Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Surrender of Japan


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:45, 21 March 2009.

Surrender of Japan

 * Nominator(s): User:Raul654
 * previous FAC (Nov 2005)

This is an article I previously nominated here on the FAC. It was written by user:Wwoods, and heavily edited by me. (It's a topic that's both contentious and complicated, as history topics go - hence the use of a lot of quotes.) I think it's good enough to be promoted to FA. Raul654 (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (Nom restarted - old nom Raul654 (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Images and sources reviewed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments A very interesting article, but I found a few problems:
 * 1) The lead should be expanded, in my opinion. The current lead does not fully summarize the article. For instance, the information from the three first sections is mentioned. Per WP:LEAD it should be 4 paragraph long.
 * Done (See below). Raul654 (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) By 1945, the war was going very badly for Japan.  Is this sentence really necessary?
 * Yes - That's the thesis of the background section. Raul654 (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the offending clause myself. Ruslik (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) In 'August 13–14' subsection the last sentence in the first paragraph: President Truman ordered a resumption of military operations. duplicates what is said in the last paragraph of the same section. It should be removed.
 * Good catch - I've merged the two. Raul654 (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That is all. Ruslik (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Please, fix links to dab pages.
 * Done. Raul654 (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd respectfully disagree with the lead comment; I think that it should be a little longer (maybe three paras), but not four; that would make it too long IMHO. Plus, what are you going to talk about? The topic is the surrender; are you going to go through all of the end of the war in the lead? I hope not :) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  13:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the lead to 3 paragraphs. It now broadly covers everything in the rest of the article. Raul654 (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied with 3 paragraph lead. Ruslik (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Stupid question, shouldn't the article's title be dated or otherwise specified? (1945 Surrender of Japan) (Surrender of Imperial Japan)--Tznkai (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This came up before the restart. The answer is no, because Japan has only lost one war in its 2000+ year existence. The title is concise and uniquely identifying, and we don't disambiguate needlessly. It's also linked using that name from *a lot* of pages. Raul654 (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Further thoughts: Divisions in Japanese Leadership section has confusing prose. First seven paragraphs (Japanese policy-making centered on... to Because of its ambiguity) all read like bullet points and don't get to the point in a clear way, in addition to the actual bullet list. "Japanese leaders had always envisioned...." reads like an additional thesis and is unclear on what negotiated settlement means in this context
 * The first paragraphs in that section ("Japanese policy-making centered on ... collapse of an existing government") are necessary because it's impossible to meaningfully discuss the Japanese government's decision to surrender without talking about the decision-making apparatus of the Japanese government.
 * Everything after that discusses Japan's ideas regarding the end of the war. From the first day of the war they planned to end the war by negotiating with the Allies on favorable terms that let them keep some of their conquests, but by 1945 things were going badly enough that, for the first time, they finally started to reconsider peace on less-than-favorable terms. (That is the thesis of the rest of the section).
 * I've split that section to make this more clear. Raul654 (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Tech. Review
 * Dabs and external links (checker tools)
 * ...are found up to speed
 * Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS)
 * There are refs that are duplicated and appear as such in the ref section, a ref name can be used instead. (the citation content is pasted below)
 * Hasegawa, 244
 * Hoyt, 409
 * The following ref name is used to name more than one different ref, when it should only be used to name 1 specific ref.
 * Wainstock, 115 -- ₮ RU  C Ө   01:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Raul654 (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ...are up to speed as well.-- ₮ RU  C Ө   20:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. 14 red links, 14 links are dead ends, isn't cool nor perfect to a FA. MachoCarioca (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's totally spurious. They're all valid redlinks (place names and significant political and military figures); the only reason there are a lot of them is because our coverage of 1940s Japanese politics is incomplete. This is precisely the kind of situation for which redlinks were intended. –  iride scent  16:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a valid oppose: see WP:RED.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I counted only 8 red links in the article. I've removed two of them, as they were went to colonels who were did not play significant roles in the coup (e.g, people who were not notable because of either their rank or actions). The rest of them, IMO, are significant enough to merit articles. Raul654 (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Spurious is your POV, sorry, iride scent ''. This is not an ordinary article, but one intended to be EXCELLENT, FEATURED, right?  My criteria is higher than WP:RED, it s not my fault if it is lower. This is not an encyclopedia but Wikipedia, made with wikifications; an excellent article must have a perfect wikification to be featured, without dead ends. Users must go to somewhere in ANY link they click, to be EXCELLENT, FEATURED. *****This is not just about writtings.  But I can support Aude views, waht about that, is it valid now?. As you see, reasons everybody has some. I don't agree in supporting 'excellent' articles by low standards. I can´t oppose it with lower standards than showed in politics, but higher?? Thanks. MachoCarioca (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose the same star to be given to 'all-blue' articles and to articles with 5, 10, 25 or 50 (the number doesn't matter) dead links. Excellence here, in my view, is not just about the writtings. Sorry Raul, best wishes .. and ....what about complete the job? MachoCarioca (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Judge this article on its own merits, not by the fact that it links to ones that don't exist. That's the whole point of WP:RED policy. I do not have the time, resources, or inclination to write articles on some fairly obscure Japanese people from that period - my interest is this article up to FA status. Raul654 (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Image review: no issues. Jappalang (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

 Oppose  - I'm not ready to support. I think the article needs to provide more context for use of the atomic bombs, though per WP:SUMMARY, it need not go into excess detail either. But there is no mention of the decision and deliberations about using the atomic bombs.


 * I'm enough satisfied with the changes in response to my concerns, and those in response to Ferrylodge, to withdraw my oppose. I do think there is some room for improvement, such as mentioning the "Committee of Three".  But, I don't have time right now to do further detailed review or help with editing myself.  Overall, I think the article is quite good and well-written. --Aude (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In light of discussion in the article about how the Japanese had some willingness to surrender and were looking for ways they could do so, then why the atomic bombs?
 * This is already covered extensively. The article explicitly says that the Japanese were not seeking peace on terms acceptable to the Allies. (See the first quote in the 'Divisions within the Japanese leadership' section). And they were seeking it through a the USSR, which wanted the war to continue and did their best to scuttle negotiations. Raul654 (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why were the terms not acceptable to the Allies? (see my comments below, regarding political consequences and the American public opinion at the time) I think that is the missing piece.  This article should shed some light on that question. --Aude (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Even after the events of August 9, the military half of the cabinet favored a four-condition peace -- preservation of the emperor, self-disarmament, Japanese control of war crimes trials, and no occupation of Japan. - Frank, 291. Other than the first, none of these terms would have been acceptable to the allies. They contravene several explicit points of the Potsdam declaration. And all of that is already listed in the August 8–9 : Soviet invasion and Nagasaki section. Raul654 (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you please discuss the other terms (in addition to the monarchy) earlier in the article, such as the "Divisions within the Japanese leadership". Maybe I missed them, but I don't see them, but only see discussion of retaining the emperor. --Aude (talk) 04:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Raul654 (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As well, there was a lack of unanimity within the Truman administration on the decision to use the atomic bombs. The article could use some discussion about that.  Here are some basic summary details that provide more context:


 * The "Committee of Three", consisting of his Secretary of War Henry Stimson, Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, and Acting Secretary of State Joseph Grew, advocated for an alternative approach for getting the Japanese to surrender, other than use of the atomic bomb. They suggested language for the Potsdam Declaration that would allow Japan to maintain its emperor as a "constitutional monarchy." Truman's adviser, James F. Byrnes, showed concern about political consequences of changing the unconditional surrender policy which was popular among Americans. He also thought that use of the atomic bomb would give the Soviets pause in their supposed expansionist plans. Truman remained committed to a unconditional surrender, and use of the atomic bomb.
 * It might be worth adding a note to the "Potsdam declaration" section discussing dissent in the Allied governments about the status of the emperor. I'll see about addressing this.
 * Done. Raul654 (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The issues surrounding the atomic bomb are long-winded and contentious (so much so that the bombings article was split into two articles - one describing the bombings and the other the decision to use the bomb). The scope of this article should (at most) include to the bomb's influence of Japan's decision to surrender, but not more than that. As such, I don't think a discussion of the use of the atomic bomb from the American perspective is in the scope of this article. Raul654 (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How the U.S. came to the decision to use the atomic bombs (versus other options) in order to get Japan to surrender is very much pertinent to an article on the "Surrender of Japan". Something should definitely be mentioned about Joseph Grew, James Forrestal, and Henry L. Stimson (the "Committee of Three"), and other aspects of the decision.  I suggest 1-2 paragraphs summarizing the issues and decision regarding the bomb, and the debate within the Truman administration at the time.  To do otherwise, I think means there is insufficient context and possibly POV issues.  I think material about this aspect of the Japanese surrender can be done concisely and well, per summary style.  Also, in terms of sourcing, Gar Alperovitz has written extensively (and his work has been extensively cited) on the decision of using the bomb and the Japanese surrender.  If you can get his book (along with other sources to provide balance) and use it for filling in this part of the story, that would help address my concerns. --Aude (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Raul654 (talk) 07:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The article does discuss about the Japanese reaction and were discussion the possibility of surrender after Hiroshima, which begs the question... Why the second bomb? Why so soon after the first?  The timespan of four days really didn't give the Japanese much time to react and try to surrender.  But, the U.S. decided to use the second one anyway.
 * The short answer is that the Japanese (a) did not believe they had been hit by an atomic bomb, or (b) believed the US did not have a large supply of them. (Both of these points are already covered in the article) The article does not state that American planners correctly anticipated both of these reactions, and used the second atomic bomb shortly after the first in order to disprove both of these positions (and to give the Japanese the impression that the US could keep dropping atomic bombs every few days). Raul654 (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Raul654 (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is adequately addressed. --Aude (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A "main article" link to the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be useful in that section. I'm not so thrilled with the easter egg "blinding flash and violent blast" link, but wouldn't mind it as much if there was a main article link at the top of the section.
 * I've made that link more explicit. Raul654 (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The link is much better now, but a main article link might still help. Though, I know the section also is about the Soviet invasion, so perhaps two main article links would be needed at the top of the section. These help people who are skimming pages, which is how a lot of people read material on the Internet. --Aude (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Very minor issue... the Hiroshima and Nagasaki links currently go to redirect pages. They could be directly linked.--Aude (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Raul654 (talk) 07:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: I believe all above issues have been addressed. Raul654 (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional comments from Aude:

Looking at the prose, I think some copyediting is needed.


 * "By 1945, for nearly two years, " - this could be reworded, and also change "had suffered" to the active tense, "suffered". Perhaps something like, "From [Month] 1943 to 1945, Japan suffered an unbroken string ..."?
 * It's impossible to put an exact date on the point at which the war turned decisively against the Japanese. Rewriting it as you suggest would make it less accurate. Raul654 (talk) 04:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought that might be the case. The current wording is okay. --Aude (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Japanese shipyard at Kure, Japan" -> "Kure Naval Arsenal" (this change also eliminates the easter egg).
 * fixed. Raul654 (talk) 04:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I also see a lot more redirect links, some having to do with Japanese spelling (my personal css is set to show redirect links in a different color, so these are quite obvious to me). This isn't such a big deal and I don't care too much if it's fixed but would be nice.

I don't have time right now to fix redirects throughout the article, nor comment fully on prose. --Aude (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments. For most people, the issue of primary interest regarding Japan's surrender is whether dropping the atomic bombs was justified.  So, it seems kind of curious that this article doesn't wikilink to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  What's the reason for that? Ferrylodge (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that that's the primary interest, but I've added a link in the lead to the debate article. Raul654 (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, the lead mentions that the USSR invaded Manchuria on August 9. But it was more than just an invasion of Manchuria, right?  The bigger picture is that the USSR declared war on Japan at that time, so I would think that belongs in the lead. Ferrylodge (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're talking about the Sakahlin and Kuriles invasions, I believe. I don't think they're significant enough to merit a mention in the lead. The lead sentence explicitly dates the Soviet invasion (August 9), while those two did not begin until several days later. Raul654 (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I mean that the USSR and Japan went from a relationship of peace to a relationship of war on August 9, 1945 and that is not clear from the lead. Just saying that the USSR invaded Japan on that date does not convey the message, IMO.  The Normandy Invasion did not signify the start of a war between two countries, but the Manchuria invasion did.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, good point. I've updated the lead accordingly. Raul654 (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Groves is mentioned as the leader of the Manhattan Project, and Oppenheimer is only mentioned later in conjunction with a bunch of other scientists. Perhaps Oppenheimer also ought to be mentioned in conjunction with Groves?  Groves was the administrator, but Oppenheimer directed all of the scientific research. Ferrylodge (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Raul654 (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's mentioned that Stimson struck Kyoto from the target list, but it seems from the current text of the article that it was some kind of personal nostalgic decision by Stimson, since he honeymooned there. In fact, Stimson knew that Kyoto was of great historical and cultural significance, it was the greatest religious center in Japan, and preserving it was necessary for a stable and friendly postwar Japan.  Maybe we could briefly clarify that Stimson made the decision for larger than personal sentimental reasons? Ferrylodge (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Raul654 (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are a couple nitpicks....Can you modify the icon for the audio of Truman's announcement of the Hiroshima bombing? The icon indicates lovely music.  Also, it seems odd to have an image of the Nagasaki mushroom, but not the Hiroshima mushroom. Ferrylodge (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The speaker icon is part of the standardized listen template. The Hiroshima picture is redundant with the Nagasaki one, and it would go in the same place as the Truman speech (leading to more image stack up). Raul654 (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's reasonable. The tech folks someday ought to make a different standardized listen template for non-music.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of the blockquotes in this article are disconcerting because they do not indicate who is being quoted, unless you go to the footnote. For example: "Although Suzuki might indeed have seen peace as a distant goal, he had no design to achieve it within any immediate time span or on terms acceptable to the Allies. His own comments at the conference of senior statesmen gave no hint that he favored any early cessation of the war ... Suzuki's selections for the most critical cabinet posts were, with one exception, not advocates of peace either."  Maybe such a blockquote could be prefaced by something like, "According to historian so-and-so:" Ferrylodge (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Raul654 (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The capitalization in this heading seems odd: "Imperial Intervention, Allied response, and Japanese Reply." For example, why capitalize "Reply" but not "response"? Ferrylodge (talk) 06:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Raul654 (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The heading "Soviet approach" is kind of vague (perhaps signifying something physically approaching the USSR, or a physical approach by the Soviet military, et cetera). How about something like "Soviet intentions"? Ferrylodge (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea -- done. Raul654 (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * At some point, the Americans initially told Hirohito unambiguously that he could remain as emperor. Does this article say when that point occurred?  If so, I missed it.  There's a lot of discussion in this article about whether the Americans would let that happen, but no indication of when the final decision was made, or when it was communicated to the Japanese. Ferrylodge (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Presumably this happened eventually, but if it did, I am not aware of it. It almost certainly would not have happened until after the occupation and started but before the list of class A war criminals was released (which would put it somewhere between September 1945 and spring 1946). Raul654 (talk)


 * A nitpick....Do any other featured articles have huge multi-sentence parentheticals? "(The pilot, Marcus McDilda, was lying. He knew nothing of the Manhattan project, and simply told his interrogators what he thought they wanted to hear in order to end the torture. The lie, which caused him to be classified as a high-priority prisoner, probably saved him from beheading.[74] In reality, the United States would have had the third bomb ready for use around August 19, and a fourth in September 1945.[75] The third bomb would probably have been used against Tokyo.[76])"  I would urge either removing the parentheses here, or moving the whole thing to a footnote. Ferrylodge (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Raul654 (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think a typical reader would probably be curious to know whether the Soviet invasion of Manchuria on August 9, and the Nagasaki bombing on August 9, happened by coincidence or not on the same day. My understanding from Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945) is that the Soviet invasion began precisely three months after the German surrender on May 8, as promised at Yalta, and that news of the nuclear attacks on the two cities played no role in the timing of the Soviet attack.  How about vice versa: were the nuclear attacks timed to deliver a double-whammy to Japan, or were they just delivered as soon as possible? Ferrylodge (talk) 07:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The bombs were intentionally dropped close together in order to give the Japanese the false impression that the United States possessed a large supply of them. (This is already covered in the article -- "American strategists, having anticipated a reaction like Toyoda's, planned to drop a second bomb shortly after the first, in order to demonstrate to the Japanese that the US had a large supply of them") That the second one and the Soviet invasion happened on the same day is a coincidence -- the Allies and the Soviets never shared that kind of tactical information (and, in fact, there would have been no point, since the anticipated dates for both the invasion and the bombs changed frequently). Raul654 (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It was mentioned earlier on this FA page that this was the only time in its 2000+ year history that Japan ever surrendered. That's a good explanation for the generality of the article title, but is this fact metnioned in the article itself?  It's interesting, plus including it would help prevent efforts to re-name the article. Ferrylodge (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Raul654 (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Potsdam Conference is described this way: "High ranking officials of the major Allied powers met at the Potsdam Conference...." That sounds like a ministerial meeting.  How about briefly mentioning that it was a top-level meeting of the allied leaders, including Truman and Stalin?  And wasn't it at Potsdam (or en route) that Truman learned of the success of the bomb in New Mexico?  That seems worth mentioning (plus that Truman therefore no longer really needed the help of the USSR to defeat Japan). Ferrylodge (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the beginning of that section to make the participants more accurate.
 * The trinity test is mentioned in the previous section discussing the Manhattan project. You're right that the test occurred while Truman was at Potsdam, and that he was elated about it, but I don't think this point is sigifnicant enough to merit a mention here. You're incorrect that he no longer needed Soviet help to defeat the Japanese (the JCS would, to the time Japan surrendered, advise him that Soviet intervention was likely to shorten the war and reduce American casualties, which was his primary objective) Raul654 (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that we don't have to mention Truman's elation, but it seems like the overall chronology wuold be clearer and more cohesive if the Potsdam section would very briefly mention that that's when Truman learned of the trinity explosion. Incidentally, though I disagree with them, some historians claim that Truman's main motive in dropping the bombs "was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia."  Truman at least must have realized that dropping the bombs would limit the Soviet advance onto Japanese-held territory.  This article already makes very clear that the Soviets wanted “to prolong the war” so they could transfer troops to the Pacific theatre and snatch up Japanese-held territory.  Dropping the bombs thwarted that process, even if that wasn’t Truman’s intended result.  Anyway, if we could briefly mention that Truman learned of trinity at Potsdam, that might help readers to keep track of all these inter-related events and how they fit together chronologically.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Raul654 (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What's the policy on quote marks at the beginning and end of a blockquote? I thought they were deprecated. Ferrylodge (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Block quotes are not enclosed in quotation marks - Manual of Style. As such, I've removed them. Raul654 (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. From what I've seen the article is very well-written, and all of my concerns have been addressed, except one which I haven't mentioned and don't feel very emphatic about: the lead sentence says that Japan surrendered in August, but actually it's not so clear that they did. The official surrender was on September 2. I wish I had more time to go over this with a fine-tooth comb, but what I've seen is top-notch. Plus I'm not a cricket. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the military details, this article says in one section, "The search [of the coup plotters for the recording by Hirohito] was made more difficult by a blackout, caused by Allied bombings, and by the archaic organization and layout of the Imperial House Ministry." In another section, this article says, "B-29s from the 315 Bombardment Wing flew 3,800 miles to destroy the Nippon Oil Company refinery at Tsuchizaki on the northern tip of Honshu."  But weren't these two things actually very closely related; the blackout was in response to the incoming B-29s, according to the following unreliable source: "The Japanese early radar warning system picked up the approach of the 315th Wing. Since the B-29Bs would be flying just east of Tokyo, the city responded with a blackout."  Thus, it seems like serendipity that the bombing mission to the Nippon Oil Company triggered a blackout that foiled the coup. Ferrylodge (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the blackout was caused by 143 incoming bombers of the 315th bombardment wing, which were en route to the refinery. (Smith, 215) I'm not sure if all or just some of them were en route to bomb the refinery. The connection between the bombing and the blackout is the thesis of Smith's book. Raul654 (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether to mention the connection in this Wikipedia article is not something I'm very concerned about (it's not currently mentioned). However, I am concerned that the present language seems misleading: "The search was made more difficult by a blackout, caused by Allied bombings...."  The blackout wasn't caused by any bombing, but rather by a mistaken belief that bombers were on the way.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is mistaken. The refinery bombing was one of many taking place that night. It's eminently possible that Tokyo was hit. Even if Toyko was not hit, it's still accurate - the Allies *were* bombing Japan, and the major cities turned out their lights in response. Raul654 (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what parts of Japan were bombed that night, the blackout was a preventive measure due to the threat of incoming, rather than a result of bombs having knocked out the lights. This seems like a significant difference, but it's no huge deal if you think the current language is okay.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't realize you wanted to distinguish between a voluntary and involuntary blackout. I've tweaked the wording accordingly. Raul654 (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I made some time to go through the article with my fine-tooth comb, which hopefully was not too aggravating for the authors of the article. I made a lot of tiny changes, and am all done now (for today).  It still looks like an excellent article that deserves to be featured.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a pic of War Minister Anami. Regarding the pic of MacArthur at the bottom, do we really need it?  It seems kind of anomalous.  It's the only color photo, it's facing away from the text, and it is not near any pertinent text.  There's already a pic at the top of the article showing the ceremony on the Missouri.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I moved the MacArthur pic up.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm totally all through tweaking the article until it gets featured.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment The entire article is important and it looks very good, - at the end of the intro the lead says: "up into the 1970s" I think "into the 1970s" sounds simpler...and better, otherwise Support...Modernist (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion (I didn't care for the phrasing either). Fixed. Raul654 (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.