Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism (3rd nomination)


 * 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   redirect to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  MBisanz  talk 02:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A clear POV fork of Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Jtrainor (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - POV issues are obvious, also clearly falls under WP:SOAP as well as WP:POINT. Raitchison (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, please note:
 * User:Sandstein, the administor who closed the first AfD wrote:
 * "I see no core policy violations (of WP:V, WP:NPOV or WP:NOR) that can be remedied only by deletion"
 * "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...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)."
 * The same recycled empty reasons to delete this page are being trotted out yet again for a third time. travb (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't a part of any of the previous AfD debates, in any case I disagree with the closing admins decision in the first AfD (though I agree with actions in the second AfD). The article establishes as fact that the bombings were state terrorism which makes it highly POV IMO.  It was apparent to me from reviewing the first AfD that the consensus was delete though obviously the closing admin felt otherwise.  In any case I suspect that regardless of the outcome of this AfD that the article will continue to be nominated for deletion over and over because the title screams POV. Raitchison (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This is a summary fork from Allegations of state terrorism by the United States due to size. There are no POV issues as the article presents both sides of this debate. The bombings were clearly acts of state terrorism by the US and meant to be so, as documented in the Allegations article and it's talk pages, including references by Chavez, Chomsky, Richard Falk, the Target Committee's minutes, Frances Vryling Harbour, and others. Although there are those that feel differently. The article is very well referenced. And as far as WP:POINT, it seems just a bit POINTY to nominate this article the thirst time (plus a DRV) for essentially the same reason within about seven months. — Becksguy (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To say that the bombings were "clearly" an act of state terrorism is IMO preposterous. As is discussed at length in the article provided by nominator Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki both targets had significant millitary value which automatically rules out a label of terrorism according to many definitions (Definition of terrorism).  I can see making an argument that the attacks may have been state terrorism, as the original article does, after all there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism, but to establish it as fact that the bombings were terrorist in nature reveals strong POV.  In any case I'm not the nominator but don't see how nominating for deletion at all falls under WP:POINT, given the obvious POV issues.  Care to elaborate?  Raitchison (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep: Seems somewhat unbalanced (in favor of the terrorism conclusion), but the POV issues can be resolved without deletion. That said, if the balance issue becomes even worse, and if consensus turns into a bunch of editors bickering, then I could see this being relisted and deleted.  bahamut0013  words deeds   17:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm changing my vote to Merge based on discussion below. The content of this article seems to be better served by existing within Allegations of state terrorism by the United States and Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Merging will allow better balance and anti-POV measures, as well as provide the reader with better context and ties is with the related topic better.  bahamut0013  words deeds   15:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - it's not a "spinout" as it was spun out singularly from the Debate... article while the other seven sections, which were just as long, were not. As undue prominence is given to one viewpoint opposed to the other seven, it's a POVFORK; Summary Style does not (or if it does, should not) allow viewpoint articles to be spunout unfairly or with one viewpoint. Also, I think the Allegations of state terrorism article should be deleted myself, but that's not either here or there. (Incidentally, I do believe the bombings were a form of terrorism; didn't stop me from nominating it the first time around) Sceptre (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Nomination is based on a misunderstanding of WP:POVFORK. WP:POVFORK states: "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing." Has there been "extreme cases of disruptive editing" in this case? If not the POV Fork argument has no merit. WP:POINT, "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point" has absolutly no applicability here. WP:POINT is about an editors behavior, not a content dispute. travb (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm interpreting WP:POINT differently because it seems to be a very good example of point 9 (borderlining) of "gaming the system" by creating an article that trivially addresses an opposing POV in order to give an article a veneer of NPOV. Raitchison (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Any article that actually comes to a conclusion, in its title no less, is quite clearly making some point. That aside, in order to put forward a single point in this way and still create a good article length, (as seen in the article) is one must list a huge number of arguments in detail, making it highly unencyclopedic. A discussion of the numerous point of views about the Bombings is a fair enough fork, given the size of the topic, however a page on each and every argument is completely useless to an encyclopedia. No page should ever come to a conclusion, or be focussed on a single literary conclusion. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete' Forked off of Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Dance With The Devil (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I expected to say otherwise, but the material would fit very well in the main article. A good deal of it is already there, and the specific part that is about state terrorism belongs there in context with the rest. This is not an expansion, not a spinout due to size or difficulty. In practice it does serve as a POV fork--and even from the POV, not a necessary one. DGG (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge Honestly, as others have said, there is already an article to house this information: Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I believe that the material included here fits very neatly into the Debate article. Adding a second one seems unwieldy and unnecessary. The creation of this article isn't a logical step in trying to teach someone about a debate on an important historical event. Keeping it all in one place will allow every claim, from either POV, to be examined in context of one another. SMSpivey (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. MalikCarr (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect. It's important to get the history behind this article right and as someone who knows about that and a bit about this topic I'll go into a little detail here. The content was culled from one section of the article Allegations of state terrorism by the United States (not, as several suggest above, from Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and dumped here because of wild disputes over at the "Allegations" article. It should have stayed there to begin with, and a vastly slimmed down version of this current article should be merged back to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. One thing I cannot stress enough: Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not the place to house some version of this content. It could probably be mentioned there briefly, but to have any lengthy discussion of the notion that the atomic bombing of Japan was state terrorism in the main "Debate" article causes major, major undue weight problems. There are huge academic and popular debates about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, obviously, but only a tiny amount of the discussion revolves around the notion of state terrorism. It is discussed in those terms, most definitely, but almost exclusively in literature that deals more generally with the topic of state terrorism, particularly as supposedly committed by the United States. Thus Allegations of state terrorism by the United States is the perfect place for this content, probably in the form of three or four paragraphs in this section (which, again, was how it started in the first place). The content was stable there for quite awhile and this article was only created in an ultimately ill-advised effort to end a really annoying content dispute. Let's redirect this title to the previously linked section and thus take things back to the status quo ante circa May 2008.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Bigtimepeace is correct that this content was spun out of Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, not the Debate... article (and I pointed that out above also). There were massive debates about this content, much hinging on wartime acts vs. state terrorism with reliable sources on both sides of the issue. One of the most telling arguments is the (now declassified) minutes from the Target Committee, the US government group tasked with selecting targets for the atomic devices in May 1945: "A. It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released. B. 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. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focusing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed. The Emperor's palace in Tokyo has a greater fame than any other target but is of least strategic value." 
 * Several have expressed concerns that this title is inherently POV. If true, that can be fixed without deleting the article, per WP:DELETE. Especially since the article presents all significant viewpoints, and is therefore NPOV per se. — Becksguy (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Obvious POV fork per nom.Biophys (talk) 04:41, 5 January 2009 (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.