Talk:Enola Gay

message: Does anyone have thoughts on the Enola Gay in Pop Culture Section? My feeling is what is there now is ok, except for removing part of The Simpsons comments "obviously similar to" which I agree with one other user is wordy and not necessary.
Above and beyond that, my concern is that the section not be overly cluttered, as it takes away from the true purpose of the article. It's fine to state there are some connections to modern day pop culture, but I think we have to becareful not to let the section get too large. I hope people would take that into consideration when adding to that section of the article. 
Just in case anyone wonders why I care, I have a personal connection to this article. Davidpdx 04:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your concern is justified.  It seems this sort of stuff can overwhelm an article, depending on how its popularity engenders a kind of "me, too" response.  That said, it is relevant information and can be a great resource for people legitimately researching how something significant resonates in the culture.  But when things get out of hand (an undefined threshold) in any article, perhaps a secondary "Some Phenomenon in popular culture" article should be created and reference by the main article.  --  Kbh3rd 05:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your response. I agree the threshold is definately undefined. It seems like quite a bit has been added lately. That's why I have put the caution out to people in terms of what they post in the section. Right now it's ok, but I agree with you that if everyone has a "me, too response" it could become out of hand. This is one of the articles I keep a close eye on, I hope you will as well. Just a side note, I was the person who took out "obviously similar to" portion on The Simpsons comments. Davidpdx 15:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Enola Gay in Pop Culture Section

message: I just added the Mechwarrior part, I thought it was important to show just how wide spread the useage of the name was, across many medias, TV, Music, now videogames. Thanks - Seth 24.118.254.26 19:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop Culture Entries 

message: Some may have noticed that the pop culture section was removed by myself. This is due to the constant abuse of unregistered users adding entries about anything slightly related to the article. My feeling is that people don't take the time to read the talk page, but instead quickly add the reference and disappear never to be heard from again. 
We've discussed this numerous times with no real solution. It's getting rediculous that we have to keep reverting because of people's carelessness. If someone has an issue with this, please air it out here and let me know what you think. Davidpdx 00:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. David.  I 100% endorse your actions here  --rogerd 00:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I provided a solution, which David commended. But I really don't care enough to pursue the matter. Lucidish 02:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lucidish, I think your solution is good, but if people don't follow the directions, then it's not feasible. The problem is 95% of the entries made to this section are put there by unregistered users who come and go and don't follow the directions to see the talk page. Either they don't care or can't read. Then it's left to us (whomever has the page on their watchlist) to "police" it. It simply doesn't work. Davidpdx 04:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess the policy would have to be wikipidia-wide in order to have the kind of enforcement you're worried about. Maybe someone should try to make it official policy or somesuch. Lucidish 19:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Pop Culture Section 

message: There is some debate about the spelling of the aircraft that dropped the Nagasaki bomb, either "Bockscar", "Bock's Car" or "Bocks Car".  The National Museum of the United States Air Force, which has that aircraft, and is run by professional historians and curators, calls it "Bockscar" .  That should be authoritative enough for us.  rogerd 01:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rodger, good catch. I've noticed that has been changed a few times. I'm not sure if they are serious editors or if this is someone just looking to vandalize the article. Certainly, assuming it is the former they are at best ill informed in terms of their edits. Hopefully before they revert again they will see your notes. Davidpdx 04:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of aircraft that dropped the Nagasaki bomb 

message: I was wondering if anybody can help cast some light on the photo I added. I took it in '87 while on a private tour of the Smitsonian warehouses as part of the Air Force Art Program. It has 5 "Fat Men"? on the side of the Enola Gay. All black except the one on the far right, which is hardly visible, being red.
As the Enola Gay dropped Little Boy, why would these be on the side of the Enola Gay? Test drops? rs3 03 January 2007 (UTC)
:I'm pretty sure the black fat men stand for practice drops of Mk 3 "Fat Man" bombs filled with concrete, they were nicknamed pumpkins. I think they only built one or two cases for "Little Boy". Even though the Enola Gay dropped "Little Boy" it was still a pretty big bomb. Drawing a thin red man would be misleading, since the Mk 2 "Thin Man" bombs were never used. Drawing a Little Boy would also understate the bomb's explosive power.
:I have replaced the picture of the aircraft's cockpit with a picture of the entire plane, illustrating the decoy circle R tail code used for the Hiroshima mission. Anynobody 22:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The pumpkin bombs have their own article (they were built to simulate the Fat Man but were their own entity), and the enumeration of the missions on which they were used to practice the attack are given at 509th Composite Group#Operational history.--Buckboard 19:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo Added 

message: Carey Sublette posted a new page devoted to the Enola Gay on his Nuclear Weapons FAQ website on 13 January 2007 with additional photos of the B-29 on display at the Smithsonian. 
Mark Sublette 07:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enola Gay page added to Carey Sublette's Nuclear Weapons FAQ 

message: I was wondering why this article was so spare, compared with its sister article on Bockscar.  A hint was on this talk page, where I saw discussion of things that were not now in the Enola Gay article.  When I searched History to see when they were taken out, I learned that at 16:02 on May 18, 2007, a vandal with the screenname of Eric1sr had replaced the entire World War II History section with "enola gay was a flamer."  Within the minute, MartinBot had reverted the vandalism and graffiti.  Two minutes later Eric1sr struck again, removing the World War II History section, and again eight minutes after that, removing the Subsequent History section.  This time, MartinBot didn't catch it.  
At 16:30 the same day, a live user, Nexonen, eliminated the graffiti, but did not restore the missing sections.  For the next three months, people kept trying to add information to flesh out the article, but no one noticed that the problem was uncorrected vandalism.  
HowardMorland 03:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. I made some edits just a few days before, but I don't even remeber this series of vandal edits. I saw the page yesterday, and thought it looked awflly sparse, but didn't think to check the history then. Thanks! - BillCJ 03:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Missing Sections (A Vandalism Story) 

message: I have no problem with popular culture references to the Enola Gay if the submission meets the criteria of being notable and tied to the significant aspects of the aircraft or its story. There is no precedence for simply removing all popular culture notes without discussion as the tag implies. I have placed another "invisible" tag in the standard location for a popular culture section and would be perfectly willing to monitor the submissions. FWIW Bzuk 13:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with that, however most users (especially those that are new) will either not see or ignore your tag and add stuff anyway. The game codes were really the last straw for me as they really had no tie in to the article and I consider them adding trash to an article people have worked hard on. For the past six months or so, things have settled down. However, these things usually come in waves and once the pop section gets put back in, it will open up a whole new door to people putting stupid petty crap in the article again. While I personally don't like the ideas of eliminating the section, the truth is that it attracts more problems then it does useful information. Sitting there and "babysitting" the section is really not what people should have to do. Davidpdx 12:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the entire issue is still a contentious one but I will help "sherrif" and I know I can count on some other conscientious editors from the Aviation Project group to assist. FWIW Bzuk 12:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just curious. Can someone summarize the pop culture reference?  -- Steve --  (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisiting the pop culture debate

message: To support what's said in the history of the word Gay about being also a name, it should also be said the Enola Gay was named with the pilot's mother name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.90.237.74 (talk) 00:28, August 20, 2007 (UTC)
:I believe it is already mentioned briefly in the article. Anything more then that takes away from the real purpose of the article, which is the plane and its mission. If anyone else has thoughts about this, please chime in. Davidpdx (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a sidenote: I'm a little confused at when the above message by 84.90.237.74 was posted. Based on the actual timestamp in the history section it was left on January 18th, but the signature line states that it was left August 20th 1997. I have my doubts about which one is actually correct. Davidpdx (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, that was my bad. The comment was moved from the Gay talk page by myself as i thought it would help this article. Benjiboi 13:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I understand what happened now. It didn't make much sense at first though. Davidpdx (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible etymology 

message: The following sentece was in the Lead: 
:"Due to the nuclear device's role in the atomic bombings of Japan, the bomb's name has become synonymous with the bombings themselves."
This seems a bit odd, especially since the article is about the plane, not the bomb, and the Lead paragraph should be about the article's main topic. My suspicions were comfirmed when I checked the History. This diff contains this sentence:
:"Because of its role in the atomic bombings of Japan, its name has been synonymous with the controversy over the bombings themselves."
This sentence seem to place the emphasis on the subject of the article, which would be the Enola Gay. It was followed by:
:"The plane gained additional national attention in 1994 when an exhibit at the National Air and Space Museum of the Smithsonian Institution was changed due to a controversy over its historical script."
That makes it clear to me that the original sentence was about the bomber, not the bomb. Therefore I am restoring the original sentence, with changes to make it clear it is discussing the "Enola Gay". 
One last thing: I've eliminated the paragraph break between the first paragraph and the single sentence about Tibbet's mother. Generally, paragraphs of only one sentence are not recommended. - BillCJ (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Enola Gay or Little Boy

message: Was not the EnolaGay, after WWII, once at Kelly AFB, Texas ? Even temporarily ?  
Spencer Vallance
email: spncrvall@netscape.net  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.62.102 (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  EnolaGay at Kelly AFB, Texas ? 

message: I recall reading that the crew of the Enola Gay had a barbecue to celebrate the mission after they'd landed. Can anyone verify this anecdote ? I'm not trolling, I'd just like to know whether what I read had been fabricated for a story or if it has any basis in fact. TIA. 98.30.49.10 (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barbeque ? 

message: Richard H. Nelson linked to a pope, but the pope was not involved in any sort of nuclear bombing.
- Ted  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.249.18 (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your notification - much better than unexplained brackets removal only. And it was a bishop, not pope. --ja_62 01:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link Removal 

message: I have noted a number of instances where verbatim copying of information was inserted, these are now amended but there needs to be a check on the article from this point on. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Copyviol

message: "Mission personnel" section says:
Enola Gay's crew on 6 August 1945 consisted of 12 men.
But the crew list in this article includes 13 men.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.32.118 (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, corrected. Bzuk (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Mistake? 

message: This article has been reverted by a bot to  as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem 

message: User:Atomicjohn has challenged some of the statements in Enola Gay.  See 
diff.  His comment was posted in the article itself and has now been removed.  I have posted a message on Atomicjohn's Talk page to alert him to removal of his comment and invite him to make suggestions and comments about Wikipedia articles on the article's Talk page.
Anyone with access to the information in Enola Gay that Atomicjohn has challenged should check to see what is stated in the article, what is stated by Atomicjohn, and which is the better view to be expressed in this article. Dolphin (t) 02:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The comment previously in John P. Merrill saying Merrill had been the flight surgeon aboard the Enola Gay, and implying he had been aboard on the mission to Hiroshima on August 8, 1945 has now been removed.  See diff.  See discussion at Talk:John P. Merrill#Enola Gay flight surgeon. Dolphin (t) 06:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Challenge to some of our information 

message: "Along with two containers that housed the "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" atomic bombs ([N 2]) welded to the deck of the USS Indianapolis, a "dummy" "Little Boy" assembly was dropped off at Tinian on 26 July 1945.[6]"
This is not entirely accurate.  According to the actual handwritten and typed Los Alamos documents reproduced in my book Atom Bombs:The Top Secret Inside Story of Little Boy and Fat Man, the partially-assembled Little Boy combat weapon L-11 was contained inside a 41” x 47” x 138” wood crate weighing 10,000 pounds that was secured to the deck.  Unlike the six  U-235 target discs, which were later flown to Tinian on three separate planes arriving July 28 and 29, the assembled projectile with the nine U-235 rings installed was shipped in a single lead-lined steel container weighing 300 pounds that was securely locked to brackets welded to the floor of Captain Charles McVay’s quarters.  There was no Fat Man assembly of any kind on the Indianapolis.  The only Little Boy assembly dropped off on Tinian on July 26 1945 was this actual combat unit with the projectile.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.217.165.167 (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Atomicjohn (it's you, isn't it?), if you find something wrong in the text and have got sources that confirm that, then by all means go ahead and fix the frigging article! :-) Don't worry too much about the correct wiki-syntax, citation templates etc; just put in the info and the source, and somebody else will come along and tidy things up. That's how Wikipedia works and, by the way, it is decent editors like yourself that the project needs most (only one note: it's easier and clearer if you log in, before making changes, so that your edits don't come up as made by an anonymous IP number). Cheers! --Giuliopp (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Nah... nobody really meant to slap your fingers. Unfortunately you made your changes right after some vandalism by another anonymous user (see the history); you  were a newly-registered user and also made some changes later as anonymous user; your changes involved the deletion of significant portions of text – all things that made established editors mistake you for a vandal. Some hints and tips in no particular order: write as it would read on an encyclopedia article (i.e. opinions like "This statement about Merril is wrong" are for this place: the discussion page, not the article body); put a word or two about yourself on your user page – it clarifies who you are and makes your user name come up as a blue, 'ordinary' editor, instead of a 'red link' – so typical of vandals; when writing on here (the discussion page), put four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post, to automatically sign it with your user name. Happy editing! --Giuliopp (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was on the Indianapolis 

message: The aircraft is referred to both as Enola Gay, and more frequently, The Enola Gay. Is there any good reason why that "the" is there? Can we choose one version of the name, and stick to it? TheMadBaron (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is common in American English to attach a "the" in front of prominent objects: the USS Eisenhower, the Empire State Building, the Statue of Liberty. However, when describing components of it, "the" is dropped: "USS Eisenhower aircraft flew in Operation ...", "Empire State Building employees went on strike", "Statue of Liberty guests were treated today to a fireworks show...". I see nothing in the article that is grammatically incorrect. Buffs (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The? 

message: (NOTE:  This title added, by another editor, to the following text, to separate it from the previous text which is apparently unrelated to the following comments.)
:~ Zxtxtxz (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A captain in the Navy is the same as a colonel in the Air Force. They wear the same silver eagles. But Deak Parsons was senior in grade, having been promoted in June 1943, and outranked Paul Tibbets, who was promoted to colonel in January 1945. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Measurements and other info apparently in error

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Enola Gay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150124072508/http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil:80/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=527 to http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=527
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101026053308/http://www.afa.org:80/media/enolagay/ to http://www.afa.org/media/enolagay/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101013052245/http://www.afa.org:80/media/enolagay/07-16.asp to http://www.afa.org/media/enolagay/07-16.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Enola Gay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100624065430/http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/hiroshima.htm to http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/hiroshima.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=527
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.afa.org/media/enolagay/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.afa.org/media/enolagay/07-16.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The enola gay was not used for the bombing of Nagasaki. It was used only for Hiroshima as the bockscar was used for nagasaki.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakeH02 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It didn't drop the atomic bomb Nagasaki, but it did fly weather reconnaissance during that mission. - BilCat (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-29 

message: This says the exhibit opened in 1994:
: https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/december-2003/historians-protest-new-enola-gay-exhibit
::  -- Steve --  (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it says  It refers to the controvery over plans to exhibit the aurcraft. The dates in both the Wikipedia article and that one are correct.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exhibit 

message: This article lists Jacob Beser as flying on Enola Gay for the Nagasaki mission, but the articles on Jacob Beser and Bockscar both list him on Bockscar. They also disagree on his rank (first lieutenant or second lieutenant). Can someone with access to the sources correct these?  -- gparker (talk) 07:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have all the sources. I checked the sources listed, and also consulted some others, including Beser's own account. He was on Bockscar on the Nagasaki mission. And his rank was first lieutenant. I have corrected both articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jacob Beser discrepancies 

message: I see that the article uses Template:Use dmy dates but I find that a bit strange. This is an article about a plane manufactured by an American company, flown by American pilots for the US military, named after an American woman, and on display in multiple US government-run museums. For all intents and purposes, an American plane. Surely, with all that, it would make more logical sense to use the standard American-style dating format of month-day-year, as is prescribed in MOS:DATETIES. Based on that I'm tempted to be WP:BOLD and make the change myself, but I am curious if there is a reason why the article is currently formatted in this way that overrides this policy and for which those hypothetical edits would/should be undone. QuietHere (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The US military uses the dmy date format. WP:MILFORMAT:  . Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. We use the DMY format in almost all American military aircraft articles from at least the WWII period forward. The main exception would be military aircraft that are variants of civilian aircraft, such as the Beechcraft Model 18 (Twin Beech), if they are covered in the same article under the civilian name. If the military variant has a separate article, it will use DMY, while the civilian article will use MDY, as with the C-47 and DC-3 articles. BilCat (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That I wasn't aware of, thanks for clarifying. Case closed! QuietHere (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. BilCat (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date format