Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 16

Justification
Why not drop the bomb on a rural area first as a warning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajuk (talk • contribs) 11:33, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rural areas. They figured they wouldn't get international criticism if they dropped the bombs somewhere rural, instead of some big city like Tokyo. the top brass still wanted to test the bomb somewhere to see its destructive power. I still hate Harry Truman for his decision. Odst 21:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh? Hiroshima was one of the largest cities in Japan; Nagasaki was somewhat smaller. By August, Hiroshima was probably the second-largest undamaged city in Japan, after Kyoto.
 * —wwoods 23:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What would have been the point? The conventional bombings in the war (not just in japan) were much worse that the atomic bombing, but no one even remembers most of them...it was war, dropping a bomb that you just spent years producing and had in very limited supply in an empty field during a time of fullscale war wouldn't have been a viable option. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 03:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A demonstration could have been written off by the Japanese as a trick of some kind but Allgoodnamesalreadytaken has a point too, in a world where carnage like the 9/10 March 45 raids on Tokyo didn't make people stop and take note, a crappy black and white film of nuclear test footage isn't going to get the attention it deserves. By dropping the bombs in urban areas the US was saying on 08/06 1) We have developed the most powerful weapon known then on 08/09 2) We have both more than one and of higher yield than the first. The proof being the cities themselves, and the letters to Japanese scientists urging them to explain the concept to their leaders. Anynobody 03:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * They were also saying that their politicians cared more about demonstrating their new 2-billion-dollars-spent-in-development toy to the Russians than not committing pointless mass murder. Reinistalk 23:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It certainly wasn't pointless to people that only survived becuase the war ended as soon as it did. Perhaps you'd have been happy to starve to death in a Japanese POW while the Japanese military government procrastinated for a while longer? --LiamE 00:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering the alternative, perhaps. You're making a false dichotomy anyway. Reinistalk 18:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's actually not a false dichotomy, every day the war went on the food supply was getting smaller and air raids were increasing. (This is OR: With the entry of the Soviets it's not hard to imagine Stalin letting B-29s fly from bases in the USSR so northern Japan could be bombed. Planes only of course, any occupation of northern Japan would have been handled by the Soviets and having our bombers so close for observation would have no doubt made developing the Tu-4 even easier for them.)
 * Ignoring my OR in parenthesis above, there are sources to indicate that had the bombs not been used Japan would have faced over 3500 B-29s, a couple thousand B-24s/B-17s, quite a few Lancasters and an increasing number of Lincolns from the allied air forces. Enormous roving carrier task forces launching thousands of their own raids, as well as dozens of battleships and cruisers sailing with impunity bombarding their population centers (since most are near the coasts).


 * If there is a simple way to put it as an analogy, it'd be the boiling frog example where a steady change in temperature can be tolerated until death but a rapid increase will cause it to jump out (which is factually wrong concerning frogs, but seems accurate when describing the complacency for casualties the Japanese showed.) The high command didn't seem phased by the hundred thousand plus killed in Tokyo that March, or the many others in similar raids since. If they could overlook all that, then it would probably take casualty figures in the seven figure range to get noticed. Compared to what actually occured, the bombs really did save lives on both sides (just not in the two affected cities). Anynobody 07:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Stick to history and stay away from speculation and original research. More should be added to the article about the reason H/N had not been bombed much, plus documentation of people in H being leafletted, for example an image of the leaflet with a translation. By the way the quote from Bolton can be clarified because the ICC only applies to crimes committed after July 1, 2002, so his concern that someone in the US could be prosecuted for war crimes that occurred in 1945 is laughable. So laughable in fact that you can just toss his quote even. 199.125.109.19 07:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The only WP:OR in my post was speculation about the Soviets letting the US use their bases to bomb northern Japan. The other stuff, 3500 B-29s, naval raids, etc. are all facts. Anynobody 04:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is this page protected?
From looing at the talk page, I can't figure out why this article has been protected. What happened? Because I have never seen an article on this level of protection before. Liamoliver 06:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is under page protection after being subject to edit warring by several editors and one editor having been temp blocked, it is full protection as opposed to semi protection as admins were afraid of vandalism and single purpose accounts causing a lot of trouble (I guess those types normally go away with time). Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 04:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You are quite the expert on this, considering it happened before you registered and weeks before you had ever edited this or any page. How did you become so wise, Gtadoc?Bsharvy 21:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, before putting your foot back in your mouth, you will look over the "search" window on the left of the page...just a thought...so how is the admin incident board these days? Manage to stay off it for a day or so? Though, to be sure, since its becoming unprotected the intro to this page is a joke though...poorly sourced, not to mention inaccurate. I suppose it will have to wait until certain editers leave before we can get it back to how it was before. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 02:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Who Can Edit?
Hm. Anonymous IP's are now editing this article. Before the full protection, I think this page was protected against editing by new users and anonymous IP's. That was probably a good idea. Already, one of the anonymous editors has vandalized the page. (Note: I edited this to sign with my login instead of IP.) Bsharvy 07:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I fixed it, but the edits don't look like vandalism so much as someone trying to help but making a mistake. To answer your question, right now anyone as the page is unblocked. Anynobody 04:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * One of the edits was vandalism, and reverted. I think there is some sort of intermediate protection, which allows editing by registered accounts that aren't brand new.Bsharvy 07:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you're talking about partial protection, it's not under that status either. Anynobody 08:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What I said: "Before the full protection, I think this page was protected against editing by new users and anonymous IP's." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsharvy (talk • contribs) 13:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I undid another undiscussed, unsourced edit by an anonymous IP. This article needs protection against IP editing.Bsharvy 23:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I requested admin help on dealing with this page: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Bsharvy 23:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Debate gets its own article
''Of the many thousands of articles on Wikipedia, this was: 423 Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ‎[111,324 bytes]'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anyeverybody (talk • contribs) 08:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Folks the article was about 107 kb before I moved the debate section to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and trimmed much of the Manhattan project section down (really it has it's own article and doesn't need to take up so much space here.)

The discussions here have been a bit contentious, so in the interest of WP:SIZE and a slightly quicker load time I acted unilaterally. Anynobody 08:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Totally agree, quite a wise move in my opinion. The debate on such an important subject deserves its own page I think. I hope that we will be able to achieve some consensus on modifying it, now that it has its own page, to a more encyclopedic article, with a more historical evolution analysis of the debates as purposed by eric.--Firkenknecht 09:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You acted unilaterally because it's controversial? That is the opposite of WP policy and (to me) what makes sense. Changes on controversial matters should be discussed, otherwise you have wars. For instance, I don't agree with the move. Now the topic is too fragmented. The deaths caused is inseparable from the morality which is inseparable from the debate; is the new page going to have yet another paragraph (and argument) on death estimates?? If I acted on your principle, I would unilaterally undo your action.... Bsharvy 12:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:SIZE "There is no need for haste. Discuss the overall topic structure with other editors. Determine whether the topic should be treated as several shorter articles and, if so, how best to organize them. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage; certainly, size is no reason to remove valid and useful information." Bsharvy 12:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Bsharvy to correct your question You acted unilaterally because it's controversial? I said because discussions here have become so contentious, starting a new subject about a purely maintenance issue seemed like it might cause even more unnecessarily. Your logic in being unable to separate the debate from the event doesn't make sense and I'll tell you why; debate over its morality is irrelevant to the fact that the bombs were actually dropped. Whether it is determined moral or immoral won't undrop the bombs.

Put simply this article is indeed too big. The quote about hastiness you are citing is when an article is between 40-60 KB. An even more important part of WP:SIZE is its rules of thumb and I quote: Prose size > 100 KB What to do Almost certainly should be divided up I realize it may seem fragmentary to you, but this is actually part of a bigger guideline called Wikipedia:Summary Style.

Perhaps if you rethink it, separating what happened from the debate over whether it should have will make more sense to you. There are currently articles on Wikipedia, this article is number 423 in order of the largest. Anynobody 01:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I got a message on my talk page from another editor indicating either something didn't make it from here to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or they weren't aware the article existed. Re-reading Bsharvy's post I see ...certainly, size is no reason to remove valid and useful information.' in a different light. The same article can extend over several pages, have you noticed that some subjects have navigation templates to help readers navigate them? For example Stryker (see below) is one I made to help navigate through the various pages of specialized versions. They are all Strykers, but forcing them into sections on one page would make that page huge too. The subject of whether or not the bombings were right or wrong is related to but a separate part of the history because unlike the blasts and radiation there is no definite way to measure right or wrong. Anynobody 05:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree the article is too long, and didn't say otherwise. Let's discuss the best way to shorten it. I'm unsure of the point in the rest of your comments. The point about hastiness is not limited to any particular size; the point is to do things consensually. Bsharvy 07:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

To sum up my point, I'm not shortening the article: I'm expanding it. Anynobody 07:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh? The problem is that it was unilateral, and repeatedly so since you also undid the revision, pointing to an edit war. It was not "purely a maintenance issue". It was an editorial opinion on the best way to shorten (or "expand" (huh?)) the article. Maybe other editors had different opinions about the best way to handle the length; maybe there was filler and fluff that could be reduced without fragmenting the article; maybe eventually others would agree with your opinion. The point is you acted unilaterally, on the assumption that your way is the best way. Can we all do that? Bsharvy 09:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In spinning material off into a daughter article, the toughest part is usually the drafting of the summary that's to be left behind. I favor prior discussion of such a move so that the proposed summary can be framed through consensus if possible.  In this instance, the summary left for such an important aspect of the article is inadequate.  To take just one example, it states the proponents' "military necessity" argument and then drops the subject.  This leaves the impression that the only choices were a bombing that would kill many civilians and an invasion that would kill many soldiers.


 * I can live with the split provided that the summary is expanded. I'm more knowledgeable about the opposition arguments, so I'll be concentrating on that part.  The tricky part, of course, is that each side wants just one more of its points noted in the summary, and you end up with a "summary" that's almost as long as what was removed. JamesMLane t c 14:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * JamesMLane, the summary I left was simply the intro to each side's section. Coming up with a starting point on a WP:LEAD for the new article was slightly difficult but I expect it'll be even tougher to summarize both sides in a reasonable amount of space here. Since the article does have a rather contentious nature I didn't want to take it upon myself to to write a summary on top of the new article. Anynobody 07:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment 2
Large section deletion and page creation without discussion. See: "Debate gets its own article, above."Bsharvy 07:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Support article expansion per Summary Style based on pretty clear need as dictated by Article size. Anynobody 08:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support not just for style, but also for the sake of those poor people who still use dial-up. (I understand such people still exist.) Ben Hocking (talk 14:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't object in principle to the creation of the daughter article, leaving a summary behind, but only if the summary conveys a reasonable amount of information.  In this instance, the moved material was replaced by a summary that's too terse.  I reserve judgment on the matter being RfC'd until I see whether a generally acceptable summary can be crafted. JamesMLane t c 17:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I'm not commenting on the contents of the current summary or daughter article or the method in which they were created. I am merely stating that the creation of the daughter article combined with a short summary of it is a good move. Ben Hocking (talk 17:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Support' splitting article into smaller chunks. It is too long and unwieldy.Skywriter 18:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Article is too long, clearly enough to split into forks. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody listens to anybody here. This site is a nightmare of an attempt to communicate when anything remotely subtle is at stake. '''There was no request to comment on whether the article is too long, or whether a section should be split and moved. The request was for comment on whether unilateral action is appropriate, on whether an edit war is appropriate (undoing the undo) after an editor has objected to an edit.''' There was no request for comment on whether a certain improvement is needed. The request is for comment on whether arrival at the improvement is supposed to be consensual. READ THE DISCUSSION. Bsharvy 23:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose most of us just think that it's more important what happens to the article than whether some action in the past was correct. To answer your question, I don't think unilateral action is appropriate, and that consensus should be striven for first. However, we are where we are now. Isn't it more important to decide how to move forward? What would be the proposed course of action if everyone decided it was inappropriate to do unilaterally, but that such a move would no longer be unilateral? Ben Hocking (talk 23:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah I understand your point Bsharvy, and I actually used to think the same thing (all action is based on discussion and unilateral action violates consensus...) I felt pretty dejected about it when I saw other editors do what I did, but then I re-read WP:BOLD and re-examined the "jerks" ignoring the discussion process in some cases. What I found was that they were actually making changes which made complete sense.
 * That's why I asked you to look again at what was done, no information was lost AND there is more room to expand on the debate itself. Debate before the project started, before the test, before the bombings, and after them as well. There is no way this article could support as thorough a discussion to the point of including all the "stages" of debate plus everything else on the page.
 * *Note to anyone planning to use WP:BOLD* to justify drastic action, the most important part is to not sacrifice ...verifiability, neutrality, and the other guidelines that comprise the five pillars of Wikipedia. There is a line between being bold and being reckless. Anynobody 23:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm not a big fan of WP:BOLD or WP:IAR because it's so easy to abuse them. However, I do feel you acted in good faith, and am more interested in the article than in whether you applied that guideline correctly. Note: I'm not saying you didn't here, and am inclined to think you did. It's just WP:IDONTLIKEIT when it comes to that particular guideline. :P Ben Hocking (talk 23:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with your feelings, IAR and BOLD are too easily abused. Actually it occurred to me that anyone who would use them in good faith should probably make a point about why their use of either rule was necessary. On the talk page, similar to my post but more specific about the BOLDness aspect. Anynobody 00:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel obligated but awkward to agree with Ben Hocking. I understood the consensus process began when Firkenknecht agreed here under my post. Anynobody 23:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support But a summary is needed here as JamesMLane commented above. Oda Mari 05:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a case of BOLD, it's a case of BRD, BOLD%2C_revert%2C_discuss_cycle:
 * 1) Boldly make the desired change to the page.
 * 2) Wait until someone reverts your change or makes another substantial edit. DO NOT revert this change!
 * 3) If a disagreement arises, gracefully back down a bit, and explain and discuss your reasoning with the reverter and consider their different views too (don't go for discussion with too many people at once).  Once you reach agreement, start the cycle again by making the agreed change.

Anynobody made a "bold" edit, it was reverted (with comment here), and Anynobody reverted it again, pointing to an edit war. It was to avoid the edit war that I requested comment on user behavior, not to debat whether the article is too long, which I think I made very clear more than once. Around here, the result of making a point five times is that it is ignored five times. From now on, I will ignore policy too. It is certainly simpler. Bsharvy 09:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Respectfully though Bsharvy, you are not including all of the relevant details:
 * I made the change 08:26, 6 September 2007.
 * I posted my basic reasons here Revision as of 08:30, 6 September 2007. (1 Support 0 Oppose)
 * Firkenknecht agreed here Revision as of 09:14, 6 September 2007 (2 Support 0 Oppose)
 * You reverted the change Revision as of 13:09, 6 September 2007 after being aware that at least one other editor agreed with it here Revision as of 12:54, 6 September 2007. (2 Support 1 Oppose)


 * Rest assured that had there been no support I would not have reverted your reversion.


 * On a separate note, once you've had some more experience you'll know that if we waited to discuss every maintenance issue, almost nothing would get done. Anynobody 04:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't be patronizing. Counting your own opinion as support for your own opinion is bull****. Your action was self-described as unilateral. It wasn't a "maintenance" issue, it was an editorial opinion on the best way to shorten to the article. WP:BOLD applies to updates articles and other actions that can be reverted, not page creation. The "support" for your action was support for separating a section into a new page, not for acting unilaterally. What part of "once you reach agreement" don't you understand: "If a disagreement arises, gracefully back down a bit, and explain and discuss your reasoning with the reverter and consider their different views too (don't go for discussion with too many people at once). Once you reach agreement, start the cycle again by making the agreed change."

Your action violated basic common sense about how to work with others, and it violated the guideline you are trying to invoke. Bsharvy 06:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm honestly not trying to patronize you, I'm stating the facts as I see them. Whether one considers the proposer of an idea to count or not, it's important to note that knowing at least one person thought it was a good idea, you unilaterally disregarded their input and reverted the page anyway. Am I trying to make you look like an asshole? No, I'm simply saying that you appear to feel very strongly about this and as such are not noticing that you have also done what you are accusing me of; taking action while ignoring other's opinions.


 * WP:BOLD says that such drastic changes are only covered if the neutrality, accuracy, or verifiability are not compromised. So I'll explain why I think they were not:
 * Neutrality No information was removed not covered in another article in the Manhattan Project, instead debate over use of the weapons was given its own place in this series.
 * Accuracy No information was removed not covered in another article in the Manhattan Project series.
 * Verifiability No information was removed not covered in another article in the Manhattan Project series.
 * Since nothing about the article's information changed except where some of it appears, the move really honestly and truly was maintenance.
 * Summary style discusses why this happens to large sections in large articles.
 * Article size is also applicable considering it was in the top .02% of the largest articles on Wikipedia since there are around 1.9 - 2 million articles here and 1% of that is roughly 19-20 thousand articles. If an article that big can be allowed to exist then this guideline is useless.


 * As I have said before things on this page have become contentious (prone to fighting for unnecessary reasons), surely you must've noticed when you found yourself the subject of WP:ANI posts that coming to an agreement about almost anything relating to this article was becoming at best difficult. (I'm not passing judgment on you for being the subject of posts, I've had my share too, I'm just illustrating the level to which things had gotten around here.) Anynobody 07:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Potsdam ultimatum was deleted
Someone choose to delete any mention to the Potsdam Declaration and the mokusatsu answer of the Suzuki cabinet prior to the bombings. This "context" section was important. The bombings look then as if they were done without any warning to surrender. --Flying tiger 14:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Only instance in warfare?
I bet some of the Australian Aboriginal people living around Maralinga c.1956-57 wouldn't think so!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.236.196 (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

How about a consensual introduction?
Looking at the modification history of these last few days makes me fear that we are on the verge of a new edit war between user Bsharvy and user Allgoodnamesalreadytaken. As none of them is apparantly willing to discuss the matter in the talk page, I took the liberty to do it... From my point of view the situation can be summarized as following (please excuse and correct me if I am wrong) : I can see problems in both positions. First of all, in my opinion the 200k should not be attributed to the DOE, as in "The (DOE) estimates that as many as 200,000 may have died from cancer and other long-term effects by 1950.". It lures the reader in thinking that the DOE actually made an official research about it, which it didn't, as the numbers are clearly sourced from "Now It Can Be Told" and "Manhattan: The Army and the Atomic Bomb" books. These books are apparantly controversed from older debates. Should the 200k figure be a serious one, it would then be certainly wiser to try to find less controversed sources. Secondly, I see no estimations of deaths due to radiations between the year of 1945 and 1950 in the RERF source. If as mentions Allgoodnamesalreadytaken "5 years isn't long term, and less than 100 had died from cancer by the 50s", this should at least be sourced. Anyway I would be of the opinion to put all this debate in the body of the article, with two dedicated sections, one to the acute deaths and injuries (burns, radiation sickness, ...), and another to the long-term aftereffects (cancer/leukemia, but also mental issues, etc...). The intro should, if at all!, just mention the non-contested (?)numbers of Hiroshima 70k and Nagasaki 40k direct death toll, and speak of a "high number" of deaths due to aftereffects (the most positive figure, 20k, is still a high number...). --Firkenknecht 08:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Bsharvy wants the 200k death toll figure from the DOE webpage to figure in the intro, as well as the precise mention of short-time aftereffects "such as radiations and burns", and long-time aftereffects of "cancer and other long-term effects".
 * Allgoodnamesalreadytaken on the other side would like the 200k figure removed. And the 20 to 70k short-term deaths (end of 1945) attributed to "aftereffects such as burns" and "over a thousand as a result of radiation" for long-term (?).


 * The paragraph has been discussed (so to speak) quite a bit. However, after a month of discussion, when the assumption of good faith is replaced by the knowledge of bad faith and/or refusal to listen, there isn't much left to do but make the edit. This became clear to me when Anynobody acted unilaterally to severely edit the article and nobody gave a hoot. I don't know where you got the idea I am not willing to discuss the topic. I created an entire section solely for the purpose of discussing the topic (top of this page) and my proposed edit. I made a Request for Comment on just this topic, and I explained my position in the topic in the Compromise section of this page. I've discussed it too much. It's time to act.


 * I'm not aware of any controversy regarding the DOE or its presumed sources. Wwoods has cited a Richard Frank book (which most of us can't verify) that calls one casualty-estimating method that produced a 200,000 ballpark figure as "subject to challenge." The portion wwoods cited didn't mention the DOE or any of its sources, and none of them mention Frank, so the only connection is the number 200,000. Frank doesn't say it is wrong, just challengable, and the DOE doesn't say it is right, just an upper limit. So even if we assume the methodology Frank discusses is the methodology behind the DOE, and even if we assume that Frank's opinion of its validity should trump its authors, all we are left with is that the upper limit is a number that is subject to challenge. Well that's a pretty weak objection. Of course the upper limit is subject to challenge; otherwise, it would be the middle ground. Is that a reason to never mention an upper limit? However, we cannot assume Frank is talking about the DOE methodology because that is OR, and we cannot assume that Frank is right and the DOE is wrong, because that is not neutral. So in fact the only possible objection is even weaker than what I just described. There may be good reasons to qualify the DOE estimate, but after a month of discussion, nobody provided any, so I made the edit. Bsharvy 10:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Leslie M. Groves' book, Now It Can Be Told (1962), is what its subtitle calls it: "The Story of the Manhattan Project". It basically ends with the end of the war; the latest date I found was a reference to the establishment of the AEC in 1947. Groves says, "The Japanese authorities estimated the casualties [in Hiroshima] at 71,000 dead and missing and 68,000 injured."(p.319) And "The United States Strategic Bombing Survey later estimated the casualties [in Nagasaki] at 35,000 killed and 60,000 injured."(p.346) Obviously, these are 1945 numbers.


 * I couldn't find a copy of Vincent C. Jones' Manhattan: The Army and the Atomic Bomb (1985), even though it's apparently in the public domain, but this description,
 * "The stated purpose of this book is to provide “an adequate and full account of the United States Army’s participation in the atomic program from 1939 to the end of 1946” (preface). It was produced as a special study in the Center of Military History of the United States Army. The book highlights the administration, liaison services, security and military planning that the Army provided to the Manhattan Project."
 * suggests it's also not the go-to source for 'deaths as of 1950'.
 * [added 15:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC):] I found a copy of Jones. He lists three estimates: MED 1946 (105k dead), USSBS 1947 (125k dead), and OSW/USNR 1966 (106k dead). These estimates are already listed in the Casualty table, in the Frank section. —wwoods


 * Here's the reference in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1979/1981) that Frank refers to:
 * "The October 1950 national census, supplemented by the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission survey, for the first time clarified the number of A-bomb survivors throughout the nation: 158,597 plus 10 from the Hiroshima bombing, 124,901 plus 10 from the Nagasaki bombing (the "10" are those who experienced both bombings).[*] Measured against the numbers physically present in the two cities on bombing dates, deaths in the five years from the bombings to 1950 amount to some 200,000 for Hiroshima and over 140,000 for Nagasaki."(p.369)
 * But as I've already pointed out, these estimates are invalidated by the fact that they're based on serious undercounts of the actual numbers of survivors.
 * 158,597 + 124,901 + 10 = 283,508.
 * But by 1981 the number of known, living survivors was up to 372,264; as recently as 2002 there were still 285,620 living survivors. So the '200k+140k dead' is wrong (though if you adjust it downward by 90k you get a number which is in the ballpark of other high-end estimates).


 * I have no objection to including the '200k by 1950' number in a footnote, properly characterized as an early attempt to estimate the total dead, and explaining why it's wrong. However, it has no place in the article, much less being highlighted in the introduction. Or do you think there's another estimate, which independently arrived at the same number? If so, it seems to me the burden is on you to produce an actual source, not just a reference to a reference to a hypothetical source.
 * —wwoods 19:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems convincing arguments to me, the only problem I may see is about the exact defition of "Atomic bomb survivor". The actual definition is perhaps not the one of 1950, which would explain a large number estimation difference. I think this should be cleared up, as "survivor" is a pretty large word, and may range from anyone 2km away from the epicenter to above's larger definition. --Firkenknecht 01:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever happens, the links in the lead should be references, which I fixed. While doing so I gave a shot at compromise; stating that deaths by the end of 45 include radiation as well as disease, and serious wounds. The 200k by 1950 DOE estimate is fine, but needs to be made clear that it's their high number. Anynobody 01:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (A) I don't see that it's "their" (i.e. the DOE's) number in the sense that they're standing behind it. (B) It's a very high number. From the table generated in a previous iteration of this discussion, /Archive 8#Casualty table, you can see that it's the highest number by far.
 * Nearly by coincidence, today I came across a modern estimate for deaths as of 1950:
 * "By 1950, 119,000 deaths in Hiroshima and 74,000 deaths in Nagasaki were attributed to the atomic bombs (Hamashima 1999:165-166). The number of atomic bomb victims who hold a health care booklet proving their status was 291,824 at the end of 2000, having peaked at 372,264 at the end of 1980."
 * This is evidently taken from Toward Peace: War Responsibility, Postwar Compensation, and Peace Movements and Education in Japan (2005) By Miki Y. Ishikida. Unfortunately, while Google Books has the book, the pages with the bibliography aren't included , so I haven't been able to track down "Hamashima 1999". There seems to be a "C. Hamashima" who has written a lot of papers about cancer in Japan.
 * —wwoods 03:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [added 15:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC):] "Hamashima 1999" is evidently "Hamashima Shoten Henshūbu. 1999.  Shiryō Kara Rekishi.  Nagoya: Hamashima Shoten."  —wwoods


 * (A)I agree here, it is not "the DOE" estimation, which would imply THEY did the research, which they didn't. The statement is lying on the DOE page, yes, but it doesn't necessarily imply an endorsement by the whole organisation. Consequently I removed direct references to the DOE in the text, as it was giving them more weight (in my opinion) to non-text-referenced numbers ("The RERF estimates that.. The Japanese government estimates that.. The United States government estimates that...").
 * (B)Well.. it is a very high number. This is why it is labelled as "worst case estimates". Thanks to your argumentation I now think it is probably wrong, but then I think that the 90k figure is probably wrong too, and that the true number lies somewhere in between. That's the whole point of ranges. Isolated as it is from the other estimates is already indicating the reader that it is an "extreme" estimation.--Firkenknecht 04:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sooo....the response to a very brief discussion in "How about a consensual introduction?", that could not have possibly reached a consensus because it hasn't even existed 24 hours, was a flurry of 6 edits. I reverted.
 * We cannot say "worst case estimates" because we don't know that is a worst case estimate. We know the DOE said "may have reached or even exceeded " so we can say "The DOE says as many as...." The DOE is a high-profile source. It was in charge of the bomb. There is no problem mentioning the DOE. It is of interest in itself.
 * The RERF source does not say "succumbing to serious wounds, radiation, and infection". It says "burns and radiation exposure" and that is what our article said before all these edits.
 * The DOE does not say anything about a "lack of medical supplies and malnutrition, which caused many deaths" and cannot be used as a source for that claim.
 * The DOE says "cancer and other long-term effects" and since the causes are relevant, when we cite that source, we should naturally mention the causes it gives.
 * I think we use Web links for Web refernces and the ref. tag for books and other references which include extra information, e.g. publication date, publisher, author, etc. Bsharvy 05:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont agree with you view, I think the edits were the result of the discussion right here (I see it like a consensual construction..). Now for your points:
 * I think we can as we dont have even worse estimates. It makes this estimation the worst case estimates. You still don't answer to the objection that the numbers do not come from the DOE itself but from two books, and that they are merely reported in the DOE webpage, and not necessarily endorsed (as in an official report or statement).
 * The DOE doesn't but the other source(your revert removed) does : "Treatment of victims by the Japanese was limited by the lack of medical supplies and facilities. (...) A large percentage of the cases died of secondary disease, such as a result of lowered resistance."
 * Cancer were the results of high doses of radiations, so stating radiation as a source of deaths include cancer deaths. It would be very nice to elaborate, but I dont think we should do it in the introduction. --Firkenknecht 06:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, discussion isn't necessary when adding from already accepted sources, Bsharvy. However when removing info from them, discussion is necessary. Anynobody 08:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, you are wrong. First, the edits removed info. Second, discussion is "necessary" when there is disagreement and the goal is consensus. If your principle applied here, no discussion of the 200k number is necessary, since the DOE is a source already in use. All of the discussion of the last month was apparently unnecessary. No discussion of whether radiation and cancer should be mentioned is necessary, because all those claims come from sources already in use. Yet everybody seems to feel a great need to discuss it, and yet another section was created to reach a compromise/consensus about it. Why don't we actually try to reach a consensus before editing, here in this section dedicated to consensus? Bsharvy 08:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Information added : serious wounds and infection to the direct relationship, lack of medical supplies and malnutrition for indirect relationship, all sourced as can be seen in the link mentioned before. Information removed : burns (can be understood under serious wounds, but we can add it of course) and cancer (subset of radiation deaths). The information concerning the source of estimates (DOE and "Japanese numbers") are still found by looking at the references, like for all other estimates. --Firkenknecht 08:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page, you may even post the proposed content on the talk page." Resolving_disputes. So far, the process has consisted of wwoods rebutting some of my points, and a bunch of edits, before I was able to respond to wwoods. There's an interesting definition of consensus floating around here. Granted, wwoods has said all that before, and I have responded to it before (in fact, I addressed a lot of it in the comment he responded to). Bsharvy 09:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You may even post the proposed content on the talk page
 * You may even post the proposed content on the talk page
 * You may even post the proposed content on the talk page
 * I think only one You may even post the proposed content on the talk page might have suffice. Interestingly on the same page you find Do not simply revert changes in a dispute, which you dont seem to care so much about. Anyway. I guess your proposition is the current version of the page. I personally support this version as a starting point. I have countered all your concerns on previous posts, but you didn't answer any of them. So I shall repeat again. The content IS sourced. No real informations are removed, but you are free to add (in my opinion) burns and cancer if you feel the list does not show these aspects enough. No edit has removed the 200,000 figure. There is no real reason to mention DOE directly if we dont mention all the other organisms behind each figure, and apart from that the DOE is not the origin of the 200k figure but only an intermediate source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firkenknecht (talk • contribs) 09:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I didn't answer any of your points. That's a great comment to make at 09:19, 14 September about your points made at 08:43, 14 September. Sorry for the delay...
 * The USSBS source link does not attribute any casualties to infection.
 * It does not attribute any casualties to "serious wounds," although that is so obvious it barely merits sourcing, but I think it is thus so obvious it barely merits mention.
 * It does not say malnutrition caused, aggravated, or contributed in any way to bomb-related death.
 * It does imply that the scarcity of medical supplies was a factor; it does not say it "caused many deaths" (as someone's edit did). It offers no opinion on whether the deaths due to poor medical attention were many or few.
 * It does say this: "A plausible estimate of the importance of the various causes of death would range as follows: Flash burns, 20 to 30 percent; Other injuries, 50 to 60 percent; Radiation sickness, 15 to 20 percent." So tell me why "burns" was edited out as a cause of death and replaced with malnutrition and infection, neither of which are mentioned in the source used to justify the edit.
 * In other words: most of the additions were unsourced (and undiscussed), whereas the removed material was sourced (and much discussed).
 * This is also interesting: "There is reason to believe that if the effects of blast and fire had been entirely absent from the bombing, the number of deaths among people within a radius of one-half mile from ground zero would have been almost as great as the actual figures and the deaths among those within 1 mile would have been only slightly less. The principal difference would have been in the time of the deaths. Instead of being killed outright as were most of these victims, they would have survived for a few days or even 3 or 4 weeks, only to die eventually of radiation disease."
 * Now, I live in a different time zone, on a different continent (Asia), than most of you, and I am going to go have a beer with some friends. If somebody disagrees with my comments here and I don't respond for, say, a whole day, it doesn't signal consensus.Bsharvy 09:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully:

* The USSBS source link does not attribute any casualties to infection. It actually does discuss infection casualties, and interestingly infection wasn't as bad as one might have expected right after the blast, but began to increase over time; * It does not attribute any casualties to "serious wounds," although that is so obvious it barely merits sourcing, but I think it is thus so obvious it barely merits mention. If you think so why revert the whole thing, including this?

* It does not say malnutrition caused, aggravated, or contributed in any way to bomb-related death. The USSBS does indeed address these issues, in another link, I don't know if you realize this but the USSBS report was huge. The link you posted is only chapter 2 of the volume on the effects of atomic weapons. If you haven't read the part I'm about to link to it's a fair mistake on your part, if you have and knew about this then you are not showing much teamwork.

USSBS Pacific Theater Summary says: ''It does imply that the scarcity of medical supplies was a factor; it does not say it "caused many deaths" (as someone's edit did). It offers no opinion on whether the deaths due to poor medical attention were many or few.'' Again I'll quote the report, emphasis mine: I hate to be so blunt, but this seems to be the best way to address your concerns. Anynobody 05:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know which concerns of mine you addressed. Can you be specific?
 * The cited source doesn't attribute any bomb-caused casualties to infection. So, we should not cite it in order to attribute bomb-caused casualties to infection. Obviously, some people died from the infection of a wound caused by the bomb. The questions are 1) is it significant, and 2) is there a source for its significance. The quote you gave indicates that infection was less of a problem than might seem obvious, which is support for its insignificance.
 * The source you gave regarding malnutrition is not about the atomic bombings, or the cities, or the time period in question. It is a generalization about the state of the country. It says undernourishment "adversely affected rates of recovery and mortality" which is not fairly rendered as "caused many deaths." Also, I have no idea what is meant by "the link you provided." I didn't provide any links. The source used in the article didn't support the claim made in the article. That's what we were discussing. The link you've now provided is a brand new source (one not specific to the atomic bombings).
 * Again, re scarce medical supplies, "probably contributed to the high casualty rates" is not fairly rendered as "caused many deaths."
 * We don't need to speculate about what the USSBS source considers the major causes of death, because the source tells us. Again: "A plausible estimate of the importance of the various causes of death would range as follows: Flash burns, 20 to 30 percent. Other injuries, 50 to 60 percent. Radiation sickness, 15 to 20 percent." Nor do we need to speculate about the "Other injuries," because the source spends 3 paragraphs discussing that too. They were primarily non-flash burns, and flying debris. No mention of infection, malnutrition, or medical supplies. Burns of some sort are easily the dominant cause of death mentioned in that source.
 * Again, it is plain weird that we have spent over a month disagreeing over the material already in the article, and people think the best way to solve that problem is to add even more material to the article. And it is mildly mind-boggling that the explanation for these additions are "compromise" and "consensus" when they are made before being discussed, and that they are now being defended when they plainly represent neither compromise nor consensus.Bsharvy 07:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So... to summarize your complaint, you don't agree with the words "serious wounds" and "infection" being used in the primary reasons, and with the "caused many deaths" sentence. Your version would then be (for example) : "Estimates of total deaths by the end of 1945 range from 90,000 to 140,000, due to several factors including succumbing to burns, and radiation. These were further aggravated by lack of medical supplies and malnutrition.[2]" If yes, I only wonder why you didn't made directly these minor modifications instead of complete revert (which, as quoted before, shouldn't be used in a dispute). If no, what are your other complaints on the article (and not on the behaviors)? --Firkenknecht 08:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do take time to answer Firkenknecht's question, as I have wondered myself exactly what it is your ideal version of the lead would be. However here are my answers to your points: The cited source doesn't attribute any bomb-caused casualties to infection. I guess you missed this paragraph where it says: If you're just being anal about disease vs infection, fine we'll call it disease. (It's the same thing though.) Otherwise you must be arguing that there were deaths from disease totally unrelated to the elimination of large percentages of housing/hospitals lack of food/med supplies and radiation which happens to lower immune functions. What a coincidence.

''The source you gave regarding malnutrition is not about the atomic bombings, or the cities, or the time period in question. It is a generalization about the state of the country.'' The United States Strategic Bombing Survey existed for the sole purpose of discussing strategic bombings effect on the war (which the atomic bombings were, strategic and part of the war). The source I cited is another part of their report, which by the way is broken into subjects much like the recent division of this article which you found so disagreeable. Moreover your comment ...or the time period in question... makes me wonder if you stopped reading when you saw the year 1944 in the quotation. If so take another look because 1945 (the year the bombs dropped) is mentioned too. Again, re scarce medical supplies, "probably contributed to the high casualty rates" is not fairly rendered as "caused many deaths." The questionable attention on your part I posited in my last point applies here too, if people don't have adequate food, shelter, medicine, and care they die much more readily. Evidently you want to emphasize the fallout, the problem is that's oversimplifying what happened. (Plus your argument is somewhat of a double standard; We can't attribute a portion of mortality to the factors you object to from a source we all accept yet you want us to accept your less than precise higher figures based on your preference of sources.) Like I said, please answer Firkenknecht's question before replying to my responses. Your statement about it being plain weird that we have spent over a month disagreeing over the material already in the article is in itself weird because the information is only there by the concerted effort of several editors trying to contain your constant reversions. If we knew what you wanted to see in there it might make things easier. Anynobody 10:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from calling editors "anal". Disease and infection are not identical; disease is a much broader category. In order to see the edit I prefer, you could look at the edit I made, which is also the edit I reverted to twice. It is based on the version I proposed on this Talk page a month ago (top of this page), and the version you proposed in the section you titled "Compromise." Bsharvy 13:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice to see that you made a proposal edit for a compromise version (before the page was protected)! Going in the good direction for a consensus. My only concerns are the following :
 * You talk about subsequent disease. What about other diseases, in which the radiation/burns/injuries would have been a complicating factor, but not the source factor? I shall use here the same quote as Anynobody
 * By removing the "upper limit" part of the 200k estimate, you force the need for other estimates. If you say, "Some estimates ...200k" then we need (for NPOV), "other estimates...(low number around 1000-2000 more than end of 45 probably). --Firkenknecht 04:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The quote you gave refers to disease that resulted from immunities weakened by radiation disease:"secondary disease, such as a result of lowered resistance." If you look at the source, you'll see that paragraph falls under the (italicized) heading "Radiation disease" and the context is a discussion of the effects of radiation. The implication is that the diseases only happened because of radiation exposure. This is why I think it is misleading to use that source as a reason to list radiation and disease as separate causes of death.
 * One simple alternative to "some estimates" is to state the source explicitly, e.g. "the DOE estimates..." That makes double sense, because the DOE was in charge of the bomb: its statements are inherently of interest. But people complained. Giving upper and lower limits is the best. I proposed that as a compromise twice  , and wwoods objected and nobody supported, so I didn't pursue it. Edit: Actually, it makes triple sense. In a highly politicized topic, it is best to be ultra-specific about who said what. Bsharvy 07:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Dont agree...The radiation might have aggravated the disease, in the sense that it lowered ones immune system, but it didnt "provoke" diseases. The death was then due to the disease and not the radiation. But citing it under the deaths due to the atomic bomb already makes it clear that their is a direct link (not just some random guy duying of flu, in a completely unrelated way).
 * Dont agree either, because (as said before) the DOE didnt estimate anything. The numbers on the webpage come from two books, none of them written under the direction of the DOE, and the numbers dont appear on any official DOE endorsment as a report or press announcement, but on a webpage with cited sources (which is a clear signal : "if its wrong, its not us"). And it wouldnt change the necessity to give another number either. And it would mean giving the exact reference for each numbers "This said that.. the other estimated that..." which would just make the intro even bigger than it is. --Firkenknecht 15:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Firkenknecht, I'd like to ask you a question. What do you say the cause of death when someone with HIV-positive died of infection? I welcome other eitors' answer too. Oda Mari 19:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting question, and I asked actually asked it myself, thinking about the same analogy with the radiations. Firstly, HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) is the cause of the immune system failure, but it's AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) that actually "kills" the person (its defined as a "collection of symptoms and infections" here on wp). So if someone dies of AIDS, you should say that HIV "led to the death of" but not "caused death of"... I think. Secondly, as with all analogies, we must be very cautious by comparing HIV to radiations. I am not the best to talk about it, and actually we have an expert here, Allgoodnamesalreadytaken, but I will still try to explain my thoughts. There is no "dose" of HIV, either you are positive either negative, of course some people dont develop AIDS (with the help of medics or for a few lucky, without), but there is nothing such as "more or less HIV". Radiations range from completely harmless to extremely deadly. Some people (how much? impossible to know), died from diseases and infections, because of the bombings (weakened state due to radiations and stress, wounds, general lack of medical supplies and destruction of medical facilities, etc...), but still the cause of death is the disease/infection. To put another analogy, if someone has a not so severe accident, but develops an infection that becomes fatal, you will say he died of infection not of his accident. Understand me well, if I am insisting on these points, its not because I want to lessen the sufferance of the victims, on the opposite, I would like to show that A LOT suffered (and are still suffering) from all kind of different reasons due to the bombings, and not just limit the real sufferers to the people dying of "burns and radiation diseases", neglecting all other sufferances. --Firkenknecht 01:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer, Firkenknecht. Will you please read the 'Treatment' and 'Table of exposure levels and symptoms' sections of the Radiation poisoning,, , and ? And please watch this. What do you think? And please remember that those who had wounded or burned were also, more or less, irradiated and their body must have sufferd from the effects of radiation too. Oda Mari 05:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll throw my answer your HIV question in Oda Mari, like most things it depends on circumstances. With the right resources, in advanced countries, AIDS kills people. I cite as my example, Magic Johnson a man who would have probably long ago expired from it if he didn't have the money and access to treatment for his HIV. (Meaning HIV is not an automatic death sentence to such people. Hypothetically lets say he fell victim to fake meds, got AIDS, and died the fault would be on whoever put the fake medicine in him as opposed to the HIV itself.)
 * For most HIV is still a death sentence though as they don't have the same money/access, making it inevitable that HIV will obliterate the hosts immune system and then an opportunistic infection will kill them. Anynobody 07:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What an argument, absolutely fantastic... So many things written above in such long sentences, but this one says more than any in just a single simple question. Brilliant, really brilliant, thank you Oda Mari. Kudret abi 11:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oda Mari > Hm, maybe you somewhat misunderstood me. Just the 2secs of \mylife (very sorry), but I live in Japan, and have contact with 2 actual survivors of the Nagasaki bombing. Discussing with them, hearing and reading their stories, and the stories of other survivors got me really interested in the subject, and drove me to join wikipedia editing (which I have been thinking of a long time, since I followed it someway since its very early steps), as I saw this webpage was "very" historical and, in a way, lacked the somewhat human touch of a horrible tragedy that killed so many and made even more suffer. \endmylife
 * In this perspective, I would really like to see a section dedicated to the people ("Victims of the bombings"), with short-time deaths and effects and long-time effects, describing the different kind of suffering they had to go through (including reject from other japanese people). So when someone wants to limit the sufferance of the people to burns and radiations... when so many suffered from other causes... this just doesnt seem right to me? And to reply to your advice "And please remember that those who had wounded or burned were also, more or less, irradiated and their body must have sufferd from the effects of radiation too.", please remember that the people who were irradiated and were having infections/diseases/mental shock/stress/lack of support must also have suffered from it... But of course, if the majority thinks its of no importance, and that only burns and radiations should be mentioned, then so be it. --Firkenknecht 00:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Firkenknecht, I agree with you mostly. There's a matter I've been thinking for months. I thought it might be better to draw a line between those who died in early years and the survivers and their health and social problems. As for the survivers, I think it should be better mentioned in details in the article Hibakusha. But I've been undecided where to draw the line, and I didn't make a suggestion on this page so far. As for infections, as they were induced by radiation, I still think the cause of death should be radiation/radiation poisoning. Because I don't say the cause of death is respiratory failure when an ALS patient died. I simply say he/she died of ALS.  It's more understandable, isn't it? Oda Mari 05:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Section break - Bsharvy's earlier proposal
This is the proposal Bsharvy mentioned in their last post which was previously under a section called Compromise. Isthis still what you are arguing for Bsharvy? Anynobody 05:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The current version is an acceptable starting point for me. It is very similar to the one you quote above--which is based on a version you once proposed (and now attack). I wouldn't mention secondary disease--brought about radiation disease--as a cause of death separate from radiation. And I wouldn't mention lack of medical supplies, because that is not something the bomb did directly to the victims, and the topic of the paragraph should stay focussed on what the bomb did directly to people. The paragraph is already big and awkward. However, these are mild objections. Bsharvy 07:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your clear, concise response and explanation of the logic behind it. Respectfully, there is an essential part missing though, preventable and unavoidable casualties. The chances of survival in these bombings or any other large scale disaster for the seriously wounded are affected by the level of care they get. Under your proposal, people who survive the blast but die because a burn becomes diseased, were killed by the bomb. Though they would not have been killed had the bomb not been dropped, they also would not have been killed if antibiotics had been given to them, creating an entirely preventable casualty. (Whereas a person vaporized at ground zero could not have been prevented, it can safely be said that the bomb was the sole cause of death for him or her.) The point is, casualties don't divide into neat categories with one overall mortality factor in these cases, for those not killed by the initial explosion there were MANY people for whom other factors conspired to ensure fatality. Anynobody 10:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that topic belongs in an extended discussion. I don't agree it belongs in an introductory paragraph. The paragraph is already crammed full of facts. But, this is mostly a point about style not accuracy, so I'm content with the compromise. Bsharvy 07:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If you honestly think it's overloading the first paragraph, it would have been better to fit it into a second or third paragraph rather than reverting or deleting it entirely. The lead section is not fixed at a length of one paragraph and actually depends on how big the article is. Even after the spinoff, it's still a pretty big article so we have room for a few paragraphs in the WP:LEAD. Anynobody 07:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anyeverybody (talk • contribs)


 * I didn't revert because of style. I didn't revert because I thought the first paragraph was overloaded. I am content to compromise over style matters. (I've now said this three times.) I reverted because at the time every single edit was inaccurately sourced, and that is documented above. They were also all undiscussed. Reverting undiscussed edits is entirely consistent with good editing procedure. What is not productive is to complain, endlessly, about an editor's reverts that are a week old.
 * Whether you like it or not (you obviously don't), none of the edits were supported by the cited source.
 * The page is protected so we can agree on the content, not on whether I should have reverted a week ago.
 * This process would go much better if you stopped lecturing about my actions and personality, and restricted yourself to comments about the content.

Bsharvy 11:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC Improving Consensus Process
The article is characterized by edit warring, and the Talk page is headed toward the realm of insults and popularity contests.


 * Wikipedia talk:Consensus would really be a better venue for this discussion. Anynobody 05:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anyeverybody (talk • contribs)

I've commented several times that edits to a heated, controversial subject are best proposed in Talk before being made. Another observation that I think will improve the consensus process: When citing a very long source to support a specific fact, try to identify which part of the long source you are looking at. For example, give a quote from the relevant part of the source, or say the page number if there is one, or section name. That makes it easier for other editors to know what you are thinking, and discuss it. For example, the USSBS page we've been discussing is 23 pages long. When I wanted to verify claims based on it, I didn't sit down and read all 23 pages (did anyone?). I used my browser's search function to find the key terms. If there was a claim about infection, I searched for "infection." But that is a faulty method, because it will miss synonyms and context. If you can point, somehow, to the precise text you think supports a claim in the encyclopedia, that is better. Especially when invoking a 23-page source.

Also, it looks like there is a way to reference Web pages that allows comments. So the aid in finding the text in the source can assist users of the encyclopedia, as well as other editors. (I'm not familiar with the various ways of referencing, tho.) Bsharvy 07:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You sure have, (commented several times that edits to a heated...) and I assume we've all seen them. We all interpret Consensus based on what's said on that page, or at least we should be, and so if you want to improve the consensus process you should do that where people expect to find discussions about the consensus process. Soliciting comments on changing a policy or guideline can't effectively be done in an article's talk page since editors NOT working on this article haven't the slightest clue a discussion about a policy they may have an opinion on is being debated on a page they don't know about.
 * Imagine Wikipedia is a car which you are unhappy with, complaining about it to other drivers(editors) is just complaining. If you want to do something about it, go to the dealer(policy page) or if you're REALLY serious, straight to the manufacturer(village pump). Anynobody 07:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My comment was a suggestion about how to improve our communication here. The point was that when you cite a 23-page source, it is helpful to narrow it down. I didn't "[solicit]comments on changing a policy or guideline." Good job not caring about what was said. That suggests another comment on how to improve communication here, but it looks like such comments are unwelcome. You see what you want to see.
 * In the future, I suggest you not address personal remarks to me, if your intentions about productive editing are sincere. Bsharvy 07:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Bsharvy, if I'm talking to you I can't not address you, but I'll try. In response the rest of the comment; If  doesn't want to improve the process and is instead asking for the policy to be enforced; it seems more or less obvious that the editors here so far, don't feel the consensus process is being ignored despite concerns expressed by. Anynobody 07:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anyeverybody (talk • contribs)


 * I have no idea what you just said. Bsharvy 11:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)