# Talk:Enola Gay

Is the apparently accidental flagging of references to the plane for removal by Hegseth (https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2025/03/07/enola-gay-aircraft-and-other-historic-items-inaccurately-targeted-under-pentagons-anti-dei-purge/) to short-lived to be included? Kdammers (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I would think so. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
As the person who initially removed it, twice, I agree. These are probably computer-flagged notices, and will eventually be straightened out. It's also possible that it's a case of "malicious compliance" on the part of some government employees. (On WP, we call that "being disruptive to make a point", such as with this IP edit.) Either way, at this point I believe it falls under WP:NOTNEWS. BilCat (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
If the Department of Defense taking down a website about Ira Hayes is considered noteworthy enough to be included (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira_Hayes) then wouldn't the same apply here? 173.21.194.174 (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Not necessarily. BilCat (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Whataboutism. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 03:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Omit. There was a proposal to include a mention at Donald Trump, and I'll copy a relevant part of my opposition argument (very similar to BilCat).For all we know, no human was involved and Enola Gay was flagged by dumb software when it saw the word "Gay". Also, "flagged for removal" doesn't necessarily mean removal; it could mean flagged for review by humans—who, with the benefit of the doubt, might be credited with enough intelligence to know that "Enola Gay" has nothing to do with sexual preference. Sources are lacking a lot of context here, I'm sorry to say that some sources will make too much of things just to fill space and keep people employed, and this could easily be a small nothingburger comprising nothing but dry meat and bun. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 03:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Well, Yankees and Pommies, I Jack Upland who started this furore believes this might be a case of WP:FART.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

can we mention that the Enola Gay was flagged for removal by the Pentagon in their current EDI purge, according to Forbes? FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

See previous section. BilCat (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
I did not see the previous section, sorry for the duplication. FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
The conversation above is very thoughtful, but feels esoteric, and a bit condescending toward commoners. To me, it is a news, even if ephemeral: https://www.npr.org/2025/03/20/nx-s1-5334461/pentagon-black-veterans-navajo-code-talkers-website-diversity --Idris.albadufi (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news source. The consensus so far here has been to keep it out of the article on that basis. BilCat (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
BilCat, hi. There are several meanings of the word News. One of them, the most prominent according to some dictionaries, applies to Wikipedia (Merriam-Webster): "1a: a report of recent events; b: previously unknown information; c: something having a specified influence or effect."
The fact that gay as a word was flagged [by whomever/whatever flagged it] at the department of defense is relevant piece of unknown information, which we wouldn't otherwise be aware of, hadn't Enola Gay been flagged for removal by AI, software, Hegseth himself, etc.
But there seems to be some opposition here to the inclusion of this info in the entry [not sure if necessarily majoritarian, though]. To a certain extent, I understand the principle. And I trust the good intentions of the erasers. Thank you for your work Idris.albadufi (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Not only that basis. It could be omitted on that basis even if it had any substance. As far as we know as of now, it has no substance. When it's reported that Enola Gay references were actually removed from Pentagon documents, then we can talk about it further. I haven't a clue what "esoteric" and "commoners" mean in this context, not that it matters. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 03:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

The bomb is described in the article as falling for 53 seconds before exploding. However, in the article Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the bomb is described as falling for 44.4 seconds before detonation. How should we reconcile these differences? It seems to me as though the scholarly article on the other article is more precise than the video source used in this article for now. Canned Soul 🥫  18:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I was trying to write an edit summary, but the button for the character ' is close to the enter key, at least on my keyboard. That's why the edit was made before I could type it all out. I was trying to say that short descriptions are supposed to be short and preferably under 40 characters. They shouldn't be any longer than 60 characters. Per WP:SD40. - Sebbog13 (talk) 05:02, 7 August 2025 (UTC)