Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

New reference work for Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

The best and most authoritative book on this subject has long been Robert Jay Lifton and Greg Mitchell's 1995 classic, "Hiroshima in America: 50 Years of Denial." I am surprised that this work is not listed in the bibliography, nor in Lifton's Wiki entry.

Good article though.

Cliff Meneken 2601:1C0:8300:2E11:F598:C309:287B:5331 (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

information about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Easy and short information about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 185.80.143.114 (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Soldiers killed in Hiroshima - reference?

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey estimated that only 6,789 soldiers, out of 24,158 in Hiroshima, were killed or missing because of the bombing. In the infobox and the article body it claims that in Hiroshima there was an upper figure of 20,000 soldiers killed. The cited source in the article body was Wellerstein 2020, but I cannot find that upper figure of 20,000 in the linked article - perhaps someone else can find it, else the figure needs to be removed. 182.239.146.143 (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2024

Change "60,000 and 80,000 people in Nagasaki" to "60,000 to 80,000 people in Nagasaki" Saiashishdas (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Add link to Daniel A. McGovern

Correct the error.

"A member of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, Lieutenant Daniel McGovern, used a film crew to document the effects of the bombings in early 1946."

to

Beginning in September 1945, just a week after the surrender of Japan, Lieutenant colonel Daniel A. McGovern, a member of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, led a film crew to document the effects of the bombings. 147.147.221.228 (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done No error: he was a lieutenant at the time and not promoted to lieutenant colonel until after the war. Added link to new article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Done? You haven't done anything! The sentence is still inaccurate: "used a film crew to document the effects of the bombings in early 1946." He might have used a film crew in 1946 but he arrived just one week after the surrender of Japan = 9 Sept 1945. He is credited with being the first person from the Allied side to document the aftermath of bombings. Mcgovern made copies of the films he made because he was worried that the US Government would censor them. Oppenheimer watched them. They did lose the originals, his copies were revealed in 1967. Likewise, the term U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey is not even linked to its own article U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey. There is zero interest on this site to give people (ie the reader) information. It's always about which team controls the article narrative. 147.147.221.228 (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey is linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Commanders

What exactly is the problem with having commanders in the infobox? What's the point even discussing this? MylowattsIAm (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

It's a stable infobox compromise that reduces the military (glorification) side of what many people see as (in part) a massacre of civilians. EddieHugh (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't, in any way, glorify The event by listing who commanded the operation. This argument is nonsense. And "stable infobox" doesn't mean it's perfect, flawless and cannot ever be changed or improved. MylowattsIAm (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It's disappointing that you've reverted to your additions on this page yet again (four times now). I ask you (again) to undo the additions and seek a talk page consensus. Disagreeing with an established consensus and opposition to your proposed changes doesn't mean you should make those changes unilaterally yet again. EddieHugh (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Seeking a talk page consensus is ridiculous when everyone ignores the discussion. There is nothing wrong with listing who commanded the operation. These are just people who commanded it and that is all. It is always better to name the commanders anyway as it only adds to the article and saying it glorifies the event is even more ridiculous. Might as well remove the names of those who perpetrated other actual and deliberate crimes against people from the infoboxes of the articles about those events because by this logic, that also glorifies those events. This event is not any more special than those. 86.50.70.58 (talk) 11:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2024

In paragraph 3 of the introduction, please change "On 6 August a Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima. Three days later a Fat Man was was dropped on Nagasaki." to "On 6 August Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima. Three days later Fat Man was dropped on Nagasaki." ColdPear5289 (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Little Boy and Fat Man were types of bombs, not names of individual bombs. This is discussed in the second paragraph. Jamedeus (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Inconsistency in numbers of dead

There appears to be some inconsistency regarding the numbers of dead in this article.

The lead states that an estimated 90,000 to 146,000 people died in Hiroshima and that 60,000 to 80,000 died in Nagasaki by the end of 1945, while the "Post-attack casualties" section says that it was up to 140,000 in Hiroshima. What is the source of this difference of 6,000?

Also, the infobox uses an end-of-1945 figure for Nagasaki (which corresponds to the info in the Nagasaki "Events on the ground" section), but uses an unqualified figure (presumably immediate deaths?) for Hiroshima. Those figures of 70,000 and 126,000 don't appear to be sourced anywhere in the article. The Hiroshima "Events on the ground" section doesn't use the source which states 90,000 to 140,000 by year's end, and contradicts itself by using a different source which appears to incorrectly state that the immediate deaths were 80,000 to 140,000.

This also effects the headline figure of 129,000 to 226,000. The first is presumably from 70,000 + 90,000 (should be 130,000?) and the second presumably from 126,000 + 20,000 soldiers + 80,000. — Goszei (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

A 2020 article from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists appears to be a solid historiographical account of the varying casualty figures and their sources. It identifies a "low cluster" which is best represented by the 1951 Joint Commission Report, led by U.S. occupation forces: about 70,000 deaths within 3 months in Hiroshima, and 40,000 in the same period in Nagasaki, for a total of 110,000 dead. The article also identifies a "high cluster" best represented by a Japanese-led 1977 symposium which estimated 140,000 deaths in Hiroshima by the end of 1945, and 70,000 deaths in Nagasaki, for a total of 210,000 dead. As the article states, the latter figures are likely superior because they considered three categories of non-residents who were omitted from the American studies: military victims, conscripted Korean workers, and commuting workers.

Right now we mainly rely on this source from the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF), which has evidently been updated here with a somewhat higher top figure for Hiroshima. This is 90,000–166,000 deaths in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 deaths in Nagasaki, for a total range of 150,000–246,000. According to the Bulletin article, the RERF is the organization which has continuity with the Joint Commission, and it appears to have incorporated the 1970s re-evaluations into what it reports on its website today. Although it isn't directly cited, the RERF figures appear to be what is used by the Atomic Heritage Foundation in their main page on the bombings. I think the RERF is the best-available source and should be used throughout our article, from lead to infobox to body. — Goszei (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I think some of the confusion here is stemming from the military dead in Hiroshima. The body says that the 1946 U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey estimated there were 24,000 soldiers in Hiroshima, of which 7,000 died, then cites the 2020 Bulletin source, which mentions that the 1970s re-evaluations added perhaps 10,000 deaths to account for military deaths, which were omitted from most American studies. We then appear to add 7,000 and 10,000 to get ~20,000 military deaths, which I think is an error; the mortality rate isn't this high for any group in estimates. I think both the Bombing Survey and 1970s re-evaluations must be talking about the same 7,000 to 10,000 deaths, not additional ones. — Goszei (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

In an attempt to clear all of this up, I have made these revisions which cite the Bulletin and RERF sources throughout the article and add more detail on the different reports and their conclusions. — Goszei (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

No mention of the black rain

I don't really have time to be doing extensive editing right now, but I noticed that this article doesn't seem to mention the radioactive black rain that fell on parts of Hiroshima shortly after the bombing. This rain apparently contributed substantially to the radiation doses that some victims received (e.g. this article ). I think this is something that should be mentioned. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)