Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
| Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
Frequently asked questions Organization Q1: Why are Canada and Britain listed in the infobox? Wasn't the Manhattan Project an all-American effort?
A1: No, the Manhattan Project was a multinational effort, controlled by the United States, Britain and Canada. British personnel participated in the bombings as observers. British permission was required to conduct the attacks, per the Quebec Agreement. Q2: Why doesn't the article cover post-war debate over the atomic bombings?
A2: To keep the article to a manageable size, it is restricted to the bombing itself. Post-war debate is covered in the article on Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; the subsequent development and proliferation of nuclear weapons in Nuclear warfare; popular culture depictions in Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in popular culture; Japan's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons can be found in Japan and weapons of mass destruction. Q3: Why doesn't the bombing of Hiroshima and that of Nagasaki have separate articles?
A3:Much of the article is devoted to background and preparations for the raids, which is common to both. Q4: Why is William S. Parsons listed ahead of Paul Tibbets? Wasn't Tibbets in charge?
A4: Parsons outranked Tibbets, being a US Navy captain, and as the weaponeer was in command of the mission. Tibbets commanded the 509th Composite Group, and flew the plane. Q5: Why does the article say a Little Boy and a Fat Man was dropped? Weren't these the names of the particular bombs?
A5: No, these were the names of the types of bombs used. Multiple ones were produced of both types. Production continued into the post-war period. See their respective articles for details. Q6: Why are the casualty figures so vague?
A6: The best efforts were made by the US and Japanese authorities to provide figures, both in 1945 and subsequently. Assessments were complicated by uncertainty about the numbers of people in the cities at the time, particularly Koreans. There was also the problem of counting people who subsequently became ill or died from their injuries. The figures represent the best estimates available. Historical Q7: Who ordered the bombings?
A7: This is a question with a complicated answer, depending on what "ordered" means. In a strict sense, the _strike order_ was issued by General Thomas T. Handy to General Carl Spaatz on July 25, 1945. The order is reproduced in the article. This was issued as a formal order at Spaatz's request. The strike order was formally authorized by the Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, and General George C. Marshall, Jr.. Accounts indicate that President Harry Truman was aware that an atomic bomb would be dropped sometime after August 3, but he gave no formal order, and undertook no explicit decision about the use of the bomb, except non-intervention in existing plans. The actual strike operations in Operation Centerboard was undertaken under the authority of Curtis LeMay, although many of the specifics (like the date of the second bombing) were made by Thomas Farrell, and the specific mission orders, like Operations Order No. 35 (Hiroshima) and No. 39 (Kokura/Nagasaki) were signed by Operations Officer Major James I. Hopkins, Jr. In general, most historiography has moved away from the that Truman "ordered" the atomic bombs to be used, and instead emphasize that there were a number of people involved in the planning and use of the bombs. Q8: Why was Nagasaki bombed so soon after Hiroshima?
A8: The original strike plan was to have one bomb (the Little Boy) ready to use around August 3, 1945, and a second bomb (the Fat Man) ready around August 10. Weather conditions over Japan were not favorable for visible bombing, however, and this pushed the first bombing back to August 6. A forecast suggested that poor weather would continue on August 10, and so the preparations for the second bombing were accelerated. The decision for the latter was made by Thomas Farrell and other forces on Tinian, and were made exclusively on an operational basis. The strike order from Handy to Spaatz (see above) specified that the first atomic bomb would not be dropped before August 3rd, and that "additional bombs will be delivered on the above targets as soon as made ready by the project staff," leaving it open to the discretion of the 509th Composite Group. Q9: Was Hiroshima warned of the impending bombing?
A9: Warning leaflets were dropped on many Japanese cities as part of a psychological warfare campaign by the United States, including Hiroshima. These did not warn of specific attacks by atomic bombings, or specific attacks against any of the atomic bombing targets. Leaflets with information about the atomic bombing of Hiroshima were prepared and dropped on many cities after the attack on Hiroshima, but they were not coordinated with the atomic bombing campaign, and no specific warnings were given to the other cities that were slated as possible atomic bombing targets (Kokura, Nagasaki, and Niigata). Because of these scheduling snafus, Nagasaki did not receive its atomic bomb leaflets until the day after it had been atomic bombed. See the Leaflets section for details. The Potsdam Declaration contained a warning of "prompt and utter destruction" should Japan not surrender, however the knowledge that this was a reference to the atomic bomb was not revealed until after the Hiroshima attack. In short, the Japanese were not warned of the atomic bombing attack: the secrecy and surprise of the operation was considered paramount to the enhancement of the psychological impact of the attack and very deliberate. The possibility of warning Japan, or demonstrating the atomic bombs in a non-violent way, had been considered and dismissed by the Interim Committee by the spring of 1945. Other issues Q10: I added something to the article but it got removed. Why?
A10: In all probability what you added was trivia, unsourced information or information cited to an unreliable source; such information is usually removed quickly because of the article's Featured Status. Articles on Wikipedia require reliable sources for an independent verification of the facts presented, consequently any information added to an article without a reliable source is subject to removal from the article at any Wikipedian's discretion. Q11: I tried to edit this article but couldn't. Why?
A11:This article has been indefinitely semi-protected due to persistent vandalism or violations of content policy. Semi-protection prevents edits from anonymous users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has ten or more edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. Such users can request edits to this article by proposing them on this talk page, using the {{editsemiprotected}} template if necessary to gain attention. They may also request the confirmed userright by visiting Requests for permissions. |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
| Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is part of the History of the Manhattan Project series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
New reference work for Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
[edit]The best and most authoritative book on this subject has long been Robert Jay Lifton and Greg Mitchell's 1995 classic, "Hiroshima in America: 50 Years of Denial." I am surprised that this work is not listed in the bibliography, nor in Lifton's Wiki entry.
Good article though.
Cliff Meneken 2601:1C0:8300:2E11:F598:C309:287B:5331 (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
information about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
[edit]Easy and short information about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 185.80.143.114 (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Soldiers killed in Hiroshima - reference?
[edit]The United States Strategic Bombing Survey estimated that only 6,789 soldiers, out of 24,158 in Hiroshima, were killed or missing because of the bombing. In the infobox and the article body it claims that in Hiroshima there was an upper figure of 20,000 soldiers killed. The cited source in the article body was Wellerstein 2020, but I cannot find that upper figure of 20,000 in the linked article - perhaps someone else can find it, else the figure needs to be removed. 182.239.146.143 (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2024
[edit] | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "60,000 and 80,000 people in Nagasaki" to "60,000 to 80,000 people in Nagasaki" Saiashishdas (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Done Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Add link to Daniel A. McGovern
[edit]Correct the error.
"A member of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, Lieutenant Daniel McGovern, used a film crew to document the effects of the bombings in early 1946."
to
Beginning in September 1945, just a week after the surrender of Japan, Lieutenant colonel Daniel A. McGovern, a member of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, led a film crew to document the effects of the bombings.[1] 147.147.221.228 (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Done No error: he was a lieutenant at the time and not promoted to lieutenant colonel until after the war. Added link to new article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Done? You haven't done anything! The sentence is still inaccurate: "used a film crew to document the effects of the bombings in early 1946." He might have used a film crew in 1946 but he arrived just one week after the surrender of Japan = 9 Sept 1945. He is credited with being the first person from the Allied side to document the aftermath of bombings. Mcgovern made copies of the films he made because he was worried that the US Government would censor them. Oppenheimer watched them. They did lose the originals, his copies were revealed in 1967. Likewise, the term U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey is not even linked to its own article U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey. There is zero interest on this site to give people (ie the reader) information. It's always about which team controls the article narrative. 147.147.221.228 (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey is linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Done? You haven't done anything! The sentence is still inaccurate: "used a film crew to document the effects of the bombings in early 1946." He might have used a film crew in 1946 but he arrived just one week after the surrender of Japan = 9 Sept 1945. He is credited with being the first person from the Allied side to document the aftermath of bombings. Mcgovern made copies of the films he made because he was worried that the US Government would censor them. Oppenheimer watched them. They did lose the originals, his copies were revealed in 1967. Likewise, the term U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey is not even linked to its own article U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey. There is zero interest on this site to give people (ie the reader) information. It's always about which team controls the article narrative. 147.147.221.228 (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Oppenheimer: Monaghan man who captured nuclear devastation". BBC News. 31 March 2024.
Commanders
[edit]What exactly is the problem with having commanders in the infobox? What's the point even discussing this? MylowattsIAm (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's a stable infobox compromise that reduces the military (glorification) side of what many people see as (in part) a massacre of civilians. EddieHugh (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't, in any way, glorify The event by listing who commanded the operation. This argument is nonsense. And "stable infobox" doesn't mean it's perfect, flawless and cannot ever be changed or improved. MylowattsIAm (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's disappointing that you've reverted to your additions on this page yet again (four times now). I ask you (again) to undo the additions and seek a talk page consensus. Disagreeing with an established consensus and opposition to your proposed changes doesn't mean you should make those changes unilaterally yet again. EddieHugh (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Seeking a talk page consensus is ridiculous when everyone ignores the discussion. There is nothing wrong with listing who commanded the operation. These are just people who commanded it and that is all. It is always better to name the commanders anyway as it only adds to the article and saying it glorifies the event is even more ridiculous. Might as well remove the names of those who perpetrated other actual and deliberate crimes against people from the infoboxes of the articles about those events because by this logic, that also glorifies those events. This event is not any more special than those. 86.50.70.58 (talk) 11:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's disappointing that you've reverted to your additions on this page yet again (four times now). I ask you (again) to undo the additions and seek a talk page consensus. Disagreeing with an established consensus and opposition to your proposed changes doesn't mean you should make those changes unilaterally yet again. EddieHugh (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't, in any way, glorify The event by listing who commanded the operation. This argument is nonsense. And "stable infobox" doesn't mean it's perfect, flawless and cannot ever be changed or improved. MylowattsIAm (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2024
[edit] | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In paragraph 3 of the introduction, please change "On 6 August a Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima. Three days later a Fat Man was was dropped on Nagasaki." to "On 6 August Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima. Three days later Fat Man was dropped on Nagasaki." ColdPear5289 (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done: Little Boy and Fat Man were types of bombs, not names of individual bombs. This is discussed in the second paragraph. Jamedeus (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Inconsistency in numbers of dead
[edit]There appears to be some inconsistency regarding the numbers of dead in this article.
The lead states that an estimated 90,000 to 146,000 people died in Hiroshima and that 60,000 to 80,000 died in Nagasaki by the end of 1945, while the "Post-attack casualties" section says that it was up to 140,000 in Hiroshima. What is the source of this difference of 6,000?
Also, the infobox uses an end-of-1945 figure for Nagasaki (which corresponds to the info in the Nagasaki "Events on the ground" section), but uses an unqualified figure (presumably immediate deaths?) for Hiroshima. Those figures of 70,000 and 126,000 don't appear to be sourced anywhere in the article. The Hiroshima "Events on the ground" section doesn't use the source which states 90,000 to 140,000 by year's end, and contradicts itself by using a different source which appears to incorrectly state that the immediate deaths were 80,000 to 140,000.
This also effects the headline figure of 129,000 to 226,000. The first is presumably from 70,000 + 90,000 (should be 130,000?) and the second presumably from 126,000 + 20,000 soldiers + 80,000. — Goszei (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- A 2020 article from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists appears to be a solid historiographical account of the varying casualty figures and their sources. It identifies a "low cluster" which is best represented by the 1951 Joint Commission Report, led by U.S. occupation forces: about 70,000 deaths within 3 months in Hiroshima, and 40,000 in the same period in Nagasaki, for a total of 110,000 dead. The article also identifies a "high cluster" best represented by a Japanese-led 1977 symposium which estimated 140,000 deaths in Hiroshima by the end of 1945, and 70,000 deaths in Nagasaki, for a total of 210,000 dead. As the article states, the latter figures are likely superior because they considered three categories of non-residents who were omitted from the American studies: military victims, conscripted Korean workers, and commuting workers.
- Right now we mainly rely on this source from the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF), which has evidently been updated here with a somewhat higher top figure for Hiroshima. This is 90,000–166,000 deaths in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 deaths in Nagasaki, for a total range of 150,000–246,000. According to the Bulletin article, the RERF is the organization which has continuity with the Joint Commission, and it appears to have incorporated the 1970s re-evaluations into what it reports on its website today. Although it isn't directly cited, the RERF figures appear to be what is used by the Atomic Heritage Foundation in their main page on the bombings. I think the RERF is the best-available source and should be used throughout our article, from lead to infobox to body. — Goszei (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think some of the confusion here is stemming from the military dead in Hiroshima. The body says that the 1946 U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey estimated there were 24,000 soldiers in Hiroshima, of which 7,000 died, then cites the 2020 Bulletin source, which mentions that the 1970s re-evaluations added perhaps 10,000 deaths to account for military deaths, which were omitted from most American studies. We then appear to add 7,000 and 10,000 to get ~20,000 military deaths, which I think is an error; the mortality rate isn't this high for any group in estimates. I think both the Bombing Survey and 1970s re-evaluations must be talking about the same 7,000 to 10,000 deaths, not additional ones. — Goszei (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- In an attempt to clear all of this up, I have made these revisions which cite the Bulletin and RERF sources throughout the article and add more detail on the different reports and their conclusions. — Goszei (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
No mention of the black rain
[edit]I don't really have time to be doing extensive editing right now, but I noticed that this article doesn't seem to mention the radioactive black rain that fell on parts of Hiroshima shortly after the bombing. This rain apparently contributed substantially to the radiation doses that some victims received (e.g. this article ). I think this is something that should be mentioned. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Categories:
- GA-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in History
- GA-Class vital articles in History
- GA-Class Japan-related articles
- Top-importance Japan-related articles
- WikiProject Japan articles
- GA-Class United States articles
- Mid-importance United States articles
- GA-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- GA-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- GA-Class United States History articles
- Top-importance United States History articles
- WikiProject United States History articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- A-Class military history articles
- A-Class military aviation articles
- Military aviation task force articles
- A-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
- Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
- A-Class weaponry articles
- Weaponry task force articles
- A-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- A-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- A-Class Canadian military history articles
- Canadian military history task force articles
- A-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- A-Class Japanese military history articles
- Japanese military history task force articles
- A-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- A-Class United States military history articles
- A-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
- Successful requests for military history A-Class review
- GA-Class Death articles
- High-importance Death articles
- GA-Class Environment articles
- High-importance Environment articles
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- Wikipedia good articles
- Warfare good articles
- GA-Class Featured topics articles
- Wikipedia featured topics History of the Manhattan Project good content
- High-importance Featured topics articles
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report