Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 10

message: I've removed the following line
An estimated 500,000 additional american fatalities and 1,000,000 japanese fatalities could have occurred if japan's mainland was invaded.
I don't think such speculations can be stated in such a manner here.--Now might i do it pat 22:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculating Numbers 

message: I was interested in the citation of section 2.3, "Japanese realization of the bombing," and after much searching through old edits, tracked it through a very old version of this article to a book that is now listed in the article's Further Reading section: The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima And Nagasaki by The Manhattan Engineer District.  I'm a new user here so I don't have edit rights for this page; could someone else please clarify the reference on the page for the aid of other readers?  It seems three paragraphs from that book are included verbatim in your article.
If anyone is feeling really ambitious about clarifying sources, reference 43--the quote by Father John Siemes taken from a book listed in footnotes as "The Avalon Project: The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki"--is from the exact same book as mentioned above, only reproduced on a different website.
Thanks. --Rapidfish 13:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing on "Japanese realization of the bombing" 

message: I would like to see maps showing the location of both cities in Japan. And actually, noting that Niigata and Kokura were potential candidates for the bombing, them too. (Just a passer-by.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.16.202.19 (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice idea.  Please feel free to do so. Cla68 07:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Maps?

message: From my talk page:
:I apologize for RVing a batch of edits that you clearly put some time and effort into, but overall they were IMO a significant detriment to the article. I simply can't accept that  putting the cite book references into a single line is anything other than a huge step backwards in the quality of the article. Of course, this change makes no difference to the reader, but for an editor it turns a clear and easily editable citation into an unreadable jumble. Furthermore, I can't see any value to such a change at all. I know you made a lot of other changes, and I'm not sure what some of them were, since your edit summary comments are unclear and version comparisons are often unhelpful. If you want to pursue any of your changes, let's discuss the issues before you do so. KarlBunker 16:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, actually, keeping the citations on one line makes it harder to see the structure, because it's harder to see what's article text and what's citation. This is in addition to my "unreadable jumble" argument above, which you have not addressed. I don't know what you mean about "having a reference section", because the article had one before your edits.  If you want to pursue any of your changes, let's discuss the issues before you do so. KarlBunker 17:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You've made a number of edits, and it's near-impossible for me to separate out the nature of all of them. In addition to the worsening of the citation formatting, I see that you've restored references that I removed for good reasons, and undone organizational changes to the References section that I made for good reasons.  I believe that some of your edits also made changes that I would agree are worthwhile, and I'm willing to do the work of re-incorporating those changes. If you honestly think that there's some usefulness and significance to separating out "References" (presumably solely sources that have footnote citations in the article) from "References and further reading" (sources used in footnotes plus other useful sources), I'm willing to reincorporate that change too. Beyond that, since the major effect of your edits has been to undo work that I did a few days ago, I will continue to restore my version until I am given some valid reason not to. KarlBunker 18:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a mystery to me how you can consider this exercise in duplication and disorganization to be an improvement, but at least you aren't doing as much damage as before. I'll accept this as a "compromise." KarlBunker 21:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: These two sections need to be balanced out more. The sections were originally a compromise to prevent non-stop edit warring and to present two separate and equal viewpoints without the typical tit-4-tat that usually accompanies a subject like this and to keep facts in the article and relegate opinion here. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any support for merging the sections and placing everything in chronological order? A history of the debate rather than the debate itself?—eric 20:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To prevent the tit-v-tat I would oppose a merge. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any advantage to merging the two sections. I don't know whether "balancing" is required; the fact that two opposing viewpoints exist doesn't necessarily mean that they each deserve the same word count. Sometimes the opinions of "reliable sources" favors one side or the other. Unfortunately, determining where that balance of sources' opinions lies is often difficult. KarlBunker 20:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding the edits you've made to the "support" section TDC, I would argue against the format you've chosen with the items "the bombings forced the Japanese to surrender immediately" and "The bombings saved the lives of Allied military". The first item is not much of an argument in itself. Forcing surrender is only a valuable thing insofar as it saves lives, brings order and prosperity to the nations involved, etc. I think that at a basic level, there is only a single prominent argument supporting the bombings: that they saved lives. Japanese lives, American lives, the lives of those in areas occupied by Japan, even Russian lives. Under your current headings structure, not only is there the questionable "forced immediate surrender" item, but the "saved Allied lives" item carries the implication the only lives that mattered were those of Allied forces. KarlBunker 21:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  However you want to tweak, reorganize is fine, all I am looking to do is introduce some parity between the two sections regarding content/format/organization. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support/Opposition Section

message: The Following are references to POWS caught in Atomic Bombings:
{reference only}
*Hiroshima:
**LOs Angeles Times "List of POWS Killed in A-Blast Found" December 6, 1977
**Los Angeles Times "US War Prisioners killed by Hiroshima Bomb listed" December 7, 1977
**Manoff, Robert Karl. "American Victims of Hiroshima" The New York Times Magazine Dec 2, 1984
**Peterson Iver. "G.I. Deaths on Hiroshima are Documented" THe New York Times August 23, 1979 .p. 16
**Sayle, mMurrary "Hiroshima's Newest Memorial" On Line Magazine Sept 1998
**The Japan Times "A-Bomb Hall shows photos of U.S. POW" Jan 5, 2004
**The JApan Times "US pair now Offical A-Bomb Victims" June 22, 2004 {related story appeared in "The Yomiuri Shimbun" same date}
*Nagaski:
**The Japan Times June 25, 2005 "Nagasaki memorial adds British POW as A-Bomb victium" 
**The Japan Times Augs 5, 2005 "Two Dutch POWS join Nagasaki bomb Victium list"—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.53.145.146 (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POWS Caught in the Atomic Bombings

message: Someone should add information on the current state of radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki today!!!!  I know people say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are free from radiation today, but I still haven't found conclusive proof or a good source on this. A simple google search for 'Hiroshima radiation today' brought up only one useful footnote in the first ten results.I actually don't trust the source I'm posting, but if it helps, here it is.
http://www.rerf.or.jp/eigo/faqs/faqse.htm#faq12
Check the News sites such as the BBC or the Japanese equivalent. I'm sure you'll find something. From what I recall, Hiroshima, at least, is still radioactive to a degree. I'm not sure about Nagasaki though, and I can't back it up.--JavaJawaUK 20:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a search for studies of background radiation in various cities? I'll look into it. cyclosarin 01:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Hiroshima radiation free today? 

message: I have added a source for Okinawa numbers with exact numbers, BUT my source i 3rd hand. (original source - English pocket series - Swedish translation.) If somebody can find a copy of Benis Frank´s "Okinawa: touchstone to victory" and cite exact words THANK YOU. Sadly enough the English series was quite trustworthy but did not give god citations so it will be some trouble to trace the citation back. My guess is that it probably was "Okinawa: The Last Battle - The War in the Pacific - US Army in World War II Roy E Appleman et al (History Division, Department of the Army, Washington)". (Caps for titles are exatly cited as printed in the Swedish edition)Seniorsag 17:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A recapitulation of enemy losses for the entire Okinawan campaign showed 107,539 counted dead plus 23,764 estimated to be sealed in caves or buried by the Japanese themselves. A total of 10,755 prisoners of war had been captured. Since this casualty total of 142,058 was "far above a reasonable estimate of military strength on the island," Tenth Army intelligence officers concluded that approximately 42,000 civilians had fallen victim to artillery, NGF, and air attacks because of their unfortunate proximity to Japanese combat troops and installations.American losses were heavy. Tenth Army reported 7,374 Americans killed or died of wounds, 31,807 wounded or injured in action, and 239 missing. In addition there were 26,221 non-battle casualties...The United States Pacific Fleet and attached British carrier forces suffered a servere mauling in supporting and maintaining the operations of Tenth Amry in Okinawa Gunto. During the three-month ICEBERG Campaign 36 ships were sunk and 368 were damaged, 763 aircraft were lost to all causes, and 4,907 seamen were killed or missing in action and 4,824 were wounded. In grim return for these losses, ships and ground AAA and planes operating under Navy coordination or control accounted for 7,830 Japanese aircraft and 16 combatant ships.I'll change the ref if no one has a problem w/ the article text or source.—eric 18:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okinawa numbers. 

message: User:Arigato1, based upon his talk page history (he has cleared out many of his recieved negative comments and admin warnings) seems to enjoy confrontation.  His credibility appears to have come into question on other pages as well.  I would suggest caution in attempts to reason with him in the future.  IMO, of course. CodeCarpenter 20:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  After further review... 

message: I moved some peices that were in different areas (operation downfall, lives saved) together, and gave the sections titles for easier access.  The support section was quite long without sub-headings.  Feel free to  make changes, I have no emotional attachment to the change, but it made for an easier read to me.  CodeCarpenter 17:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support section modified