Talk:Hiroshima/Archive 1

Why the page is called "Hiroshima, Hiroshima"
'''Address concerns with the titling convention at WikiProject Japanese districts and municipalites. - Sekicho 01:36, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)'''

I think it would be preferable to have this at Hiroshima, since Hiroshima is currently a redirect here. - Montr&eacute;alais


 * What other Hiroshimas are there to make the disambiguation necessary? any even remotely as well-known?


 * Hiroshima prefecture, presumably. --Brion


 * Enough with the valid points, already. :-P


 * Hiroshima prefecture so is of course already naturally disambiguated and mentioned in the article, and most references to Hiroshima will refer to the city. - Montr&eacute;alais

Done. --mav.

Looks like it was done.Moscow, London, Tokyo, etc all get their own page. --SFoskett 15:22, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

'k, was it founded in 1589 or 1889? My guess would be founded in 1589 and took on city status on the 300th anniversary...

Look its stuff. and "officially became a city" 1889 Apr 1

Is the city known for anything other than nucular devastation or being nuked? Or its castle, for that matter. Rickyrab 02:39, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Dears, As far as I know, this city was NOT importat in military terms, this is why it was not bombed previusly, but the article indicates oterwise... Before making any changes, May I ask you to provide the source of this military importance of the city?  Milton 22:29, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Hiroshima is the birthplace and headquarters of Mazda Motor Corp., which is far-and-away the major employer and generates +30% of the city's GDP... -- stewacide 06:13, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

---

Why is this page listed as Hiroshima, Hiroshima?

Romanisation
What is the point of mentioning romanization schemes in this article? Sure, in a number of schemes (based on consonant-vowel pairs, not pronunciation) Hiroshima is written Hirosima. And sushi is written susi and sashimi is written sasimi. But that's not how they're pronounced, and not how they're written in standard English. The whole paragraph seems pedantic to me, unless you want to show every romanization for every Japanese word in Wikipedia. (I can see cases where this sort of discussion could be interesting, e.g., Godzilla = Gojira, but here I don't think it is.) Rjyanco 21:43, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * No point that I can see. Though you say that that's not how they're pronounced ... it is in a sense, just using different rules.  Jimp 30Nov05

Mea Culpa query
I found that documentation of Nuclear strike of the 2 cities is incredibly insufficient. Would anyone please add more infomation of Nuclear strike? Or provide some link of that.

Personally I found it strange that Hiroshima is rebuild on the old position and the environment is not that critical as area that attacked by nuclear weapons as people suspect. --Mea Culpa 09:22, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)


 * I think you'll find that most of the information on the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been moved to the article - Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as stated in the text.


 * Regarding the decision to rebuild the city of Hiroshima on the same site, the answer is that the radiation dissipated very rapidly. The bombs exploded several hundred metres above the ground in both cases, so although some of the radioactive material settled on the ground eventually, most was dispersed widely throughout the atmosphere. At Chernobyl, by contrast, most of the radioactive material remained at ground level.


 * Also, most of the radiation received by victims of the bombing was due to gamma rays sent out at the time of the blast, and the longest-lasting radionucleotide to remain following the bombing was Caesium-134, which has a half-life of just 2 years. So, the quick answer is that it wasn't a long time before the radioactivity due to the bombing reduced to a level below background radiation levels. - MykReeve 11:33, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Streetcar vs Tram
The city of Hiroshima calls them streetcars rather than trams, in the English language signage, therefore shouldn't this be the word used in the article? - MykReeve 19:15, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1548?
The article states that Hiroshima was founded in 1548, yet hte Japanese-language version says that Hiroshima Castle was built in 1589 and the town developed around it. I'm going to change that to 1589, unless someone can prove that the town actually was founded in 1548. - Nik42 03:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Requested move
Hiroshima &#8594; Hiroshima, Hiroshima KTC 02:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC). Note - This is in response to the fact that the other 45 prefecture's capital all have it in that format. KTC 02:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * ''Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~


 * Support. This makes the article title consistent with several hundred others in the same prefecture and nation. Redirect will get the user there automatically. Please see User:Sekicho's comments in the section "Why the page is called 'Hiroshima, Hiroshima'" (above). Fg2 04:23, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Suport - Please see Manual_of_Style_(Japan-related_articles) - Rick Block 05:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Proteus (Talk) 09:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - we should use the same format for all Japanese cities CES 12:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE - it is a very significant city, and should not be modded with the prefectural name, since the majority of english language references will not link that way, and it's most significant as a place where the big-one was dropped. 132.205.45.148 17:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. James F. (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - Consistent style is a good thing, and as long as the redirect/disambig page exists, what's the problem? &mdash;wwoods 23:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-05-3 01:38 Z 
 * Oppose, for the same reasons as for Talk:New York City. DmitryKo 19:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - Standard naming convention for Japanese city articles. Atsi Otani 20:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose Consistency is good but Hiroshima are too famous and frequently refered to follow such a rule mainly for minor municipals. It is one of fifteen biggest cities in Japan, capital of region during some hundret years. I don't think it wise to write in a way "After the Battle of Sekigahara, Fukushima Masanori set his capital in Hiroshima ." It is too clumsy and annoying. -- Aphaea *  01:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose: agree with Aphaia. CDThieme

Discussion
Moving Hiroshima to Hiroshima, Hiroshima would bring it in line with the standard City, Prefecture format and helps with disambiguation, precisely because it has the same name as the prefecture. Moving it in no way diminishes Hiroshima's status as a major city. I believe this is the same format used for cities in the US as well. See the talk page for Nagasaki for more info. CES 18:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * With "Same format", you mean Japanese use this format "City, Prefecture" - if so, no, it is no official rule, and unnecesary, because there is no same name city (a law requires so) in Japan. For minor municipalities like machi and mura, we have no such a rule but here formerly used "gun" not prefecture - If I recall correctly there was three villages under the same name in one prefecture, so naming convention "municipality, prefecture" can't give one and only one designated place in principle.
 * As for status, it is not my problem. I oppose from two reasons
 * At least in Japanese Hiroshima mainly designates the city, not prefecture. the latter is officially and daily refered as Hiroshima prefecture unless the topic is obviously prefectures.
 * Hiroshima is frequently refered both in contemporary topics and historical topics before prefecture was founded. And in both fields it is very annoying to write Hiroshima, Hiroshima. I prefer a set of "Hiroshima" and "Hiroshima prefecture". For disambiguation we may put a guide on both articles. -- Aphaea *  01:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Two different points are being argued here: 1) whether Hiroshima, Hiroshima is redundant 2) whether major cities are "too important" to have their prefecture listed
 * The "City, Prefecture" format is not a law, nor is it arbitrary. It is recommended by the [| Manual of Style] ... if all cities are in the same format it makes creating articles easier: you don't have to check whether a city is "City" or "City, Prefecture"--it's always the latter.  The vast majority of same-name cities in Japan are in the C,P format.  Hiroshima is one of the few exceptions.
 * I don't buy the "it's important so it doesn't need the prefecture" argument either. As far as I know, with the exception of NYC, every US city is "City, State" as well.  I'd say Chicago and LA are as "important" as Hiroshima.  This is an encyclopedia, standard formats really do help.
 * I guess I don't understand the whole objection to a standard format ... if you type in just "City" anyway it'll redirect to the city ... and a standard format makes creating pages simpler. Oh well, I have a feeling we'll never reach a consensus. CES 02:21, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hello, I feel your argument is week because no all cities follow the convention you referred. Frankfurt am Main is not named "Frankfurt am Main, Hessen", Paris (France) is not named "Paris, Paris". It is true US cities follow this convention, but Hiroshima is not an US cities. I admit consistency is important, but I don't understand what made you require this kind of consistency only on Japanese cities. Currently this contestency seems to me to be applied only to US cities. Of course there are other Hiroshima like prefecture, Japanese surname and other towns or villages. But because of frequency, Hiroshima would be better kept as is, or at least as a redirect to the city and this solution would be better to apply to other Japanese cities, too. At any rate it is clearly there is no concensus to move this article. --Larus.r 06:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe the policy is in place because, as you mentioned, many towns in Japan share the same name (take Oshima as an example) and many town names can be used as family names as well. Similarly in the US, there are many towns with the same name in different states (look at Portland for an example).  99.99% of Japanese cities are in City, Prefecture format with little complaint ... it seems like Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Kyoto are the only holdouts.  Why don't other countries' cities follow the same format?  I don't know.  Maybe there's little name redundancy in places like France and Germany.  All I can tell you is what the case is in Japan, and I used the US as an example.  Since redirects are so easy to create, I'm not really sure what the resistance is to moving to a consistent format, especially when we're 99.99% of the way there.  If nothing else it would save us the time spent debating this largely pointless issue. CES 14:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Decision
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 17:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Question about History Section
It says in the history section that "designated on April 1, 1980 by government ordinance". My question is designated as what? tharkun860 19:07, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy?
I removed the following statement that was added Aug 7, 2005:

"However, recent studies done by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa suggest that Japan was willing to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped."

The link is to a conspiracy theory website that is decidedly anti-war and anti-american. The facts of the story may be accurate (which I'm not debating), but if they are accurate, more authoritative links should be found. However, even if the facts ARE accurate, the conclusion that dropping the atomic bombs wasn't necessary isn't supported by such facts. Let's say that Japan was close to negotiating a deal with the Soviets, the United States had its security at stake that would have been in jeopardy with the Soviets in control of the western pacific. We would NOT want the Japanese surrendering to the Soviets. We would NOT want the Soviets using the islands of Japan for its Navy. An interesting debate on the subject would be speculating what the world would look like today if the Soviets had gained control of Japan. The Japanese people had much more to fear in the Soviets than the United States.

In any case, the wording and external link are more editorial in nature than factual and call into question the neutral point of view of the article. If I were going to leave it in, I would say something like:

"At the time the atomic bombs were dropped, the Japanese position was extremely weak and defeat was inevitable. Soviet forces massing in Manchuria, dwindling resources, and America's total control of the western Pacific made defeat only a matter of time, but the atomic bombs clearly hastened the decision to surrender."

--JJLatWiki 16:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * i REadded, not added, the statement on Aug 7. it was taken out by s/one who also made some racist remarks about "japs stinking" etc. see history..


 * here are additional sources:


 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4724793.stm
 * http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=8457&sectionID=15
 * http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0803-26.htm


 * more on Google: http://www.google.com/search?q=Hasegawa+hiroshima


 * there is no conspiracy in that, hasegawa made the study, the fact that it is reported by a non-proper site does not disregard it and its implications. I think your text is very good, if not superb. I'll add it, and give the ZNET and BBC articles as sources. Thanks very much.


 * I think the external links regarding the Hasegawa book are still dubious. ZMag is anti-war, socialist organization and Common Dreams is an anti-war, liberal organization.  And all of the links, including the link to the BBC, are basically "book reviews".  The POV of the ZMag, Common Ground, and mprofaca.cro.net are decidely not neutral.  The BBC story at least compares the Hasegawa book to other countering books in a relatively neutral manner and doesn't end the article with an anti-American conclusion.  Compared to the ZMag review that ended with the following conclusion: "But it can no longer be maintained that the bombs helped to end World War II and in saving many lives by shortening the war were therefore justified."  I'm going to change the wording slightly and remove the suspect links because:  1) A single book doesn't deserve more than a single external link.  And 2) the belief that defeat was inevitable is and was probably widely held.  The length and destructiveness of the final campaigns and the post-war spoils and geopolitical positioning were probably more realistically the deciding factors.


 * I think we should not put too much weight on this one book and we should not put any weight on the secondary conclusions others make based on this one book. Hasegawa's book may be completely neutral (though I doubt it) and 100% accurate in its research, but external links to radical left-wing, anti-war, anti-American, or conspiracy web sites casts a shadow of doubt on the book.  --JJLatWiki 17:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Name
How did this end up here? The requested move failed. Proteus (Talk) 08:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems to have been moved sometime after the vote by User:TakuyaMurata - quite possibly in good faith, as this does seem to be the standard for Japanese towns and cities. Tokyo, Nagasaki, Kyoto and Kobe are the only exceptions I can see, but other notable cities, such as Osaka, Osaka and Yokohama, Kanagawa, are disambiguated. My preference would be for having all major cities - those that most non-Japanese would have heard of, which certainly would include Hiroshima - at the short titles. This is the format used for Australian cities, but not for U.S. cities (except New York City, the odd one out as usual). sjorford (?!) 18:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I did move the page. I know this is a question of a procedure, but I really don't think we should rename an article like this in an arbitrary manner. It would make wikipedia look stupid if there are Hiroshima but Nagasaki, Nagasaki or Aomori, Aomori. -- Taku 01:13, September 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * The discussion is going on at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles). Article titles for all Japanese cities, including the question of exceptions, should be discussed there. Fg2 01:45, September 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Consensus on an article's own talk page trumps the Manual of Style anyway. The MoS has only ever been guidelines. Proteus (Talk) 08:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Responsibility
Why is it that on the 60th anniversary (!) of the bombing The New York Times still states it was a city "with many military sites at the time"? Here in Europe everyone knows (Academia included) it was just industrial. Why can't America accept its share of atrocities, just point fingers out of moral superiority? And why do EVEN wikipedia-articles - which should represented the intellectual vanguard - include this lie? I pointedly put this into the discussions-area, did not alter the article. Please think about it because this permanent denial is such a shame!


 * What phrase in this article do you think contributes to this "permanent denial"? If you think you see a "lie" or error, please correct it.  If this is just a general rant, this is not the correct forum for it.  And, please sign and date your comments too.  Thanks. CES 13:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I am quite new to the Wikipedia-"interface". In spite of my (maybe too strong language) It certainly was not meant as a "rant". Specifically in this article what caught my attention/anger was the term "a major supply and logistics base for the Japanese military, a role that it continued to play during World War II". The twin-article - "Atomic bombings of..." - expressed it even stronger: "a city of enormous industrial and military significance" - could not leave that unchanged. (By the way I don't see much sense in seperating the two, instead of concentrating on one.) I already cited the "New York Times". Now, the German public broadcast for example (BBC equivalent) states that "she (Hiroshima) was neither an important military base nor an important port for supply with war machinery nor a central point of the defence industry." I guess you just have to read Stephen Walker. Again: why does it (nearly) always emerge as a military site, when that by standard of common sense and enlightenment seems plain false? To me there seems to be no authentic change of mind from Truman's diary entries then to this article now. I wish there would be though! By the way: Isn't it symbolic that this question about responsibility has been pushed to the bottom? Jean Winkler 15:45, 20 September 2005 (CEST)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia! The move was not symbolic, just chronological ... it makes it easier if talk pages are in chronological order: usally the newest comments are at the bottom of a talk page (but there are exceptions). CES 16:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Casualty figures
I don't like the listing of 80,000 as the casualty figure. In "Hiroshima" John Hersey writes that the death toll of 80,000 was only a preliminary count and that it was widely assumed to be incomplete, yet the American military brass insisted on using this as its figure.

Also, the article makes no mention of the post-war casualty figures.


 * The Manhattan Engineer District / Oughterson Commission study concluded in 1946 that 66,000 died at Hiroshima by the end of 1945. That was a final figure based on the summer 1945 rice ration, not a preliminary "count", though it soon became apparent that it failed to include Japanese military men and Korean conscript laborers totaling 20,000 present in the city. If half died, then something like 76,000 would be the first estimate. Also in 1946, the Hiroshima police estimated 78,150 dead and nearly 14,000 missing, of whom surely not all were dead. So the early reports are consistently south of 100,000. Today's much larger estimates simply count all dead bomb victims as having been killed by the bomb, rather overlooking the fact that if the median Hiroshima resident in 1945 were 30 years old, he'd be 95 today, long past his life expectancy even without Depression, WWII, Little Boy, and the hungry years of Reconstruction. There never of course was a count, just guesses based on what we know of the city's population at the time of the blast, compounded by guesses as to the cause of death of those who died after 1945. --Cubdriver 19:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The death toll was very high, closer to 100,000 raptor 10:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Where does this death toll figure of 200,000 come from?? Not even the generally accepted death+casualty figures justify this number. It's one thing to say that the 80,000 figure is low (it seems that figures generally around 80,000-120,000 are accepted by various historical sources) but you can't just make up some really large number in response? The 200,000 is just about the generally accepted COMBINED death toll from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And where does the "additional" 60,000 figure on top of that come from? If someone is going to arbitrarily double or triple the death toll (according to this wikipedia entry a total of 260,000!) I'd like to see better proof than conjecture. The city itself and its museum set the figure at around 110,000 I think.


 * Yeah that is too high, I didn't make that up. I've heard that by the end of 1945 the death toll had reached 140,000 so would it be safe to assume that they meant 80,000 initially + 60,000 who died from injuries, radiation etc. within the year? raptor 04:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I edited the casualty figure for the part about radiation. It was vastly overblown and the sources cited didn't support the claims.  I've sourced the current wording to two sources, including the most recent BEIR (Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation) report. Gtadoc 17:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * None of the sources you give say that the number of deaths from radiation was limited to hundreds. The BEIR report you mention doesn't even discuss the immediately following months. The other source you gave is something about doses, not deaths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.153.53.2 (talk) 23:52, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Kyūjitai
I removed the old way to write Hiroshima from the intro paragraph ... the likelihood for confusion seemed too great and the information seemed too trivial to be included in the introduction. More discussion can be found [here]. CES 00:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. In the three years I lived there I never once saw the old way of writing it, and I walked all over the city all the time. --nihon 08:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Unless you walked the streets of Hiroshima before 1950 or so, you probably wouldn't have. I could see how the kyūjitai might be of marginal interest to history buffs ... but otherwise I'm not sure what value they are. CES 14:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering how Hiroshima is pronounced. So many people say "ha-raw-shem-ah", but I've always been under the impression that it's "he-row-she-mah," especially since it's written ひろしま.
 * Your impression is basically correct. If you know a native Japanese person, I recommend asking them to pronounce it for you. --日本穣 02:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I most often hear HEE-row-SHEE-mah, as if it were a city in Italy. The toney folk tend to say Hee-ROSH-eh-mah. I think that's more nearly correct, except that the "eh" sound is nearly silent. I'd be grateful to hear what 日本穣 has to say about that! --Cubdriver 19:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's what I always hear too. A LOT of Americans (especially adults) pronounce it hih-ROH-sheh-muh, but I've been told that HEE-roh-SHEE-mah is the correct way. Maybe there should be a note about that in the article. I mean, if you aren't familiar with Japanese (and since this is the English Wikipedia), just looking at the Hepburn romanization at the beginning of the article doesn't really tell you much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.102.176.102 (talk • contribs).


 * The correct way to say it is to give the same emphasis to all syllables. None of them are emphasized any more than the others. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 19:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How about "Hih-doe-shi-muh"? —wwoods 09:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be great if somebody could post a recording from a native Japanese person. --24.72.103.137 23:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So which way is it? Do the native speakers follow the normal Japanese pronouciation pattern or do they use a dialect that slurs it a little? It seems to me that it should be "hee-row-shee-mah" (with the "row" having that special little l/r thing). However, a friend of mine was saying that she knew a Japanese person who said that it's actually (or at least sounds like) "hee-rosh-ee-ma", or something along those lines. Is it just one of those things that technically should sound one way but end up sounding differently like "des" (de-su) or "skosh-i" (su-ko-shi)? I don't really know of many off sounding words aside from those that use "u" though. Also, I don't care how Americans say it, considering how even something as Tokyo is chopped up incorrectly as To-ki-o.--SeizureDog 20:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Traditional American sound: hero-sheema. Modern attempt to correct sound: her-oh-shih-muh. The former is wrong because of emphasis and inflection in the syllables (though pronunciation is correct), the latter is wrong because of incorrect pronunciation of the syllables (though pacing and emphasis is correct). The best advice I can give to someone who doesn't speak Japanese is to pronounce each syllable -individually- and distinctly, i.e. don't carry over the lead-in sound from the previous syllable. If you follow the guidelines for Japanese romanization, the word is 100% phonetic. The romanization that most Americans actually sound out, however, is more akin to "hiiroshiima" or "hyuroshyema" which are not correct.

There is an oddity in some languages - most notably German, where people pronounce it like [hi.ˈʁɤ(ʃ).ʃi.maː] or ひろっしま. Of course it should be something like [hi.ɽɤ.ʃi.ma]. Yay, we really need a sound sample  j.engelh 09:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Aftermath/After Effects from Atomic
Just a suggestion, any thought on adding an "aftermath" or more suitable, "after effects" from the Atomic Bomb? I think a small amount of people, including those who want to do a history report on their school papers, would like to know more about the "after effects" and the radiation. Examples such as birth defects, structure erosion, poisoning of any kind, environment changes and so on. Also a paragraph on how the government of Japan (with other countries support if any) is dealing with these problems/obstacles (if any) HighEnergyProtons 06:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We've got some of that at hibakusha, though it could stand expansion. —wwoods 09:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We could mention Research Institute for Radiation Biology and Medicine at Hiroshima University. Fg2 10:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Doing non-NPOV business in Hiroshima
The whole section Doing Business in Hiroshima looks like a Vanity section to me. Especially the links to companies througout the section, and the Economic Affairs Bureau (I haven't checked the history, but I guess it's written by them). It should be rewritten by a NPOV person, or deleted. There is a section called Industry which makes this section obsolete. Ninja neko 08:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Japanese city article naming debate
Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles). --Polaron | Talk 08:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Casey Eleson??
There was a line that said:

"After the nuclear attack, Hiroshima was rebuilt by Casey Eleson of West Plains."

This sounds like a line put in (in jest) by the writer. Casey is a young person from Missouri who has an entry in Wikipedia.

I deleted the reference to Casey.

Charles Campbell

Picture and Attractions heading
Just a minor thing that I don't know how to do..

The picture of folded paper cranes seems to be pushing the Attractions heading over to the centre, I think that the attractions heading needs to be aligned left.

This would increase the readability of the article. Thankyou Omega Archdoom 03:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I finally managed to do it, thanks anyway.

Omega Archdoom 03:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There may be one too many line spaces between the picture and the heading, but removing one returns it to how it was before I edited it, so ths is unavoidable. Omega Archdoom 03:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This has now changed, and is back as it was before, so if anyone could fix it please do, as I do not know how.

Omega Archdoom 09:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Formatting's difficult, because results are different according to how wide your screen is and maybe the browser you use. Try moving some things to the right. For example, the photo of the cranes. See if that helps. (Just erase "left|" from the Image line.) I think the A-bomb Dome photo looks best on the left, and probably the table of contents; all the other photos, boxes and things might be best on the right. Or maybe you can come up with a better arrangement? Feel free to play around in the sandbox all you like, and when something looks good, save the genuine article. Best of luck! Fg2 10:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Infobox
It seems to me that the mon should be included in the infobox. Unfortunately, I don't know how to do templates. BilabialBoxing 07:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've moved it by imitating the infobox in Kyoto. However, the resolution is too low. Do you know if a larger version or a scalable vector graphic (svg) file is available? Fg2 08:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments(by Akira Kaji)
(content moved from article to talk page) - 	Well, actually, I am a victim in the Hiroshima attack. At that time, I am only 7 years old and while I am going to school, there is a great explosion, with a great shocking sound. My school was collapsed, I mean the whole building, and I was really frightened at that time. The roof started to shake and I quickly hide under my desk. The roof fell down within 1 minute time. Many of my classmates did different actions, some ran out of the school, and some hide under their desks like me. However, after the roof fell down, our desks had broken and I was seriously injured. I didn’t know what happened to my classmates that time, but I thought that we had chosen the wrong choice to avoid the disaster. What I saw that time was just darkness, and I thought that I was fainted that time. - 	I woke up. Some men were in front of me and they were looking at me. They were firemen and I thought that they rescued me in the calamity. - 	This is an incident long time ago. Sixty years later, that means today, I am an old man now. Actually at that time, I was really angry with the Americans and I really wanted to revenge, however, bow I think that I could forgive them, but I don’t know why and what I am thinking. - 	In Spite of killing a lot of innocent citizens, I lost my parents and many relatives, and also my friends, but still, I will forgive them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fg2 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Sister Cities?
I notice this article says that Hiroshima has six sister cities, but this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sister_cities_in_the_United_States#Pennsylvania says that Harrisburg, Pennsylvania is a sister city as well. Anyone know any info on this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Azslande (talk • contribs) 17:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC).


 * I removed Harrisburg (and another city) from the list in accordance with Hiroshima's Web page on the topic. (See this edit.) Editors occasionally add cities to these lists without citing sources. Sometimes the additions are vandalism, and other times they're well-meaning but the relationships turn out to be less formal than sister relationships. If appropriate documentation of a sister relationship is provided, we're of course happy to list it. Do you need more information? Fg2 21:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope that was all, was just checking, I didn't want two different articles to have conflicting information. I figured someone here would have a better idea of what was going on than I would.--Azslande 00:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

History of the city
How can this article go from the Edo period straight to august 6th, 1945? I'm sure some important things happened in those roughly 90 years. Parsecboy 12:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation
I've heard all manner of pronunciation by Americans — Heero-sheema, Heroshim-a, etc. How is it really pronounced? --24.147.86.187 13:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit following sentence.
"The Chūgoku area has a GDP of approximately (US$)270 billion, making it economically larger than many countries including Switzerland, Belgium, Sweden and Austria."

Lets say the Chugoku area has a GDP of $270 billion. i havent looked up any official sources, however Wikipedia articles clearly states that Swedens GDP is ($285.1 billion), Austrias GDP is ($316.2 billion) and that Belgiums GDP is ($316.2 billion) the Chukogu areas economy shouldnt be larger then that of the countries posted above (with the exception of Switzerland). Perhaps the author should look up his sources before using them for claims that end up looking absurd? Especially when they contradict him? This is my opinion obviously, i wont edit this article myself rather excpect experienced users to do so.

-Kenny.

Fair use rationale for Image:Hiroshima Prefectural Art Museum Shiro.gif
Image:Hiroshima Prefectural Art Museum Shiro.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum TOP.gif
Image:Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum TOP.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hiroshima Museum Of Art logo floor gogh.gif
Image:Hiroshima Museum Of Art logo floor gogh.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hiroshima City Museum of Contemporary Art Logo.JPG
Image:Hiroshima City Museum of Contemporary Art Logo.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Culture + Education
The Education section is just a paragraph. Shouldn't it be larger to have its own section? We could include it in the Culture section, with sports and other things like that. Ohsoh 01:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)