Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Request for comment: Which infobox template is best suited?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a rough consensus that Option B is the best infobox template for the article, and many editors who supported either A or C suggested B as a middle ground proposal. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Relative to the above discussion, which infobox is best suited to this topic? Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• A: Template:Infobox military conflict like here
• B: Template:Infobox military operation like here
• C: Template:Infobox civilian attack like here

Infobox poll

• A or B. I was the one who first added the infobox to this article in 2010. I chose the military conflict template because I was looking to similar strategic bombing articles as examples. I don't have a strong preference for "military conflict" over "military operation" as both of these templates can accommodate the material. The "civilian attack" infobox suggestion is completely wrong because the nuclear bombs were dropped for more pressing reasons than to kill civilians, specifically to reduce industrial output, to kill military units, to shock Japan's leaders into surrender, and for the USA to make a show of power for the USSR to witness. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• B - Problem with "military conflict" is that it ends up depicting situation like a contested battle against larger force, which is not really a reasonable way to represent a high altitude nuclear bombing where defending side failed to present any meaningful resistance. "Military operation" infobox is a good solution to depict such air strikes, and is used for such purpose in various articles about strikes that similarly lacked effective opposition like H-3 airstrike, Operation Opera, 2017 Nangarhar airstrike, 2017 Shayrat missile strike. Infobox "civilian attack" is a non-starter due to obvious NPOV issues.--Staberinde (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• B or C. "Military conflict" suggests a contested battle, which is a poor first impression for the layperson, regardless of whether defenders were present, and as such I oppose A. There are neutrality problems with both B and C, in my view, but they are still both superior. The atomic bombings are known to lay readers primarily in terms of casualties. A lengthy list of commanders and units, such as is present in B, is jarring. However, C includes the term "perpetrators", which I don't see used in sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• B  There hasn't got to be an actual battle for something to be referred to as a conflict, but still, Military operation would be more appropriate,.Civilian attack ignores the obvious military components involved and clearly creates flagrant POV and NPOV issues, as the attack was carried out by the US military during a declared war. Therefore Military operation is the most appropriate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• A. The "military conflict" better draws attention the purposes of the bombing and the conduct of them. Specifically refutes the widespread beliefs that the cities were undefended or were of no military value when they contained important industrial, transportation and military installations. As such, the "civilian attack" infobox is inappropriate. It was an action of a smaller force attacking a much larger one. The "military conflict" infobox is customarily used for air raids, such as Bombing of Tokyo, Bombing of Rome in World War II and the air raid on Bari. It has also been frequently used for actions in which there has been little or no opposition, even, in the case of Operation Cottage and Landing on Emirau, where one side was not present at all. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• A This article covers military attacks against defended targets. The use of the conflict infobox allows the sizes of the forces involved to be compared, and allows the relative casualties and nature of those casualties to also be compared. The civilian attack infobox is totally inappropriate as it is optimised for terrorist attacks and the like against civilians; given that the nature of these attacks is (famously) highly contested, its use would be POV pushing the view that the attacks were a crime of some sort. Nick-D (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• C. The attack was designed to obtain the greatest psychological effect on a large civilian population, and the vast majority of those killed were civilians. The {{infobox military conflict}} template creates a false balance between the two militaries and suggests that the Japanese military fought back in some capacity, which they did not. The {{infobox civilian attack}} does not suggest that the cities were undefended; for example, the September 11 attacks use {{infobox civilian attack}} even though the United States was defended by NORAD. The speculation that these attacks could have been battles does not justify treating them as if they were battles.  — Freoh 01:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you were already aware that your cited source says nothing about this topic. Binksternet (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, while he continues to ignore the fact that most of the many thousands of "civilians" were engineering, testing and manufacturing war planes, tanks, warships, bombs, etc, on a huge scale at an incredible rate. He also is comparing the incident to 911, once again, after it was explained for him by several editors that it was a military action sanctioned by the US government, during a declared war that had long since been in progress. Once again, if the "psychological impact" was the primary reason for the bombings they would have dropped one on Tokyo, where several million people lived. All this is doing is exemplifying his WP:IDHT behavior. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

While there was some military production in those two cities, I'm not sure "on a huge scale at an incredible rate" is what mainstream RSes say. There are obvious reasons Tokyo wasn't chosen (it was already destroyed), and weather was a major factor in the selection of targets. You're oversimplifying by suggesting the only possible view is that they were military industrial targets, as opposed to, cities in range with clear skies that hadn't been bombed yet. In any event, disagreeing with you is not IDHT behavior. Levivich (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Tokyo was a huge metropolis and was not destroyed, not nearly so, and if the weather was a factor they would have waited a day or so. "some military production"? No, it was on a huge scale, esp Hiroshima., where weapons testing was being conducted, by civilians, as explained in the article. i.e.

• "Hiroshima was a city of industrial and military significance" and it was "the headquarters of Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's Second General Army, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan.<Giangreco 2009, pp. 64–65, 163>
• ..."a supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. <U. S. Strategic Bombing Survey> The city was a communications center, a key port for shipping, and an assembly area for troops. It supported a large war industry, manufacturing parts for planes and boats, for bombs, rifles, and handguns.<Thomas & Morgan-Witts 1977, pp. 224–225> .
• Also in the article, "The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest seaports in southern Japan, and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials." <Frank 1999, p. 263.>

All these weapons would certainly have extended the war indefinitely, and I'd like to think the US intelligence wasn't as naive as to dismiss that as something inconsequential. No, disagreement by itself isn't IDHT, but repeatedly not even acknowledging obvious facts is. This was clearly a military operation, if not a conflict, even though there was no resistance form the Japanese military. In any case, Military operation seems the best choice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

You said: if the "psychological impact" was the primary reason for the bombings they would have dropped one on Tokyo, where several million people lived. But as our article, Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki#Choice of targets explains, there was three selection criteria, which I'd summarize as big, dense, and not yet bombed. These cities were largely untouched during the nightly bombing raids.... Yes, they had military and industrial significance, but honestly, almost every city in Japan had military and industrial significance by 1945, and the US bombed many (almost all?) of them. The Target Committee stated that "It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.... So, yeah, psychological impact was a primary reason for nuking cities. Hiroshima was described as "an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged... Nagasaki wasn't originally on the list; it was Kyoto, but (as our article explans), Kyoto was removed due to its historical/cultural significance and replaced with Nagasaki.

Still, Nagasaki wasn't the original target of Fat Man; it was Kokura. You said if the weather was a factor they would have waited a day or so. Fat Man#Bombing of Nagasaki explains how, on the way to Kokura, because of clouds and smoke, they decided to change to the pre-selected alternative target, Nagasaki. And no, they weren't going to just wait a day, that's a ridiculous suggestion, there are a bunch of reasons why not, explained in that section of the Fat Man article.

I agree that repeatedly not even acknowledging obvious facts is IDHT. Obvious facts include the psychological impact, and the influence of weather, in the choice of targets. Levivich (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

No one denies that the psychological impact was an important consideration, but this is no way undermines the importance of directly neutralizing the production of weapons of war on a massive scale. Nagasaki was a major weapons producing industrial complex, regardless of any weather or consideration to strike any other targets. Like the article says, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Kokura, and Niigata were chosen because "These targets were chosen because they were large urban areas that also held militarily significant facilities.. Almost every city had industrial significance? No doubt, to one extent or another, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen because they were among those with the greatest military potential, one being a seaport and HQ Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's Second General Army, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. I'm sure his demise had some of the greatest psychological impact and no doubt made all the other top generals wonder if they were next-- or do you think they just threw a dart at a map of Japan and made their decision that way, with no consideration for size and production output, weapons testing, one being a key port for shipping, and an assembly area for troops, etc? Psychological impact would have resulted regardless of what city was struck, but the cities in question were chosen for their great military significance. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• B seems like the obvious choice.★Trekker (talk)
• A The articles Pacific war, Bombing of Dresden in World War II, Bombing of Tokyo and the Bombing of Darwin all use Infobox military conflict, cannot see why this article should not as well. Ilenart626 (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• B or C per Vanamonde. It wasn't a conflict. The question is military operation or civilian attack. I think B is the mainstream view, so I'd prefer B over C, but would change my mind if someone showed the consensus of current RS is to consider it a civilian attack. Btw, my !vote is about which infobox; I don't necessarily agree with the exact implementations in the examples given. Levivich (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• B per comments by several contributors above. "C" would be 2nd choice, but definitely not "A". My very best wishes (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• C if we can change "perpetrators" to something else, as discussed as a possibility below. As Vanamonde points out, the names of the templates don't matter, as they aren't visible to readers. Both A and B inappropriately highlight the militaristic facet of the events. "Result: Allied victory" (A) is an offensive summary to many. Putting lists of commanders before mentioning the deaths of >100,000 civilians (A and B), or putting the Operation name first (B) aren't accurate reflections of how these bombings are thought of today. Changing the infobox to reduce the stressing of the military actions would also provide some momentum for doing the same thing to more of the article, again reflecting attitudes that have evolved over the last decades from 'why weren't more dropped?' to a recognition that this is a 'never again' tragedy that was a product of its times. So, really, my preference is for a new infobox if one is to be used at all, but that's not given as an option. EddieHugh (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• "Both A and B inappropriately highlight the militaristic facet of the events."? "facet"?? The bombings were at the hand of the U.S. military, during a declared war. How is this not very militaristic? If anything, there is far too much coverage with (very) many pictures of, casualties. Germany suffered many civilian deaths during the bombings of WW2, but do we see a whole array of photos of German civilian casualties in any given article? The number of Japanese civilian casualty photos in this article borders on Japanese propaganda. There are seventeen such photos, with two very large photos of Japanese memorials of the event that stretch across the width of the article. There are no photos of massive weapons production/factories, major objectives, turning out (new and improved) weapons of war at an alarming rate, which, once again, would have extended the war indefinitely, ultimately costing more lives, on both sides, than were lost during the bombings. There's no pleasure gained in covering this event, but it must be done so with fairness and objectivity, and a lot less emotionalism than the article currently attempts to invoke-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, facet. For example, we have a whole paragraph on one plane landing, followed by another paragraph on media confusion over exactly which plane had been used. The level of detail about the military parts is extreme (jarring with the reality that we don't know to within 90,000 how many people were killed): "64 kg (141 lb) of uranium-235 took 44.4 seconds..."; "impossible to use 2,400 litres (640 US gal) of fuel carried in a reserve tank"; the call sign and pilot of every plane; etc, etc. We probably don't need the quantity of images of victims that we currently have; we definitely don't need this level of detail on the military parts of it. But we're straying from the topic of the infobox... EddieHugh (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Military operation articles do tend to include the details you have mentioned. At the same time, we have unique issues for this article, because it has a much broader context than a typical operation. It also arguably covers two operations. Perhaps in the future, there could be sub articles for some of the existing content. Senorangel (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

A "whole" paragraph, containing five sentences, about landing is nothing extraordinary, as that was part of the military operation. The call signs and names of pilots is contained in a small, well organized chat -- very nice and tidy, and quite appropriate for an article about the bombings. I also disagree with your opinion about too many details, as this is what makes an article comprehensive. Anyone interested in the topic and wants to dig as deep as is possible is going to welcome details. Of course there is a limit to everything, but I'm not seeing where this has occurred to the extent which should invoked your opinion. It seems your are determined to diminish the military aspect of this military operation while wanting to make civilians the focus. Since you apparently want more focus on civilians, we can always add the fact that thousands of these civilians were involved in the designing, production and testing of weapons being turned out on a massive scale, which would have been used in claiming many thousands of more lives, on both sides. Yes, what infobox to use is the issue, and to make that determination here were are going over the never ending issues that some editors keep dragging in. Thus far the poll is in favor for B, the military operation infobox, with A, military conflict running second. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I find your repeated argument that civilians somewhere weren't civilians if they were working in a munitions factory to be distasteful and ahistorical (under your definition, there would be no civilians in any fully mobilized nation during WWII), but in any event, you've made that point already and I'd ask you not to continue repeating it. Levivich (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

No one said anyone was not a civilian, so I'll ask you to keep your line straight on that note and address the debate more honestly. I will emphasize that point again if I feel it's called for, and judging from some of things that are being pushed in this talk page, it likely will be again. Sorry if you feel the many thousands of the civilians in question were anything but innocent victims playing no major role in a war that was costing many thousands of lives per month. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I feel that even discussing whether the victims were "innocent" or not to be in incredibly poor taste. This is not something we should be speculating about on the talk page of this article. It has nothing to do with improving this article. Levivich (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Please, I'm not concerned about your taste, and since there are so many photos of civilian victims, the article might do better if we balanced it out and explain how many thousands of those civilians were working on designing, producing and testing weapons of war for the sole purpose of continuing the war. All of the sudden I have an extra incentive for finding reliable sources that will cover such an advent. Shouldn't be difficult. Thanks for your encouragement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC).

• B - Based off both visuals and the fact this was a military operation, B seems like the most sensible choice. A does not make much sense to me at all as, pointed out above, it presents the bombings as more of a battle which is not true. While not totally agreeing with arguments against C, I think B is an obvious consensus reacher which presents the same pertinent details in a less confrontational manner which other editors have pointed out. I also appreciate that B has more information given than in C (shown in above examples) without going as overboard as A does. Yeoutie (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• B is the best choice, not presenting this as a "battle" and leaving it open to interpretation of more detailed information whether or not there were "perpetrators". Dekimasuよ! 22:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment: Editors who take issue with the perpetrators text in C may be interested in the modified version that I posted in § Discussion below [1].  — Freoh 21:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• B is best. The one in A shows two sides that were mostly irrelevant to the operation. It also presents allied POWs killed by the allied bomb at Chugoku Military Police Headquarters as casualties on the Allied side which is confusing given they were killed by the allied operation. Option C on the other hand lacks the chain of command which is important for a military operation and questionably lists Canada and the UK are perpetrators even though their involvement in the bombing operation was nonexistant. This was a military operation and there was little to no defense against lone bombers. Fulmard (talk) 05:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  Why do you think that the chain of command is important for a military operation? I feel like J. Robert Oppenheimer and Harry S. Truman were far more important and are far more prominent than any of the names listed in B.  — Freoh 12:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  Including Commanders is SOP for any article about a military operation. Not including the top commanders would be ignoring major details. Also, Truman and Oppenheimer are already mentioned in the narrative, several times each. Referring to them as "far more important" is advancing a POV. Without commanders to oversee an operation there would have been no plan for any of the proposed bombings. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  As the article notes, Oppenheimer's involvement was as chairman of the scientific panel advising the Interim Committee, which selected the targets. Truman was not involved in the decision making, but made the official announcement afterwards. There were two chains of command:

  Manhattan Project: Combined Policy Committee (Wilson) -> Military Policy Committee (Purnell) -> Manhattan Project (Groves) -> Project Alberta (Parsons)

  Military: Combined Policy Committee (Wilson) -> Secretary of War (Stimson) -> Chief of Staff (Handy) -> Strategic Air Forces (Spaatz) -> 509th Composite Group (Tibbets)

  (officers in bold were present on Tinian) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  Friendly fire deaths are never listed on the enemy side. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  Nobody is arguing for friendly fire deaths to be listed on the enemy side. Gwillhickers, could you explain your point of view that Robert A. Lewis is more of a major detail than J. Robert Oppenheimer?  — Freoh 20:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

No one ever claimed that anyone was "more of a major detail" than anyone else, only that the commanders are major details. It was you who claimed that Oppenheimer and Truman, were "far more important" than the commanders of the proposed bombing operations. Can you explain how the commanders in charge of the bombings, in an article about those bombings, are not major details? We are in the final stages of the polling and have an overwhelming consensus to use the Military operation info box – yet here you are dragging this rather ridiculous contention into that polling. Please stop this irrelevant gaslighting. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

As EddieHugh explains in § Discussion below, the scope of this article is very broad. These bombings involved a lot of people, and there are probably dozens that are major details. We have to draw a line somewhere. Would you prefer to include Oppenheimer in the infobox as well? In the interest of conciseness, I agree with Vanamonde93 that it would be better for the infobox to include no individuals, as in my {{infobox military operation}} proposal [2].  — Freoh 22:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The scope of the article indeed covers many aspects of this military operation, but its central theme is about the bombings. Notice the title of the article. Adding Oppenheimer to the infobox is okay by me, if there is a parameter for such an inclusion, but there is nothing that comes close to justifying removing the names of the top commanders for the given proposed bombings. Their inclusion has been reasonably and well explained for you on several occasions, but you still prefer to belabor the issue - in the polling section. Once again, there is an overwhelming consensus to use the military operation infobox, which has parameters for the names of commanders. Since you once referred to the bombings as a "terrorist attack", I think we can understand why you would like to see these names out of the picture entirely. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Including the list of commanders is hard to justify when not all of them are mentioned in the article. See MOS:IB. EddieHugh (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

In this case though, they are all mentioned in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

EddieHugh — On the contrary, not including the names of commanders is impossible to justify, for reasons that have been well articulated several times now. Please review the discussion. Regardless if the list is incomplete it has no bearing on whether the current names should be included. Shall we go through Wikipeida and remove all the items from lists simply on the basis that some items may not be included? Once again, there is strong consensus to use the military operation info-box, which has parameters for commanders. As such, there is strong support to include those commanders in an info-box that was made to include such items. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Not everyone listed in the infobox is mentioned in the article. I've checked (again). Reasons for not listing commanders have also been well articulated several times, but pointing such things out doesn't strengthen the argument. EddieHugh (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Not everyone listed in the infobox is mentioned in the article. — Then mention them. Regardless, names of commanders belong in an article/info box for the simple reason that this was a military operation, which would not have occurred with out commanders. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• B. I do note that, as other users have pointed out, the Bombing of Dresden in World War II and the Bombing of Tokyo both use "military conflict," but, in both those cases, there were battles. As for the civilian attack infobox ... I have to admit I'm partial towards it, but I think it would be POV pushing. Certainly, it can't be said that there's a historical consensus that the United States should be labelled a "perpetrator", as the civilian-attack infobox says. But I think it's equally true that there's only a weak claim that Japan was a "belligerent" in the bombings. I will say, I find it a little odd that there's not a Japanese flag in the example of the military-operation infobox—does that go too far in erasing the target of the attack? Either way, I think the military-operation choice is the best option.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  Would it change your mind if option C labelled the perpetrators as attackers instead [3]?  — Freoh 20:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• I urge editors above not to get hung up on the names used for the various templates. Whether the template is called "civilian attack" or "military conflict" doesn't really matter; as far as the reader is concerned, it might as well be "complicated Wikipedia template 23.6". Using the civilian attack template isn't the same as describing it as a terrorist attack: it just means the content in that template, or lack thereof, is better suited to this page. It's the parameters and formatting that matter. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for your estimation on what template should be used, once aagain. Above you maintain the A and B choices create neutrality issues - but C doesn't? Since the event in question was sort of a one-of-a-kind event there's not going to be any perfect template. The closest that comes to this is military operation, because the bombing certainly wasn't a civilian operation. As such, Civilian attack is entirely inappropriate, as once again, the attack was effected by the U.S. military. We've been through this and have belabored the topic more than is necessary, unless you have something important to say that hasn't already been discussed. We're taking a poll now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, I've said pretty explicitly that C also has a problem: that the attacking party are labelled "perpetrators". If I had my way, that would be adjustable. However, given how the bombings are covered in works of general history, I believe that the prominence A and B give to military leaders, units, and casualties is inappropriate. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  This is solvable in a few ways. We could use "B" but just omit "Commanders". We could create a new wrapper/fork the infobox to change "Casualties" to another word (or "Perpetrators" in C to another word). In other words, we could tweak either infobox, or even create a custom one. Which is probably the thing to do here. Levivich (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  That's a good point. Forking is a can of worms I don't want to open, but omitting a few parameters would make me happier about B. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I personally wouldn't want to be the editor who created {{infobox nuclear attack}} for use on multiple articles, but an infobox just for one article, {{infobox atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki}}, would let us name and order the elements however was appropriate. I kind of agree with Eddie: unique infobox for unique event is what's needed here. Levivich (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Four editors have opted for A
  Seven editors have opted for B, with one voting for A and B.
  Two editors have opted for C, one with B as their first choice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Nothing indicating 'civilian attack' appears in the example infobox; it's just a template name. Change/remove 'perpetrators' and perhaps 'defenders' and the remaining content is also in A and B. So, all the more reason for a unique infobox for a unique (pair of) event(s). EddieHugh (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Making a special info-box for one article/event is not at all necessary. What information could anyone put there that isn't already in the existing infobox? Military operation, which is exactly what this was, is more than appropriate, regardless if the Japanese military was asleep at the wheel. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Changing a template used on over 5,000 pages will require more than local consensus on this talk page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  That's a straw man: nobody is discussing making changes to how infoboxes appear on other pages. We can omit parameters here by local consensus, or create a page-specific infobox; neither requires wider discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. Creating a special infobox for one article, about an operation that was distinctly a military operation, and using it in this highly contested article would indeed require consensus, and another poll, which is an idea that's getting a bit rife, as we are still in the middle of the current poll. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a weirdly indented comment, unless you're replying to yourself; but assuming for the moment you're replying to my comment immediately above; you're misreading, and egregiously so. Changing any aspect of the infobox on this article does not require wider consensus; local consensus is plenty. Which is in no way contradicted by anything you have said. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Not sure who you're addressing, but it wasn't I who proposed that we get a 'global' consensus. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm addressing you, and unlike with your comment, mine was indented to suggest that. Who were you addressing? Vanamonde (Talk) 12:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, I tried to implement your compromise suggestions here. The first is {{infobox military operation}} without the commanders, and the second is {{infobox civilian attack}} with Attackers instead of Perpetrators. I would be happy with either of these.  — Freoh 11:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The second looks distinctly cleaner to me. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Since this is an article about the bombings, omitting the names of commanders from any infobox would be ignoring major details. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Since this is an article about the bombings, could you point to the article that provides an overview of everything – background, bombings, post-bombing effects, lasting impacts, etc? It must exist, given the importance and profile of this topic. EddieHugh (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The scope of this article is restricted to the bombings. Every article must have a well-defined scope. The development of nuclear weapons is in Manhattan Project and its many subarticles; Air raids on Japan and its many subarticles covers the bombing campaign against Japan; post-war debates about the bombing are in Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; subsequent development of nuclear weapons in Nuclear warfare; rebuilding of the cities is in their respective articles. The parent article that gives an overview of everything is World War II. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

No, this is the main article of Category:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and thus the parent article for every other article in that category, which of course are all sub-articles of this article. Per WP:PROPERSPLIT #6, this article should summarize all of those articles. This article is not just about the events of 6 and 9 August 1945; it's the main article for the entire topic, including background and aftermath -- not in as much detail as the sub-articles, of course, but still summarized in this article. This can be confirmed by reading the article, which already has summaries of the background, aftermath, the debate, etc. This is the overview article Eddie mentioned. If someone wanted to write a sub-article that focused exclusively on the military operation to drop the bombs, they can expand the redirect Operation Centerboard into an article. Levivich (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I could move this entire article to Operation Centerboard and leave you to write a new article from scratch. But this proposal has been rejected before. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

This article does its job very well—no need to split off the military operation. The only neutral options for infobox are A and B, since C frames the attackers as perps, but this was a wartime operation between belligerents, not an illegal civilian attack. Plenty of folks have expressed their thoughts here, and the median response is clearly B. Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Levivich stated it very well: this is the parent article for every other article on the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There's no need to move the entire article to Operation Centerboard and start again here, but it's a good idea to move the material that is about the operation to such a page, leaving a summary of the split material here. Then the article that is "restricted to the bombings" (Hawkeye7) / "about the bombings" (Gwillhickers) can be just that, and there can also be a parent article that summarises everything on what was and is about much more than the bombings themselves. EddieHugh (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The parent article already exists: Manhattan Project which summarizes the atomic bombings. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, no – that might be the parent article about the bombs and bombings, but where's the article that provides an overview of everything – background, bombings, post-bombing effects, lasting impacts, etc? EddieHugh (talk) 10:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Post a list of what additional things you think should be covered on my talk page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

A good suggestion, bearing in mind that the central theme of this article is about the unfortunate bombings, always keeping due weight in mind, more over, keeping soapbox prose out of the narrative.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Closure

I have listed the RfC for closure by an uninvolved editor at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's the actual Link to the entry. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Closing as a rough consensus for B. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

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

"The Law of Air Warfare" and Shimoda case

I reverted this addition, as the actual article The Law of Air Warfare does not mention Shimoda case or atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at all.--Staberinde (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Casualty Figures in Infobox

The total casualty figures in the Infobox are given as 129,000—226,000 but adding up the detailed estimates gives a (rounded) range of 150,000—226,000. I didn't see sourcing for either estimate in my quick skim of the article, so I am not sure which if either set of numbers should be adjusted. But they should probably agree and/or be cited to a specific source. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

More infobox discussion

TheGreatman1969, could you explain your recent edit [4]? This is not a battle, and InvadingInvader closed the previous RfC in § Closure with a rough consensus against your proposal.  — Freoh 17:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah it's simple, I thought it looked better in the format of battle infobox and I was not aware of the fact that a consensus had been reached at the time. TheGreatman1969 (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2023

I want to correct a spelling mistake in the description of the photo "Jap...You're Next^ We'll Finish the Job"91.183.125.207 (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DDMS123 (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Reference to Japanese Annual of International Law in

Hi @XXzoonamiXX:, in the Legal Considerations section, as well as the article Ryuichi Shimoda v. The State you have made edits which use the reference “The Japanese Annual of International Law: Volume 36. International Law Association of Japan. 1994. p. 147.” however the reference has no hyperlink. Can you please provide a hyperlink to P.147 and / or provide details that support your edits. Ilenart626 (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Change ordering to "Little Boy and Fat Man"

The phrases "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" should appear in the same order as "Hiroshima" and "Nagasaki", i.e. chronological. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pqmb (talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Suzuki and Hiroshima

The lede originally included the phrase saying that after Hiroshima... "to which Prime Minister Kantarō Suzuki reiterated the Japanese government's commitment to ignore the Allies' demands and fight on." And then Nagasaki.

I know of no such quotes from Suzuki, and the placing of it here seems to imply that this is why the US dropped a second atomic bomb. I suspect whomever added that has confused Suzuki's post-Potsdam "no comment" with a response to Hiroshima. To my knowledge, the Japanese government issued no response to Hiroshima prior to Nagasaki -- because they were still confirming the news at Hiroshima, and deciding what to do about it (and the Soviet invasion), when Nagasaki happened. If there is a source I am missing, I'd love to know it, but such a statement cannot be in the lede on a controversial topic without a serious citation. NuclearSecrets (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The statement is sourced in the body of the article. I'd suggest checking this source. Nick-D (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The section in book in question is about the response to the Potsdam Declaration. Again, I think there is a confusion here, unless I have missed something. NuclearSecrets (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

"End the war with minimal Casualties" - for who?

With reference to the sentence "Supporters claim that the atomic bombings were necessary to bring an end to the war with minimal American casualties" at the end of the introduction - while this is a true statement, might it be more accurate to rephrase this to simply "minimal casualties" instead of "American casualties" as supporters of the bombings and those involved in the original decision did also consider the potential for reducing Japanese and other Allied casualties as result of a shorter war? Would like some input as the sentence is not sourced. Yobbin (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The word "American" should be removed so that the sentence can properly summarize the topic. You are correct that all Japanese casualties would have been much greater in a large-scale invasion of the Home Islands, and this fact was known to all involved. Binksternet (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Are there sources for "those involved in the original decision did also consider the potential for reducing Japanese" casualties? EddieHugh (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I think this is just a generally accepted fact at this point, although it shouldn't be difficult to find a source for this. For instance, in the first paragraph of this article [5] states that "After nearly 12 weeks of fighting, the United States secured the island on June 21 at a cost of nearly 50,000 American casualties. Japanese casualties were staggering, with approximately 90,000 defending troops and at least 100,000 civilians killed." Yobbin (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Although the fighting had ended on Okinawa, it continued elsewhere. People were still dying by the thousands every day. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

There are two issues here. One is whether or not people claim that this justifies the atomic bombings. This is very clear and can be traced back to 1945. The other is whether reducing Japanese casualties, or even American casualties, was how those who were involved in the plans for the bombing conceived of it (as an either/or thing). This is absolutely a point of historical contention and dispute (and subtlety), but not relevant to the lede of article, which is about post-facto claims, not motivations. I would not include the latter as a generalization, as the scholarship is pretty involved and that is something for its own article. One can "find a source" for many different takes on the motivation question. --NuclearSecrets (talk) 03:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Should remove the "a" before Little Boy and Fat Man.

"On 6 August, a Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima. Three days later, a Fat Man was dropped on Nagasaki."

Should remove the "a" before Little Boy and Fat Man. Admiral85 (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, no. The bombs did not have names. Rather, the type of bomb mechanism is named. The bomb dropped on Nagasaki held the Fat Man style mechanism. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima had the Little Boy mechanism. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I was going to comment the same but then I read this entry. in any case, shouldn't the names have the hyperlink to their respective articles to clarify this issue? Osw719 (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

They are linked in the lead and again in the article body. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The FAQ at the top of the page addresses this exact question. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

It is pretty confusing and non-standard. Why not just rewrite it so that this is not necessary? My rule of thumb as a writer is that you need to choose which hills to die on, and this one is going to just look wrong or ungrammatical to most people. If you need a FAQ to explain why you wrote something a certain way, it's probably a sign that you should rewrite it. Here's a dead-simple rewrite that clarifies the issue, as an example: ""On 6 August, a Little Boy-type bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Three days later, a Fat Man-type bomb was dropped on Nagasaki." Just my two cents. NuclearSecrets (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2023

Correct misspelling of Catholic in the caption, "The bomb destroyed the Roman Cahtolic Urakami Tenshudo Church" to "The bomb destroyed the Roman Catholic Urakami Tenshudo Church". Mander333 (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

"Hiroshima massacre" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Hiroshima massacre has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 10 § Hiroshima massacre until a consensus is reached. Loafiewa (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

New reference work for Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

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

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?

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

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

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. 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)