Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep.

That's a difficult one, and I've been unsure about how to close it up until I finished writing this.

The headcount, our usual first approximation of consensus, yields something on the order of 18 delete, 5 delete and/or merge, 3 merge and 10 keep opinions (that's after deducting a few clearly discountable opinions from either side). So far, this points to a "no consensus" closure, especially as one must not delete and merge an article because of licencing problems. Because I see no core policy violations (of WP:V, WP:NPOV or WP:NOR) that can be remedied only by deletion, I have to weigh the arguments on either side to see whether a consensus emerges.

Leaving aside the ideological subtext of this discussion, the core issue is whether the article is a POV fork (bad) or a summary style spinout (good) of Allegations of state terrorism by the United States and/or Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Please allow me to quote the relevant part of the WP:POVFORK guideline:

"Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example summary style, which explains the technique.

Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others.

Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View.

However, it is possible for article spinouts to become POV forks. If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article XYZ, then it is also inadmissible at a spinout Criticism of XYZ. Spinouts are intended to improve readability and navigation, not to evade Wikipedia's content policies."

In view of this, these are the reasons why the "delete" opinions are not, in my view, persuasive enough to constitute a consensus for deletion despite not having the supermajority that we usually accept as numerical consensus:


 * It is neither apparent nor clearly explained what this is supposed to be a POV fork of, and how. It is linked to from both parent articles through WP:SS-style, brief summary paragraphs that are (if at all) at least not overtly or irremediably non-neutral. Furthermore, it is prima facie unclear what POV the article would be pushing. It seems to be at least superficially neutral in that it cites several scholars with a variety of viewpoints.


 * Even assuming arguendo that the article is a POV fork, most or all "delete" opinions do not explain (and it is also not obvious) why this means we must delete it, instead of editing it to make it into a neutral WP:SS spinout, or merging it back.


 * It is also generally not asserted or explained what, if any, content policy problems (such as WP:BLP, WP:NOR...) the content itself suffers from that would necessitate its deletion. To the extent that this is a WP:UNDUE discussion (where and to what extent should we cover the whole issue?), it is not clear why excessive coverage (if any) cannot be reduced through merging and/or redirection instead of deletion.


 * Finally, there is an active debate on the scope and extent of coverage ongoing here. It seems likely that this approach is more conducive to solving the scope/weight issue underlying this discussion than a delete-or-not AfD.

For these reasons, I find that there is currently no consensus to delete this article. This does not rule out consensus-based editorial solutions, such as merging or redirection, that may be arrived at on the article talk page(s).  Sandstein  22:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The subject of this article has been debated for weeks on State terrorism talk page about whether it passes NPOV (both for POV and undue weight) - splitting into a seperate article is really a clear-cut case of WP:POVFORK of Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki‎ - especially as the creator of the page admitted he was forking the content from the state terrorism page despite (presumably) knowing about the section's problems. Sceptre (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment there was already potential for a POV fork because the material was in two articles already. Putting in in a centralized location is meant to prevent forking. -- Kendrick7talk 22:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a (still sketchy) article about the debate over the bombings - why create something you know is a potential POV fork when you can use seealso to cross-ref the articles? Sceptre (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You keep using the phrase "POV fork". I do no think it means what you think it means. Read the WP:POVFORK guideline again, perhaps paying special attention to POVFORK. -- Kendrick7talk 22:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please. The article is barely longer than any other of the sections in the Debate article, and to be a true summary article, you'd need to split out both sections or all eight subsections, not just one subsection. Sceptre (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * delete as POV fork William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No it is not -- you are clearly unfamiliar with the meaning of the term, see POVFORK. Otherwise -- what article is this a POV fork of? -- Kendrick7talk 22:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, you're right, I'm such a newbie and have so little experience of disputes... oh, wait... William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge content into Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.--PhilKnight (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, this subject is already covered in an NPOV manner in the "Debate over..." article. This is a POV-fork that highlights a tiny minority view. - Merzbow (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No longer the case as that material was moved to the new article. In any case, feel free to add material reflecting other points of view. NPOV is not a valid argument for deletion, but for repair. -- Kendrick7talk 22:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding material reflecting other points of view simply turns it into the "Debate over..." article, which we already have. In other words, the opposing POVs are precisely what is already covered in "Debate over...". - Merzbow (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I broke off the entire section, so I should of caught any POVs that this wasn't state terrorism if that article is organized well. I'll double check though. -- Kendrick7talk 23:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, I don't see any other mentions of the terrorism debate beyond the stubbed section I left. -- Kendrick7talk 23:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * When a POV is so extreme a minority, there are likely to be few published opposing POVs since it mostly isn't even worth responding to. In such a case the "opposing POVs" are simply the majority opinions of what the thing is, and NPOV is violated by forking the extreme minority POV to its own article and excluding the majority opinions because they aren't direct responses. That is what is going on here. - Merzbow (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see what you are getting at. Either it is an example of state terrorism or is isn't. None of those other sections regarding other debates over the bombing have much of anything to do with this particular issue, i.e. the bombings could still have theoretically saved lives or not and it could still be terrorism. -- Kendrick7talk 00:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep – "Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia". Putting this material in its own article (and summarizing in the others) is one way to avoid forks.  Another could be as PhilKnight suggests, but as BernardL has argued lately that this should just be summarized in the Debate article, I'm not convinced merging it there is the right choice.  There should be one main article for this material; one of its own may well be the least bad alternative.  — the Sidhekin (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete POV fork. Merge any salvageable content into Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Jtrainor (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * sigh. I'll ask the same question to you that WMC ignored: what article is this a POV fork of? We'll end up just having to maintain all this in two spots again, and that's not going to be helpful. -- Kendrick7talk 22:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge into Debate over....article Hooper (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge. Unnecessary fork. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete A highly subjective essay with a considerable political axe to grind, to put it mildly. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge in the "debate over" &mdash; articles where there is a legitimate debate about whether or not a moniker applies should be covered more generally, and not have specific POVs in their own articles. --Haemo (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I (hopefully) split out the entire section; the section may have already been POV. There's nothing else about state terrorism in the rest of the Debate article. -- Kendrick7talk 23:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Deleting this will simply result in forking the material back out to two separate articles, each of which are long enough in their own right. Especially in Allegations of state terrorism by the United States arguments over this material is creating an endless edit war which is tying up the rest of the article for weeks at a time.  Otherwise, though a new article, it's sourced and is a notable part of the debate over the bombings in their own right, as well as a notable allegation of state terrorism by the U.S. I know others don't want to just say WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but oh well. -- Kendrick7talk 23:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No merge is necessary as this content is imported from old version of other articles. I understand and appreciate Kendrick's motive here, but I don't think this is the solution. We absolutely do not need an article on this topic as it is not notable enough to warrant separate coverage in a stand-alone article. The place to cover it in full is Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. It can be summarized at Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but this material should not have a home there. The "state terrorism" view is a tiny part of that debate and does not deserve heavy treatment in the debate article. There is already some significant agreement about that here where this issue has been thoroughly discussed (folks who have not might want to take a look at that). The topic can easily be covered as a section in an article, and no more warrants its own article than would National Lawyers Guild as Appeasers of Communists and Terrorists (instead this section does the trick nicely for that). Note that I strongly support the inclusion of some amount of this content in Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, I just find it wholly unworthy of its own article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Since no one can agree on which article to put it in, the best solution is to give the material its own article. The references in the article attest to its notability. -- Kendrick7talk 23:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See the link to the talk page in my comment (it's where the word "here" is linked). You might not have seen that, but there seemed to be a developing consensus that the home for the material is the "Allegations" article, not the "Debate" one. The recent edit warring has been a distraction from that, but it's basically come from users (some or all of whom might be socks or SPA's) who did not participate in the discussion. I'm convinced we can come to an agreement on this issue, the conversation just stopped for a bit as it was near consensus. I'll set up an informal poll of this over on the article talk page.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the comments here suggest the discussion is going the other way. I don't see why it isn't easier to just have one article and link to it from both other articles. -- Kendrick7talk 00:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, that debate was never even mentioned at Talk:Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's pretty easy to think you have consensus when you just leave one side out of the discussion, imo. -- Kendrick7talk 01:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. A clear POV fork for Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Any relevant factual content should be merged there. Nsk92 (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a POV fork. Please read the guideline. -- Kendrick7talk 23:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Even when that guideline was a mess of words, it didn't support it. Either spinout all eight subsections, or spin none out at all. Sceptre (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing in POVFORK requires all the sections to be spun out. It could be reasonable to spin out all the sections of the Allegations article, though. -- Kendrick7talk 00:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Anything well sourced about this topic belongs in Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep They have been widely discussed in this context, and thesources are good. NPOV as usual is to be dealt with by editing. DGG (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If the relevant content could be included as a significant section in a larger article (which has been the plan up until now), would you be supportive of that? I agree with your keep argument in a sense, it's just that I think it's possible for us to cover the topic fully in a broader article. The creation of this article is basically a by-product of an edit war and a failure to determine in which of two articles the content belonged. If those questions could be resolved, and I think they can, then this article would not be necessary. I do think the analogy I draw with respect to a possible article on the National Lawyers Guild is apt and shows why this as a stand alone article could be a bit problematic.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete as a POV fork. -- neon white user page talk 01:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * weak Keep the sections in the two articles from where this material came each seemed like they were 'daugher articles' of a 'parent article' that was missing. Here now is the parent article - a sourced article that considering the number of sources is much more notable than many other articles in Wikipedia that have survived AfD. I am not seeing anything from the group siding for POV fork deletion that this is actually a POV fork of anything. (except perhaps for Merzbow's "When a POV is so extreme a minority, there are likely to be few published opposing POVs since it mostly isn't even worth responding to. In such a case the "opposing POVs" are simply the majority opinions of what the thing is, and NPOV is violated by forking the extreme minority POV to its own article " but I am not sure that is even accurate or standard application in WP).TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete clear POV content fork. WP:UNDUE says this whole article can be replaced with half a sentence in the atomic bombings article.  --DHeyward (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you unfamiliar with Editing policy? WP:UNDUE doesn't apply to entire articles, voting to delete this just so you can argue it's undue somewhere else certainly misses the point of the fork. Are you sure you don't just mean WP:IDONTLIKEIT? -- Kendrick7talk 01:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Familiar, no. But if I calimed I helped write it, you'd probably probably ask me to step aside due to COI. But to help clarify, the content POV forks are in place exactly so that eodtors don't try to get around WP:UNDUE by creating articles on narrow, POV viewpoints.  It all makes sense when you look at the Big Picture.   --DHeyward (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonsense; this is exactly what WP:UNDUE says to do. "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them — Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia." If you know of a policy page that supports your view, I'd love to hear it. -- Kendrick7talk 06:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep reading that page and stop here. --DHeyward (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be a POV fork if we already had an article on the debate over whether the atomic bombing was state terrorism. We do not, as far as I can tell, and yet you are insisting there is no article in which this debate can be otherwise fully explored. While the sections in the two articles this came from may have already been biased towards one view or the other, this content fork took the entire debate to the new article and was not an attempt to leave one side behind. -- Kendrick7talk 16:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This article isn't covering the "Debate", it's covering the "Atomic Bombings..." This is why the Article starts with "Atomic Bombings" and not "Debate".  As such it is a POV content fork relating to a speicific POV (that it's a "form of state terrorism"). That POV given it's current acceptance by reliable sources can be covered in about half a sentence in one of maybe a half-dozen articles.   --DHeyward (talk) 08:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep There are enough collegiate sources that the topic can be expanded. POV concerns can be addressed in article. - Steve3849 talk 01:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as a POV fork - merge a brief summary into the article on the bombings as an entire on this article is excessive. Nick Dowling (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —Nick Dowling (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Unacceptable, per WP:PRESERVE. -- Kendrick7talk 01:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Acceptable, per WP:UNDUE. Biruitorul Talk 05:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The material was in two articles before I split it. There's no way that my spinning out the sections into a new article means it can't be merged back if the new article is deleted. If someone thinks it would be WP:UNDUE weight back where it was, then the only sensible thing is to support the split, per the WP:EP policy. As WP:UNDUE even says: "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them." -- Kendrick7talk 06:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 *  Weak Keep The content is perfectly fine, reliable, notable, and encyclopedic. For disclosure, of course I would think this because I was the one who originally suggested this topic and wrote most of it as its own section for the Allegations of US State Terrorism article. It was initially opposed but eventually consensus was obtained. Since then, however, a clique of editors have constantly blanked the section and edit-warred to get it removed. The subject matter still strikes a tender spot for people, even today. At the moment this material has been removed from section, truncated to a direct to this main article, after some edit-warring by those who want the whole article deleted, but in particular this material about Japan. It is these actions/reactions that have prompted it to spread to its own article, I guess to try and find a peaceful home. That makes sense. Now having said that that, I agree with BigTimePeace's explanation above that this should not be the solution. It should be allowed to stay in the article about US State Terrorism, and only grow out into its own article naturally if there is a lot more material that needs expanding into one (there is in fact more material that can be added, but not a lot more than is already said while staying on its narrow very minority topic). I also agree with him that there is consensus to keep the fuller version in the article. Sadly, there is still, and recently massive edit-warring about this issue taking place on that article. Again, I think this will pass and the deletionists will be defeated. But, in the meanwhile, I support this material sitting it its own article, even if it has two homes: one, it's rightful home where it has been forcefully and illegally kicked out of (and torn in half), and a secondary refugee home that can later grow into a larger article in time.


 * Of course, no need merge this as the content is exactly the fuller version in the US Terrorism article that will be restored per consensus. And, I do think we should cover it in full in that article, the Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, where it easily fit's in as one of of the smaller/medium size sections of that article. I also agree that it should only summarized at main, "Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki," article, and to do more so in that article is a violation of Undue Weight. We would not be here with its own article so soon if it were not for the forceful eviction by POV warriors kicking it out of its rightful home over at the Allegation of US State Terrorism article. If the material can be significantly expanded here I'll change my support from a weak keep to a keep as it would then merit its own article. Until then this should really be a section of the article I wrote it for, and those disrupting the article (they know who they are) need to be stopped.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Weak delete. I do not see any problems with content forking, notability and sourcing. However this article seems to violate WP:NPOV. One should present here all "pro" and "contra" per NPOV. However this can be done only in the more wide article Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki‎ which we already have.Biophys (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that the question of whether or not the bombings were morally justifiable (the "debate" article) is inseparable from the question of whether or not the bombings were state terrorism? I guess I don't see terrorism as a moral issue; in my philosophy murder is bad, mmmkay??. I see what is labeled as terrorism (the "allegations" article) to be the more interesting question. So that's the debate underlying the poll results current on "where to put this" at WP:CENTER. (So like most things, it's politics versus religion) -- Kendrick7talk 04:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply. No, I am not talking about any moral issues at all. I am talking about a question if the bombings were indeed "state terrorism" or not. This question can be properly described and understood only in a more wider context of Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki‎ in my opinion.Biophys (talk) 04:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The "debate" in that article is a debate on the morality of the bombings. Whether or not they were immoral enough to be called "terrorism" is a separate issue which stands alone, in my opinion. -- Kendrick7talk 05:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment(edit conflict). Responding to Biosphy: I find this is a common fallacy. Terrorism is a mean to an end, it's a tactic. Yes, it has some goals of its own own, but these goals are actually means to larger ends. Facts concerning what those other ends are for are irrelevant to the classification and discussion of it actually being terrorism in practice or not. Yes, there can be terrorism that saves the whole world, but still be regarded as terroristic. The other elements of the debate to drop or not drop the bomb, and the many arguments that continue regarding it have no relevance at all into the question of whether or not the act was one that qualifies under the concept of being state terrorism. To want to include other off-topic issues conflate and confuse it by the introduction of irrelevant facts that are part of a wholly different line of reasoning and debate. Of course any line of reasoning dealing with the arguments of State terrorism are valid, but the Debate Article is much too wide and most of the debate does not touch upon or discussion (correctly) this conceptual take on the bombings.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am leaning towards weak keep, which suprises me, because as I read the article I was thinking, "delete, delete". But the arguments presented here in favor of keeping are somewhat persuasive. I think that if the material is merged back into the "State terrorism" article, it implies that the atomic bombing of Japan was in fact state terrorism. The current article at least makes reference to the fact that its generally not an accepted view. The POV fork certainly needs work, and the "Opposing views" should probably be up A LOT higher expressing that "Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism" = WP:FRINGE, yet I don't see that any of the delete arguments here have presented a strong enough case to move it back into the main state terrorism article. MrPrada (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I would however support a merge and redirect if the content were merged to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki‎. MrPrada (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm not going to cast a vote here, but I do feel that if kept the article needs to be given a new title, as the current title smacks of POV. Suggest adding "Interpretations of the ..." to the title. 23skidoo (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * KeepIt has good information that made me interested in joining Wikipedia. I know many editors do not want this good information to be in one place where everyone can read about this act of terrorism by the US. Please keep.Olawe (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a POV pushing reason to me. Nsk92 (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Keep: Bad faith nom by pro-America POV pushers. The atomic bombing over Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been described as state terrorism various times. The article is not POV fork, it is a notable, valid and much debated topic. Wikipedia is not the place for pro-America misinformation mongering. The article can be moved to a more neutral title like Debate over atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * Delete. Classic case of POV pushing, starting with the article's name. Also a classic case of POV forking (repeated denials do not change that, any more than they made the Earth flat), and a classic demonstration of why POV forks are a Bad Thing. PS: I'm laughing out loud at WMC's "22:16, 23 May 2008" comment. Cheers, CWC 06:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * sigh. I just hope we'll get a closing admin who, unlike the rest of you, has actually read WP:CFORK, and doesn't share the fairy tale interpretation being put forth here. -- Kendrick7talk 06:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Kendrick, your posts are getting increasingly uncivil. Do not assume that editors who vote to delete this article, many of whom are very experianced, are doing so out of ignorance of the guidelines. It is possible to have a discussion of ambiguities in the guidelines without resorting to abuse, and this would be more helpful for your cause. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sorry if various fellow editors are pound voting in ignorance of our guidelines. I will call it like I see it until they pry my cold dead hands off the keyboard. -- Kendrick7talk


 * Delete of Merge into Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.--MONGO 16:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per USER:Bigtimepeace Doug Weller (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge into Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Ostap 19:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- per the arguments made above. There is a very valid discussion over the concept of terrorism in the atomic bombings of Japan.Bless sins (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - A summary of this article should be added in Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but this is just the development of the arguments defending the thesis this was a form of state terrorism. This is not a pov-fork. If this article would be merged in the main article, there would be an issue of wp:undue and the main article would not be NPoV any more. Ceedjee (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with the rationale presented for creating this article- it's basically crossing the subjects of two other articles, state terrorism by U.S. and the debate over the bombings. We could try to merge it into one and hatnote from the other, but both have some length already, so it seems better for organization to keep it split. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 11:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a POV fork. Clearly at the time this was not an act of terrorism, it was an option that was exercised in an attempt to save lives.  Vegaswikian (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I do not know what is the reference for your statement "Clearly at the time this was not an act of terrorism, it was an option that was exercised in an attempt to save lives". Only one bomb could have been dropped over Hiroshima which was enough to stop the war, but a second bomb was dropped over Nagasaki. This twice bombing, as far as I know, has been described in many circles in the academia as an unnecessary and immoral demonstration of power. The bombing over these two cities have been describe as state terrorism in several times and is a much debated topic. Anyway, your statement "it was an option that was exercised in an attempt to save lives" is either nonsense or untrue. It was the rationale given by the US military. On what basis you are assuming what the US military said is the truth? And also as per your own logic, the 9/11 attack is also not terrorism since the rationale given for the attack is to save Palestinian lives.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Despite the convincing argument of Ceedjee, I feel that the pro- and con- arguments about terrorism can only be relevantly discussed within the larger context of the morality debate in general. I believe it is a misinterpretation of wp:undue to claim that merging the content in would make the remaining article POV, while not realizing that the article standing alone lends credence to the terrorism debate being as important as the larger debate. Also, this article, standing away from the Allegations of US state terror article makes it seem that these allegations are more important than others on that list, which they are not. Random  89  08:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment only for now, as I can't yet be bothered to read the other articles with which this one might or should be merged. Yes, material should be expunged from a WP article when it's merely the opinion of a small minority. However, the opinion that the bombings of the two cities were acts of state terrorism is not that of a small minority; it is one that is widely held. -- Hoary (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, particularly, I might suggest, it's a view widely held in Japan. But it's nice to hear that from an editor who works on Japan-related articles. -- Kendrick7talk 17:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We should certainly discuss this view, but we should not do it in an article dedicated to that view, but in a wider context where all the viewpoints can be represented, such as Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. This is acceptable if it is not a POV fork, but a sub-article split from two others as a result of summary style - and it seems to me it is more the latter than the former. I accept that this could be a sufficiently notable topic for an article, and this one discusses it fairly neutrally; the main problem is the title, which seems to state a POV. I'm not sure how it could best be retitled to avoid that problem. It might be best if this were merged back into Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; but I also think that with a bit of work, it could acceptably stand as its own article. Terraxos (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge To which article, I am unsure. Leth  esl  14:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Separating out viewpoints into different articles (Atomic bombing as a form of terrorism, Atomic bombing as a legitimate weapon of war, Atomic bombing as an essential part of foreign policy etc.) is a tried and true method of sneaking POV statements into Wikipedia. Let's stop it now. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is, of course, nothing wrong with having POV statements in Wikipedia, per WP:YESPOV. -- Kendrick7talk 19:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely right, Kendrick. There is however something wrong with having non-neutral statements in Wikipedia, which is what is usually meant by "POV". What is also wrong is having an article whose title implies a non-neutral POV, and which covers the same ground as another article but from a different viewpoint. That's what this is, and that's why it should be deleted. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I still think that the debate over whether nuking these two cities was ethical and the debate over whether or not the nuking was terrorism are two separate, if related, matters. Whether or not something is terorism seems to me to be as much a question of tactics as it is one of ethics. -- Kendrick7talk 20:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as a pov fork, and per DJ Clayworth above. Tom Harrison Talk 19:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a pov fork. Material covered in other articles.Ultramarine (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge into "Debate over..."- it is covered and we don't require a whole article to elaborate on this. Trippz (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment it would be helpful if editors weighted in at the merge discussion where consensus seems to be forming to merge the article into the Allegations of state terrorism by the United States article instead. Ultimately, I think at least the Atomic_bombings_of_Japan_as_a_form_of_state_terrorism section will end up there if the AfD goes thru. -- Kendrick7talk 02:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge into "Debate over..." or "Allegations of state terrorism". The subject is better handled as part of a larger article where its rabid POV can be more effectively monitored. Nice touch nominating this around Memorial Day, by the way. Nice touch. Can't wait for 11/11, or 9/11.Noroton (talk) 03:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, I think some of the content is useful but the title tries to present it as something it isn't... I'm trying to thik of a better title so that some of this material could be reused... but Howard Zinn's views on the atomic bomb attacks or, the problem is I have no idea. In all probability the best option will be to merge all of this content into the pages by their individual authors... this article is far too weasel-y gren グレン 09:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV fork. Merge any relevant information into Debate over the atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Perhaps leave a redirect in place, although I think that it is unlikely that anyone will use that phrase as a search term.  Horologium  (talk) 10:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.