Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Difference between revisions
Boomer Vial (talk | contribs) Undid revision 698505350 by 199.43.174.141 (talk)undo unexplained blanking |
No edit summary |
||
Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
The article gives a figure of 1.25 million US casualties. This is in contrast to a different wikiepdia article [[World_War_II_casualties]]. At least a Citation Needed should be added to the 1.25 million casualties. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/77.255.71.214|77.255.71.214]] ([[User talk:77.255.71.214|talk]]) 09:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
The article gives a figure of 1.25 million US casualties. This is in contrast to a different wikiepdia article [[World_War_II_casualties]]. At least a Citation Needed should be added to the 1.25 million casualties. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/77.255.71.214|77.255.71.214]] ([[User talk:77.255.71.214|talk]]) 09:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:{{cross}} Already cited. I don't see any contraction with the other article either. [[User:Hawkeye7|Hawkeye7]] ([[User talk:Hawkeye7|talk]]) 10:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC) |
:{{cross}} Already cited. I don't see any contraction with the other article either. [[User:Hawkeye7|Hawkeye7]] ([[User talk:Hawkeye7|talk]]) 10:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC) |
||
== Numbers dead == |
|||
Before you start shooting me in the back, yes I know the words "at least" and estimation sentences were used, but it reads very strange to me that in the lead it says: "129.000 deaths" and that when reading further the deathtoll for just one city has an upper limit of 149.000, surely we should be able to paint a more clearer picture of the actual deathtoll no? |
Revision as of 06:36, 26 January 2016
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: 30 days ![]() |
![]() | 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. |
![]() | 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 6, 2005, August 6, 2006, August 6, 2007, and August 6, 2008. |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
War Crimes
This talk page is for discussing ways to improve the article's content, and not to express personal opinions on the rights and wrongs of the bombings Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
If Wikipedia wants to be brave, might it not change:'Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki' to read: 'War Crimes'? (P.S: Should interesting to consider the 'reasoning' of people that reject/attack this suggestion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.182.126.26 (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
50.174.10.195 (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Check out the international debate around this issue. While calling the US Atomic bombings of Japan a war crime might be considered a Point Of View, how can such an opinion be considered "personal"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.106.234 (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
Question on Infobox inclusion
The question is whether UK inclusion in the infobox is based on contribution to nuclear bomb development (in which case one can argue that Canada should be included also) or on the decision(s) whether, when, and where to use said bombs? In the latter case (correct me if I am wrong) neither the UK nor Canada played a significant part--in which case neither should be included in the infobox...or tagged for responsibility for said bombing (as at least public understanding has it). Juan Riley (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Many countries were involved in the development of the atomic bomb (with particularly notable contributions from Denmark's Niels Bohr and Australia's Mark Oliphant), but only the US, UK and Canada participated in the control of the project through the Combined Policy Committee. The infobox is based partly on the latter case; the British involvement in the the decisions whether (under the Quebec Agreement atomic bombs could only be used with British approval), and where (Penney represented the British government on the target committee) to use the bombs, but also on the actual participation of the two British representatives in the atomic missions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info/answer. Juan Riley (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Is there documentation of actual UK consent per the Quebec Agreement? Juan Riley (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Catching up on some of this..sorry for silly questions. Yup they consented. Juan Riley (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Is there documentation of actual UK consent per the Quebec Agreement? Juan Riley (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info/answer. Juan Riley (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Edit Request
The article gives a figure of 1.25 million US casualties. This is in contrast to a different wikiepdia article World_War_II_casualties. At least a Citation Needed should be added to the 1.25 million casualties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.255.71.214 (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Already cited. I don't see any contraction with the other article either. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Numbers dead
Before you start shooting me in the back, yes I know the words "at least" and estimation sentences were used, but it reads very strange to me that in the lead it says: "129.000 deaths" and that when reading further the deathtoll for just one city has an upper limit of 149.000, surely we should be able to paint a more clearer picture of the actual deathtoll no?
- Wikipedia good articles
- Warfare good articles
- Selected anniversaries (August 2005)
- Selected anniversaries (August 2006)
- Selected anniversaries (August 2007)
- Selected anniversaries (August 2008)
- A-Class Japan-related articles
- Top-importance Japan-related articles
- WikiProject Japan articles
- A-Class United States articles
- Mid-importance United States articles
- A-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- 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 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
- United States military history task force articles
- A-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
- Successful requests for military history A-Class review
- A-Class Death articles
- Top-importance Death articles