Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

As of 2020, Japan has not signed the treaty.

Can we update this to "As of 2022, Japan has not signed the treaty." or should we leave it as is? Confusedslight (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Y Not without a source. Added one, and updated to "As of 2022". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Why us dropped the nuclear bomb on japan

WP:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As of the 1945 on 8.15 in the morning this bomb tooked place and the whole city of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was devastated and that made number of people being brutally injured and died which were mostly womans and children which had made a Big impact on the economy of the country. Till today they have radiation surrounded in the city, which was considered as one of the important cites in 1945 and people still fear of the nuclear weapons and bombs as a lot of people surrounded in that area are down syndrome and mentally ill and is really a dangerous and how impact it has till now even after the newly updated article as it dropped in 1945 which is in 2023 the 78 yrs ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.106.139.54 (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC) The United States dropped the Nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because Japan refused to surrender during World War II and also the Japanese killed 6 million Chinese, Koreans, Malaysians, Indonesians, Filipinos and Westerners. So since Japan refused to surrender and the America wanted to prevent more casualties, they dropped the nuclear bombs in order for Japan to surrender. 95.147.145.243 (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Inflicting more civilian casaulty would not directly help anyone who had already been killed by the Japanese. Hiroshima had some military and defense related personnel and facilities. The two cities were not of critical or urgent importance, however. They had many civilians, contractors or otherwise. So I do think there could be a better way to force surrender. Japan was less of a threat by then. Senorangel (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2023

The third line has the following sentence "On 6 August, a Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima..." The indefinite article 'a' doesn't seem to belong here. It should be removed, or the sentence should be restructured. 86.44.45.165 (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

See question 5 in the FAQ above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Emphasis on civilians

Binksternet [1] and Hawkeye7 [2] have recently reordered the casualties without explanation to move civilian casualties after military casualties. What is the rationale for this change? Most of the sources that I have seen emphasize the civilian casualties over the military casualties, and there were far more civilians killed.      — Freoh 14:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

My involvement was only to revert the removal of "a" in front of Fat Man and Little Boy. I was not concerned with the ordering of casualty figures. Binksternet (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. My intention was to correct a lost parenthetical comma. I was not concerned with the ordering of casualty figures, and did not see it as having significance. But now that it has come up, I see no reason to emphasise the civilian casualties over the military casualties: Template:Infobox military conflict implies that military casualties should be listed first; Hiroshima was a military garrison town, and this was an important part of its cultural identity; and casualties among the servicemen stationed in the city were proportionately much greater than the civilians. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Why do you think that we should prioritize deaths based on what is proportionately greater? It seems like that calculation is more arbitrary—if you calculate within a small enough radius, both proportions are 100%. Do you have sources that emphasize the proportionate military casualties over civilian casualties? I have seen a few sources that emphasize the civilian casualties.      — Freoh 20:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure. I did not add the infobox; it went in with this edit in July 2015 and I don't know if @Nihlus1: was simply following the pro forma or, as you suggest, wanted to emphasise Hiroshima's heritage and push back against the myth that all the dead were civilians. In cases where two editors disagree, I normally wait for another opinion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to list the civilian casualties first. For better or worse, they are what Hiroshima was known for; seeing them after the military casualties is jarring. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I have always found the current infobox to be a weird curiosity in this article, presenting it like some sort of seriously contested battle, with those Japanese infantry numbers as "strength" for what was in practice a high altitude bombing raid. Not to mention mismatch of "commanders", where on one side you have dudes who literally flew in bombers, and on other side you have guy who was in charge of half of Japanese home islands.--Staberinde (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I just trimmed the infobox. What do you think of this?      — Freoh 13:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Unacceptable - reverted. Fails WP:NPOV. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this change Freoh, good work. Stara Marusya (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Likewise. I hadn't noticed the infobox before, but it seems bizarre to me that the civilian casualties are the very bottom. At the very least they should be summarized in the infobox. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Switched the ordering in the infobox since it seems there is consensus on this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that addresses the concern; the issue isn't that the civilians were below military deaths (in fact, I don't really care about that ordering); it's that the rest of the infobox makes it look like a battle, which is a strange impression to give of this incident. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Whether it looks like a classic battle or not isn't relevant. It most certainly was a military strike, part of a larger military conflict, which is why the military conflict infobox is appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Operation Centerboard
Part of the Pacific War of World War II
Atomic bomb mushroom clouds over Hiroshima (left) and Nagasaki (right)
Type	Nuclear bombing
Location	Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan
Commanded by	William S. Parsons Paul W. Tibbets, Jr. Robert A. Lewis Charles Sweeney Frederick Ashworth
Target	Hiroshima, Niigata, Kokura, and Nagasaki
Date	August 6 and August 9, 1945
Executed by	509th Composite Group Manhattan Project
Outcome	Hiroshima and Nagasaki heavily damaged.
Casualties	Hiroshima: 70,000–126,000 civilians killed 20,000 soldiers killed 12 Allied prisoners of war Nagasaki: 39,000–80,000 civilians killed 150+ soldiers killed 8–13 Allied prisoners of war Total: 129,000–226,000+ killed

I personally think this type of infobox (on the right) would be more suitable here. Also shouldn't have any NPOV issues like the one Freoh used.--Staberinde (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• Disagree with the change, and agree with hawkeye7. This discussion has only been active for a couple of days. Most of the "civilians" in question worked in military installations and factories that were cranking out weapons of war at an alarming capacity and rate, the likes of which would have perpetuated the war far much longer, costing even more lives. The main objective was military. War is tragic and the methods of war are often ghastly, with atomic, chemical and biological weapons notwithstanding, but before we get all judgemental we should ask ourselves -- If Japan had the bomb, would they have used it without hesitation and apologies? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
• All military/war articles list military casualties first. The info-box has been this way for some time, and we'll need more than a passing marginal consensus only a day or so old to change it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I've long been critical of the militaristic and US focus of this article, so broadly support the proposed changes (a different infobox and, failing that, listing civilians first... currently, civilians aren't even mentioned in the Nagasaki part of the infobox). However, this article is very strongly guarded by the military history wikiproject, which is one of the biggest and most active projects, so there is almost no chance of making substantial changes away from the article's longstanding biases. EddieHugh (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Further discussion

@EddieHugh, Staberinde, and Hawkeye7:, @Binksternet and Vanamonde93:, and other interested editors..

Eddie, Lengthy statements belong on the Talk page, not tucked away in edit history. And I'd be more careful of speaking on behalf of the entire Military project which you're apparently not a member of. The "militaristic and US focus of this article" is nothing unusual, as the events in question were an act of war effected by the U.S., and trying to change that focus to civilians, who were earnestly working to support that war, presents its own bias. – Regarding your edit summary.

The article is clear in that industrial/military were not the only, and probably not the main, criteria: ""It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released"

This is a highly debatable opinion at best. If they wanted such an event to be more noticed, with greater psychological impact, they would have dropped the bomb on Tokyo, whose population was several million. Dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while no doubt an attention grabbing event, neutralized two highly industrial cities that, again, were producing warplanes, warships, tanks, bombs, etc, and at an alarming rate, and it doesn't take any 'math' to figure that allowing this would have extended the war indefinitely. In any case, there should be a more established consensus, so the article should be restored to its original version, which had consensus, consistent with other articles on military events. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I should have written "[some] members of the military history wikiproject". As I mentioned in my long edit summary, this has been discussed before. However, I didn't want to revert without giving reasons. The part beginning "It was agreed..." isn't my opinion or the opinion of another editor; it's quoting the "Minutes of the second meeting of the Target Committee". Yes, protocol is that the article should be restored to its consensus-based version when a change is challenged. I modify your closing statement by observing that this shouldn't be only in line with other articles on military events. EddieHugh (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, I do not understand how Hawkeye7 finds it more neutral to present this as a battle rather than a massacre. Staberinde, I would be good with your version. Gwillhickers, could you explain why you put civilians in scare quotes and why you think that {{infobox military conflict}} is more appropriate than {{infobox military operation}} or {{infobox civilian attack}}? Do you think that the September 11 attacks should also use {{infobox military conflict}}?      — Freoh 04:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The event in question was an act of war. People are often "massacred" in war, esp when they are plotting to continue producing weapons on a massive scale that will continue a war. The comparison of the 911 event with the bombing is ridiculous. 911 was an act of terror, committed by "civilians", terrorists, against American civilians in an office building, and against a country who was not at war with Saudi Arabia, etc, unlike Japan, who stated a military war with the U.S., and while they had peace negotiators in the U.S., attacked Pearl Harbor, where many civilians were also "massacred". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Why was one an act of war and the other an act of terror? Osama bin Laden had declared war on the U.S., so I do not understand what you are differentiating here.      — Freoh 22:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Bin Laden was a civilian who made a vocal terrorist threat against the U.S., hardly an official declaration of war on behalf of Saudi Arabia, or any other country He was not a member of the Saudi government or military. If you don't see the difference, between military installations and factories mass producing weapons of war, with an office building filled with civilians during peace time, there's really nothing else to say. The Talk page is not here for your education, nor is it a place to advance such a fringe and extremely non-neutral POV. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be getting sidetracked in quite unproductive ways. First off, current infobox presents whole thing like a contested battle, which is not really an accurate description of what really happened. Military operation infobox fixes this issue well, with no obvious npov issues. As for presentation order of soldiers vs civilians, it would be best to look how reliable sources provide this information.--Staberinde (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I have previously given three sources that emphasize the bombing as a civilian attack. Hawkeye7 did not provide page numbers for their sources, but one of them says that "the atomic bombing of Nagasaki was an atrocity visited on a civilian population".      — Freoh 22:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a civilian attack; that is just the name of a Wikipedia template. The comparison with the 9/11 terrorists attacks is absurd, non-neutral POV and WP:FRINGE. The assertion that the cities were undefended has been debunked. As Gwillhickers says, the talk page is not for your education. But you could try reading the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, I never made an assertion that the cities were undefended. Also, I am not arguing that this article should make a direct comparison to the September 11 attacks, though plenty of others have done so. I made the comparison because I feel that Wikipedia should have a consistent style for attacks on civilians designed to terrorize large populations. This page should not use {{infobox military conflict}} for many of the same reasons that the September 11 attacks should not.      — Freoh 12:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Terrorising the population was not on the agenda (and did not occur). The targeting committee chose cities "possessing the following qualification: (1) they be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles in diameter, (2) they be capable of being damaged effectively by a blast, and (3) they are unlikely to be attacked by next August." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Also from that section of that source: "in a large urban area"... "From the psychological point of view there is the advantage that Kyoto is an intellectual center for Japan and the people there are more apt to appreciate the significance of such a weapon as the gadget." So, even in that section, the psychological impact on civilians was a stated consideration. From the article: "A study of the long-term psychological effects of the bombings on the survivors found that even 17–20 years after the bombings had occurred survivors showed a higher prevalence of anxiety and somatization symptoms." merriam-webster.com definition of 'terrorize': "to fill with terror or anxiety". So, people certainly were terrorised (really, how could they not be?). I don't think that trying to draw parallels with the 2001 attacks on the US is helpful, but neither is claiming that a civilian population was not terrorised by the dropping of two bombs that killed a vast number of its people. EddieHugh (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that any bombing is a terrorizing event for those in and around the area, but yes, regarding this event as a "terrorist attack" assumes the wrong things, as this was an act of war, in a war that U.S. did not initiate, and one that had military objectives that would have prolonged the war if not dealt with. And while we're pondering the psychological effects on the Japanese, we might want to cover how the rest of the world felt when Japan surrendered. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I do not see how any of this information justifies presenting the mass killing of 100 thousand civilians as if it were a battle.      — Freoh 00:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I did not know it existed, but the military operation template would be a better fit. Senorangel (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we noticed that. The issue of justification can occur with almost any battle or military operation were many 1000s of deaths occur. We are not here to justify, nor condemn, this action, and you're not responding to the thread. If we are going to cover the psychological impact on the Japanese, we should also cover this, and any other such feelings about those who were happy to see Japan surrender, esp from the South Pacific peoples who were subjected to genocidal practices, deaths to prisoners of war, rape, etc, at the hand of the Japanese Imperial Army , which was par for the course for this army before WWii even started, and which the Japanese people condoned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The widespread atrocities were carried out not just the Japanese Imperial Army, but by the Navy (eg. Manila) and civilians as well. There's a myth in Japan that the war was started by, and the genocidal practices, abuse of prisoners of war, rape, etc, were all carried out out by, "militarists" and not the people or the armed forces of Japan, who were just innocent victims. I want to keep the article as tightly focused as possible on the bombing, so minimising background material (at 14,000 words the article is pretty big but not unjustifiably so) but it has been proposed that we should expand the coverage of events on the ground. We would need to do so with sensitivity to the plight of both the people of the ground and the victims of Japanese aggression. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

There are obviously a wide range of different aspects and perspectives. I hope we can reach at least some solution, even if not perfect. Senorangel (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• If it seems "unbalanced" to have Field Marshal Shunroku Hata (who as the senior officer present, directed both the defence of the city and coordinated the relief efforts) next to Captain Deak Parsons (who led the mission), we could add General Carl Spaatz, a four-star general (who was in overall command). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  I do not understand your use of scare quotes, but the issue is not one of balance. The issue is that the kill count was a hundred thousand (mostly civilians) to zero. I see no reason to present this as if it were a battle when we do not do the same for other terrorist attacks. Could you explain why you oppose Staberinde's proposal?      — Freoh 01:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Any sort of bombing, sanctioned by a government, during a declared war, is not a "terrorist act", regardless of the kill ratio. Terrorist acts do not prevent the continuation of future killings and the prolonging of the war, as did these bombings. Needless to say, we will not be presenting this sort of fringe, highly biased and distorted opinion in the article, as I'm confident we'll not find an unbiased reliable source that refers to this in such a disgruntled manner. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I am confident we'll not find an unbiased reliable source at all because every source is biased. Could you explain why you oppose Staberinde's proposal?      — Freoh 20:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The info-box currently in use is a military conflict info-box, whose heading reads, Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which is more than appropriate. The article refers to the events as bombings, not a battle. "Every source is biased"? Is this your attempt to justify your own acute bias? No doubt there might be a measure of bias in some sources, but calling the bombings anything other than acts of war or a military operation hardly can be called a bias. You are more than suggesting that the reliable sources used in this article are all biased, as are the respective editors who used them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Staberinde's proposal is not calling the bombings anything other than acts of war or a military operation. Could you please try to focus on content?      — Freoh 21:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

We should focus purely on the question of whether civilian deaths should come before military deaths, and not try to force the issue one way or another by the mechanism of choosing which infobox. There really is no need to change the infobox type: we can create a new local consensus regarding how the casualties are to be displayed, trumping the standard instruction. Binksternet (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Agree — Imo, the 'proposal' to list civilians first was sort of a veiled attempt to slight the event as a "terrorist attack", by an editor who said as much. Scare quotes indeed. All things considered, the Japanese army, and navy, butchered and raped more civilians than were wasted as a result of the bombings. But because this wasn't the result of an atomic bombing this is something we can live with. (??) I'm no fan of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. At the time, however, where the emotions of war ran (very) high, there was little worldly conscientious over the potential of humanity's mass destruction with such a newly found weapon. War sucks, but unfortunately its resorted to when the survival or livelihood of millions hangs in the balance, but WWii wasn't started by the U.S, and its abrupt end re Japan, allies of Hitler, saved more lives than were lost as the result of the bombings. Just for the record. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Current infobox looks like a clear attempt to buff up military heroics of the operation by depicting it as a battle against overwhelmingly larger enemy. In practice Japanese forces in those cities did not present a credible defence against atomic bombings, making it more similar to operations like H-3 airstrike, Operation Opera, or 2017 Nangarhar airstrike, which use the same military operation infobox I suggested.--Staberinde (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The current military conflict info-box simply lists the belligerents, flags, commanders, casualties, etc. A military conflict or military operation info-box will make little if any difference as to whether any side will be presented more favorably than the other, as both types of info-boxes have a casualty parameter, where military and civilian deaths are listed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The current Infobox military conflict was added by Binksternet in December 2010 [3], but without the Japanese units. I added some more details during an overhaul if the article the following year. [4] I can assure you that the motivation was not to buff up the buff up military heroics. It seems that some subsequent additions were made by editors were pushing back against the assertion that the cities were undefended. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The infobox is appropriate as this was a military operation against a defended target. As discussed in the Air raids on Japan article, Japan did have extensive air defences so it's not at all the case that "Japanese forces in those cities did not present a credible defence against atomic bombing". The American nuclear strike forces comprised small numbers of unescorted B-29s which the Japanese could have shot down. That they didn't even try is an interesting story in itself - Japan had plenty of high altitude interceptors by this stage of the war, but had grounded its (large) air force to preserve fuel for use against the expected invasion. Prior to this many daytime B-29 raids suffered high loss rates. Nick-D (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. You said it better than I could. Binksternet (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

If you are agreeing that it was a military operation, then how is {{infobox military operation}} inappropriate? I believe you that it could have been a battle, but that does not make the defenses notable enough to the attack to be worth inclusion in the infobox, especially not above the killed civilians. Binksternet, could you explain why you removed the {{infobox military operation}}?      — Freoh 11:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I can explain. Your edit here was accompanied by the tendentious edit summary " I've seen a few talk page comments in favor of this infobox proposal, and none opposed" which was completely false. I reverted you because there is no consensus for that change—folks here are divided about it. Binksternet (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

By my count:

• Four editors (Staberinde, EddieHugh, Senorangel, and me) have expressed a preference for {{infobox military operation}} over {{infobox military conflict}}.
• Two other editors (Stara Marusya and Vanamonde93) have expressed a preference for {{infobox civilian attack}} over {{infobox military conflict}}.
• Three editors (Hawkeye7, Nick-D, and you) have argued that {{infobox military conflict}} is appropriate and that {{infobox military operation}} is unnecessary, without actually expressing an opposition to {{infobox military operation}}.
• Gwillhickers is the only one who has opposed {{infobox military operation}}, but I have asked him twice to explain why he opposes it, and his response was that calling the bombings anything other than acts of war or a military operation hardly can be called a bias [emphasis added], which I interpreted as a misunderstanding of the {{infobox military operation}} proposal, not as a reason for opposing it.

I am not trying to be tendentious or say things that are completely false. Does anyone actually oppose my proposal? If so, could you please explain why?      — Freoh 20:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The info-boxes in question, with the exception of infobox civilian attack, all seem appropriate, and I've seen nothing from you, or anyone, that explains – in no uncertain terms – why one is better than the other, or how one might favor one side over the other, so this is really, and typically, a lot of 'ta-do' about something really inconsequential, and only serves to keep the talk page in a perpetual state of debate, with an apparent ulterior motive of inviting more controversy, which regrettably has become your trademark. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I assumed operation fits better because there was little or no fighting back. When I think of an air battle, the Battle of Britain comes to mind. Why did it take 40,000 to man five AA batteries in Hiroshima but only 9,000 to man four in Nagasaki? Were those units coordinating with one another? Framing the two bombings as a battle raises these questions. Senorangel (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

This seems unnecessary given my comments above, and to be frank Freoh's conduct is tendentious, but yes of course I oppose the use of {{infobox military operation}}. This article covers military operations against defended targets, and so the operation infobox is not optimum. I suspect that part of the confusion here relates to the military and legal status of the two cities. Both were actually important bases for the Japanese military (especially Hiroshima), with Nagasaki also being an important industrial centre. Under the laws of warfare at the time, as the cities were defended by AA batteries it was legal to attack them despite their mainly being civilian areas, as hard as it is to believe today - the laws were tightened after the war. Many other Allied air attacks were every bit as indiscriminate, with the British deliberately targeting German civilians and Americans deliberately targeting Japanese civilians with conventional bombing. The March 1945 firebombing of Tokyo killed more civilians than either of the atomic bombings, with the target area being picked because it was known that it was densely populated and highly vulnerable to firebombing. In short, that the Japanese military proved unable to defend Hiroshima or Nagasaki against attack in August 1945 does not mean that these were not battles. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

There is hardly any confusion about legal status of the cities, military operation infobox does not in any way imply that cities were not legal military targets. If it did, then it obviously couldn't be used in articles about strikes against H3 or Shayrat airbases. It is simply a question about what kind of infobox is more fitting to show events as they really happened. Trying to present an effectively uncontested high altitude nuclear bombing as a battle of 1,820 Americans vs 49,000 Japanese looks ridiculous.--Staberinde (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Time to settle on something

Just a reminder, re Freoh's claim that I'm the only one who opposes using INFOBOX MILITARY OPERATION, which is patently false. This is in fact what I've said:

• ...calling the bombings anything other than acts of war or a military operation hardly can be called a bias.
• A military conflict or military operation info-box will make little if any difference as to whether any side will be presented more favorably than the other, as both types of info-boxes have a casualty parameter, where military and civilian deaths are listed.

As said before, this is a lot of talk about something hardly consequential, and imo, was initiated only as a tact to keep the article in a constant state of controversy. This has happened more times than I care to count here at WP. I have no issue about using either the military conflict or the military operation infoboxes, so we should have an RfC/poll to decide which so we can wrap up the endless talk and move on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

RfC about infobox which infobox to use seems like a reasonable solution for the deadlock.--Staberinde (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

References
References

Request for comment: Which infobox template is best suited?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a rough consensus that Option B is the best infobox template for the article, and many editors who supported either A or C suggested B as a middle ground proposal. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Relative to the above discussion, which infobox is best suited to this topic? Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• A: Template:Infobox military conflict like here
• B: Template:Infobox military operation like here
• C: Template:Infobox civilian attack like here

Infobox poll

• A or B. I was the one who first added the infobox to this article in 2010. I chose the military conflict template because I was looking to similar strategic bombing articles as examples. I don't have a strong preference for "military conflict" over "military operation" as both of these templates can accommodate the material. The "civilian attack" infobox suggestion is completely wrong because the nuclear bombs were dropped for more pressing reasons than to kill civilians, specifically to reduce industrial output, to kill military units, to shock Japan's leaders into surrender, and for the USA to make a show of power for the USSR to witness. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• B - Problem with "military conflict" is that it ends up depicting situation like a contested battle against larger force, which is not really a reasonable way to represent a high altitude nuclear bombing where defending side failed to present any meaningful resistance. "Military operation" infobox is a good solution to depict such air strikes, and is used for such purpose in various articles about strikes that similarly lacked effective opposition like H-3 airstrike, Operation Opera, 2017 Nangarhar airstrike, 2017 Shayrat missile strike. Infobox "civilian attack" is a non-starter due to obvious NPOV issues.--Staberinde (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• B or C. "Military conflict" suggests a contested battle, which is a poor first impression for the layperson, regardless of whether defenders were present, and as such I oppose A. There are neutrality problems with both B and C, in my view, but they are still both superior. The atomic bombings are known to lay readers primarily in terms of casualties. A lengthy list of commanders and units, such as is present in B, is jarring. However, C includes the term "perpetrators", which I don't see used in sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• B  There hasn't got to be an actual battle for something to be referred to as a conflict, but still, Military operation would be more appropriate,.Civilian attack ignores the obvious military components involved and clearly creates flagrant POV and NPOV issues, as the attack was carried out by the US military during a declared war. Therefore Military operation is the most appropriate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• A. The "military conflict" better draws attention the purposes of the bombing and the conduct of them. Specifically refutes the widespread beliefs that the cities were undefended or were of no military value when they contained important industrial, transportation and military installations. As such, the "civilian attack" infobox is inappropriate. It was an action of a smaller force attacking a much larger one. The "military conflict" infobox is customarily used for air raids, such as Bombing of Tokyo, Bombing of Rome in World War II and the air raid on Bari. It has also been frequently used for actions in which there has been little or no opposition, even, in the case of Operation Cottage and Landing on Emirau, where one side was not present at all. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• A This article covers military attacks against defended targets. The use of the conflict infobox allows the sizes of the forces involved to be compared, and allows the relative casualties and nature of those casualties to also be compared. The civilian attack infobox is totally inappropriate as it is optimised for terrorist attacks and the like against civilians; given that the nature of these attacks is (famously) highly contested, its use would be POV pushing the view that the attacks were a crime of some sort. Nick-D (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• C. The attack was designed to obtain the greatest psychological effect on a large civilian population, and the vast majority of those killed were civilians. The {{infobox military conflict}} template creates a false balance between the two militaries and suggests that the Japanese military fought back in some capacity, which they did not. The {{infobox civilian attack}} does not suggest that the cities were undefended; for example, the September 11 attacks use {{infobox civilian attack}} even though the United States was defended by NORAD. The speculation that these attacks could have been battles does not justify treating them as if they were battles.  — Freoh 01:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you were already aware that your cited source says nothing about this topic. Binksternet (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, while he continues to ignore the fact that most of the many thousands of "civilians" were engineering, testing and manufacturing war planes, tanks, warships, bombs, etc, on a huge scale at an incredible rate. He also is comparing the incident to 911, once again, after it was explained for him by several editors that it was a military action sanctioned by the US government, during a declared war that had long since been in progress. Once again, if the "psychological impact" was the primary reason for the bombings they would have dropped one on Tokyo, where several million people lived. All this is doing is exemplifying his WP:IDHT behavior. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

While there was some military production in those two cities, I'm not sure "on a huge scale at an incredible rate" is what mainstream RSes say. There are obvious reasons Tokyo wasn't chosen (it was already destroyed), and weather was a major factor in the selection of targets. You're oversimplifying by suggesting the only possible view is that they were military industrial targets, as opposed to, cities in range with clear skies that hadn't been bombed yet. In any event, disagreeing with you is not IDHT behavior. Levivich (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Tokyo was a huge metropolis and was not destroyed, not nearly so, and if the weather was a factor they would have waited a day or so. "some military production"? No, it was on a huge scale, esp Hiroshima., where weapons testing was being conducted, by civilians, as explained in the article. i.e.

• "Hiroshima was a city of industrial and military significance" and it was "the headquarters of Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's Second General Army, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan.<Giangreco 2009, pp. 64–65, 163>
• ..."a supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. <U. S. Strategic Bombing Survey> The city was a communications center, a key port for shipping, and an assembly area for troops. It supported a large war industry, manufacturing parts for planes and boats, for bombs, rifles, and handguns.<Thomas & Morgan-Witts 1977, pp. 224–225> .
• Also in the article, "The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest seaports in southern Japan, and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials." <Frank 1999, p. 263.>

All these weapons would certainly have extended the war indefinitely, and I'd like to think the US intelligence wasn't as naive as to dismiss that as something inconsequential. No, disagreement by itself isn't IDHT, but repeatedly not even acknowledging obvious facts is. This was clearly a military operation, if not a conflict, even though there was no resistance form the Japanese military. In any case, Military operation seems the best choice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

You said: if the "psychological impact" was the primary reason for the bombings they would have dropped one on Tokyo, where several million people lived. But as our article, Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki#Choice of targets explains, there was three selection criteria, which I'd summarize as big, dense, and not yet bombed. These cities were largely untouched during the nightly bombing raids.... Yes, they had military and industrial significance, but honestly, almost every city in Japan had military and industrial significance by 1945, and the US bombed many (almost all?) of them. The Target Committee stated that "It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.... So, yeah, psychological impact was a primary reason for nuking cities. Hiroshima was described as "an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged... Nagasaki wasn't originally on the list; it was Kyoto, but (as our article explans), Kyoto was removed due to its historical/cultural significance and replaced with Nagasaki.

Still, Nagasaki wasn't the original target of Fat Man; it was Kokura. You said if the weather was a factor they would have waited a day or so. Fat Man#Bombing of Nagasaki explains how, on the way to Kokura, because of clouds and smoke, they decided to change to the pre-selected alternative target, Nagasaki. And no, they weren't going to just wait a day, that's a ridiculous suggestion, there are a bunch of reasons why not, explained in that section of the Fat Man article.

I agree that repeatedly not even acknowledging obvious facts is IDHT. Obvious facts include the psychological impact, and the influence of weather, in the choice of targets. Levivich (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

No one denies that the psychological impact was an important consideration, but this is no way undermines the importance of directly neutralizing the production of weapons of war on a massive scale. Nagasaki was a major weapons producing industrial complex, regardless of any weather or consideration to strike any other targets. Like the article says, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Kokura, and Niigata were chosen because "These targets were chosen because they were large urban areas that also held militarily significant facilities.. Almost every city had industrial significance? No doubt, to one extent or another, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen because they were among those with the greatest military potential, one being a seaport and HQ Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's Second General Army, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. I'm sure his demise had some of the greatest psychological impact and no doubt made all the other top generals wonder if they were next-- or do you think they just threw a dart at a map of Japan and made their decision that way, with no consideration for size and production output, weapons testing, one being a key port for shipping, and an assembly area for troops, etc? Psychological impact would have resulted regardless of what city was struck, but the cities in question were chosen for their great military significance. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• B seems like the obvious choice.★Trekker (talk)
• A The articles Pacific war, Bombing of Dresden in World War II, Bombing of Tokyo and the Bombing of Darwin all use Infobox military conflict, cannot see why this article should not as well. Ilenart626 (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• B or C per Vanamonde. It wasn't a conflict. The question is military operation or civilian attack. I think B is the mainstream view, so I'd prefer B over C, but would change my mind if someone showed the consensus of current RS is to consider it a civilian attack. Btw, my !vote is about which infobox; I don't necessarily agree with the exact implementations in the examples given. Levivich (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• B per comments by several contributors above. "C" would be 2nd choice, but definitely not "A". My very best wishes (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• C if we can change "perpetrators" to something else, as discussed as a possibility below. As Vanamonde points out, the names of the templates don't matter, as they aren't visible to readers. Both A and B inappropriately highlight the militaristic facet of the events. "Result: Allied victory" (A) is an offensive summary to many. Putting lists of commanders before mentioning the deaths of >100,000 civilians (A and B), or putting the Operation name first (B) aren't accurate reflections of how these bombings are thought of today. Changing the infobox to reduce the stressing of the military actions would also provide some momentum for doing the same thing to more of the article, again reflecting attitudes that have evolved over the last decades from 'why weren't more dropped?' to a recognition that this is a 'never again' tragedy that was a product of its times. So, really, my preference is for a new infobox if one is to be used at all, but that's not given as an option. EddieHugh (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• "Both A and B inappropriately highlight the militaristic facet of the events."? "facet"?? The bombings were at the hand of the U.S. military, during a declared war. How is this not very militaristic? If anything, there is far too much coverage with (very) many pictures of, casualties. Germany suffered many civilian deaths during the bombings of WW2, but do we see a whole array of photos of German civilian casualties in any given article? The number of Japanese civilian casualty photos in this article borders on Japanese propaganda. There are seventeen such photos, with two very large photos of Japanese memorials of the event that stretch across the width of the article. There are no photos of massive weapons production/factories, major objectives, turning out (new and improved) weapons of war at an alarming rate, which, once again, would have extended the war indefinitely, ultimately costing more lives, on both sides, than were lost during the bombings. There's no pleasure gained in covering this event, but it must be done so with fairness and objectivity, and a lot less emotionalism than the article currently attempts to invoke-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, facet. For example, we have a whole paragraph on one plane landing, followed by another paragraph on media confusion over exactly which plane had been used. The level of detail about the military parts is extreme (jarring with the reality that we don't know to within 90,000 how many people were killed): "64 kg (141 lb) of uranium-235 took 44.4 seconds..."; "impossible to use 2,400 litres (640 US gal) of fuel carried in a reserve tank"; the call sign and pilot of every plane; etc, etc. We probably don't need the quantity of images of victims that we currently have; we definitely don't need this level of detail on the military parts of it. But we're straying from the topic of the infobox... EddieHugh (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Military operation articles do tend to include the details you have mentioned. At the same time, we have unique issues for this article, because it has a much broader context than a typical operation. It also arguably covers two operations. Perhaps in the future, there could be sub articles for some of the existing content. Senorangel (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

A "whole" paragraph, containing five sentences, about landing is nothing extraordinary, as that was part of the military operation. The call signs and names of pilots is contained in a small, well organized chat -- very nice and tidy, and quite appropriate for an article about the bombings. I also disagree with your opinion about too many details, as this is what makes an article comprehensive. Anyone interested in the topic and wants to dig as deep as is possible is going to welcome details. Of course there is a limit to everything, but I'm not seeing where this has occurred to the extent which should invoked your opinion. It seems your are determined to diminish the military aspect of this military operation while wanting to make civilians the focus. Since you apparently want more focus on civilians, we can always add the fact that thousands of these civilians were involved in the designing, production and testing of weapons being turned out on a massive scale, which would have been used in claiming many thousands of more lives, on both sides. Yes, what infobox to use is the issue, and to make that determination here were are going over the never ending issues that some editors keep dragging in. Thus far the poll is in favor for B, the military operation infobox, with A, military conflict running second. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I find your repeated argument that civilians somewhere weren't civilians if they were working in a munitions factory to be distasteful and ahistorical (under your definition, there would be no civilians in any fully mobilized nation during WWII), but in any event, you've made that point already and I'd ask you not to continue repeating it. Levivich (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

No one said anyone was not a civilian, so I'll ask you to keep your line straight on that note and address the debate more honestly. I will emphasize that point again if I feel it's called for, and judging from some of things that are being pushed in this talk page, it likely will be again. Sorry if you feel the many thousands of the civilians in question were anything but innocent victims playing no major role in a war that was costing many thousands of lives per month. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I feel that even discussing whether the victims were "innocent" or not to be in incredibly poor taste. This is not something we should be speculating about on the talk page of this article. It has nothing to do with improving this article. Levivich (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Please, I'm not concerned about your taste, and since there are so many photos of civilian victims, the article might do better if we balanced it out and explain how many thousands of those civilians were working on designing, producing and testing weapons of war for the sole purpose of continuing the war. All of the sudden I have an extra incentive for finding reliable sources that will cover such an advent. Shouldn't be difficult. Thanks for your encouragement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC).

• B - Based off both visuals and the fact this was a military operation, B seems like the most sensible choice. A does not make much sense to me at all as, pointed out above, it presents the bombings as more of a battle which is not true. While not totally agreeing with arguments against C, I think B is an obvious consensus reacher which presents the same pertinent details in a less confrontational manner which other editors have pointed out. I also appreciate that B has more information given than in C (shown in above examples) without going as overboard as A does. Yeoutie (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• B is the best choice, not presenting this as a "battle" and leaving it open to interpretation of more detailed information whether or not there were "perpetrators". Dekimasuよ! 22:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment: Editors who take issue with the perpetrators text in C may be interested in the modified version that I posted in § Discussion below [5].  — Freoh 21:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• B is best. The one in A shows two sides that were mostly irrelevant to the operation. It also presents allied POWs killed by the allied bomb at Chugoku Military Police Headquarters as casualties on the Allied side which is confusing given they were killed by the allied operation. Option C on the other hand lacks the chain of command which is important for a military operation and questionably lists Canada and the UK are perpetrators even though their involvement in the bombing operation was nonexistant. This was a military operation and there was little to no defense against lone bombers. Fulmard (talk) 05:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  Why do you think that the chain of command is important for a military operation? I feel like J. Robert Oppenheimer and Harry S. Truman were far more important and are far more prominent than any of the names listed in B.  — Freoh 12:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  Including Commanders is SOP for any article about a military operation. Not including the top commanders would be ignoring major details. Also, Truman and Oppenheimer are already mentioned in the narrative, several times each. Referring to them as "far more important" is advancing a POV. Without commanders to oversee an operation there would have been no plan for any of the proposed bombings. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  As the article notes, Oppenheimer's involvement was as chairman of the scientific panel advising the Interim Committee, which selected the targets. Truman was not involved in the decision making, but made the official announcement afterwards. There were two chains of command:

  Manhattan Project: Combined Policy Committee (Wilson) -> Military Policy Committee (Purnell) -> Manhattan Project (Groves) -> Project Alberta (Parsons)

  Military: Combined Policy Committee (Wilson) -> Secretary of War (Stimson) -> Chief of Staff (Handy) -> Strategic Air Forces (Spaatz) -> 509th Composite Group (Tibbets)

  (officers in bold were present on Tinian) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  Friendly fire deaths are never listed on the enemy side. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  Nobody is arguing for friendly fire deaths to be listed on the enemy side. Gwillhickers, could you explain your point of view that Robert A. Lewis is more of a major detail than J. Robert Oppenheimer?  — Freoh 20:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

No one ever claimed that anyone was "more of a major detail" than anyone else, only that the commanders are major details. It was you who claimed that Oppenheimer and Truman, were "far more important" than the commanders of the proposed bombing operations. Can you explain how the commanders in charge of the bombings, in an article about those bombings, are not major details? We are in the final stages of the polling and have an overwhelming consensus to use the Military operation info box – yet here you are dragging this rather ridiculous contention into that polling. Please stop this irrelevant gaslighting. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

As EddieHugh explains in § Discussion below, the scope of this article is very broad. These bombings involved a lot of people, and there are probably dozens that are major details. We have to draw a line somewhere. Would you prefer to include Oppenheimer in the infobox as well? In the interest of conciseness, I agree with Vanamonde93 that it would be better for the infobox to include no individuals, as in my {{infobox military operation}} proposal [6].  — Freoh 22:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The scope of the article indeed covers many aspects of this military operation, but its central theme is about the bombings. Notice the title of the article. Adding Oppenheimer to the infobox is okay by me, if there is a parameter for such an inclusion, but there is nothing that comes close to justifying removing the names of the top commanders for the given proposed bombings. Their inclusion has been reasonably and well explained for you on several occasions, but you still prefer to belabor the issue - in the polling section. Once again, there is an overwhelming consensus to use the military operation infobox, which has parameters for the names of commanders. Since you once referred to the bombings as a "terrorist attack", I think we can understand why you would like to see these names out of the picture entirely. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Including the list of commanders is hard to justify when not all of them are mentioned in the article. See MOS:IB. EddieHugh (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

In this case though, they are all mentioned in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

EddieHugh — On the contrary, not including the names of commanders is impossible to justify, for reasons that have been well articulated several times now. Please review the discussion. Regardless if the list is incomplete it has no bearing on whether the current names should be included. Shall we go through Wikipeida and remove all the items from lists simply on the basis that some items may not be included? Once again, there is strong consensus to use the military operation info-box, which has parameters for commanders. As such, there is strong support to include those commanders in an info-box that was made to include such items. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Not everyone listed in the infobox is mentioned in the article. I've checked (again). Reasons for not listing commanders have also been well articulated several times, but pointing such things out doesn't strengthen the argument. EddieHugh (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Not everyone listed in the infobox is mentioned in the article. — Then mention them. Regardless, names of commanders belong in an article/info box for the simple reason that this was a military operation, which would not have occurred with out commanders. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• B. I do note that, as other users have pointed out, the Bombing of Dresden in World War II and the Bombing of Tokyo both use "military conflict," but, in both those cases, there were battles. As for the civilian attack infobox ... I have to admit I'm partial towards it, but I think it would be POV pushing. Certainly, it can't be said that there's a historical consensus that the United States should be labelled a "perpetrator", as the civilian-attack infobox says. But I think it's equally true that there's only a weak claim that Japan was a "belligerent" in the bombings. I will say, I find it a little odd that there's not a Japanese flag in the example of the military-operation infobox—does that go too far in erasing the target of the attack? Either way, I think the military-operation choice is the best option.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  Would it change your mind if option C labelled the perpetrators as attackers instead [7]?  — Freoh 20:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• I urge editors above not to get hung up on the names used for the various templates. Whether the template is called "civilian attack" or "military conflict" doesn't really matter; as far as the reader is concerned, it might as well be "complicated Wikipedia template 23.6". Using the civilian attack template isn't the same as describing it as a terrorist attack: it just means the content in that template, or lack thereof, is better suited to this page. It's the parameters and formatting that matter. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for your estimation on what template should be used, once aagain. Above you maintain the A and B choices create neutrality issues - but C doesn't? Since the event in question was sort of a one-of-a-kind event there's not going to be any perfect template. The closest that comes to this is military operation, because the bombing certainly wasn't a civilian operation. As such, Civilian attack is entirely inappropriate, as once again, the attack was effected by the U.S. military. We've been through this and have belabored the topic more than is necessary, unless you have something important to say that hasn't already been discussed. We're taking a poll now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, I've said pretty explicitly that C also has a problem: that the attacking party are labelled "perpetrators". If I had my way, that would be adjustable. However, given how the bombings are covered in works of general history, I believe that the prominence A and B give to military leaders, units, and casualties is inappropriate. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  This is solvable in a few ways. We could use "B" but just omit "Commanders". We could create a new wrapper/fork the infobox to change "Casualties" to another word (or "Perpetrators" in C to another word). In other words, we could tweak either infobox, or even create a custom one. Which is probably the thing to do here. Levivich (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  That's a good point. Forking is a can of worms I don't want to open, but omitting a few parameters would make me happier about B. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I personally wouldn't want to be the editor who created {{infobox nuclear attack}} for use on multiple articles, but an infobox just for one article, {{infobox atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki}}, would let us name and order the elements however was appropriate. I kind of agree with Eddie: unique infobox for unique event is what's needed here. Levivich (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Four editors have opted for A
  Seven editors have opted for B, with one voting for A and B.
  Two editors have opted for C, one with B as their first choice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Nothing indicating 'civilian attack' appears in the example infobox; it's just a template name. Change/remove 'perpetrators' and perhaps 'defenders' and the remaining content is also in A and B. So, all the more reason for a unique infobox for a unique (pair of) event(s). EddieHugh (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Making a special info-box for one article/event is not at all necessary. What information could anyone put there that isn't already in the existing infobox? Military operation, which is exactly what this was, is more than appropriate, regardless if the Japanese military was asleep at the wheel. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Changing a template used on over 5,000 pages will require more than local consensus on this talk page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  That's a straw man: nobody is discussing making changes to how infoboxes appear on other pages. We can omit parameters here by local consensus, or create a page-specific infobox; neither requires wider discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. Creating a special infobox for one article, about an operation that was distinctly a military operation, and using it in this highly contested article would indeed require consensus, and another poll, which is an idea that's getting a bit rife, as we are still in the middle of the current poll. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a weirdly indented comment, unless you're replying to yourself; but assuming for the moment you're replying to my comment immediately above; you're misreading, and egregiously so. Changing any aspect of the infobox on this article does not require wider consensus; local consensus is plenty. Which is in no way contradicted by anything you have said. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Not sure who you're addressing, but it wasn't I who proposed that we get a 'global' consensus. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm addressing you, and unlike with your comment, mine was indented to suggest that. Who were you addressing? Vanamonde (Talk) 12:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, I tried to implement your compromise suggestions here. The first is {{infobox military operation}} without the commanders, and the second is {{infobox civilian attack}} with Attackers instead of Perpetrators. I would be happy with either of these.  — Freoh 11:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The second looks distinctly cleaner to me. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Since this is an article about the bombings, omitting the names of commanders from any infobox would be ignoring major details. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Since this is an article about the bombings, could you point to the article that provides an overview of everything – background, bombings, post-bombing effects, lasting impacts, etc? It must exist, given the importance and profile of this topic. EddieHugh (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The scope of this article is restricted to the bombings. Every article must have a well-defined scope. The development of nuclear weapons is in Manhattan Project and its many subarticles; Air raids on Japan and its many subarticles covers the bombing campaign against Japan; post-war debates about the bombing are in Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; subsequent development of nuclear weapons in Nuclear warfare; rebuilding of the cities is in their respective articles. The parent article that gives an overview of everything is World War II. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

No, this is the main article of Category:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and thus the parent article for every other article in that category, which of course are all sub-articles of this article. Per WP:PROPERSPLIT #6, this article should summarize all of those articles. This article is not just about the events of 6 and 9 August 1945; it's the main article for the entire topic, including background and aftermath -- not in as much detail as the sub-articles, of course, but still summarized in this article. This can be confirmed by reading the article, which already has summaries of the background, aftermath, the debate, etc. This is the overview article Eddie mentioned. If someone wanted to write a sub-article that focused exclusively on the military operation to drop the bombs, they can expand the redirect Operation Centerboard into an article. Levivich (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I could move this entire article to Operation Centerboard and leave you to write a new article from scratch. But this proposal has been rejected before. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

This article does its job very well—no need to split off the military operation. The only neutral options for infobox are A and B, since C frames the attackers as perps, but this was a wartime operation between belligerents, not an illegal civilian attack. Plenty of folks have expressed their thoughts here, and the median response is clearly B. Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Levivich stated it very well: this is the parent article for every other article on the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There's no need to move the entire article to Operation Centerboard and start again here, but it's a good idea to move the material that is about the operation to such a page, leaving a summary of the split material here. Then the article that is "restricted to the bombings" (Hawkeye7) / "about the bombings" (Gwillhickers) can be just that, and there can also be a parent article that summarises everything on what was and is about much more than the bombings themselves. EddieHugh (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The parent article already exists: Manhattan Project which summarizes the atomic bombings. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, no – that might be the parent article about the bombs and bombings, but where's the article that provides an overview of everything – background, bombings, post-bombing effects, lasting impacts, etc? EddieHugh (talk) 10:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Post a list of what additional things you think should be covered on my talk page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

A good suggestion, bearing in mind that the central theme of this article is about the unfortunate bombings, always keeping due weight in mind, more over, keeping soapbox prose out of the narrative.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Closure

I have listed the RfC for closure by an uninvolved editor at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's the actual Link to the entry. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Closing as a rough consensus for B. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"The Law of Air Warfare" and Shimoda case

I reverted this addition, as the actual article The Law of Air Warfare does not mention Shimoda case or atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at all.--Staberinde (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Casualty Figures in Infobox

The total casualty figures in the Infobox are given as 129,000—226,000 but adding up the detailed estimates gives a (rounded) range of 150,000—226,000. I didn't see sourcing for either estimate in my quick skim of the article, so I am not sure which if either set of numbers should be adjusted. But they should probably agree and/or be cited to a specific source. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

More infobox discussion

TheGreatman1969, could you explain your recent edit [8]? This is not a battle, and InvadingInvader closed the previous RfC in § Closure with a rough consensus against your proposal.  — Freoh 17:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah it's simple, I thought it looked better in the format of battle infobox and I was not aware of the fact that a consensus had been reached at the time. TheGreatman1969 (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2023

I want to correct a spelling mistake in the description of the photo "Jap...You're Next^ We'll Finish the Job"91.183.125.207 (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DDMS123 (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Reference to Japanese Annual of International Law in

Hi @XXzoonamiXX:, in the Legal Considerations section, as well as the article Ryuichi Shimoda v. The State you have made edits which use the reference “The Japanese Annual of International Law: Volume 36. International Law Association of Japan. 1994. p. 147.” however the reference has no hyperlink. Can you please provide a hyperlink to P.147 and / or provide details that support your edits. Ilenart626 (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Change ordering to "Little Boy and Fat Man"

The phrases "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" should appear in the same order as "Hiroshima" and "Nagasaki", i.e. chronological. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pqmb (talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Suzuki and Hiroshima

The lede originally included the phrase saying that after Hiroshima... "to which Prime Minister Kantarō Suzuki reiterated the Japanese government's commitment to ignore the Allies' demands and fight on." And then Nagasaki.

I know of no such quotes from Suzuki, and the placing of it here seems to imply that this is why the US dropped a second atomic bomb. I suspect whomever added that has confused Suzuki's post-Potsdam "no comment" with a response to Hiroshima. To my knowledge, the Japanese government issued no response to Hiroshima prior to Nagasaki -- because they were still confirming the news at Hiroshima, and deciding what to do about it (and the Soviet invasion), when Nagasaki happened. If there is a source I am missing, I'd love to know it, but such a statement cannot be in the lede on a controversial topic without a serious citation. NuclearSecrets (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The statement is sourced in the body of the article. I'd suggest checking this source. Nick-D (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The section in book in question is about the response to the Potsdam Declaration. Again, I think there is a confusion here, unless I have missed something. NuclearSecrets (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

"End the war with minimal Casualties" - for who?

With reference to the sentence "Supporters claim that the atomic bombings were necessary to bring an end to the war with minimal American casualties" at the end of the introduction - while this is a true statement, might it be more accurate to rephrase this to simply "minimal casualties" instead of "American casualties" as supporters of the bombings and those involved in the original decision did also consider the potential for reducing Japanese and other Allied casualties as result of a shorter war? Would like some input as the sentence is not sourced. Yobbin (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The word "American" should be removed so that the sentence can properly summarize the topic. You are correct that all Japanese casualties would have been much greater in a large-scale invasion of the Home Islands, and this fact was known to all involved. Binksternet (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Are there sources for "those involved in the original decision did also consider the potential for reducing Japanese" casualties? EddieHugh (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I think this is just a generally accepted fact at this point, although it shouldn't be difficult to find a source for this. For instance, in the first paragraph of this article [9] states that "After nearly 12 weeks of fighting, the United States secured the island on June 21 at a cost of nearly 50,000 American casualties. Japanese casualties were staggering, with approximately 90,000 defending troops and at least 100,000 civilians killed." Yobbin (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Although the fighting had ended on Okinawa, it continued elsewhere. People were still dying by the thousands every day. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

There are two issues here. One is whether or not people claim that this justifies the atomic bombings. This is very clear and can be traced back to 1945. The other is whether reducing Japanese casualties, or even American casualties, was how those who were involved in the plans for the bombing conceived of it (as an either/or thing). This is absolutely a point of historical contention and dispute (and subtlety), but not relevant to the lede of article, which is about post-facto claims, not motivations. I would not include the latter as a generalization, as the scholarship is pretty involved and that is something for its own article. One can "find a source" for many different takes on the motivation question. --NuclearSecrets (talk) 03:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Should remove the "a" before Little Boy and Fat Man.

"On 6 August, a Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima. Three days later, a Fat Man was dropped on Nagasaki."

Should remove the "a" before Little Boy and Fat Man. Admiral85 (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, no. The bombs did not have names. Rather, the type of bomb mechanism is named. The bomb dropped on Nagasaki held the Fat Man style mechanism. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima had the Little Boy mechanism. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I was going to comment the same but then I read this entry. in any case, shouldn't the names have the hyperlink to their respective articles to clarify this issue? Osw719 (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

They are linked in the lead and again in the article body. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The FAQ at the top of the page addresses this exact question. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

It is pretty confusing and non-standard. Why not just rewrite it so that this is not necessary? My rule of thumb as a writer is that you need to choose which hills to die on, and this one is going to just look wrong or ungrammatical to most people. If you need a FAQ to explain why you wrote something a certain way, it's probably a sign that you should rewrite it. Here's a dead-simple rewrite that clarifies the issue, as an example: ""On 6 August, a Little Boy-type bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Three days later, a Fat Man-type bomb was dropped on Nagasaki." Just my two cents. NuclearSecrets (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2023

Correct misspelling of Catholic in the caption, "The bomb destroyed the Roman Cahtolic Urakami Tenshudo Church" to "The bomb destroyed the Roman Catholic Urakami Tenshudo Church". Mander333 (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

"Hiroshima massacre" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Hiroshima massacre has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 10 § Hiroshima massacre until a consensus is reached. Loafiewa (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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)