Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 19

PT boat and Tokyo Harbor option.
I added this section: In 1945, US Navy Commander Chester Siver, a Naval Academy graduate in Marine Architecture, was transferred to Pearl Harbor from his position as Assistant Superintendent of Design at Brooklyn Naval Shipyard. There, he was briefed on the Manhattan project and oversaw a project to modify a PT boat to carry an atomic weapon into Tokyo harbor, as one delivery option.

I heard that story from my father, Chester Siver. I've requested documentation under the Freedom of Information Act so far unsuccessfully. I'm happy to defer to the opinion of the group who maintain this site as to the suitability of inclusion of this detail. In my view, given the lack of access to documentation, and the gravity of the topic, it is worth including as a note to history that delivering an atomic weapon into Tokyo Harbor was considered an option. Stanfordsiver (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm really sorry, but without a reliable reference this claim shouldn't be preserved in the article. Especially when wp:Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and all available sources mention only air delivery. --ja_62 (t 21:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand and agree. Unfortunately much top secret documentation remains hidden simply by the massive volume of the war records yet to be opened.Stanfordsiver (talk) 04:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Terminology on Picture Caption
The caption that reads, "The Fat Man mushroom cloud resulting from the nuclear explosion over Nagasaki rises 18 km . . ." should say "atomic" (not "nuclear"). It was a fission bomb as the article clearly states and not a fusion bomb. Scottkleinsmother (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)scottkleinsmother
 * Atomic weapons (i.e. colloquialism for fission weapons) are one of types of nuclear weapons. IMHO the caption is correct, and 'nuclear explosion' sounds definitely better from wp:MoS point of view.--ja_62 (t 17:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Minute Details in Bombing of Hiroshima
The article is very accurate despite the minor details about the actual bombing of Hiroshima. When the three planes were approaching Japan before the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, only one of the three planes (the weather plane) was spotted by the Japanese radar, and not all three as the article stated. The article said the atomic bomb dropped for 57 seconds before detonating at the predetermined height of 2000 feet above Hiroshima, but the bomb actually only fell for 43 seconds before detonating at a height of 1900 feet over the city. These minor details do not affect the overall message of the article but should be accurate in the event that someone needs specific details on the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korffy009 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Trimming the lede
A lede is a lede. Compared to the deaths from the initial blasts, the minute number of casualties from long-term effects is a minor point. It's well worth covering in the main body; just not in the lede. Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 17:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you ought to place them elsewhere in the article rather than outright deleting them. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They're already in the body of the article.  Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 19:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Wording is a little strange and questionable.
I think that the wording in the "Choice of attack" segment of this article is a bit off.

Specifically:

"In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon.."

Instead I think the word should be intellectual as I believe the attribute of Kyoto in this regard is that it is the intellectual center and has more individuals with a higher education than elsewhere.

I also managed to find the original document as it is declassified at lanl.gov (Los Alamos National Library) I couldn't link the .pdf but the relevant part is avaliable at. It states:

"Kyoto - This target is an urban industrial area with a population of 1,000,000. It is the former capital of Jpaan and many people and industries are now being moved there as other areas are being destroyed. From the psychological point of view there is the advantage that Kyoto is an intellectual center for Japan and the people there are more apt to appreciate the singificance of such a weapon as the gadget. (Classified as an AA Target)"

Which I think highlights my point further. I couldn't edit this myself since this article is protected and this is my first submission.Opexillon (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good points. I made the change.  Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 22:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Anti-American POV in the first paragraph
As the way the first paragraph of this article is written, people who read it may tend to think that the United States was a military monster that killed innocent women and children with their hegemonic-imperialistic-capitalist aims.

The first paragraph, beyond citing "solid cancers" and stuff like that, should also cite 2 things:

1. The Japanese government did not surrender even when they acknowledged they were hit by an A-bomb;

2. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, beyond the "innocent women and children" in their population, were two important cities to the Imperial Japanese military war machine that were grinding lots American human meat at places like Iwo Jima. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.37.63.201 (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't see any anti-American POV is the first paragraph of the lead. Perhaps I'm missing something. What exactly do you mean?
 * 1. Agree.
 * 2. Provide sources. (More complete descriptions of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are already in the body of the article). Also, your POV is really showing: "grinding lots American human meat"(sic). ( Hohum  @ ) 19:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I find very strange that so often claims of Anti-Americanism arise when just actions of a US government are being criticized. Is it anti-German to condemn concentration camps? So why should it be anti-American to criticize that hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians were slaughtered as well as a lot of the cultural heritage of enemy countries was destroyed by US bombings?
 * To your point one: would you surrender easily to an enemy that apparently shows no mercy of any kind?
 * One thing I never understood was why the effect of the bombs was not first demonstrated on less inhabitated territory. In view of the destructions even if the Japanese leaders had not resigned, how would the population and the army have fought on if they had known their chances to beat an enemy with such weaponry? How could the leaders have justified to fight on if they had known before the threat to the population? Some claim it was done to try out the effects of such bombs on cities or even to impress the rest of the world. Seems not so far-fetched to me. Knopffabrik (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hiroshima wasn't important enough for the Americans to attack earlier. Saros136 (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Soviet invasion of Manchuria and Korea no threat to Japan
Those who argue that it was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria that really led to Japan's surrender ignores the reality that at the end of World War II, the Soviets were no threat to Japan proper, since at that time the Soviets did not have a major navy, and would not be a major naval power until many years later. The Soviets lacked the ships and bases necessary to invade Japan, and the Japanese military leaders would know that fact. The Soviets did not acquire a major "blue water" navy until after the Cuban Missile crisis, where the clear American naval superiority forced them to back down, and spurred the Soviet Union to build a competive navy. If the massive destruction of Japanese cities by convention bombing, and the American's literally knocking on the Japanese front door with the conquest of Okinawa did not compel the Japanese to surrender, how could the Japanese feel at all threaten by the Soviets troops sitting in far off Manchuria and Korea without any ships or means to get them to Japan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.147.97 (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on sources. If they have the sources, they can make these statements. Personally, I don't consider the Soviets to be a major factor in the ultimate unconditional surrender of Japan. However, saying that the Soviets did not have the power to reach Japan is plain wrong. In fact, they did so after the surrender of Japan. You probably haven't heard of the Evacuation of Karafuto and Kuriles. Japan was a pile of rubble by 1945. A pile of rubble without much worth mentioning of it's navy left. Anyways, if you oppose, you must come with sources. Those are the play rules on here.--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not under "World War II crimes" category?
Why isn't this article in Category:World War II crimes? Hague II(1899) clearly states that city bombing is a war crime. Japan as well as the US signed it in 1900, and the US ratified it in 1902. If there are no logical arguments against this, I will add this article to the World War II crimes category.--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If you go through the archives, you'll see there is no consensus for this. To put it mildly.
 * See also Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Allied war crimes during World War II, Area bombardment, and their Talk-archives.
 * —WWoods (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Like Wwoods says, there is no consensus. Do not place this article in that category. Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's because this article focuses only on the bombings as military history. Discussing the bombings as social science is relegated to the child article. Hipocrite (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The article "Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" does not get categorized as a war crime, either; there simply is no consensus. Experts of all stripes profoundly disagree, but the most applicable fact is that no belligerent was tried for war crimes regarding the killing of citizens in cities using conventional or atomic bombs. Note that the atomic bombs killed about the same number of Japanese as did the combination of conventional general-purpose bombing and fire bombing (death figures are not precise enough to make a final determination), but non-atomic bombs destroyed more built-up urban area than atomic bombs. If one of the two were a war crime, it should be non-atomic bombing, as it did more damage. Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The debate didn't get categorized as a war crime because it's a debate, not a war crime. Hipocrite (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I was going to say that because of the controversial nature of area bombing, "Bomber" Harris was the only British commander at his level who wasn't offered a peerage, but it turns out he was.
 * —WWoods (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, the popular opinion. Though out of a purely objective perspective, I do not see how anyone could disagree. War laws are not up to interpretation, they're often redundantly accurate. Of course, it could be argued that the bombs saved more lifes than they took, but that does not change the fact that the event occurred. Technically, all instances of city bombing are to be considered war crimes, according to the Hague. Reality is different mainly due to victor's justice, and I doubt there is any merit in discussing that.
 * The reason I brought this up was because I saw the Bombing of Guernica in Category:War crimes of the Spanish Civil War, which also seems focused on the military history rather than the social aspect(with exception for the part where Picasso's painting of the same name is being mentioned).
 * I do have a question though, is a legal perspective sufficient to categorize an event as war crime, or must it be considered as such by popular opinion? --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Since your beef is presumably with the entire concept of city bombing, you might want to read Aerial bombardment and international law and its sources. The applicability of a convention covering the use of artillery — written at a time when aviation was just getting off the ground — is open to dispute.


 * —WWoods (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Given, it does not specify where the projectiles are coming from, but it does outlaw the act of using bombs against cities in itself.
 * To make you attentive to your own quote, "[...]it was not updated before the outbreak of World War II". We do have the League of Nations resolution of September 30, 1938, though.


 * This, on the other hand, isn't quite open to dispute. Perhaps I should have included it in my previous post. Now that we have cleared this, what are the requirements to add an article to the war crimes category? I haven't been able to find any guidelines. --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Only the usual ones: the need for reliable sources and the ban on original research.
 * And, again, your arguments are directed to the general concept of city bombing, not to these two particular instances. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were something like the 60th and 61st cities to be bombed in Japan. What distinguishes them legally from Tokyo or Kobe, or London, or Chongqing, or Hamburg? See Template:WWII city bombing for a partial list.
 * —WWoods (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Other than the notability and high death toll of the bombings, not much is differing. I would be in all right to add all articles concerning city bombing articles in the war crimes category if the only requirement is that these acts meet the legal definition of war crimes(most of them do), but it would be very unresponsible of me to do so without notifying the community first, wouldn't it? --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

By 1938, the League of Nations was toothless and moribund. No belligerent gave their ban on bombing cities any serious consideration. Bombing cities was a war crime during WWII only if the League is accorded the power to enforce its proclamations. Its failure to stop WWII showed its powerlessness. Note that the League's phrasing, the part reading "for which there is no military necessity", is completely wrong in total war. There is indeed a military necessity if the city is a source of war goods. The firebombing of Tokyo cut that city's production in half—a valid military goal in total war. Binksternet (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh please. Just because a belligerent nation or commander hasn't been tried in a war crime court for an act to be considered as war crime by legal definition, does not mean the act is not a war crime. That is a prime example of Victor's justice rather than anything. Most of the perpetrators guilty of the acts in the Allied war crimes during World War II page have not been brought to court. Yet these acts are documented and described as "war crimes" in that article. It clearly goes from the legal definition of what war crimes are, and I see no logical reason why anyone should make an exception in cases of city bombing. Wikipedia is meant to be factual, rather than bending to biased popular opinion. The 1938 League of Nations resolution clearly states that intentional bombing of civilians is forbidden. If the objectives are military(the Aioi bridge on which the bomb was supposed to explode above wasn't, neither was the clinic it actually exploded over), the attacks must be carried out in a way that civilians do not end up victims for them through negligence. And we also have Hague II which forbids bombardment of cities regardless of if the bombs originated from a ship, a piece of artillery, or an airplane. Neither Hague or the League of Nations have made any exemptions from the rules in case of total war.
 * If the belligerents have or have not been tried for their acts qualifying as war crimes in court is frankly quite irrelevant. If your opinions disagree with it, it is quite deplorable. But Wikipedia is not a tool to propagate personal opinion, but a tool to spread factual knowledge. And unless you come with any legal argument to aid your cause, I see no reason why the city bombing articles (including this one) should not be added to the WW2 war crimes category. --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You will probably want to work on the article Aerial bombardment and international law first. If you see success in making all aerial bombing of cities into a war crime, please make sure that the atomic bombings are accorded roughly the same gravity as the firebombing campaign against 67 Japanese cities. Binksternet (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll add some more details to that article, such as the 1938 League of Nations resolution. Although the article pretty much agrees with my statements already(I would be surprised if it wouldn't; my statements are mainly quotations of war laws). Yeah, I've already proposed in here that all WW2 city bombing articles should be added to the WW2 war crimes category. I'm aware these edits might attract the spite of some veterans and "patriots", but so be it. Law is law. --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's already there:


 * Everybody needs a hobby, but don't think this is going anywhere. Note that there's no mention of the League on Ryuichi Shimoda v. The State.
 * Inter arma enim silent leges —WWoods (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is mentioned, but the specific points are not written out. I believe the article would benefit greatly if that was added. As for Ryuichi Shimoda's case, I obviously can't give a reason why the League of Nations resolution was not mentioned, other than that it was not in need of mentioning, since apparently the definition of what war crimes are by the Hague was enough to get his point through. If it's sufficient for a court, it should be sufficient for Wikipedia, as long as it's purely factual, no?
 * Inter arma enim silent leges... it would be hilarious of someone sent a letter to the Hague with that phrase. I am most certain they would appreciate it and promptly commit suicide after having realized how wrong they were all along. Jokes aside, war crimes are strictly defined acts, and when there are articles about these acts, it only is logical that they join the war crimes category, no? --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In the Aerial bombardment and international law article, there is no distinction drawn between city and non city bombing. And total war does expand the boundarys, a court ruled. And the criteria is not a strict one with no room for interpretation. Saros136 (talk) 07:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * iN FACT [ http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html Hague ] clearly allows the bombing of defended cities. And one of the legitimate targets are factories constituting important and well-known centres engaged in the manufacture of arms, ammunition or distinctively military supplies; lines of communication or transportation used for military purposes. Saros136 (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, you'd need reliable sources that say the law is what you want it to say. Your own original research won't do. If you think you can make a case, go write a law review article. Various opinions are already included in Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but that's all they are — opinions.
 * The League of Nations' positions carried little weight in 1938 and even less by 1945. No nation on either side of the war abstained from city bombing out of concern for legality. Likewise with unrestricted submarine warfare.
 * —WWoods (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not talking about the Wikipedia article either, I was talking about what Hague II (same points being re-affirmed in Hague IV) states.


 * And while we're at it.


 * I'm seeing quite a few offending points for the atomic bombings here. Do you as well, or do I have to help you out? The Aerial bombardment and international law article needs to contain the other excerpts of HagueII/IV as well, in order to be precise and factual. However it should be noted that Hague II/IV do not specify where the projectiles come from, the laws apply for the act of city bombing itself. Also, what court has judged that exceptions are to be made for war laws in case of a total war?--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * First off, I'm not making an argument that the nuclear bombings are or are not war crimes, just arguing some general things, and that is is not true that these laws are not subject to interpretation. In Hague 1907  only bombardment ...of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited.  It gives no details on what defended means.


 * To see the principles for aerial bombing, look at Draft Rules of Aerial Warfare, The Hague. The U.S. supported it, but it was never formally adopted.
 * Article XXII makes it very clear that bombing of targets in cities is allowed, in some cases. It also shows how the laws are open to interpretation. It uses phrases such as indiscriminate bombardment, immediate neighborhood, and reasonable presumption.
 * In the League of United Nations resolution, that only some kinds of bombing of cities is prohibited. And again, there is interpretation.
 * There is a decent case that the bombings here were war crimes. But it should not be classified as such without widespread support from the experts. Saros136 (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "I'm seeing quite a few offending points for the atomic bombings here." In what manner do you see atomic bombings rather than firebombings being made illegal by the above laws? Do you realize how indiscriminate firebombings were in WWII? Binksternet (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Written law and Ryuichi Shimoda v. the State are two quite reliable sources, I'd say. Of course, when I'm adding to articles, I will not say the source is me, but international war law active at that period such as the Hague or LoT(I would of course be more specific than so) and/or reliable cases such as Ryuichi Shimoda v. the State. Law can be harsh. And if something or someone breaks against one little war law, that act/offender is to be considered a war crime/war criminal. Given, reality is different. But the criteria for "war crimes" lies in the books, rather than popular opinion. And yes, LoT was weak, but technically, the laws were present. The laws (not only LoT's but also Hague's) were also present in such events as the Canicattì massacre or the Dachau massacre, though the perpetrators happened to be the winners of the war, so they did not have to deal with any uncomfortable sentences. Anyways, I will add more to the articles in need of improvement before I start the task of adding articles such as this one to the WW2 war crimes category. With abundant sources and references which are reliable, of course. That is, unless, someone manages to find an excerpt of an international law work active during WW2 which specifically states that city bombing is not to be considered a war crime under any circumstances. I'm holding this discussion now and here so I don't have to hold it later once I've started making changes (in accordance with the guidelines of Wikipedia, clearly), but I do have a feeling that these discussions will persist as long as I persist. So be it, law must prevail.--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the source would be you, and would be reverted out of hand as violating the ban on original research. Did you miss, "While the two conventions offer a guideline to what the belligerent powers were considering before the war, neither of these documents came to be legally binding."?
 * —WWoods (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Now, just to avoid confusion. Is what you are focusing on "neither of these documents came to be legally binding"?--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "In what manner do you see atomic bombings rather than firebombings being made illegal by the above laws?" I have not, at any point, claimed that the firebombings are to be exempt from war crime status if they break against the international war law of their time. Personally, I am aware of the US firebombings against Japanese cities in WW2. Definitely, some of them (nah, most of them) would be regarded as war crimes merely by using the definitions given by Hague and LoT(the latter not truly being necessary) had the US not won the war. And yes, I do realize the indiscriminate nature of WW2 bomb raids against cities and their civilian population. And I do not see why they should not be called war crimes, since many of them clearly meet the criteria.--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

"Meeting the criteria" is not enough for a wikipedia article to describe specific events as being criminal. Just as an article including a killing cannot unequivocally call it a murder unless a court has ruled it a murder, an article on the atomic bombings cannot unequivocally call them war crimes unless a court has said so. It can say that specific reliable sources give that opinion. Making the conclusion ourselves is WP:OR. ( Hohum  @ ) 17:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So a court must decide that a war crime is in fact a war crime before it can be called as a war crime on Wikipedia? Are you aware how many articles about atrocities Wikipedia has, which are being categorized as war crimes on-site, but have not ever been categorized as such in any court? If that is a must, we're going to have to trim the WW2 war crimes category a lot.
 * Anyways. The atomic bombings have been ruled illegal by a court. Illegal by the international laws of warfare which were active during that period. You know, the Hague conventions. With other words, it was ruled that the atomic bombings broke against the laws of the Hague. And if an event breaks against international war laws... what is called? Exactly. A war crime.--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Since a week and a day have passed since I first made my inquiry, and nobody has been able to come with a deciding argument against it, I will add this article to the War crimes by the US during WW2 category. Disagree with it? Look at the above discussion. But just to be friendly, I'll remind everybody of Ryuichi Shimoda v. The State, which ruled that the bombings were war crimes. More supporting evidence than so, for an addition for a couple of bytes, can clearly not be requested.--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 08:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the category. The court case you cited had no legal jurisdiction and was little more than a stunt. Possibly even a kangaroo court. Fred8615 (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh cool, your personal opinion has made you act. Your opinion of what the court is, is completely irrelevant. The required fact is that a legitimate court has decided so. If you don't agree with it, it truly isn't my problem. Lots of other war crime articles on Wikipedia don't have any court entries at all, and yet they are categorized as such. I'm sensing the classical "America can do no wrong" mentality around here. I have put it back.--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And another thing. If you're going to insist on undoing my edit without having any other reason or argument than your personal opinion, you can look forwards to getting reported.--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said it was my personal opinion. It's not. And if you report me, I can report you, cause your insistence that it is a war crime certainly looks more like a personal opinion than my removal. Fred8615 (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry bud, you haven't come with any kind of source when you said so. That's known as OR. So unless you can come with any source or reference to a juridical body that has judged that Shimoda v. the State is to be regarded invalid, I'll put this article back into the war crimes category. I kept myself to all Wikipedia guidelines, you didn't. I'll give you a day to come with anything to aid your case.--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Raubfreundschaft. You have singularly failed to gain consensus, and are opposed by multiple editors, your changes were unilateral. To answer your question - yes, to unequivocally say something is a war crime, it would need a rock solid source - i.e. a court competent to rule. Your example was not. Reliable, and perhaps notable, non fringe opinions might be included as opinions. Also, threats do nothing to advance anyone's argument, and are likely to harm their reputation. ( Hohum  @ ) 21:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As opposed to multiple editors who have come with nothing(as in anything other than non-NPOV and OR) to defend their own position with. When I added the article to the war crimes category, I did not break a single Wikipedia guideline. I have not used personal opinion at any point in this discussion until now(nor will I later). Ryuichi Shimoda v. the State did rule that the atomic bombings were war crimes. Unless there has been any court decision that overruled Shimoda v. the State, I see no reason why to not use it as juridical confirmation that these acts were war crimes, and thus belong in the war crimes category. Technically, Wikipedia does not even state requirements for additions to the war crimes category(or any related subcategory). In any case, my edit was legitimate. It did not break against any Wikipedia guideline, and used the only kind of opinion that actually matters in case of the question "war crime or no war crime", namely the opinion of a court. When Fred8615 reverted my edit, the only reason he gave was "it was a kangaroo court"(paraphrased). No source that said so, nothing. Only his own words. I hope you can tell by yourself that it is a clear act of OR. My edit followed all guidelines, his did not. With a fancy word, his edit was illicit. Unless he, or anyone else for that matter who oh so fervently opposes the act of atomic city bombing to be a "war crime", can come with a source or reference of any kind of court decision that overruled Shimoda v. the State, I will add this article right back into the war crimes category. Reports are an useful tool to combat those who don't listen to reason, but only their own opinion. And I am aware of how many users of the English Wikipedia fall into that category, especially when it comes to articles about things related to their own nation. So again. I will wait one day to give my "opponents" a chance to come with a source or reference from a juridical body that officially invalidates Shimoda v. the State. Because this is how Wikipedia works. Sources and references are used, not "I don't like this so I'll delete it". If nothing like that is provided, I will put this article right back where I've put it before. And if these fervent, baseless, non-NPOV reverts continue, I will report, simply because there is, sadly, nothing else I can do.--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you even read the article for the category you're trying to put this article in? The section on the a-bombs clearly says there was no international law covering the bombing of cities in any manner during WWII. Kind of defeats your argument if the very category you insist is says it isn't. And I stand by my comments on the court case. It has no jurisdiction outside Japan, the article on the courts case here says it was little more than a stunt, and the fact that it was a Japanese court ruling in a time when ultra-nationalists were killing people who criticized Japan's actions during the war has to be taken into account. My question is, if it was 5 Chinese suing for the Rape of Nanking, what would've been this court's ruling then? Fred8615 (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "The section on the a-bombs clearly says there was no international law covering the bombing of cities in any manner during WWII" have you even read the discussion within this part of the talk page? Hague II and Hague IV have already set some rules about what kind of city bombing is acceptable and what kind isn't. Then there also was the League of Nations resolution of 1938 which set even more clearly defined rules. Given, LoT was not very powerful, but just like Hague, technically it was active. It seems someone's finger slipped while writing this article, so I will fix it. Thanks for notifying me.
 * I don't see what you're trying to sell as point about Shimoda v. the State. I read the article through, and I was not able to find any sentence that questioned it's legality. Again, if you're making claims, come with quotes and sources. Other than that, how is the outside situation in Japan to be regarded as relevant in this case? If you're going to complain about that, you should complain about the Nuremberg trials, Tokyo trials, Nanjing tribunal, Khabarovsk trials etc. In comparison with all major war crimes trials, Shimoda v. the State was an act of fair justice on a near divine level. Anyways, all of this is completely irrelevant and it is clear you are only mentioning it in a futile attempt at demeaning the trial, as to make your stance seem like the factual one (which it is not, you've not even been able to come with sources strenghtening that belief). Your last line screams of argumentum ad misericordiam so I'm not even going to bother. Why would Chinese go to Japan for such a court case? And that in 1955? If we disregard the blatant impossibility of the scenario, the court would probably come to the decision that the Nanking massacre was a war crime, if the plaintiffs were able to come with a sufficient amount of evidence for their case.
 * Anyways, I will add this article to Category: War crimes in Japan now. And if you are going to undo that edit, I will report you unless you come with a source or reference to a court which overruled the decision of Shimoda v. the State. Remember, the category I will add this to is about acts considered as war crimes in Japan, through Japanese jurisdiction. Do not revert it without a reason other than your personal opinion, because Shimoda v. the State has not been challenged to this day in Japan, thus the judgement still holds.--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a category for Category:War crimes in Japan? If there is, you can add this article to that category, because the court case you cite was legitimate within Japan. Outside of Japan, the court's decision did not apply. It was not a world court. Binksternet (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have just checked, and sadly there is no such category. However, your idea is excellent. It seems it existed at a previous point in time, but then was deleted because it only contained one single page.--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And you recreated it JUST so you could continue your own PO that this was a war crime. That hardly a valid reason to recreate a category that had been deleted who knows how long ago. Fred8615 (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please show me what Wikipedia guideline my edit offended. --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You recreated a category that had been deleted for whatever reason and for who knows how long for the specific reason of furthering a POV the majority of the editors of this article do not agree with. Fred8615 (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"for the specific reason of furthering a POV the majority of the editors of this article do not agree with". That is incorrect. I added it there because it was more precise than just adding it to Category:World War II crimes, all while taking great regard to No original research, Neutral point of view, and Verifiability. You simply reverted it again because of your own POV. During all of this, you have not come with a single argument that holds by Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be influenced by POV, but by documented facts and nothing more. Is this so difficult for you to understand?--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I told you before, and I'll tell you again - any possible assertion that the bombings were anything other than the final strike of WWII - designed only to cause Japan's surrender which would not have happened otherwise is to be placed in the "Debate..." ghetto, per edict of the MilHist project. This includes any attempt to state that the bombings may not have been justified, as the justification is self evident from the fact that it was a military operation, not anything else. Stop trying. Hipocrite (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that directed towards me? If that is the case, where have I attempted to bring up any ethical discussion or categorization, or any kind of "what if..."? Articles about war crimes belong to some kind of war crime related category, as simple as that. And if the act is officially regarded a war crime in Japan, it belongs in that category. My edits do not break against any Wikipedia guideline.--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is directed at you. Any allegation that the bombing was anything other than the final strike of WWII is prohibited in this article by statement of the MilHist project - that means you can't say they were designed to keep Russia from invading anything, you can't say that they were unnecessary, and you certainly can't say they were a war crime, as war crimes are not military actions. I take no position on the dispute, except to tell you how it is - MilHist has lots of editors, and they will revert you till you die. Give up. Hipocrite (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia defines a "war crime" as ""violations of the laws or customs of war"; including "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of hostages, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity". This article contains plently of statements that break against "Any allegation that the bombing was anything other than the final strike of WWII is prohibited in this article by statement of the MilHist project", most of which have been around for longer than I have. The only opposition I can see is a large opposing POV. But that's it, a POV. Not a single source has been given to prove that the atomic bombings are not officially regarded war crimes by the Japanese nation. I will stand to my request that this article is to be added to Category:War crimes in Japan, because this action meets the requirements of NPOV, no OR and verifiability. I do not see any reason to sacrifice Wikipedia's standards in order to please a specific POV.--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the same Japanese nation that at the time of this court case you love so much REFUSED to officially admit or acknowledge their crimes during the war. To some extent they still don't today. So why should anyone care what a Japanese court ruled? And here's some more issues with this court case. The United States was NOT the defendant!! Because they knew they couldn't win in a U.S. court, the plaintiffs sued in Japan. But they didn't sue the U.S. Government, they sued the Japanese government for reparations. At this time, Japan internally was portraying itself as the victim (and again, to some extent still does so today), so it was in Japan's interest to "lose" this case. So the question begs to be asked, just how vigorously did the Japanese government defend itself? Did they even appeal?


 * Regardless of that, the fact is, a judgment was rendered in which the real defendant, the U.S., was NOT able to defend itself. So how does it have any legal standing? That's like me suing Lindsay Lohan because Paula Abdul stole my car.


 * There is one thing that you can do I wouldn't object to. Since it does concern this article, I see no reason you couldn't link to the article on the court case in the "See Also" section. But demanding this be listed as a war crime, no. Fred8615 (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There was an attempt to bring up whether or not the atomic bombings war crimes in the Tokyo Trials(Quoting: "The defense argued that Allied Powers' violations of international law, including the atomic bombings of Japan, should be examined. The tribunal ignored this argument and thus left the door open for later criticism that the trials had merely carried out "victors' justice."", but the tribunal ignored it. They went to a Japanese court because they knew that even if they wouldn't get ignored in an US court, there was no imaginable way that the judges would judge unfavorably to their nation.
 * Had the US been able to defend itself, provided a spokesperson had been invited, the judgement might very well have been considered internationally applicable. All tribunals and courts handling WW2 issues can be considered as questionable to an extent, and Shimoda v. the State is not an exception. But these tribunals and courts still are what makes the decision.
 * I will add Shimoda v. the State in hte "See Also" section. Perhaps you didn't notice, but I changed my original request from "add this to World War II crimes category" to "add this to War crimes in Japan category" due to this criticism. It is technically correct, and meets all Wikipedia standards. However, I will not add this to any category including the name "war crime" until an ultimate decision has been made.--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "They went to a Japanese court because they knew that even if they wouldn't get ignored in an US court, there was no imaginable way that the judges would judge unfavorably to their nation." But a Japanese court would be the ultimate example of impartiality??? You're not helping your case. And at least in the true war crime trials, the real defendants were able to defend themselves. Some were even acquitted! That's why I say "kangaroo court," because the U.S. couldn't defend itself, the trial itself was hardly in a neutral site, and the defendant named had a somewhat vested interest in losing. Fred8615 (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly not true impartiality, but at least not bringing a predetermined defeat for the plaintiff. Most people who have been acquitted from WW2 war tribunals have been acquitted because they were of worth to the victors. Two good examples are Yasuji Okamura and Shirō Ishii. Anyways, this is the exact reason why I have ceased to request this article to be added to the World War II crimes category, because it is currently doubtful to say that an international court has claimed the bombings to be war crimes. So or so, they are considered war crimes in Japan as per decision of a Japanese juridical body. It simply is that way. Allright?--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Certainly not true impartiality, but at least not bringing a predetermined defeat for the plaintiff." As opposed to a predetermined victory? I will give the court credit it took them 8 years to render a verdict, but it still doesn't change the fact that in no way could this decision be used in any proceedings outside Japan because of the problems I've already cited. You can't sue Japan claiming the U.S. committed a war crime. Fred8615 (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A predetermined victory would have been if a positive verdict would've been given within a short period, and Shimoda offered a spokesperson by Japan who would travel to the US and demand reparations for Shimoda and the other plaintiffs. I think you can sense how unrealistic this would be.
 * "in no way could this decision be used in any proceedings outside Japan because of the problems I've already cited." again, this is the exact reason why I have changed my original objective into adding this article to a category where it is specifically stated that these acts are considered war crimes in Japan, not internationally and unopposed. I do agree that there currently is no source I could use to claim the latter.--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed so much it's boring now. IMHO I don't see how it can be a war crime. I mean bombing a city during a war. Who would ever have done that? Killing people during a war. Unheard of! Yes its one of the most sickening incidents in history and it scares the crap out of me that man can do that to man but war crime? Give me a break. 195.225.189.243 (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're an edgy one, aren't you. Really, complain to the Hague.--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing
It appears that Raubfreundschaft is canvassing to try to get supporters to come here and support his proposal. He did so with me here, and when I didn't give him the answers he wanted, he approached Oda Mari. Just posting this here for transparency's sake. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 19:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That is correct, I am going through the archives of this talk page in order to find more people which can give their opinion to this. I am trying to solve this in a democratic fashion. Thank you for your support so far.--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy and Canvassing is against policy. This isn't a vote.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 19:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not all canvassing is against Wikipedia's policy, perhaps you want to read the canvassing article. I'm trying to come to a solution for the current issue. I've made some perfectly valid additions(this means "fitting into all Wikipedia guidelines), which were being reverted shortly after they were made. Do you perhaps have a better solution to offer?--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course canvassing is acceptable in neutral circumstances. But from what I've read here; you're the only one arguing this particular point and everyone else here seems opposed to the idea.  So asking more people to come, hoping to find other people to take your side, does seem wrong.  If there was more of an impasse here, I'd suggest some sort of RfC; but honestly it really looks like you're the only one arguing this point. This is from the perspective of an editor that has never been to this talkpage.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 07:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say that the reason behind this is that this page is being "guarded" by people trying to preserve the status quo (in this case, by leaving any uncomfortable words out), while those who would agree with me simply have given up or don't wish to participate for whatever reason. Anyways, a RfC seems to be a wonderful idea for this issue. Thanks.--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to participating in your RfC. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha. I'm sensing I'll be overwhelmed by a flood of persons who will say the bombings cannot be considered war crimes just because. I'm really in a pinch here, am I not? I'm trying to make some perfectly valid additions to the article, which are being reverted by others just because they personally do not agree with them. Anyways. I do not care about how many will oppose me just because they personally dislike what I say. I will make that addition to the article, and it will stay there. Just because I want to? No. Because it follows all relevant Wikipedia guidelines.--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It has been explained quite clearly why you are being reverted. Here it is again. For a wikipedia article to unequivocally state something, it needs a rock solid reference. So, to unequivocally call these nuclear attacks war crimes, you will need a ruling from a court competent to rule on it - which is not the source you provided. You can include opinions from reliable sources that it is a war crime. You also cannot synthesise a conclusion directly from an international law, that is your conclusion, and this requires sources which draw that conclusion.

You need to worry about opposition, and the distinct lack of support you have, because you need consensus for your additions to remain.

I also await your RfC, which is the next logical step to see what a wider audience of the wikipedia community think. Continuing arguing on this talk page is a waste of everyone's time, you are making no progress, and don't seem to be able to accept the general consensus. You seem to indicate that you might not accept an RfC's consensus either - which leaves you opposing wikipedia practice. You can either have the practice changed, or follow it - your choice. ( Hohum  @ ) 17:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "which leaves you opposing wikipedia practice" I truly do condemn the day when "verifiability", "no original research" and "neutral point of view" all were being abandoned on this page in order to please an uneducated and propagandistic POV.
 * Tell me, how am I wrong if I say that the bombings are considered war crimes in Japan? That Japanese court ruled so, and the protest letter that is mentioned in this article (which was issued by the government of Japan shortly before the surrender) also calls the bombings war crimes. Mentioning in any way that this article is about something that is considered a war crime in Japan would be unequivocal. It seems you haven't followed the discussion, since I changed my argument to the aforementioned statement. Just like Unit 731 is in Category:War crimes in China, this article should be added in a category about acts considered war crimes by Japan/acts committed in Japan that generally are considered war crimes, or at the very least make some sort of mention. I'm pushing for an addition to this article which isn't more than a sentence.
 * Hmm, what else is there. "You also cannot synthesise a conclusion directly from an international law, that is your conclusion, and this requires sources which draw that conclusion." Ryuichi Shimoda v. The State, plus an official statement of the government of Japan shortly before the end of the war, plus statements made by the mayors of Hiroshima through the times should be enough to state that the bombings are considered war crimes in Japan... I think. Or is there a minimum amount of required sources per sentence? Surely, my addition would have a way above average amount of those, so I see no problem. In fact, I think I should add a section to this talk page where I clarify what I want to see, since "what" has changed since my first post. I gladly await your response.--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Raubfreundschaft, you said "I will make that addition to the article, and it will stay there." Ri-i-ight. The RfC is the next step for you to take, yet you say you expect that it will not go in your favor. This leaves you with two options: start the RfC to find out what happens, or let it be. You cannot change the article in the face of contributor consensus, or you will get blocked. Binksternet (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I say so because I expect POV to win over NPOV, since the subject is controversial.--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And a small addendum. I'll linger around some more on this talk page before I make an ultimate decision. I must say, this is good practice. If I went for a RfC before refining my arguments, it certainly wouldn't come far, would it?--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are repeating the same arguments which do not have consensus. It seems to me that other people think you are the lone voice pushing your POV. You are wasting your time if you repeat them yet again since no refinement is taking place. ( Hohum   @ ) 20:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Now you're being mean. I've already abandoned the idea of putting this article in some normal war crimes category, since that very well wouldn't be unequivocal. But saying that these acts are considered war crimes in Japan (as per official government statements and court decisions) would be unequivocal. So now I'm willing to push that through. Since that clearly is unequivocal, it deserves to be added to this article, no?--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the atomic bombings have been determined by Japanese court to be a war crime in Japan. No enforcement, though; kind of like laws against marijuana in Amsterdam. Nobody has been tried for the crime. Binksternet (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and? If it had been enforced, it would be regarded a war crime by the international community. But since that is not the case, I stick with "war crime in Japan". Logical and factual. So, how's your stance?--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm making my opinion clear rather than mean. I don't have a problem with a sentence or so noting that a court in Japan made a ruling - however, are there other rulings from other courts in Japan which are also relevant? Is it a lone voice or widely supported? ( Hohum  @ ) 16:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The only other Japanese court case touching the issue must've been the Tokyo Trials, but as we know, the judges ignored that. The occupation of Japan prevented anything like Shimoda v. The State to occur earlier, and after the court made it's decision, (it took them years to come to that decision, so the idea of it being a mere "show court" appears to be rather far away, not like that really would matter in first place) the issue was more or less solved for the Japanese. I have searched for other courts taking up the atomic bombings, but I've been unable to find any. As for Japanese public opinion on the matter, as far as I know, the majority of Japanese people considers the bombings to be war crimes just as much as crimes against humanity. But this is going a bit off topic here.
 * Anyways. I have a court ruling and an official statement from the Japanese government for my cause. I've specified my ideas here. What do you think?--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

only the "ethical" justification is debated?
nice try in intro; also the strategic justification is debated, stop propagandizing. --212.54.222.41 (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

and by the way, wtf is there to debate on "ethics"? it's civilians; damn some people are brainwashed. --212.54.222.41 (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Some like to turn it into an ethical discussion because these civilians were killed during war time. I presume ethical justification is being debated, since it isn't possible to debate the legal justification of those acts. Due to those pesky League of Nations and Hague conventions et cetera. But yes, good point, I will add the strategic justification part in there.

--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You guys, can you explain me in what sense is the strategic justification of the bombing debated (i.e. in sense different from the ethical justification)? Perhaps with some sources? AFAIK every discussion on strategic justification was but an extension of the ethical justification debate - i.e. "Was the bombing necessary" question. Thank you. --ja_62 15:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * With "strategical justification" I mean how important that target was out of a military perspective. I would say Hiroshima's military importance was rather lacking. It's main assets were a harbor (which didn't become very damaged by the atomic bomb, since it was a good bit away from the city center where the bomb was dropped over) and the misfortune of having the presence of Shunroku Hata's corps. Hiroshima would not have had any major significance in a potential invasion of Japan, other than the presence of military bases mainly outside of the city. Needless to say, the bomb, which was dropped over the center of Hiroshima, not over any military or naval base, had little impact out of a strategic perspective.
 * And out of an another perspective, when you launch an attack, and only around 10% of those who died in it were combatants, it cannot be considered a strategic success.
 * The ethical perspective differs in "could there have been done something else to spare the lives of those poor poor civilians?" while the strategical says "was it worth wasting our weapons on a target without any major military importance?"

--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer. I am still bit unconvinced by your arguments as the targets were some of the few targets of any military value yet undevastated by conventional bombardment in Japan, and the success of strategic bombardment lies a little elsewhere that just in imminent destruction of military targets - but if your reference says so... --ja_62 15:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Only a retard would attack a target of no military significance, so it is clear that Hiroshima was picked because it had any military significance. However, it wasn't of any major military significance on a direct level. Of course, it could be argued that it intimidated the Japanese into a fast unconditional surrender, and gave the Soviets a warning which pretty much said "The war ends at Japan, don't you dare to continue towards the US or you will meet the same fate", but this is more of a grand strategy argument. The cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Nagasaki a lot less than Hiroshima) were of little military importance.
 * However, this brings up a good point. We can consider the effect the bombings had on the outcome of the war as strategic importance. Perhaps I should change the wording from "strategic importance" to "military significance".

--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And a small addendum, as for direct strategic importance (not as grand strategic importance), the atomic bombings were major failures. An immense amount of money had been used on completing the bombs, which then were used against targets which could have been destroyed just as well with conventional bombs, and in all likelyhood in a more effective manner(that being a higher percentage of destroyed military targets with a lower percentage of civilian to military deaths) --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My point basically was that there were no such many targets of greater military value at that time remaining in Japan, so it makes little sense of judging their military value in absolute terms.
 * Do you really think the "strategic importance is unrelated to a "military significance" of bombing? What is the exact wording of your reference? --ja_62 16:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * From that aspect, there weren't many targets of any military importance left in Japan, so those who were, could be considered of "major" importance in relative terms, since there were few targets even less important. Sounds about right. "Any" importance.
 * I consider military strategy to be more like the planning to achieve the desired outcome of a war, while military significance applies to how important a specific target is in that plan. Perhaps we're drifting off into miscommunication here. The source I've used was already present in the article earlier, at the section "Debate over bombings" with the note from "[...]and, therefore, militarily unnecessary,[97][...]". I suppose we can let it be at that. --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There are reliable secondary sources that discuss the strategic necessity of the bombing. One of them is Gar Alperovitz's The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, (Knopf, 1995). The book was named "Distinguished Finalist" for the Lionel Gelber Prize, a literary award for "the world's best non-fiction book in English that seeks to deepen public debate on significant global issues." This article, however, is, per long editorial consensus, not to be used for, or even have the revisionists positions summarized in it. As such, please discuss your proposed changes on the "Debate..." page, which the Military History project does not protect from dissenting views. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, however it is correct that the strategical importance of the bombings is being debated. Further in-depth debate should be relegated to the debate page, however the fact that it is being debated should be mentioned in this article as well.--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well no it shouldn't be mentioned here. That is precisely why the 'debate' page was initiated. This article is just a factual entry on what actually happened, not why it happened or should it have happened. This aspect has been debated over and over and that is the continuing concensus. 21st CENTURY  GREENSTUFF 14:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Like he said - editors have demonstrated that any attempt to make it clear that there is a dispute that the bombings were anything other than a military act as part of WWII (as opposed to the opening shots of the Cold War) is to be ghettoized in the "Debate..." article, regardless of how many reliable sources can be found that contradict the entrenched views of the Military History project members. Hipocrite (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A case of miscommunication? I did not say "bring the debate onto this article". I was stating that the article is fine how it currently is. It mentions that there is a debate, but this debate is not being displayed in this article. Other than a small sub article that specifically mentions it and directs the reader to the debate page.--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the cases of miscommunications which you seem to be specially prone to - may you finally answer my question: what the exact wording of your reference? Quoting from text does not seem to be very helpful, especially as "and, therefore, militarily unnecessary" somewhat defeats your position of strategic importance separate from ethical.
 * And I don't want any of your expertly opinions like that an atomic bomb delivered in a single flight is someway "less effective" than multiple conventional bombings. --ja_62 15:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not my source, it was being used in the article to make the same point before I made it, just in another section further down. You should look it up yourself; I don't know since I don't own the book and can't find it online. You should complain to the person who first added it to this article, not me.--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You admit that you are trying to include into the article claim based upon your subjective interpretation of a source you are not familiar with, nota bene source which, it seems from its previous use (and, therefore, militarily unnecessary), expressis verbis denies that the question of strategic importance is discussed independently from the question of the ethical justification of the bombings. And you are trying to blame an unknown editor who used the source for supporting different claim, namely strategical necessity of the bombings from the ethical point of view - i.e. what you've expressed in words "could there have been done something else to spare the lives of those poor poor civilians?". Are you being serious? And I'm certainly not going to prove your claims - that should be your thing. Anyway, Wikipedia has ways to verify if the source really does support what you claim. --ja_62 16:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ...sigh. Are we even talking about the same thing? "could there have been done something else to spare the lives of those poor poor civilians?" can you spot sarcasm? I made a clear difference. What I bring forth on the talk page is one thing. What I add in the article itself another. It is correct that the strategical value of the bombings is being debated. Right here even is a meta debate. Exactly what point are you trying to make? --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, I have noticed you tried attacking the edit I've made at the top of the article, even though I used a source that was in the article even before I started editing on Wikipedia, and right until then hasn't been questioned on single time (Presumably because it obviously was a valid source). You had no reason to do so; I've undone that. It is beyond my understanding why I need to verify something that has apparently already been verified&accepted by the community a long time before I came here.--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Effects on Japanese Christians
It might be noteworthy to include at least a footnote on the effects of the Nagasaki bombing on Japan's Christian community. At the time, Nagasaki was Japan's most Christian city, and its untimely destruction severely impaired any future prospects for the evangelization of that country. In fact, the book The Bells of Nagasaki records how one Japanese Catholic reacted against the destruction of Nagasaki's local cathedral. In Italy, Cardinal Giacomo Biffi has even concluded that the dropping of the bomb was not at random, that there was a deliberate intention of wiping out the majority of Japan's Christians. ADM (talk) 11:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Absurd comment made by this Cardinal... Sorry, but I do not think that the fate of the Christian faith in Nagasaki is of particular interest here. The topic is the bombings and its effects on overall people as citizen, not as Shintoists, Buddhists, Atheists, Christians, Agnostics, Muslims, or Hindus.. --Flying Tiger (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've read a lot about the U.S. military and government preparations for the bombings and nowhere do they discuss determining where Christians were concentrated. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * ...and if Nagasaki were not bombed by nuclear device, it would have been thoroughly firebombed. Several urban targets including Nagasaki were saved from firebombing solely for atomic bombing, so that the atomic results could more clearly be shown. Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly worth mentioning that the hypocenter of the explosion was the site of Asias largest christian church. 3.2.2010, 6h29 Tjalf Boris Prößdorf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.18.223 (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, as long as the text doesn't suppose that the church was in any way targeted. The bombs drifted into place by parachute, and the Nagasaki blast was far from its target because the heavy cloud cover over the city obscured a great deal of it. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As Nagasaki city has been an epicenter of Christianity in Japan from 15th century, a religious implication of Nagasaki bombing was too controversial to be taken up by US media. However, such negligence on history has been very typical for US military. However, the fact is the A-bomb exploded just 500m above Urakami Cathedral, a Catholic church. All Christians congregated for Sacramentum were killed due to heat rays and collapsed stones. Isn’t it strange no mention of such important fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.209.12.166 (talk • contribs)


 * It is an interesting factoid, the church underneath the bomb, but not more than that. The bomb's target was the city and the people within it, mostly non-Christian Japanese. Of course, some building is going to be closest to the epicenter, and with the wind drifting, the targeting difficulty through clouds—all that imprecision—it is too much to try and pin intention on the U.S. military, intention to kill Christians. Binksternet (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's absurd to think U.S. intended to bomb church or kill Christians. Still, it's a fact that Urakami_Cathedral was the ground zero of the bombing. Japanese version of the cathedral article says the cathedral was packed with people confessing at the time of bombing and all the people attending were killed. More importantly, one of the columns of the destroyed cathedral is currently displayed with the ground zero monument. This picture, also used in this article,, shows both the ground zero monument in the center, and the column of the cathedral in the right. I think, at least, this Nagasaki bombing article should include the words "Cathoric church" or "cathedral". I don't care what U.S. intended to destroy, but it's odd to omit mentioning the actual "ground zero" in a "bombing" article. This article may not need to mention the intention of the bombing, but it needs to mention the fact and result of the bombing.121.2.162.197 (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Article needs to be rid of subjective opinions.
In reference to the paragraph - The Hiroshima prefectural health department estimates that, of the people who died on the day of the explosion, 60% died from flash or flame burns, 30% from falling debris and 10% from other causes. During the following months, large numbers died from the effect of burns, radiation sickness, and other injuries, compounded by illness. In a more plausible estimate of the total immediate and short term cause of death, 15–20% died from radiation sickness, 20–30% from flash burns, and 50–60% from other injuries, compounded by illness.

The estimates of the Hiroshima health department makes much more sense than your so-called "more plausible" estimate of 50-60% dying from other injuries, compounded by illness. It was an atom bomb, with so much flame and heat that 60% would have died from flash or flame burns. The 20-30% figure seems very made up. The paragraph has been taken from an American source, which would want to downplay the effects of the bomb itself. You could give the public both the figures but let them decide which is the more plausible one. Because it is evident which one seems more plausible. I think articles in an encyclopedia should stick to raw facts and not sneak in subjective opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lathema (talk • contribs) 09:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Mention of Pellegrino book
The second paragraph under the "Double Survivors" subsection has nothing to do with double survivors. It appears to have been added mainly to invoke a visceral response. I added some information and citations based on the article about the book's author. However, given the the known issues with this book and its author, and the fact that the information is misplaced, should it simply be removed from the article? ++Arx Fortis (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Although half of your sources are unreliable for inclusion, a couple of them are significant enough to simply remove the whole paragraph. Adding controversy about a book isn't on-topic for the article. (Although what a double survivor eyewitness said about a bombing, on a page about the bombing, would have been, even if it offends your sensibilities.) ( Hohum  @ ) 19:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from making any assumptions about my sensibilities or motivation. I was truly interested in what the paragraph stated and was looking for more information on the book cited.  However, when I read the article about the author and problems with the book, I realized the paragraph merited balance or to simply be removed altogether. It seems the latter was the appropriate choice.  All of those sources were in situ in the other article; they were not mine.  ++Arx Fortis (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's up to you to WP:VERIFY sources are WP:RELIABLE when you add to an article, whether it's a copy/paste or not. ( Hohum  @ ) 18:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from MuonOne, 21 July 2010
editsemiprotected

Please add the following after "An unknown number of survivors from the Hiroshima bombing had made their way to Nagasaki, where they were bombed again."

Tsutomu Yamaguchi, the only official survivor of both atomic blasts to hit Japan in World War II, died Monday, Jan 4, 2010, in Nagasaki, Japan. He was 93. NYT Jan 6, 2010 by Mark McDonald The cause was stomach cancer, his family said. . . . source URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/world/asia/07yamaguchi.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=hiroshima%20nagasaki%20survivor%20death&st=cse

MuonOne (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)MuonOne
 * ❌: that source can only be used to prove that he did that, not that an unknown number of people did. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 16:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

GA run #2
I would like to try and get this article through the GAN process in the next month or so. The first GAN was quick-failed due to fact tags which are no longer present. Now, I'm no history major, so if anyone is willing to offer assistance, that would be outstanding. On that note, here's a list of stuff that could be worked to help meet GA standards. If this works out, we can try for A-class and maybe even FA if so desired. Anything else that needs some help to meet GAC? TheTito  Discuss  09:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fix or remove dead links
 * Double check to make sure the images are up to code (copyright status and whatnot)
 * Optional copyedit by the Guild, just to get some fresh on eyes on the prose right before submission.

Hiroshima atomic bombing
It is not factual that the aiming point for the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was the Aioi bridge. Years later, the bombardier of the Enola Gay testified in an A&E interview that he was aiming for the Southern Regional HQ for the Imperial Japanese Army.

The aiming point for Nagasaki, by the way, was the torpedo factory that had produced the actual torpedoes fired on American ships at Pearl Harbor in 1941.

Lenpey (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if you can provide valid references and authentication support for that please add them to the article. 21st CENTURY  GREENSTUFF 15:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Nagasaki Casualty Count
(TerryDarc) George Weller WWII reporter and Pulitzer prize winning author states on Page 27 of "First Into Nagasaki", ISBN 978-0307-34202-7. Weller writes:

'At constabulary headquarters tonight, little lieutenant colonel Tokunagawa told the writer (Weller) that cataloged as of Sept. 1, (1945) 19,741 had been positively and officially counted plus 1,927 missing. Wounded requiring treatment number 40,093".

The article lists "Casualty estimates for immediate deaths (Nagasaki) range from 40,000 to 75,000.[65][66][67]". I propose that someone add Weller's numbers to the article. Two of the three cited articles may lack objectivity with names like ""Nagasaki's Mayor Slams U.S. for Nuke Arsenal" and "Were We the Enemy?: American Survivors of Hiroshima." Weller's first hand account, just published deserves to be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrydarc (talk • contribs) 20:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Truman order
"By executive order of President Harry S. Truman, the U.S. dropped the nuclear weapon "Little Boy" on the city of Hiroshima on Monday, August 6, 1945"

What "executive order"? There was no formal legal Executive Order issued, that is clear. I seem to recall that the closest thing to a formal "OK" from Truman was in agreeing that the press release statement should be released whenever the bomb was dropped.

I'm not trying to be pedantic, but the question of "did Truman really give an order, or did he just go ahead with what was already being planned?" is one that scholars have debated for quite some time. The general consensus was that Truman never really did order it, because he never really considered there to be any alternative available. (That is, there was never any "debate" about its use that included Truman.) The only explicit "order" to use the bomb was authorized by Stimson and Marshall, not Truman.

Unless someone has a strong argument to the contrary, maybe we should change it to, "Under the authority of President...", or something that is a little more ambiguous on whether Truman was the one who "ordered" it? --Mr.98 (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe he gave some kind of approval that the military could use nuclear weapons when it deemed fit, rather than saying, "go use it now". ( Hohum  @ ) 02:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Truman wrote "I have told the sec. of war, Mr. Stimson to use it so that..." on July 25, 1945. See the July 25 entry . Other related documents are here. Oda Mari (talk) 06:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Mention in this article that the bombings are officially recognized as war crimes by Japan.
Hello. You probably know me from this previous entry. The Ryuichi Shimoda case of 1963 ended with the decision that the atomic bombings offended against international war laws of the time (read: Hague) and thus were war crimes. The government of Japan also made the statement that the atomic bombings are war crimes according to international law in a protest letter towards the US, shortly before the war ended. (English translation of that protest letter being here, the source is also mentioned in this article. It has been tagged with "self-published source?" for some reason, but if that is a deciding factor, I can come with other sources confirming that. Though probably some of those could be in Japanese.) You probably also know that during the Tokyo trials, the defense also tried bringing up the atomic bombings as war crimes, but the judges, instead of coming with any reasoning towards the issue (like judges are supposed to), simply ignored all of it.

All while I have been unable to find any official statement from the Japanese government or Japanese court system which said that the atomic bombings are not war crimes. This leads me to the conclusion that stating that these acts are considered war crimes by Japan would be unequivocally correct. Since it usually the legal status of the described act in the country it was committed in is an important part of the overall article, I consider it being important to add it to this article.

Now, how should it be put into this article? I suggest making a small section about this issue (which does not belong into the "Debate" section, since that obviously is about debate and not about verdicts) in this article. Alternatively, add it to the War crimes in Japan category.

Please, if you have anything to add, feel free to do so. I am quite certain I have covered all previously non-unequivocal points in this. If there is no opposition towards this based on opposing sources, not opposing personal opinion of editors, I will make these previously mentioned additions. '''Please, please come with some kind of logical argument against this. I am tired of "I don't like this so I won't let you do this."'''--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Using a single court ruling to suggest that Japan as a whole unequivocally considers the bombings as a war crime is a bit steep. Stick to the facts without synthesis. Say that the specific court made the specific ruling - the other conclusions are your interpretation.
 * I beleive the source you refer to is tagged as self published because the site its on looks self published.
 * I'd also ask you to assume good faith. Characterising previous argument against your proposals the way you just did is disengenious. ( Hohum  @ ) 02:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That court decision, after the war ended, plus that statement before the war ended, are enough for saying "Japan officially considers the bombings to be war crimes". It would indeed be a bit steep if I used that to claim all Japanese nationals consider the bombings to be war crimes, which I don't and never would, since that would be ridiculous. I feel we're coming close to an agreement here. So, should I write a new (short if necessary) section about the legal standing of the bombings in Japan, or should I add an one-liner at the top of the page? --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the same Japan which at that time never officially recognized or admitted their own war crimes. So saying another nation committed crimes against them is laughable. Also, as has been pointed out to you numerous times in this debate, the bombing of cites was not considered a war crime at the time. No one on the German or Japanese side was charged or convicted for bombing cities during the war. Thirdly, I repeat again that this ruling has NO LEGAL STANDING. It was nothing more than a stunt to start with; the plaintiffs sued the Japanese government, but the court ruled the U.S. committed a "crime" without giving it the chance to defend itself. Fourth, this is still nothing more than another attempt by you to force you own POV that was a "war crime." This POV even lead you to recreate a deleted category to further this POV. The link to this court case should be enough. Fred8615 (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "This is the same Japan which at that time never officially recognized or admitted their own war crimes." Oh my, is that some Guilt by association? Fallacies are not something to use if you want to appear intelligent. Anyways. You know that Shimoda v. The State was in 1963? Over a decade after the surrender of Japan? Perhaps you'd like to take a peek over here.
 * Two apologies to only two specific countries two years after the case was brought, all the rest after the decision was rendered. Fred8615 (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Also, as has been pointed out to you numerous times in this debate, the bombing of cites was not considered a war crime at the time." Just because nobody was tried for it does not mean it was not considered to be a war crime. Again, the court case is from 1963. Hague calls city bombardment a war crime. The Geneva convention of 1949 calls it a war crime as well (in specific, the killing of noncombatants). If "at the time" is 1963, then the atomic bombings definitely were considered war crimes by war law. If "at the time" was 1945, same.
 * If it was against Hague, why wasn't anyone tried for it in WWII?? And don't use the argument the Allies did it too, so the Germans or Japanese would've been acquitted, because then it throws your whole case out the window. And as for Geneva, you can't retroactively convict someone of something that wasn't a crime when it was done. So in that instance, the Japanese court was wrong to rule the way they did. Fred8615 (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Thirdly, I repeat again that this ruling has NO LEGAL STANDING." Wrong, it does in Japan. If you're going to claim the opposite, please give me any kind of valid source agreeing to that. I think we both know how Wikipedia works.
 * Please explain to me how in any place but a rabidly anti-American country a court ruling in which the Japanese government is sued, but the U.S. is convicted has any legal standing?? Has this case EVER been cited in ANY other legal proceedings? Anywhere? Anytime? Has the U.S. government, since it was found guilty of committing a "war crime" paid a single penny in reparations? Has anyone gone to jail? Fred8615 (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Fourth, this is still nothing more than another attempt by you to force you own POV that was a "war crime."" Not quite, this is an attempt to make this page mention the legal standing of the atomic bombings in Japan. Since I'm using valid sources to do so, I really don't see what the problem is.
 * "This POV even lead you to recreate a deleted category to further this POV." No, I recreated it in order to give all participants more options for an ultimate decision to choose from.
 * "The link to this court case should be enough." Plus a mention in the article (example: "The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been judged to be war crimes in Japan[in Japan, by a Japanese court, but not internationally]." somewhere at the top of the article, or a section for itself further down in the article, with "Main article: Ryuichi Shimoda v. The State" at the top of it. I would name the section as "The bombings as war crimes in Japan", or if you dislike that evil word "war crime", I think we can go with "The legal status of the bombings in Japan", since I consider it important to mention the legal status of an act in the country it was committed in, and quite a few other articles on Wikipedia which are about events where lots of people got killed during the war contain such a section. Alternatively, the article could be added to a category about events considered "war crimes", officially (as in this case by Japan) or inofficially (as in the case of many less "controversial" events).
 * Bottom line: All my proposed edits are based on fact, fact which is defined by verifiable sources and without any opposing sources, making it unequivocal. I really don't see any logical reason why you oppose this. Does adding a small section about the legal standing of the bombings in Japan sound good? --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (As response to Fred8615's 3 split up responses) "So in that instance, the Japanese court was wrong to rule the way they did." First off, that is not up to you to decide. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Second, your reasoning why the court supposedly is wrong makes no sense. Because no previous WW2-related court called city bombing a war crime? What? You're aware that the defense during the Tokyo Trials brought the atomic bombings up as war crimes, right? The judges ignored it, but the fact remains. I have stated this several times before. I did not say that the court used the 1949 Geneva convention as definition for what war crimes are. I only mentioned it because it was relevant to the "spirit of the time". If you've made the effort to actually read the Wikipedia/Wikisource article on Shimoda v. The State, it is clearly shown that only the words of the Hague have been used to come to a decision. The US government hasn't been made to pay any kind of reparations for the bombings since this court case was in Japan. Please explain to me what part of this is so difficult to understand/accept. The atomic bombings have been decided to be war crimes in Japan, by the highest available Japanese court.  Therefore, saying that the atomic bombings are considered war crimes in Japan, per the decision of the Tokyo District Court, would be unequivocally correct. 
 * Your personal opinion of the state of Japan and it's court system, as well as the association fallacies you present with it, do not matter. Again, my statement that the bombings are considered war crimes in Japan since the relevant Japanese court decided so, is unequivocally correct. If Japan at the time did or did not acknowledge it's own war crimes, or if the Japanese spent their free time burning American flags because they all were so immensely anti-American like you want it to look like, is completely irrelevant to this issue. The US propaganda department depicted the Japanese as barbarian animals, and Japanese were widely considered as subhuman in America during the period of the Pacific War, and a good bit beyond that. Japanese Americans were deported because it was assumed that they all somehow were Japanese agents and/or a threat to America in general, all of that simply because they were ethnic Japanese. Does this make the decisions of the IMTFE invalid? No. Neither does the situation of Japan in 1963 make the decision of that court invalid. The decision applies within Japan, and the bombings were within Japan. It is important to mention the legal stance of the bombings in the nation they were committed in (Japan), and that legal stance was defined by Shimoda v. The State. A last time now: You have only provided your personal opinion to justify your actions, and you have been unable to come with any kind of source that strengthens your personal opinion. I have come to the point where my statement is unequivocally correct, backed up with all necessary relevant sources(the decision of the court case, which applies within Japan). You are not sticking to any Wikipedia guidelines at all. If something is relevant to an article, and if it is supplied with a sufficient amount of sources, and if it is unequivocally correct, it belongs in that article. Am I being clear enough? Bold/large text in order to make my points clear. --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you continue to hound people about this, Raubfreundschaft, it will be viewed as disruptive. Please stop now and go do something more productive than whine about not getting your way. Thank you. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 17:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Whine? How very undiplomatic of you, I am shocked. This whining is something I would call "coming to a decision everybody can agree to" (which has helped a lot, considering this discussion is about to reach a good final decision). If you wish to participate in this discussion, please come with something more constructive. Thank you. --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "Japan officially considers the bombings to be war crimes" - this is unnaceptably vague and ambigious. Japan means what? - the country, the populace, the government? Wikipedia should reflect what the sources actually say. "Court XXX has ruled YYY". This isn't a section - it's a sentence. It shouldn't be in the lead - that is a summary of the major points in the article. ( Hohum  @ ) 20:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Usually when the court of a nation makes such a decision, it is generally acceptable to state that the nation has made that decision, like Blablaaa has said. But if we want to be picky, we can specify that the court (and also the government) has said so. If I can't put it in the lead, I must put it in a section. Currently there isn't any section in the article that would do. Therefore I suggested to add a new section which specifically touches that matter. Since a section usually should consist of more than one sentence, I could add the basic summary of Shimoda v. The State and put a link to the main article there. Sounds good? --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * After reading the discussion iam wondering about the intentions of some. If the highest japanese court ( which dealt with this topic ) decides it was a war crime, than u can indeed say "japan considers the bombing to be a war crime". Who decided if germany did warcrimes? a court done by some countries and now we can say western world considers german actions as warcrimes. No one would dispute this sentence while hohum would ask, " who ? the country, the populace, the government? ". Hohum's logic here is wrong. Its also very important what japans thinks about it. Blablaaa (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Check out the article on the Japanese history textbook controversy. Amazingly, there's no mention of the a-bombs being declared a war crime in Japan. So apparently it isn't be taught as such, so it must not be official government policy. Also, you brought up Geneva in the first place, now you're saying it doesn't apply. Make up your mind. And my final argument on this issue is this: if you're so convinced you're in the right, take your case to the people running Wikipedia. Ask for arbitration, mediation, an outright ruling, whatever. I'm tired of this debate. You want more than just the link to the court case, get an official okay. Until then, it's out as far as I'm concerned. Take your case to court as it were, or let it go. I'm done debating you. Fred8615 (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So why should there be a mention of them(the bombings) in that article(textbook controversies)? It wouldn't be relevant. I never said Geneva was what decided the verdict, but you apparently misunderstood it as such so I clarified myself again. What I want is this article to mention the legal stance of the bombings in Japan, because it is highly relevant. No POV pushing, no association fallacies, only an unequivocal fact. Anyways, where should I ask? :-) --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I am still bemused why this discussion is even here. This article is specifically about the physical aspects of the bombings, NOT the whys and wherefores of the bombings. If any mention of this dubious courtcase has a place anywhere it would be in the article Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not here. Please bring this nonsensical discussion to a close and take it elsewhere. 21st CENTURY  GREENSTUFF 18:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly why shouldn't this article mention the legal stance of the bombings in the country they were committed in? It is an important part of the whole thing, and clearly relevant. --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How many different ways do you need this spelled out? ... because it is patently the wrong article. This article describes what happened and what the results were. The linked but separate article Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki concerns the important ethical aspects of the bombings and the rights and wrongs. Your topic would be a natural fit there, while it is an anachronism here. With respect, exactly which bit of that fundamental premise are you finding it difficult to understand? 21st CENTURY  GREENSTUFF 22:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen the importance of court verdicts being lowered down in importance to the level of mere debate elsewhere on Wikipedia, so exactly why should it on this article? The debate article is about "Person X thinks the bombings were "wrong" because of Y and Z. Person K thinks the bombings were "right", because of A and B.", while my topic is about the actual legal situation of the bombings in Japan, and not some mere opinion that is to be discarded in the debate bin. A court is not an ethical "right or wrong". It is an unquestionable decision. Besides, the court decision is a result of the atomic bombings, so by your relevance yard stick, this has all right to fit into this article. It seems I can understand this premise too well, since I am able to differentiate between opinions that have nothing to do with the case, and court decisions, which have everything to do with the case. --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "But if we want to be picky, we can specify that the court (and also the government) has said so. If I can't put it in the lead, I must put it in a section. Currently there isn't any section in the article that would do. Therefore I suggested to add a new section which specifically touches that matter. Since a section usually should consist of more than one sentence, I could add the basic summary of Shimoda v. The State and put a link to the main article there. Sounds good?" - Raubfreundschaft
 * There is an existing relevant section "Debate over bombings", it merits a sentence there. ( Hohum  @ ) 00:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Slight problem to me chief, I don't see why court verdicts should be discarded in the "debate" bin. I'm a bit more specific in my response to 21stCenturyGreenstuff's post. The legal situation of an event, (obviously since that legal situation, to be more precise, the very verdict that has decided it to be as such, is because of that event, and thus a direct result of that event.) Many, many other articles about comparable events contain some sort of mention of their legal situation, so I don't see why this article should make an exception. --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This debate is going nowhere. I cannot agree with you, I have stated my stance. I have finished with this entrenched back and fore ... and leave the rest of you to this circular argument. This topic fits properly into the debate article and I am sorry you feel that it is "mere" debate. <b style="font-family:arial; color:green;">21st CENTURY</b> <b style="font-family:arial; color:green;"> GREENSTUFF</b> 21:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase myself. Why wouldn't you want this article to mention the legal status of the bombings in the country they were committed in? Personally, I consider it to be highly relevant. Your main argument against seems to be that it wouldn't be an anachromism, and therefore not belonging into this article. But is this not a rather weird way of categorizing relevance? This article already does mention several things on which the date isn't August 1945, exactly because they are relevant to the article. The legal situation, decided to be as it is during anno 1963, also is highly relevant to the article, even though it is from 1963 and not August 1945. Also, the reason I consider this not to fit in the debate article simply is that court verdicts cannot be categorized as debate. Court verdicts are official statements of law. Please explain to me how you can categorize court verdicts as mere "debate". I am being completely objective here, and I hope you can respond to me in the same manner (if you decide to respond to me, as I hope). A subjective stance doesn't really belong on Wikipedia articles other than personal quote sections. An objective stance, on the other hand, is exactly what is required. Especially in those articles where people throw subjective opinions at each other (I believe I have been able to avoid doing that for the most part, unless when I add my personal opinion to something, which I then of course clarify as being my personal opinion and nothing else). --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 09:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The court case is being used to support a position in the post war debate, so it fits in that section. ( Hohum  @ ) 15:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I never opposed that being in the debate article, and I see no problem with that either. However, a court case is more than so. If this article shall not make any mention of anything besides the bombing themselves and the effects of them on their victims, I at the very least consider it appropiate to add this article to some sort of war crimes category (as this action, I believe, would be agreeable by all parties involved based on objective grounds) because the court case decided the bombings to be war crimes. Would you oppose that as well? Or would you consider it to be fitting? Of course, if you come with the "the bombings are not internationally considered to be war crimes, so that must be kept in mind" argument, we can put it into the War crimes in Japan category (to be specific where the court verdict applies). --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The only appropriate thing would be to mention that one judge made a ruling calling them "war crimes". That judge, however, does not speak for everyone in Japan, and especially not for the Japanese government. Therefore, Japan, doesn't officially recognize them as war crimes as the government has not issued any sort of statement to that effect. This article does not belong in any war crimes category. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 20:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

"The only appropriate thing would be to mention that one judge made a ruling calling them "war crimes"." So, should I make a new section on the issue? "That judge [...] does not speak for everyone in Japan, and especially not for the Japanese government." The Japanese government spoke for itself in that protest letter it published shortly before the war ended, by calling the atomic bombings "war crimes". I would say it is quite correct to make mention of the atomic bombings as war crimes at least in the country they were committed in considering that offical statement and that court case. What the common Japanese man thinks about this is quite irrelevant in this issue, since public opinion usually isn't used as deciding factor whether an act is a war crime or not, compared to official government statements and court verdicts. Anyways, what should we do? A new section in the article about the legal status, or an addition to the War crimes in Japan(implying that they are considered as such[by official means] in Japan and were committed in Japan, which would be accurate in this case) category, or both? I will await a reply. --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good grief, this is still going on. Report what body said what. Don't synthesise beyond that. The end. ( Hohum  @ ) 00:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Report what body said what." I believe a small additional section or something in that direction would be required. --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my unannounced absence. May we get back on the subject now? --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break

 * Sure, I still think this warrants a sentence or two, quoting the relevant phrase from the court, in the existing debate section with a link to the relevant article, for the reasons already stated. I don't accept your contention that the debate section is a "bin". ( Hohum  @ ) 19:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I apologize for calling it that. But I don't really see how a mention of the legal situation of the bombings is to be placed into a debate section, rather than in a section for it's own. I consider legal cases around specific events to be of utmost relevancy to the event itself. Just to make it clear, the only reason I oppose to put it into the debate section, is because I am unable to understand the logical reasoning behind putting legal matters on the same level as subjective debate. Instead, I would suggest adding a small (separate) section above or under the debate section, quoting the Shimoda case, with a Main Article: link above it. I believe the section could be called "Ryuichi Shimoda", or "Ryuichi Shimoda v. The State", or "Legal situation of the bombings", or "Legal situation of the bombings in Japan", or "Related court cases" or anything in those lines. --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Its inclusion appears to be to bolster one side of the debate, it fits. Alternatively, you could consider a better name for the debate section which is inclusive of your proposed addition. ( Hohum  @ ) 17:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am fully aware that the case is being used on the debate page to bring through a subjective opinion. However my intent is purely objective. Also, I believe it would appear weird if a single section had two Main article: links (In this case to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State). A separate section would result in increased readability as well as clarity. --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Debate can (and should) be supported by facts. ( Hohum  @ ) 16:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is more or less self explanatory, but facts and debate are not the same thing. Anyways, a separate section? --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need, for the reasons already mentioned. Several alternatives have been suggested. ( Hohum  @ ) 00:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You haven't given a direct response to my post taking up the subject of how confusing and out of order an excerption from a court verdict and an additional Main article link would be in a section that took up discussion and only discussion. The debate article in itself is using historical documents etc. to make the reader take a subjective decision about the bombings. This is clearly evidenced by how the article is built; the two main sections are "Support" and "Opposition". The debate article is not intended as something that one could describe as article functioning for the purpose of storing additional information around the atomic bombings without any subjective back thought. If I have to remind you, here are the two first sentences from the debate article:

''The debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki concerns the United States’ atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 August and 9 August 1945 at the close of the Second World War (1939–45). The role of the bombings in Japan's surrender and the U.S.'s ethical justification for them remains the subject of scholarly and popular debate.''
 * The debate article in itself is dedicated to the ethical justification, and not the legal justification (specific to this; related court issues). Neither you nor anyone else has yet explained to me how those two things can be put together. Again, I have understood that the debate article uses factual documents to give the arguments presented on there some steady ground. But it is devilishly unresponsible to pretend as if factual documents and debate were the same thing. If such documents were on the same level as the debate, what would the logic behind it be? One does not go into a debate to make arguments based on other debate. That is highly illogical. (Or is it just me who is stupid? - Please, I need this logic you are using explained to me.)
 * I am most certain that I am not the only person that would be confused behind the logic of putting a court case (such things usually get their very own sections in Wikipedia articles) in a debate section, and also the confusing premise of one section having two main article links. Just for clarification, the issue is not some sort of lacking respect towards pure debate from my side, the issue is that I (and surely other potential readers) cannot understand the logic behind treating the ethical and juridical aspects of this article as the same thing. And the second issue being one section containing two main link articles, as that would turn the section into something comparable to something of a collection bin (which in this case would be utterly undesirable to anyone willing to extend their knowledge on the atomic bombings, as it would fuse completely differing things that definitely are worthy of their own, separate sections), thereby creating a badly understandable mash-up of a stub section.
 * It is of utmost importance to bring these potential problems up, as a half-cooked addition to the article only would open up more issues, rather than solving them. I am certain it is better to bring these aspects out of the way before they turn into reality. I would assume you are just as unwilling to continue this discussion after these proposed edits have been carried out as I am. When this is done, I want it to be actually done. --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't suggested making another "main article" link. I have suggested adding a sentence or so, with an inline link to the case. This fits within the debate section naturally, as it is being used to support one side of the debate. I don't find this at all confusing. ( Hohum  @ ) 21:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, then where would you suggest placing the link to the Shimoda case? It would be rather pointless to provide an excerption of the case without providing the full text (in this case as a link to the full text) to it. Also, I still don't understand the fundamental premise behind categorizing debate and legal situation as the same thing, as such would implied by putting both things into a section titled "Debate".--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Inline, the way the overwhelming majority of links are included in articles. How is this confusing? ( Hohum  @ ) 17:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is confusing to me as I consider both things to be worth to be treated separately. --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the points raised by Raubfreundschaft are legitimate. I'm confused by the side issue which has been raised about whether or not to accept the opinion or veracity of the Japanese court in regard to the Shimoda case. A question like that is irrelevant - it is factual that the case was brought to court, and an opinion was rendered. Personal opinions will gauge whether or not it is valid. But the fact that it occurred and issued an opinion does support some of Raubfreundschaft's points. In other words, it's unfair to discount the point. I will admit that it is difficult to know how to determine if something is or isn't a war crime, but some of the comments here seem to be backed up with nothing other than a strong opinion that gives the US complete absolution. I think that is short-sighted and seems by its very nature destined to belittle the minority into submission. Beware the tyranny of the majority. --Didier_Olmstead (Talk) 15:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. Now I will perform the changes which me and Hohum agreed to. Though I am going to expect further debate upon the moment they have been done. Raubfreundschaft (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As this is an encyclopedia, your very long quotes should be summarized for the reader. The long versions can be found at the main article. Binksternet (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to make it clear that I didn't agree to what has been added. To quote myself, and the kernel of what I said many times: "I have suggested adding a sentence or so, with an inline link to the case." I have pared it down accordingly. ( Hohum  @ ) 19:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I made that addition while having the chance for future changes in mind. Anyways, I am pleased with this version as it still manages to bring through the most important points of the issue. Raubfreundschaft (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)