Talk:Bombing of Tokyo (10 March 1945)

Why no real coverage of the vast numbers of leaflets dropped on Japanese cities, warning civilians and asking them to evacuate into the countryside?
The United States dropped vast numbers of warning leaflets on Japanese cities before they were bombed, warning civilians and asking them to evacuate into the countryside (remember Japan had only been an industrial society for a couple of generations - most Japanese urban civilians in the early 1940s still had relatives in rural areas), American aircrews risked their lives dropping these leaflets - yet the article basically ignores all this.2A02:C7D:B41D:C800:4C5:78BD:3774:D7E7 (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you, wikipedian, for your interesting comment. If it is true (??) that Tokyo was warned by a leaflet-drop prior to the attack, then I suggest you change the article to reflect this valid point.  I recommend that you begin by reading the pertinent section of Airborne leaflet propaganda, checking and reviewing its references.  If they are adequate, then use them to edit that article and this one.  Additionally, find new references; you can never go wrong by searching for more quality documentation.  Also, find a public domain image of an Allied Tokyo-leaflet as dropped during the war (google image search, or your own image if you possess one), upload it to Wikimedia, and then add it to the article.  Personally, I doubt Tokyo was warned about this attack... I think the above-referenced article says that the leafletting began after the USAAF was sure Japanese air defenses were weakened to the point that leaflet-drops could be done relatively safely, though it shouldn't be taken for granted that flying over enemy territory was ever truly safe.  The article does speak to the debate over the ethics of the attack, and your point can shed more light on the issue.  Please don't fear to edit responsibly.  That's what Wikipedia is all about. Cellodont  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cellodont (talk • contribs) 16:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't recommend spending any effort on connecting leaflets to the March 1945 bombing of Tokyo, because there's no link. The American leaflets warning Japan about bombing started up in May, two months later. In March, no leaflets were dropped over Japan. And in any case, the July/August leaflets were self-serving, allowing the Americans to deny some degree of targeting civilians. The leaflets were also propaganda aimed to hinder the Japanese war effort by encouraging civilians to leave the cities. It's not like the US was being nice to these people by warning them. Binksternet (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please leave your silly WP:FORUM at the door. The TP's are for the discussion of RS's to improve the article.HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Binksternet's points are all actually factual: the large scale leafleting campaign didn't start until well after this raid, and partially aimed to increase the disruption caused by the bombing by encouraging the evacuation of cities which weren't about to be bombed. Nick-D (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help, Binksternet. Please update the Airborne leaflet propaganda article with referenced edits... it could use some exact info, which you seem to have.  How self-serving the US was in its leafletting campaign would also perhaps be a good thing to add to that article, it you have (?) any references.Cellodont (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * This is also discussed at Air raids on Japan, with sources which can be drawn on. Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

American English versus Commonwealth English
I don't do edit wars, I go to the talk page and document for posterity. Today, I saw the blurb on the main page for this article, and followed the link to read on. There, I found that throughout its text, the word "burnt" was used for the past participle of "burn." Wiktionary, which I would have regarded as a good source, said that "burned" is the past participle, except in the Commonwealth. This makes sense to me and seems right, so I changed all the instances of "burnt" to "burned." I admit I expected to be reverted, and I was, though they didn't outright revert me, they re-edited and undid my changes, claiming that "burnt" is also adequate. I just want to say for posterity that this article is about a USA and Japan issue, and US English customs should be respected here, as British English customs would be respected in the article about the Oxford Martyrs or Neville Chamberlain. Good faith edits shouldn't be automatically undone simply because an arbitrary editor thinks that the previous version was also adequate.Cellodont (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am far from being an arbitrary editor and I changed the spelling back again because "burnt" and "burned" both exist in American English, for example in the paint hues called burnt umber and burnt sienna. But on reflection you were right and I have reinstated your edits. "Burnt" can only be an adjective in US English. Here is a Grammarly article that explains it. Thanks for caring abut spelling and about dialects in English on Wikipedia. --The Huhsz (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Someone put Al-Quaida and Osama in this article 92.206.84.103 (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)