Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 5

message: The accuracy dispute is about the statement in the article that warnings were not given about the bombing.
According to many sources including the US government, leaflets were dropped on the cities by aircraft warning that the city was targeted. They were known as LeMay leaflets. - user:ted-m
If you could reference some of the sources to which you refer, then the process of vetting them and making any changes deemed necessary can begin.  --Xaliqen 15:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I translated one such leaflet in 1995 for an article about the "thousand-plane" raid of August 14-15, 1945. It refers to conventional bombing, of course. It read: "Tomorrow the 14th day [of August] we will bomb Osaka. This bombing will be the last bombing of 1945." So the leaflets were city-specific. The original, which I copied from a Japanese publication, is shown on page 75 of Air&Space/Smithsonian magazine, August-September 1995. (As always with translating WWII material, I was hampered by the lack of knowledge of wartime terms on the part of young Japanese. The translation may be a bit simple-minded, but it is accurate.) Such a leaflet was presumably dropped on Hiroshima, since this was standard practice in the summer of 1945. I rather doubt that leaflets were dropped on Nagasaki, since it was not the primary target that day. --Cubdriver 10:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy dispute. 

message: This page makes no note of the fact that Hirohito did make reference to the atomic bombings in his radio broadcast of surrender:
:Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.
I think that it's a pretty relevant point to put in here, somewhere. If someone wants to figure out where it best fits, that would be great. --Fastfission 16:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "a new and most cruel bomb"

message: This senetence's paranthetical end, found at the end of a paragraph in the 'Objections to the Bomb's Use' section, seems innacurate from what I know of the conflict that took place between military and civilian leaders in the last days of the war:
:Only the direct intervention of the Emperor ended the dispute, and even after that a military coup was attempted to prevent the surrender (although it was easily suppressed).
From my understanding a military coup was narrowly averted and was only due to a few individuals loyal to the emperor risking their lives to resist the military coup. I do not rember the names of the individuals, but I thought that the coup was only averted after a few auspicious outcomes to events that could have easily gone the other way. For example the empereror's surrender adress, which was recorded, had to be hidden in the audio engineer's house (whose house was searched by militarists who failed to find the record hidden amongsts a stack of old newspapers) and was sneaked to the radio station, which, on top of this, was stormed by miltarists opposed to surrender immediately before it was played, and was only allowed to be played after a influential general, going against his peers, telephoned the station and ordered the commander of the force that stormed the station to allow the surrender adress to be played. Milatarists actually held the emperor captive when searching for the recording in order to destroy it and prevent a new one being made. All in all it does not seem like it was "easily supressed." I do not have references, but since it is a minor edit I will delete the paranthetical statement. If anyone disagrees I will not dispute it due to my lack of references and the fact that this is not my area of expertise. But I think it might be a relatively uncontroversial edit.
--Brentt 03:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Military coup "easily supressed"???

message: :It has been argued that the use of atomic weapons against civilian populations on a large scale is a crime against humanity and a war crime.
Who has argued this? In the long discussion we had about this issue Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 3 and 
Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 3#War crimes. No one has yet produced an authoritative article which states that it was a war crime or a crime against humanity and several have been produced which state that it was not. So unless an authoritative source can be found to back this sentence up it should be removed. Philip Baird Shearer 17:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The real issue is how exactly the use of nuclear weapons on civilians is any MORE of a crime against humanity than use of conventional bombing against civilians.  After all, far more civilians were killed in WW2 from conventional bombing.  I suppose the out in the above sentence then is that the nuclear weapons in Japan were not used "on a large scale", when compared to the totality of casualties in the war. StuRat 20:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As murder and extermination fall under the term, there is no doubt it could have been applied to conventional bombings, too. It just was not because the allied countries were unwilling to try themselves. Among the thousands of sources you find for the view that Nagasaki and Dresden were crimes against humanity, a good one is . 84.59.99.253 14:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crime against humanity and a war crime 

message: About the tag removed today suggesting moving the "Leaflet" text to Wikisource.  Since this is the English Wikipedia, I think the Japanese text should be moved over to Wikisource, and we should keep the English translation here.  I don't see any value in keeping the Japanese text here when most users won't be able to read it.  Any comments?  —Cleared as filed. 20:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Only a paragraph" -- the question is whether it is necessary or helps the article. I'm happy with the text being kept somewhere else and linked from if that's what is desired. But it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article unless it is being used as part of the article text. As it is, it is being used as an appendix, which is completely inappropriate. --Fastfission 03:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Outsourcing the kanji text seems like a good idea. The English translation seems at least as interesting as the picture of the broken watch. —wwoods 02:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The broken watch is an illustration and takes two seconds to look at and be done with (and will probably be deleted as useful unfreely, anyway). A primary source document is quite a different thing, especially one barely mentioned in the text. --Fastfission 03:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaflets and Wikisource 

message: Currently, the article says that two different buildings were the closest buildings to have survived the blast.  
Citizens of Hiroshima walk by the A-Bomb Dome, the closest building to have survived the city's atomic bombing.
<BR><BR>
Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall, the closest building to have withstood the bomb blast.
They can't both be.  Which is it?
--Mr. Billion 16:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This was the closest building to have survived the blast.  No, this was. 

message: The picture of Urakami Tenshudo church showing the bell of the church having toppled off is a bit suspicious.  If you look at  the octagonal structure looks just like one of the domes on top of the towers! Pt1234 12:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church bell? 

message: I cannot make out the scale on the map of Hiroshima; does anyone know the radius of the blast from the bombs?  If so, thanks!
:On the high-res version of the map, it says the rings are at 1000 ft increments. The red (burned) area extends ~10,000 ft to the north and east, ~7,000 ft to the west and south. The area affected by blast is enclosed by a dashed line; it extends about ~11,000 ft to the east and west, and quite a bit further to the south.
:—wwoods 00:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radius of town heavily damaged? 

message: I need to explain to you why I did the thing. 1. the image i switched it the mushroom cloud and put the broken house down there 2. the nuclear attack caused great damage not considering what might've happened if the allies attacked japan. I'm not talking about the consequences of the allies attack on japan, just the nuclear attack and what it did. stop confusing the too. 3. I don't understand why and what you don't understand from the nuclear radiation issue, most all of the deaths 99% were caused by nuclear radiation, in other words, nuclear genes and stuff coming into the human genes and altering them forever and that's why many died (the severe) ones for the oncoming years and it was gradually decreased and disappeard i suppose. Also look at Chernobyl if you are not really familiar with nuclear atomic bomb and radiation. Atomic bomb doesn't really kill that much without radiation!. Explain your position coherently and then we can talk. Thanks 67.190.113.165 02:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: reply to 67.190.113.165: Unfortunately, your remarks here and in your "edit summary" comments on the article page are pretty much incomprehensible. You might want to hold off from contributing edits until your command of English is better. KarlBunker 03:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you should hold off, having a poor english is not a qualification and i don't have really time to argue and make my english better to explain to other people. I'm busy, and don't be a loser and just level with me on this topic. That is just sad from you or you need to just relax and not visit wikipedia again. This is for us excluding you, alright. I'm smarter than you are fortunately, or go back to your world poor America or Europe lower middle class bitching and whining lifestyle. I just don't really have a time to argue with poor white person on this topic. Sorry! Peace67.190.113.165 09:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone is getting confused about this stuff