Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 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.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Japan / History / Military history (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 09:29, October 21, 2014 (JST, Heisei 26) (Refresh)
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the History task force.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the joint Japanese military history task force.
WikiProject United States (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated A-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. A-Class
A-Class article A This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Death (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

garbled sentence[edit]

" [...] estimated that Olympic would result in between 130,000 and 220,000 US-casualties [should read: "and 220,000 total casualties" - shouldn't it?] of which U.S. dead would be the range from 25,000 to 46,000."

Counting the deaths at Nagasaki[edit]

Today, a new change has been introduced to the article, reducing the number of deaths at Nagasaki. In my readings, I have seen many different numbers, so today's change may be the result of an over-reliance on one source. Even the United States Strategic Bombing Survey is not clear, giving somewhat contradictory numbers. Here is a selection of various estimates:

So it's clear there is a wide variation in estimated casualties, with 20k, 22k, 25k, 35k, 39k, 40k and 75k as the number of people killed immediately, and 27k, 35k, 40k, 49k, 50k, 60k, 64k, 70k, 74k, 85k and 140k showing the wider range of total deaths, including later deaths from bomb effects. Binksternet (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It is a well known fact that the Nagasaki bomb was dropped on the outskirts of the city instead of populated areas like what happened in Hiroshima. Since Nagasaki was protected by the hills where the bomb struck, it is quite obvious that the immediate death toll was WAY less than in Hiroshima. Most sources you posted out count between 25,000 to 50,000 immediate deaths with tens of thousands of more dying later on in the years following the war (as posted by Nagasaki official websites). That's why it is quite obvious the immediate death toll in Nagasaki was way less of that of Hiroshima (where the bomb hit downtown areas instead of the outskirts). 75,000 immediate death toll was too high for Nagasaki, considering the bombing of Hiroshima killed between 70,000 to 80,000 people instantly. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
This is a discussion of what can be seen in our sources. It is not a debate about what is thought to be "obvious" by one or more editors. Binksternet (talk) 06:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
First, I agree with Binksternet (talk · contribs), what we are discussing in this section is not the uncited knowledge of any editor. Second, the article needs to reflect the available reliable sources. Lentower (talk) 09:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So wait, now you telling me that we're supposed to anyway based on the sources say, regardless of how many of them? One one or two of them said that 70,000 people were immediately killed but most sources say that between 25,000 to 50,000 people were killed immediately. Otherwise, there isn't anything to advance this. We had to choose which sources are reliable or not or else, this isn't advancing us any further.XXzoonamiXX (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The thing is... There is no 'right' number. There are only lots of guesses. What we must do is tell the reader what are the most authoritative guesses, with attribution. The question we have to sort out is how many authorities we should quote, and which ones. I think we should quote the US Bombing Survey, Nagasaki's city officials, the Manhattan Project, and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Any others? Binksternet (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
We should definitely include the lowest and highest counts, from sources that meet Wikipedia's criteria. I'm also in favour of including most if not all, sources that do so, unless there is a survey article (that meet Wikipedia's criteria) that reviews many of the guesses, in which case text can be added based on that with the http:// link, and interested readers can use that article's bibliography to find sources. Lentower (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Just like the same way people debate how many people died in Dresden. Some estimated as high as 200,000 people or 50,000 people. However, the best estimates for the death toll in Dresden was between 19,000 to 25,000 and you can't accept the fact that 500,000 deaths in Dresden actually happened. The same way for Nagasaki, 73,000 is just too high for the immediate deaths in Nagasaki bombing, given the circumstances at the time, and most of the sources pretty much lower between 25,000 to 50,000 for immediate deaths. This is widely accepted over the deaths of 150,000 to 500,000 people died immediately in Dresden. That death toll is just ridiculously high and ludicrous. The way I see in the bombing of Dresden article, it should be the same way for this. Off course, there is no right number since it was impossible to verify how many people exactly died in the bombing raids in the war but they should be a best estimate of how many died. The best estimate for Dresden was 18,000 to 25,000 in the same way the immediate death toll for Nagasaki was between 20,000 to 40,000. We have to get to the best estimate as possible.XXzoonamiXX (talk) 03:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Please show what sources you are drawing from. Binksternet (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Here are the estimates of how many people died in Dresden.

You see, it's quite obvious that the best estimate of the deaths was between 18,000-25,000. The numbers between 130,000 to 500,000 was just unrealistic high and unreliable and inflated, given the circumstances at the time. The same applies for the Nagasaki bombing as well. It's quite clear that the best estimate for the immediate death toll in Nagasaki was 35,000-40,000 people. Off course, like you said, there is no right number to how many died, just like Hamburg and Tokyo, but given the circumstances, we have to get to the best estimate as possible which made it obvious.XXzoonamiXX (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The Dresden article is not this article. However, if you look at the talk page and especially the archives, you will find that we determined what would be the best range of casualties by comparing sources, determining which sources performed the best research, and telling the reader about the disputed numbers. A similar approach is appropriate here, I think. Such an approach is different than the one you appear to be proposing, where we pick some sort of "obvious" median number and call it good. Nothing is "obvious" here. Binksternet (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
First, I'm comparing between Dresden and Nagasaki since you always talked about which sources are reliable or not and what are the best median estimates. Even the Dresden main article said outright that between 22,000 to 25,000 people were killed. And here you even said it yourself that you always want the median numbers as possible, which pretty much contradicts your beginning statement. We can compare the best estimate of disputed numbers, but not the numbers that are highly inflated and ridiculous high. Let's analyze the sources you listed.
The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 9th, 10th, and 12th bullets talks about the immediate deaths between 35,000 to 40,000. The 4th one talks about the 75,000 dead by the end of 1945 (which pretty much contradicts the immediate death of 75,000 in the other source) but this had nothing to do with immediate death. The 5th one said that **perhaps** 75,000 immediately died, though that number just as ludicrous and ridiculous as saying 130,000 people were killed immediately in Dresden. The 6th and 14th bullets said that that probably between 20,000 to 25,000 immediately died. The 7th one talks about the deaths in the months aftermath, not the immediate deaths. The 8th said that 27,000 people immediately died with the 74,000 deaths given by Japanese sources but didn't talk about whether the deaths was in the aftermath or immediately. For the 11th one, this is pretty counterproductive since this Nagasaki City officials website stated that an estimated 73,884 people died (the same number as the 11th bullet in this discussion section) and 74,909 people were injured by the bomb codenamed "Fat Man" by the end of 1945, not in the immediate bombing. Since we are talking about the immediate deaths, that one is out of the discussion. The 13th, 15th, and 16th said that between 60,000 to 70,000 were killed, though the CNN listed that 80,000 people were killed immediately in Hiroshima, which is completely unrealistic or unreliable because it does not go into detail or just took it off based on simple studies. The 13th bullet didn't list 60,000 to 70,000 deaths as immediate or in the aftermath.
Out of these sources and given the circumstances at the time, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 9th, 10th, and 12th for the immediate deaths seems to be reliable and reasonable but 13th, 15th, and 16th were). The CNN one looks like as if they picked it up and just put it there like that without studying at all. To have 60,000-70,000 immediate deaths as other sources said, it would count up to 140,000 by the end of 1945, based on the figures by the Nagasaki city officials site. So 60,000 to 70,000 immediate deaths on most of the bullets listed doesn't make sense and dubious. You're not only looking for the death count, you have to look at the reasons behind it. Like why the death toll was lower and stuff like that and I gave a clear reason why. XXzoonamiXX ([[User talk:{{User link||talk]]) 05:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Please do not misinterpret my words to conclude that I think a median number should be used. Using a median number appears to be your wish, but not mine. I want to tell the reader what various authorities have published, choosing the authorities on the basis of reliability and respectability, rather than choosing them on the basis of what numbers they published.
You are judging the published numbers against a median number, which is not what I propose doing in the article. Binksternet (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Binksternet suggested approach here. XXzoonamiXX's has a number of issues with {{Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines}}. — Lentower (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion is supposed to be an agreement between two things and how it should work out. I don't want to pick CNN because it seems they just picked it off and just placed it there without simple studies. I also don't want to pick the Nagasaki city officials because the other source 73,884 people died by the end of 1945, not in the immediate deaths as it appeared to be, which made other sources that stated the deaths of 60,000 to 70,000 mute. That could be added, but it would make the other source appear to be complicated and thus resulting in major conflicts, which doesn't work for this article. I don't think your way works because the readers would probably be confused between the deaths of 60,000 to 70,000 when one stated that these exact same number died by the end of 1945 and it would come into general conflict, making the article look unworthy for those who wanted to see the actual facts. It's pretty obvious because I want to tell the readers on the basis of the numbers and the exact circumstances that led to the death toll. Otherwise, then the death rate of 130,000 people should have been added in the Dresden article as well since this was on the basis of reliability and respectability. It doesn't make sense. I agree with some of your points, but some things just doesn't work.XXzoonamiXX (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
You have lost the consensus here. You latest comment here adds nothing new to this discussion. Repeating yourself is against {{Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines}}. Other editors do not have to respond to repetitive discussions. Please don't edit the article against the consensus, as you did here[1]. That edit as added was also WP:OR, which is not allowed. My advice is to move on to other editing tasks. — Lentower (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

XXzoonamiXX, your comments are riddled with spelling and grammatical errors, contradictions, and confirmation bias. You insist that some estimates are "obviously wrong" and cite vague references like "the circumstances at the time". You said you didn't want to use the CNN figure twice, once because it seemed like they derived the figure using simple studies, then later because it seemed like they didn't use simple studies. Instead, please explicitly and formally state your ideas for improvement without all the nonsense. You had some clear thoughts that you were able to express by addressing the bulleted list item by item, but when you express yourself in such an unintelligent manner it makes it difficult to respect anything you have to say. This is not an ad hominem attack, but an appeal to better discourse so that we might have a better article. --Timmytim6912 (talk) 05:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Show count spread with a graphic?[edit]

Some sort of graphic would be helpful in showing the distribution of the counts. Lentower (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Link to McGovern's documentary[edit]

Can we add a link to the documentary at — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Coal tar smoke screen started by Kokura workers[edit], dated 2014-07-29:

Miyashiro was at the office next to the factory on that day when he heard a radio broadcast, saying a few U.S. aircraft were flying northward. As an air-raid siren went off, his supervisor told him to start the incinerator, in which oil drums filled with coal tar were lined up. After confirming black smoke shooting up into the air, Miyashiro evacuated to an underground vault. When he returned to the office after the B-29 bombers had flown away, Miyashiro learned that the city of Nagasaki had been attacked by a "new kind of bomb."

The article specifically mentions the official supposition that the smoke over Kokura was from air bombing raids the previous day, but alludes to reports that the smoke in question had cleared up already due to rains.

Keith D. Tyler 00:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

If this can be confirmed, good find man! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Depiction, public response, censorship section[edit]

In the afore mentioned section there the sentence:

Laurence dismissed the reports on radiation sickness as Japanese efforts to undermine American morale, ignoring his own account of Hiroshima's radiation sickness published one week earlier.[1]

Who is Laurence? They're not mentioned anywhere else in this section. Polyamorph (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Goodman, Amy; Goodman, David (August 5, 2005). "The Hiroshima Cover-Up". The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved September 15, 2013. 
Presumably it is war correspondent William L. Laurence mentioned earlier in the article. SpinningSpark 18:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Introduction to article has no citations for facts[edit]

Dear ones,

My understanding is that the introduction to this article states facts in every sentence, none of which have any citations. I should note, however, that there are links to Wikipedia articles in most sentences, but I have not checked whether these links make the original facts verifiable and with no original research. On the other hand, there is one fact that has no citation or link, which is in the third paragraph, sentences 4-6 (particularly the 4th sentence), lines 6-11: "Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects of the atomic bombings killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki; roughly half of the deaths in each city occurred on the first day." In the body of the article on the Hiroshima bombings section, last paragraph, there is the cited fact of 70k-80k deaths. There are also lots of citations for deaths with the Nagasaki bombings. The death range in the body varies to that of the introduction, with the former being 22k-75k for immediate deaths and 39k-80k by the end of 1945. So in light of this I suggest that that sentence in the introduction be changed to the same ranges for Nagasaki and have a citation needed for the Hiroshima estimates. Please feel free to give any feedback. Jray310 (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEAD. It is normal and expected that the lead section is a summary of cited article text. Binksternet (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)