least, the Japanese had decided to continue the war after they had discussed the bombings. I think that's significant, and it would be a good addition to the article. (Although it's not much of a revelation, since it's common knowledge that the surrender didn't come until a week after Nagasaki.) Ideally, you should quote some scholar who makes this interpretation of the chronology, because strictly speaking, it is an interpretation, so it should come from some "voice" other than your own in order to avoid the Wikipedia prohibition on "original research." However, if you can't find such a scholar, we might be able to word-smith the edit so that the other editors will accept it.

2) From your chronology, it seems that the real deciding factor in the surrender was the Emperor. He inserted himself into the debate and basically ordered the cabinet to surrender. Was the Emperor present during cabinet's discussions? That isn't clear from your edit. If he wasn't (and to an extent, even if he was), that would seem to negate the significance of the chronology. Who knows what was foremost in the Emperor's mind when he made his decision?

3) My third problem is with the length of your edit. At times you've described the chronology as showing that, contrary to most American's view, the bombings didn't end the war. But you also described it as demonstrating that the Russians' advances were the final straw in ending the war. If the Russians' advances were only a "straw" then it would seem that the bombings were very important in ending the war, although not the sole cause. Is a "straw" really worth an edit of the length you're proposing? There are several arguments presented in the "Opposition to the bombings" section of the article, including the argument that the Russians' advances were the real reason for the surrender, and none of these arguments gets as much coverage as you are proposing. Perhaps you could clarify why you think your addition, which makes a milder argument than that, warrants so much space.

KarlBunker 11:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"1. Briefly put, it's that the thing that finally brought about the surrender of Japan was the Russian advances rather than the atomic bombings. Correct so far?"

YES, as far as most but not all of the Japanese War Cabinet were concerned. However, it did bring about a major change in their thinking - they they then had no choice. The Japanese Emperor, judging from his surrender speech was more concerned by the atomic bombings which he mentioned in his speech, rather than the Soviet invasion which he didn't mention at all.

"2. Further, you've said that you don't personally believe that the Russian advances were the sole reason for the surrender."

YES, it was the final straw for most of the Japanese War Cabinet. However, it was the last of a very long line of setbacks. If the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not taken place, the Soviet invasion would very probably not have been the final straw. Few things have a single reason.

"3. You present the chronology of topics discussed by the War Cabinet. I see this as interesting, but don't see how, by itself, it tells us anything with certainty. On the other hand, as you've said, it does show that, for a time at least, the Japanese had decided to continue the war after they had discussed the bombings. I think that's significant, and it would be a good addition to the article. (Although it's not much of a revelation, since it's common knowledge that the surrender didn't come until a week after Nagasaki.)"

Although it was known that the war carried on after Nagasaki, it was ony for a matter of days. It appeared to just about everyone, including me, that it was the atomic bombings that brought about the surrender, as it would be expected that a surrender decision would not be immediate.

"4. From your chronology, it seems that the real deciding factor in the surrender was the Emperor. He inserted himself into the debate and basically ordered the cabinet to surrender. Was the Emperor present during cabinet's discussions?"

The Japanese Emperor was not present at all when the Soviet invasion was discussed. As I have written, it appears from his surrender speech that it was, to him, the atomic bombings that were sufficient for deciding to surrender. The Emperor finalised the decision, as there were still objections from some even after the Soviet invasion.

"5. My third problem is with the length of your edit."

If something is not explained fully, it is often not explained at all. If there was only one factor regarding surrender, and if everyone in the War Cabinet was unanimous about it, and on the same day, then it would take up one line. However, there were a number of decisions and decision makers, on different days, and a series of events. Even more detail than I have added would be useful, such as what was added previously by somebody else concerning this.

I have studied all eras of Japanese history and culture in as much detail as was possible. Most of that history was dominated by the Japanese military. "Honour" rather than survival was their first rule of ethics. They put it before life itself. Up until 1945, Japan had never been conquered in its entire history. I am surprised that anything made them surrender. If, without hindsight, I had been advising the U.S. government, I would have told them that they would have had to decimate Japan. Don't bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Bomb Tokyo, then Hiroshima, then Nagasaki, then Osaka, and don't stop until they are incapable of resistance. With hindsight, I would have suggested they wait a while for the Soviet invasion, and then start bombing. However, maybe the Soviets would not have invaded if they had not seen the atomic bombs being dropped.

--Parkinsons 13:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that in retrospect it seems surprising that the Japanese surrendered as soon as they did. This is just speculation, but I wonder if that's an indication of the "success" of the atomic bombs in ending the war. So-called strategic bombings of cities had been done before, in Germany and Japan, without having any apparent effect on either country's willingness to continue the war. And Japan had been suffering military setbacks for years, so the Soviet advances weren't anything terribly new. But it seems that the shock value of this "new and most cruel bomb" had an effect where nothing else would have. Personally, I hope that's true. Of all the millions of civilians who died in the war for no reason at all, perhaps those that died in the atomic bombings at least died in the cause of ending the war, and in the cause of saving an even greater number of lives. Perhaps.

Anyway, it seems that we really don't have much disagreement here. You say that the Soviet advances were the final straw, but still only a "straw"; not the main cause for the surrender. As such, it seems that a lengthy entry describing chronology of War Cabinet meetings is something more suited to the Surrender of Japan article. For the Hiroshima/Nagasaki article, it seems that a couple of sentences integrated into the "Opposition to use of atomic bombs" section would be most appropriate.

KarlBunker 18:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring

With your areas of interest and modus operandi reflecting those of General Tojo and Emperor Hirohito I have blocked you for 48 hours. Please do not use this account to edit war on articles you are editing under other accounts, especially when it comes to reverts. You are risking permanent banning for sockpuppetry, personal attacks, 3RR violations and offensive usernames. JFW | T@lk 15:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)