Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

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

"Hiroshima massacre" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hiroshima_massacre&redirect=no 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  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)


 * ✅ 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)
 * ✅ 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)

Commanders
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)