# Talk:Hiroshima Maidens

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Hiroshima Maidens. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/1999/00/00_matsubara_spirit-hiroshima.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The archive linked doesn't appear to be working correctly. 
Edit: I found the correct link, it should be this: https://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/hiroshima-bombing-was-justified-says-survivor

Need help cirrecting my error. The link is valid, but my handling of the format seems a dud. Catnug (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I am planning on improving this article as part of WikiProject Women in Green. My goals are (a) to expand the article while also re-centering its focus on the maidens (some segments focus too heavily on Tanimoto, who has his own article), (b) to improve the article's sources, and (c) to improve the article's prose. I will be working in my sandbox, so there will probably be a huge edit coming through once I'm done. You can check on my progress there. I am a fairly new editor, so I apologize if I make mistakes. If there are issues with my edits, please let me know and we can discuss it here. Thank you! Spookyaki (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, edits done! There's a lot going on. Some major (but not exhaustive) notes:
Opted to go with Personal name-Surname name order, since that is what is used in most English sources.
Removed the video. It's interesting, and the caption is also very interesting and detailed. However, it's ultimately only tenuously related to this article and the caption is uncited.
Removed some extraneous material about Tanimoto. As I said, it's more appropriate for his own article.
Expanded a lot on the Maidens' time in America.
The "Atomic Bomb Maidens" section is interesting, but a bit too essay-like (see WP:NOTESSAY) and not really supported by the sources in most cases. I removed it.
I added a section on critical interpretations of the Maidens project ("Interpretations and criticism") that incorporates scholarly interpretations of the Maidens project. I pulled from as many sources as I could find, but I'm still personally not sure if it constitutes something like WP:OR. If anyone has any thoughts, I'd love to hear them.
Removed the paragraph about Masako Tachibana. It's interesting, but I could not find any documentation about it. The source cited is a defunct CBC video that, as an archive, no longer plays. I also am pretty sure that Masako Tachibana was not one of the 25 Maidens who traveled to the United States.
Added a "Legacy" section. Includes some of what was previously in the "In popular culture" section.
Expanded the list of Maidens. I'm honestly not sure that the list is necessary, but I appreciate that it's included and wanted to get all 25 Maidens if I could. I think I succeeded. I believe (but cannot confirm) that the 25 names listed under the "To" section of The Hiroshima Maidens: A Story of Courage, Compassion, and Survival are them, but I tried to find them in other sources just in case (since it is not explicitly specified).
Some may question my reliance on Barker, given the criticism of him discussed in the article. While he's not perfect as a source, he does, as Chung Simpson says, give "the most comprehensive story of the 1955 project". Most of the academic sources cite him when it comes to biographical details. It would be pretty much impossible to give a complete picture of the Maidens' experience without his work.
I think that's the major stuff. I am now going to submit for peer review. Thanks everyone for your patience! Spookyaki (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hiroshima Maidens/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Spookyaki (talk · contribs) 22:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 07:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Source review

Academic sources of high standard and reliable newspapers are cited.
I think Lewis (1998) is the only journal with a reference to the publisher and the place of publication. Why?
No particular reason. I'll try to add more publisher information if possible, though I'm not sure where Critical Military Studies, the Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament, or Gender & History are published (physically). Spookyaki (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
References 2, 3, 24 verify the sentences in the article.
Could you quote the texts (here on the review page) from references 11, 29 and 45 verifying the sentences in the article? Borsoka (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Fn 11
In 1951, Tanimoto began working with the editor of The Saturday Review of Literature, Norman Cousins, to promote the women's cause, convincing him that the best course of action for the women was to take them to the United States to receive surgery there. — "In 1951 the young Japanese minister approached Norman Cousins on one of his tours of Japan. Tanimoto believed that, with Cousins’s help, he could raise enough money and support for the young women to undergo plastic reconstructive surgery... Tanimoto persuaded Cousins that the best possible medical care for the Maidens was in the United States and that he should move heaven and earth to help them as quickly as possible." (Serlin, p. 63)
It was Cousins who first used the English name "Hiroshima Maidens" for the women. — "Cousins was moved by the plight of these young women, whom he affectionately dubbed the 'Hiroshima Maidens,' an awkward English translation of the Japanese name with which they had christened themselves— the 'Unmarried Young Ladies of Hiroshima.'?" (Serlin, p. 63)
Fn 29
More surgeries followed, most involving pedicle grafts. — "Once the donor site was determined, a 'pedicle graft' was the procedure of choice. It was an extraordinarily complicated process... These were demanding and exhausting operations that required a great deal of patience and attention to the most minute detail, and which lasted anywhere from two to four hours at a time. It was a slow process, day by day, operation by operation, without any dramatic climaxes that represented turning points." (Barker, p. 102)
Fn 45
In 1980, she testified before the United States Senate about the health impacts of nuclear weapons. — "'I have a mission to tell people that this should not happen again,' she [Niimoto, referred to as Sasamori in the article: her married name] told a Senate subcommittee investigating the effects of nuclear war on human health in 1980. 'I tell people how horrible it was and how horribly we suffered even though we were children. The next generation of children has come into the world, and I fear for them.'"
Spookyaki (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Comments

I would add a "Further" template listing Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Acute radiation syndrome under section title "Origins", and delete the first referred article from section "See also".
Done. Spookyaki (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Could you translate the term "hibakusha" in the main text?
It actually was translated when I submitted the article. It was removed by an editor who said that they "...removed [the] purported but ludicrous literal translation. (People who want to know more can go to the article!)" For now, I will add the translation that's on the Hibakusha article, but I think I'll also reach out to that editor for their opinion to see if there is a better translation that they can supply. Spookyaki (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Okay, so this is discussed on the hibakusha page, but hibakusha seems to be a difficult word to translate. It can have multiple valid meanings depending on the kanji used (and perhaps also the reading of said kanji), so it has been suggested that supplying a singular literal translation is perhaps not advisable and that linking the page without a translation is preferable. I will leave it up to you whether the translation should stay or go. Spookyaki (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I will accept your decision. Borsoka (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Link Ionizing radiation to radiation in the third sentence of section "Raising support in Japan".
Done. Spookyaki (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
After the bombing,... Delete.
Done. Spookyaki (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
...who feared that their disfigurements would damage the family's reputation Some context or explanation?
"For most of their adult lives, the young women had been kept out of sight by their embarrassed families, who understood their disfigurements as subjective reflections on their families’ status rather than as the objective effects of atomic warfare." (Serlin, p. 56) That's what the source says.
Barker possibly offers the following explanation: "A society that placed such great emphasis upon aesthetic presentation and losing face in every sense offered no place for their kind. Some were kept in back rooms for years by parents ashamed of them, while others were so afraid of public ridicule that whenever they ventured out in daylight they scurried down side streets with shawls wrapped tightly around their bent heads." However, for reasons discussed in the article, I'm not sure how trustworthy Barker is when discussing Japanese culture, particularly aspects he sees as negative. Spookyaki (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Some explanation is needed in the text . If you think Barker's explanation is biased, ignore it. Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I'll see what I can find. Spookyaki (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Ended up going with "Radiation sickness sufferers were stigmatized in Japanese society, and hibakusha's injuries were often seen as shameful. Many of the women had been hidden away by their families, who feared that their disfigurements would damage their family's reputation." How is that?
I would integrate footnote "a" into the main text.
Done. Spookyaki (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I think you deleted it instead of intergrating.
It's under "Raising support in Japan," which seemed like a natural place to put it. "Numerous people experienced deep flash burns from heat rays, as well as hair loss and purpura from the radiation.  Many of the flash burns developed into keloid scars." Spookyaki (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Link Japanese war criminals.
Done. Spookyaki (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
...after seven years... I do not understand. Did this happen in 1952? If yes, clarify it.
Yeah, I had a lot of trouble with that sentence. None of the sources say exactly when this visit happened, though Miyamoto says that "after 1952, when the governance over Sugamo was transferred from the SCAP to Japan, the prison became a popular tourist site in Tokyo" and that "in 1952, the petition to release war criminals from the prison culminated," so it seems likely that it did happen in 1952.
I amended it to say "While there, they met with Japanese war criminals, expressing sympathy for them and claiming that while they once held a grudge against them, since so much time had passed since the war ended, they had '[begun] to realize that the war criminals’ plight was the same as theirs'." How is that? Spookyaki (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
...begin undergoing... Repharase.
Changed to "undergo". Spookyaki (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Link Mount Sinai Hospital (Manhattan).
Done. Spookyaki (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
The Quakers offered to provide lodging for the Maidens... Link Quakers. Do we know why?
Changed to "Due to their pacifist beliefs, Cousins asked the Quakers to provide lodging for the maidens. They agreed to volunteer their homes as 'retreats' for the Maidens." Spookyaki (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Link State Department.
It is linked: "While the United States Department of State initially opposed the project..." Should I link it again under "Arrival and press coverage"? Spookyaki (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Link graft to Graft (surgery).
Where? Spookyaki (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Already linked. :)
...who inspired the creation of the group,... Why not past perfect?
Changed to past perfect. Spookyaki (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I would mention that Mount Sinai Morninstar Hospital is in New York.
Done. Spookyaki (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Very interesting and nicely written article. Borsoka (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

(Lead): ... as victims of Cold War propaganda and cultural assimilation Victims or tools? Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Probably both to some degree, but "tools" does seem more precise. Spookyaki (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for taking this review! I am having a pain flare up, so might not be able to begin working in earnest on this until tomorrow. Spookyaki (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Minor note, I added the sentence "In 1980, she testified before the United States Senate about the health impacts of nuclear weapons" in reference to Shigeko Niimoto based on a source that came out after the nomination. Spookyaki (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Excellent article. Thank you for it. Borsoka (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


### Hiroshima Maidens
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like people's thoughts on two sections:

The "Interpreations and criticism" section
The "List" section
Specifically, I want to know if people think that these constitute WP:OR.
Thanks, Spookyaki (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

On the Interpretations and criticism section:
I don't think we need to be naming the title of each book and paper in the prose, when those are already what we are citing. It's a little excessive, especially given how long some of the titles are. Just the author's name should be enough for in-text attribution.
Some of these quotations are quite long and could probably be rewritten and condensed into summary style.
On the List section:
It's probably going to be an issue that 15 of these entries have citations, but 10 others are uncited. If you can find citations to verify the currently un-cited entries, that would go a long way. I think this is the main thing that could skirt OR.
Using divided columns might be nicer to read than a single column of 25 names.
Are any of these individual women notable enough to one day receive their own article? If so, it might be worth red-linking them. (Or if they already have articles on the Japanese Wikipedia, an interlanguage link could be useful)
Overall though, this article is looking really good! --Grnrchst (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback! Incorporated it into the article. Initially, I did not include citations for the names of Maidens who were mentioned in cited portions elsewhere in the article, but I went ahead and added citations for all of them. In terms of independent notability—I don't think so? Unfortunately, my facility with kanji is not good enough to easily search for their names in Japanese, but outside of coverage on the Maidens, there isn't a lot of English-language source material on them. Spookyaki (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
@Spookyaki: I agree with Grnrchst on those points. Article looks good! As an aside, I notice that the CBC Archives external link seems to have issues (my browser tells me there's an issue with the old site's security certificate), so you may wish to replace it with this updated archive link, which I think leads to the same 1957 radio clip. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh, thanks for pointing that out! Fixed. Spookyaki (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)