Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Archives
Discussion archive 1 Discussion archive 2 Discussion archive 3 Discussion archive 4 Discussion archive 5 Discussion archive 6 Discussion archive 7 Discussion archive 8 Discussion archive 9 Discussion archive 10 Discussion archive 11 Discussion archive 12 Discussion archive 13 Discussion archive 14

Estimated Deaths

At this point, I think the subject of estimated deaths due to the bombs in given time periods should be separated from the Radiation heading. This is the subject of the second paragraph, which needs some fixing.

First, the first sentence is a stream of personal opinion and strikes me as unnecessary: "In estimating the number of deaths caused by the attacks, there are several factors that make it difficult to arrive at reliable figures: inadequacies in the records given the confusion of the times, and the pressure to either exaggerate or minimize the numbers, depending upon political agenda." I propose deleting it. We can simply cite the range of official estimates and let the reader draw conclusions about the difficulty, political agendas, etc. Or we can cite a source-discussion of the problem of estimating deaths.

There seem to be four standard time periods for estimating deaths: the immediate time of the blast; the few months afterwards or end of the year; the next five years; and post-1950. The only numbers I've seen for post-1950 are the RERF study cited by Gtadoc, which restricts itself to cancer and leukemia deaths, and to a chosen cohort. I didn't see an extrapolation from the cohort results to total deaths.

The sources which are of interest merely because of who they are are the US government and the Japanese government. I'd like to find offical estimates from the Japanese government.

The DOE publishes these estimates: 1) Immediate blast: Hiroshima 70,000; Nagaskai 40,000 2) End of the year: Hiroshima 100,000; Nagasaki 70,000 3) By 1950: Hiroshima 200,000; Nagasaki 140,000 http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/hiroshima.htm

The phrasing used by the DOE to describe delayed deaths is "the lingering effects of radioactive fallout and other after effects...cancer and other long-term effects"

The RERF study only makes a comprehensive claim about total deaths for the period within "two to four months" of the bombs, i.e. end of the year. Those numbers support the DOE's: Hiroshima 90,000-140,000 Nagaskai 60,000-80,000 http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/qa1.html

Note the phrasing used here is "deaths that occurred later from burns and radiation exposure."

So, I propose something like the following for the second paragraph:

The bombing of Hirshima killed approximately 100,000 people within four months, due to immediate effects of the blast and after-effects such as burns and radiation. [Web link to RERF page]. The United States Department of Energy estimates that as many as 200,000 may have died from cancer and other long-term effects by 1950. [Web link to DOE page] The numbers for Nagasaki are generally 30% lower.[Web links to RERF and DOE page]. Almost all the deaths were civilians.

Proposed deletions: Ref. 1 (it's based on the RERF study, already cited), Ref. 3 (nothing to do with the subject of this paragraph), and Ref. 9 (unclear, probably derived from the sources already mentioned)

I'm not sure if there is a system for preferring the ref format or the direct link, when the ref. is a Web page.

Please discuss this proposal without misrepresenting sources, treating the encycolpedia as a forum for your personal expertise, or pushing a thinly-veiled political agenda. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsharvy (talk • contribs)

Actually, upon further review, it looks like the Fox News story is useful because it cites Japanese estimates for immediate deaths at Nagasaki, and official Japanese estimates belong in the entry alongside USA estimates, when possible. So I propose the following for the second paragraph:

The bombing of Hirshima killed approximately 100,000 people within four months, due to immediate effects of the blast and after-effects such as burns and radiation. [Web link to RERF and DOE pages]. The United States Department of Energy estimates that as many as 200,000 may have died from cancer and other long-term effects by 1950. [Web link to DOE page] The numbers for Nagasaki are generally 30% lower. [Web links to RERF and DOE page]. The DOE estimates 40,000 died at Nagaskai from immediate blast effects, whereas the offical Japanese numbers are in the 75,000 range [Web link to Fox News]. Almost all the deaths were civilians.

The Fox News story still has the problem of not specifying the time period, but from the comment that many of the remains of the victims were never found, I infer it refers to immediate blast effectsBsharvy 01:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the gist of what you're saying, a lot of people have opinions about this but most of them don't know much about it beyond the general idea that "nuclear weapons are wrong and the war could have been won without them". I'd personally like to see more discussion about the damage already inflicted by months of firebombing and the conditions coming closer to famine as the US mining and submarine campaigns had sunk around 85% of their merchant fleet. (This could be WP:OR so I'm not advocating including it but I doubt Downfall would have been as bad casualty wise for the Allies as it was planned. People who are starving generally aren't able to put up much of a defense, had they just kept up the bombing/blockade combination for another six months even if they didn't surrender those left alive would be pretty easy to overcome.
As innocuous as that sounds, it would have killed hundreds of thousands more civilians either in firestorms or famine.)

It's easy for me to see why, given their already bad situation, the introduction of nuclear warfare was a strong factor in deciding to surrender. Anynobody 09:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Since I don't believe Bsharvy or his sockpuppet is going to be a productive contributor to this discussion I will answer posts from anyone else. At the moment we have a technical question already answered by authoritative, scientific sources being disputed by a random history page that is not clear (nor an official position of any government, as the already cited National Academies reports were commissioned and accepted by the US government and most of the world). Since it is a scientific subject I understand that it will be difficult for some editors to read/understand the material, however I hope civility can be maintained (as it was in the past on this topic). Someone asked for the Japanese version, it is called the Lifespan Study [[1]]. I will link to the page that has a variety of reports, however, if you'd like they have a simple FAQ section here [[2]]. The "version" by the national academies (i.e. the one considered authoritative) is here: [[3]] (intro and the several pages that follow). I would be fine with someone wanting to increase the numbers in the intro about the death toll, as long as they don't make statements contrary to sources by trying to claim the deaths were from radiation and not other factors. Also, as this page is getting confusing with editing being done within discussion instead of at the bottom if you have a specific question for me feel free to ask on my talk page. Gtadoc 14:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The DOE does not estimate that 200,000 died from the bombs by 1950. Someone who put up a webpage on a DOE site took the often repeated claim of 200,000 and included it on their page without realizing that there is little scientific basis for such a high number. Oralloy 23:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What??? What??? this edit, which had an edit summary of "Radiation - removing diatribe per WP:NPA also leaving warning on editer Wtmitchell|Boracay Bill talk page" was followed by this threat on my talk page. How did I get dragged into this? I demand (yes, DEMAND) an apology! -- Boracay Bill 00:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

yes you were warned. If you continue to make personal attacks instead of commenting on content a request to block your account will be made to an admin. Please read the noted policy and follow it. Thank you. Gtadoc 13:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is worth mentioning that the total death toll was probably twice that of e.g. the conventional bombing raid on Tokyo (Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_World_War_II) -- 80,000 to 100,000 in that case. If the atomic bombs had not been used and the war had continued, the civilian deaths from aerial bombing would only have been as high if four such conventional bombing raids were launched (although the casualties from ground invasion would probably have been much higher). Rnt20 12:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

RERF Frequently Asked Questions...Broken 31 RERF life SPan Study Report 13...Broken 32

By December of 1945, thousands had died from their injuries and a small number from radiation poisoning, bringing the total killed in Hiroshima in 1945 to perhaps 140,000.[30] In the years between 1950 and 1990, it is statistically estimated that hundreds of deaths are attributable to radiation exposure among atomic bomb survivors from both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[31][32]

these sources should be commented on here as links to text supporting this info can so easily become dead...at the very least mention the RERF itself so that a reader can hunt done what ever it is that I cannot now find for that reason...

perhaps something like...it has been statistically estimated by the (whoever it is) that hundreds of deaths are attributable to radiation...

also i would like to point out that among those who "widely accept" this to be true...most have done so not based on conclusive evidence but for the purpose of moving foward in related research... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.103.163 (talk) 21:03, August 25, 2007 (UTC) Hoboscience 21:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)71.86.103.163 21:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

There is undo/revert war between the following second paragraphs:

In estimating the number of deaths caused by the attacks, there are several factors that make it difficult to arrive at reliable figures: inadequacies in the records given the confusion of the times, and the pressure to either exaggerate or minimize the numbers, depending upon political agenda. The United States Department of Energy estimates that, at Hiroshima, the death toll from the immediate blast was roughly 70,000, with additional deaths occuring in the time soon after the explosion and in the decades that followed.[1][2][3][4] The figures for Nagasaki are slightly less.[5] Other estimates vary widely,[6][7][8] and are as low as 74,000 for Nagasaki.[9] In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the deaths were civilians.

And...

The bombing of Hiroshima killed approximately 70,000 people due to immediate effects of the blast, and approximately another 30,000 within four months, due to after-effects such as burns and radiation. [12][13]. The United States Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that as many as 200,000 may have died from cancer and other long-term effects by 1950. The numbers for Nagasaki are generally 30% lower. The DOE estimates 40,000 died at Nagaskai from immediate blast effects[14], whereas the offical Japanese numbers are in the 75,000 range[15]. Other estimates vary widely [1][2][3]. In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the deaths were civilians.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsharvy (talk • contribs)

I believe this (or something very close) was also the concensus from previous discussions:

In estimating the number of deaths caused by the attacks, there are several factors that make it difficult to arrive at reliable figures: inadequacies in the records given the confusion of the times, the small number who died months or years after the bombing as a result of radiation exposure, and the pressure to either exaggerate or minimize the numbers, depending upon political agenda. That said, it is estimated that as many as 140,000 had died in Hiroshima by the bomb and its associated effects,[1][2][3] with the estimate for Nagasaki roughly 74,000.[4] Almost all of the casualties were a direct result of the bomb itself, with relatively few people dying from radiation induced illnesses.[5] [6] In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the deaths were those of civilians.

Gtadoc 06:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Small number who died months or years later? Official numbers kept by the City of Nagasaki indicate 74,000 deaths in immediate aftermath, and a total of 143,124 including those who died later of a-bomb related illnesses. That amounts to ~70,000 who died months or years later. Definitely not a "small" number. The estimate for Nagasaki is only for immediate deaths (from the blast, heat rays, and radiation). That 74,000 is only immediate deaths needs to be noted. --Aude (talk) 06:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That was not a consensus, and it is obviously lacks proper neutrality since 1) "small" and "few" are editorial interpretations, and 2) all the references, including those labelled "high quality" here, say the deaths due to aftereffects including radiation added another 50-70,000 to the death totals--in a few months. The compromise proposed below is a better starting point for progress than rehashing the older, rejected version above.71.214.124.150 05:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Was there a consensus? I have no idea about it. As for the neutrality, though it's an old edit, what do you think of this, guys? I am not sure but I hope these will help you all.[4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9]. Oda Mari 09:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you; perhaps we could say something specific, like the estimated XXXX (I believe its in the thousands from radiation) number who died afterwards (and use one source for it...not fox news though, lol). Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 07:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC responses

Upon further review, my inclination is to agree with the consensus, and to disagree with Bsharvy, but perhaps there is some unexpressed reason for Bsharvy's version? THF 15:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I am the author of the second; it is an edit of a slightly older version of the first. I have no strong objection to the first, except it avoids any estimate of total deaths, and the first sentence is a blend of POV and OR. I want to add specificity, such as estimates for the death toll due to radiation, burns, and other after-effects, for various time periods. The estimates given in the second version are attributed to the same sources used in the first version (DOE and RERF), so I don't understand the objections. If there is to be an opinion about how difficult it is to estimate deaths--and why--it should be it should be attributed to a reliable source. Also, one of the references in the first version doesn't seem to have any relevance to death estimates at Hiroshima and Nagaskai.Bsharvy 15:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

In essence, my goal is to replace "with additional deaths occuring in the time soon after the explosion and in the decades that followed" with some specific estimates, and that can be done using the sources already provided. Also, the POV and OR needs to be removed or cited. (I'm not sure what you mean by "the consensus"...there is no consensus; it is a two-person disagreement.) I am also not sure what you mean by "unexpressed reason"--I created the entire section on Death Estimates to express the reasons. Bsharvy 15:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The previous consensus that myself and about 6 other editors were working with is here [[10]] ; after the Bsharvy edit it was changed to the current version [[11]] in order to try to keep some of the useful changes that had been made since then while removing the added content. I do agree that the pov statement about politics needed to be removed, there was also agreement as to the numbers involved and causes of death with accurate numbers from high quality sources. Gtadoc 16:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that the POV is removed, I have no strong objection to the first version (other than an irrelevant reference). I want to add to it. I have been effectively disallowed from adding to it by Gtadoc's undos. I want to add the United States' estimate of total deaths up to 1950; I can't imagine why an editor should be disallowed from adding the US government's estimates of total deaths in a US government military action in the Wikipedia entry for that military action. What the US government says about its own action is of interest in itself; if Gtadoc thinks it is wrong, he should add to the entry by saying "Such-and-such research contradicts these figures." Instead he just keeps undoing what I wrote. The most reliable figures we have, because they come from BOTH main sources, are the estimates of deaths by the end of 1945. So I want to add that information, but that too has been prevented by Gtadoc's undos. I want to add information about official Japanese estimate of the deaths, because that balances the US estimates and is of interest in itself; but that information too is being blocked by these undos. Why should an editor be blocked from adding official Japanese estimates of deaths in the bombing of Nagasaki in the entry for the bombing at Nagasaki? It's absurd. Again: All of the additions I've made come from the exact same sources already used in the current version. I have just added specific numbers to the entry.Bsharvy 17:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Bsharvy, please take the time to read through the prior discussion back in archive 7, and especially have a look at the casualties table. The consensus back then was that—for the article lead—the most appropriate sources for casualty estimates were either Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Physical, Medical, and Social Effects of the Atomic Bombings 1979/1981 (Hiroshima 140k, Nagasaki 70k by end of '45) or Richard Frank's summary in Downfall (exact numbers will never be known, but probably 100–100k). The casualty estimates on this page are often contentious, and we should take some particular care to ensure we use the highest quality sources available and not to misrepresent what they say.—eric 18:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in those figures contradicts the edit I made. As I've said (over and over and over), nothing in the edit I made contradicts the sources already in use. In addition, what the US government says about a US government action is of interest in itself. What the government of Japan says on this topic is of interest in itself. If some editors don't think the government numbers are reliable, they should add some statements and documentation to that effect. The meaning of being a contentious issue is that we should provide balance and represent all sides. What could possibly be the point of objecting to my edit on the grounds that the consensus estimates are Hiroshima 140k, Nagasaki 70k for the end of 1945, when those numbers are consistent with what my edit says? I am trying to add those estimates to the article. Please read the actual text in question.Bsharvy 18:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Which simply tells me you didn't read the sources, unfortunately, they directly contradict your first claim about death being from radiation. Also, you keep refering to what the "US" says, yet do you realize what the National Academies are? If you want to include your alternative theories that might be possible, but the intro is not the place for it. Several editors had been working on the exact wording for a while before this...Gtadoc 21:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Gtadoc is undoing two types of information in the proposed edit: casualty numbers attributable to the bomb by the end of 1945 and the end of 1950, and 2) the claim that some of those deaths are due to radiation. The rationale for these undos is the RERF Lifespan Study. I have addressed this source so many times, in every possible way that applies to my edit, that I am sick of it. I will simply cut and paste the responses I have already made regarding RERF and my edit. These are the verbatim responses already made.
1. The 428 deaths mentioned at the Radiation Effects Research Foundation is only for the cohort they studied. Read the page: "Because the Life Span Study cohort does not include all survivors ... the number of cancer deaths that may be attributed to radiation among all survivors would be larger than the 428 shown..." (August 3)
2. As far as I can tell, the entirety of the reason for deleting the information that many died from radiation effects is a misunderstood source, RERF [Lifespan Study], that 1) didn't study the first five years, when conventional estimates of radiation related deaths are in the 100,000 range, and... (August 4)
3. ...only reports deaths in a cohort that it studied and makes no estimate of the total deaths from radiation effects. (August 4)
4. For the third time, I've read the RERF study. It doesn't contradict anything that was written (and deleted) in the paragraph in question.... (August 3)
5. ....It doesn't contradict the claim that the blast at Hiroshima killed roughly 75,000... (August 4)
6. ...that a total of 100,000 died by the end of the year, (August 4)
7. ...or that up to 200,000 died within the first five years after the bomb. So please stop deleting those figures from the entry. (August 4)
8. The study of cancer rates after 1950 is irrelevant, because 1) the topic is not limited to death from cancer,... (August 4)
9. ...the topic is not limited to deaths after 1950. (August 4)
10. The topic of that paragraph is simply to give estimates of the total number of deaths caused by the bomb. Not death from cancer or leukemia. Not deaths starting five years after the bomb. (August 4)
11. ...you have produced all of one reference that discusses the number of deaths due to radiation, and it restricted itself to to the post-1950 period... (August 5)
12. ...that one reference explicitly states its numbers only apply to the cohort it studied not all deaths at Hiroshima, (August 5)
13. ...the topic is simply the total number of deaths attributable to the bomb in given time periods (August 5)
14. ...don't assert a source studying a post-1950 time period refutes a statement about pre-1950, after this has been pointed out repeatedly in the discussion (August 5)
15. What the US government says about its own action is of interest in itself; if Gtadoc thinks it is wrong, he should add to the entry by saying "Such-and-such research contradicts these figures." Instead he just keeps undoing what I wrote. (August 6)
16. Again: All of the additions I've made come from the exact same sources already used in the current version. I have just added specific numbers to the entry. (August 6)
17. As I've said (over and over and over), nothing in the edit I made contradicts the sources already in use. (August 6)

So, I've addressed the idea that RERF Lifespan Study refutes the casualty numbers in the 1945-50 time period 17 times in the last 5 days. The only response has been a repetitive assertion that my edit contradicts the scientific literature, and immediate undos of my edit. What exactly do I have to do to get these points addressed? Make them 17 times in one hour? DONE.

The other question is how to characterize causes of death, e.g. radiation. I have already addressed that several times. Again, cut/paste....
1. The phrasing used by the DOE to describe delayed deaths is "the lingering effects of radioactive fallout and other after effects...cancer and other long-term effects" (August 6)
2. Note the phrasing used here [RERF FAQ] is "deaths that occurred later from burns and radiation exposure." (August 6)
Did my edit misrepresent the idea? The phrasing in my edit:
3. "after-effects such as burns and radiation."
4. "cancer and other long-term effects"

Nonetheless, I am being constantly accused of misrepresenting or ignoring sources; Gtadoc claims I attribute deaths solely to radiation. He claims the sources say there were no significant deaths to radiation. His is misrepresenting the sources and mischaracterizing my actions, my discussion, and my contributions. It is impossible to believe he is not lying. He knows the limits of the RERF source: they has been pointed out to him 17 times in five days. He knows the sources attribute some of the deaths to radiation. He knows my edit did not attribute them solely to radiation. I posted my edit in Talk first and he has undone my edit repeatedly; presumably he has read it repeatedly. This entire process has been a travesty of communication, sincerity and integrity.
References already used in the article for deaths attributed to radiation and other effects:
http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/qa1.html
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/hiroshima.htm

There is not a single claim or source anywhere in the edit I made that violates any policy or that is contradicted by any scientific literature presented anywhere in this discussion. Period. The Lifespan study only addresses the post-1950 period. The claim that some of the delayed deaths in the first months and years are due to radiation comes from both the sources already in use in the article. One, the DOE, is of interest for its own sake; there is also no evidence discrediting it. The other is a consensus "high-quality" source. This edit should be a non-issue. Bsharvy 05:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and checked per the request of one of the editors and am weighting in on Gtadoc's side, I don't know if the issue is still at hand but his edits were accurate, which I can't say for some other editors, though, that is to be expected with this topic. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 07:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Anybody tempted to take the above editor seriously should note that he registered a week ago, and his Talk page consists entirely of (complimentary) exchanges between Gtadoc and himself.Bsharvy 17:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring childish comment; and yes, we work at the same institution...what about you? Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 03:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The RERF studies that don't cover every survivor tend to cover 50% of those who were proximally exposed. It would seem to me that simply doubling the figures would result in an accurate number. But I'm certainly no expert in statistical analysis (maybe someone else here is and can jump in).

The foremost reason that the "200,000" figure should not be used in the article is the lack of any credible documentation supporting it. However, RERF does have some information on the pre-1950 period that contradicts it: [12]. While the leukemia rates in the 1946-1950 period were higher, the difference is not dramatic, and certainly would not come close to taking the numbers anywhere near 200,000. Oralloy 23:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No part of the edit under discussion is conerned only with leukemia. The numbers under discussion are merely estimates of total deaths attributable to the bomb--deaths from burns, from physical injuries, and death from radiation (cancer, leukemia, and anything else). So RERF numbers for leukemia won't refute the 200,000 (or any other number under discussion). I didn't see what you are referring to in the RERF article--they gave some ratios for risk of leukemia, but no estimates for death rates from leukemia or anything else (that I could see). Can you point us to the relevant section of the article? The RERF site (in the FAQ) says the deaths at Hiroshima may be as a high as 140,000 by the end of 1946, so getting near 200,000 total over another four years doesn't seem incredible.Bsharvy 17:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the focus on leukemia is because as far as I know, this was the cause of A-bomb-related deaths in this time period. Is there a source that shows a different type of A-bomb-related deaths in this period?

The ratios you saw is the part of the article I was talking about. RERF found about 90 leukemia deaths between 1950 and 1990 [13]. If we double that number in order to count the people not covered by their study, that makes about 180 Leukemia deaths between 1950 and 1990.

If leukemia deaths from 1945 to 1950 took the numbers to 200,000, that would be at least 60,000 deaths. I don't think the ratios in that chart are compatible with 60,000 deaths from 1945 to 1950, followed by 180 deaths from 1950 to 1990.

However, I think the biggest problem with the 200,000 number is that it can't be traced to any sort of scientific study that would justify the numbers. Oralloy 10:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone who is better at statistics than I am might be able to combine the ratios in that chart with the 180 count from 1950-1990, and come up with a leukemia estimate for 1945-1950. Oralloy 10:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've read in one of Mike Fox's books something saying around ~200 for the leukemia, no longer have the text on hand to confirm anymore though; you don't really see them right away since development is multistep, e.g. you are going to be looking for the first deaths to probably be around 47/48ish with a peak around 10 years after that...I don't think it was actually even recognized that the radiation was causing leukemia until '51/52ish. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 03:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything supporting the 200k figure either; the one page I do see is based off a book (slightly, and not accurately); all the sources I've found are less than 140k, though I haven't found anything specifically trying to tease out the individual causes of all the death I think the vast majority were pressure effects and thermal burns. The only effects of radiation at that level are mild surface burns and long term illnesses; to my knowledge there is no long term radiation sickness other than cancer ever reported in Japan (or anywhere outside the Soviet Union...who has the sole claim to fame on that one with the Mayak workers). Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 03:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Leukemia is not the main cause of the deaths from 1945-50 and nothing says or implies that. Please read the edit in question. In summary, the numbers and causes in question: 70k due to immediate blast effects; 90k-140k by the end of 1945 due to after-effects such as injuries, burns, radiation; 200k by the end of 1950 due to after-effects such as injuries, burns, radiation, etc. None of the numbers are for radiation exclusively, or leukemia exclusively, or cancer exclusively. It is an estimate of total deaths and the groupings are for 1) immediate blast effects, and 2) after-effects. That's the entire subject of the paragraph. It is simple and general, which is proper since it is part of an introduction.

The RERF study doesn't estimate total deaths post-1950. We can't do things like assume the total deaths would be double those of the RERF cohort because that is original research. Our sources don't have to be scientific studies; they can be reliable reporters of studies. There is no reason to assume the Department of Energy would misrepresent the science; its conflict of interest, if any, would lead it to minimize the number of civilian deaths. Bsharvy 12:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, all the estimates I've seen include things like injuries, burns, etc. in their figures, and nothing even comes close to 200k (as several others have also indicated). Leukemia is the primary result (short term) of radiation, which is why I think it was being discussed. As for the DOE site I contacted the adminstrator and asked for a source, there response I got from their chief historian was this I think the numbers we used came from the Vince Jones book, though I am not sure as one of our fellows drafted the page originally. which explains the numbers used; the official US gov. numbers and/or the japanese numbers are both significantly different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allgoodnamesalreadytaken (talk • contribs) 03:25, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

I don't mean to sound like a smart ass, but has anyone here read; The Effects of Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagaski report by the US Strategic Bombing Survey? The numerical accuracy of casualties is acknowledged as being imperfect:

The exact number of dead and injured will never be known because of the confusion after the explosions. Persons unaccounted for might have been burned beyond recognition in the falling buildings, disposed of in one of the mass cremations of the first week of recovery, or driven out of the city to die or recover without any record remaining. No sure count of even the pre-raid populations existed. Because of the decline in activity in the two port cities, the constant threat of incendiary raids, and the formal evacuation programs of the Government, an unknown number of the inhabitants had either drifted away from the cities or been removed according to plan.

— USSBS, 1946

However the allegations that casualty figures are politically motivated is nonsensical, if the US was out to sanitize it's image would it's report refer to the larger amount of destruction inflicted by firebombing? I therefore propose a paragraph which mentions the uncertainty of casualty figures for circumstantial but not overt political reasons.

In estimating an exact number of deaths caused by the attacks, several factors make it difficult to arrive at reliable figures. No sure count of populations existed prior to the raids combined with a decline in activity of both cities, constant threat of firebombing raids, and formal evacuation programs of the Government, an unknown number of inhabitants had either left the cities or been removed according to plan. The bombing of Hiroshima killed approximately 70,000 people due to immediate effects of heat and blast, while approximately 30,000 others died within four months, from their wounds, radiation or a combination of both. [12][13]. The United States Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that as many as 200,000 may have died from cancer and other long-term effects by 1950. The numbers for Nagasaki are lower, owing mostly to the city's unique terrain. DOE estimates approximately 40,000 died at Nagasaki from immediate blast effects[14], whereas the official Japanese numbers are in the 75,000 range[15]. Other estimates vary widely, into five figures.[1][2][3] In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the deaths were civilians.

Anynobody 23:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed about the inability to know for sure. Notice, that the DOE source (the low quality source, i.e. random history page) is unspecific as to the causes of death, it just gives numbers. It does say deaths occured around 4-8 weeks after the bombing (i.e. refering to acute leukemia as prodromal syndrome only takes 1-2 weeks) and again, doesn't give numbers. We are left with words like "long term effects" which for as far as we know means malnutrition. Fortunately, the US government report (BEIR 7) and the joint US/Japanese report (Lifespan study) both give us specific numbers about radiation; from that it would be unappropriate for any editors to try to say that any additional deaths are due to radiation beyond what is evidenced in both of these sources. So while it may be the consenus to include a large death toll number in the lead (if sourced properly) it would not follow that radiation could be blamed for those deaths when the two high quality sources contradict that. Gtadoc 23:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That's right, deaths weeks or months after the event can not be assumed to always result solely from ionizing radiation. Japan was a mess, to put it mildly, and was mostly cut off from receiving food and medical supplies ensuring the wounded had less chances to survive.

Would it be a good idea to explain the difference in fallout between an airburst and ground level detonation. Since the latter generates a lot more radioactive fallout, I think people may not understand the specifics about radiation and nuclear weapons. Anynobody 05:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the intro would be the place for that, and as my particular expertise in this field is the effects of radiation on cells/organisms then you might be a better person to write it into the body. I'm going to go back and look in more detail at the sources that were previously used here before the changes (by previous concensus) to see if anything additional pops out at me (its been a while since I've looked at historical, rather than scientific literature on the subject). Gtadoc 05:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding the opinion that estimates are difficult is OK as long the opinion isn't originating with an editor: it needs to be sourced, say to the USSBS (a very old source) or RERF. Gtadoc's statements about the sources are misleading. The sources do attribute the deaths mentioned to radiation and other aftereffects, they do mention causes, and the Lifespan study is not relevant because it studies a different time period and doesn't estimate total deaths. Also, there are not 2 studies, RERF and BEIR 7; the BEIR 7 uses the RERF study. He is consistently misrepresenting the sources. We should establish which sources to use for the casualty estimates, and what those sources say, before we layer on information about the physics of different kinds of fallout. Bsharvy 06:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not my fault if you don't understand the sources, there is nothing I can do about that. BEIR 7 uses the lifespan study and (along with the other BEIR reports) all the available evidence from the time period as well as evidence from other exposures to make its conclusions. It very clearly gives death estimates from radiation which is what we are discussing. Also, the sources that were already cited previously before your edits were agreed upon here as being of the best quality and the most accurate number. I believe Eric may have directed you to read those, have you yet? There is no reason to move away from what was in the article in the first place, and the change you wanted to make about radiation is not supported. Please also read this when you get the chance [[14]]. As a side note, the random DOE history page referenced in the article is in the process of being rewritten, I expect to see it changed in the near future. Gtadoc 15:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What are the specific and supported objections to the compromise proposed above? My conern with it is that the opinion about difficulty needs to have a source (also the opinion about "unique terrain" should be sourced). I originally gave a rough estimate estimate of deaths attributed to after-effects (30,000), because I thought giving the offical range (20,000-70,000) was awkward. But, given the controversy and sensitivity of the subject, I now think we should give the range used by the source we find most reliable, rather than picking a number. Also, I'm not so sure numbers sources as widely as it first seems. Part of the confusion is that there are different numbers for different time periods, but our sources don't always specify the time period in question. I don't think there are any reliable sources that say casualties from the immediate blast go into the five figures (for either city), and I don't think any deny that casualties after five years go into five figures (at least not for Hiroshima). So that language should be cleaned up (or verified).Bsharvy 21:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Bsharvy the source is the USSBS report I cited. Specifically:

• On difficulty assessing total dead:

  The exact number of dead and injured will never be known because of the confusion after the explosions. Persons unaccounted for might have been burned beyond recognition in the falling buildings, disposed of in one of the mass cremations of the first week of recovery, or driven out of the city to die or recover without any record remaining. No sure count of even the prepaid populations existed. Because of the decline in activity in the two port cities, the constant threat of incendiary raids, and the formal evacuation programs of the Government, an unknown number of the inhabitants had either drifter away from the cities or been removed according to plan. -Page 15

• On the unique terrain of Nagasaki:

  Because the most intense destruction was confined to the Urakami Valley, the impact of the bomb on the city as a whole was less shattering than at Hiroshima. - Page 10
  At Nagasaki, the scale of destruction was greater than at Hiroshima, though the actual area destroyed was smaller because of the terrain and the point of fall of the bomb. The Nagasaki Prefectural Report describes vividly the impress of the bomb on the city and its inhabitants: - Page 11

I realize it is a dated source, but it's still one of the best we have. It even mentions Japanese estimates of dead as 100,000-180,000 for Hiroshima and 50,000-100,000 for Nagasaki. I realize there is a temptation to think that since this report was written by the US it must be trying to "sanitize" the true experience of the events. Nothing could be further from the truth, and the reason why is that at that time it was felt nuclear war was a real possibility. gathering as much information about the bomb's effects is crucial in understanding how to prepare for it and what to expect. Anynobody 04:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw that there was a source: I meant we need to put the source in the entry. As written, the compromise version doesn't mention a source. The information on Nagasaki doesn't say the terrain was "unique." I think it was just hillier, but I'm not sure.71.214.124.150 17:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Is RFC still going on? The tag is still here. If it is, let me add that A) in the original form, I prefer the second option to the first because it has more detail and less POV, and B) While I find the current version better than the original, I still prefer the second option. -- Rei 17:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

New subsection

Here is a propsoal for the second pargraph, incorporating language about what makes exact estimates difficult (sourced to USSBS and RERF), casualty estimates for time periods from 1945-1950 (sourced to RERF FAQ and DOE), and a comparison of the different numbers produced by the US and Japanese governments in the case of immediate deaths at Nagasaki (sourced to DOE and AP story).

Several factors make it difficult to estimate casualty numbers due to the bombings. No sure count of populations existed prior to the bombings. Some victims were burned beyond recognition or their bodies disposed in mass cremations. [15] Other confounding factors are the destruction of records of military personnel; perishing of entire families, leaving no one to report the deaths; and unknown numbers of forced laborers. According to most estimates, the bombing of Hiroshima killed approximately 70,000 people due to immediate effects of the blast. Estimates of total deaths by the end of 1945 range from 90,000 to 140,000, due to aftereffects such as burns and radiation. [16][17]. The United States Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that as many as 200,000 may have died from cancer and other long-term effects by 1950. The numbers for Nagasaki are consistently lower, because the valley terrain reduced the impact. The DOE estimates 40,000 died at Nagasaki from immediate blast effects[18], whereas the official Japanese numbers are in the 75,000 range[19]. In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the deaths were civilians.

Bsharvy 06:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment "Several factors", "according to most" and explicit references to "DOE" are unnecessary. Try to reword without any weasel words and make the paragraph more factual and less speculative. "Estimates of immediate blast victims range from 40,000 to 75,000" with references is sufficient. 199.125.109.19 07:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That '200k' is not a good number, even though the DOE webpage has it. It was made in the 1950s using an estimate of the number of survivors which was at least 50k too low. The next-highest number I'm aware of is 151,900–165,900 (Japan Council against A- and H-bombs: "White paper on A-bomb damages," 1961 [military personnel not included])./Archive 8#Casualty table The number of names listed in the Hiroshima cenotaph didn't pass 160k until about 1990, so the number of deaths due to the bomb really can't be much higher than that.#Numbers of Hibakusha

Somebody's annual press release includes, "The atomic bomb had killed some 140,000 people by the end of 1945, out of Hiroshima’s estimated population of 350,000. Thousands more succumbed to illness and injuries later." So we might was well use some variation of that. Thousands, not tens of thousands.

—wwoods 19:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't say 200k died, we say the DOE says it. The hibakusha table you mention is a poor source. First, most of the information seems to come from a Q&A from a Web site and has no source; it doesn't even have an author. Second, it seems to come from a project to list names of nonmilitary deceased. It excludes everyone who could not be named, which is significant (forced laborers, people burned beyond recognition, bodies disposed en mass, etc.) There doesn't seem to be any way to verify the archived table from the Talk page you gave. Where did those numbers come from? I suspect that in many cases, "sources" are reporting the number killed from the immediate blast as the number killed by the bomb, and that is then getting cited on the table as a total. A large number of the totals for Hiroshima in that table, for example, are in the 70,000 range which happens to be the most common figure for casualties from immediate blast effects. It looks to me that official Japanese numbers are over 200k for Hiroshima, which fits with an upper limit of 200k by 1950. [20] However, a good compromise might be to add the low limit of casualty estimates for the 1945-1950 time period, if we can be certain it is counting deaths from aftereffects (which I think is a difficult certainty to attain).Bsharvy 21:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

On another note, the hibakusha estimates are for survivors. So, it excludes the deaths of those who did not survive. Presumably, that number is at least 70k (the standard number for immediate deaths). What is the definition of a survivor? Did somebody who died from aftereffects a few months later count as a survivor? The table doesn't list any deaths of survivors until 1985. When did they start counting (and so what groups were not counted)?Bsharvy 21:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Since we know the 200k figure is wrong, there's no point in mentioning it at all.
• "Q&A from a website"?
• The cenotaph registers include everyone who was known to have been in the cities during the bombings who has since died — civilian, military, even POWs. No doubt some people are still missing, you can see that the total number is still growing, by about a thousand per year.
• Like the archived table says, most of the numbers were taken from either Richard Frank's Downfall (1999) or Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Physical, Medical, and Social Effects of the Atomic Bombings, Eng. trans. Eisei Ishikawa and David L. Swain (New York: Basic Books, 1981). I don't know of any on-line versions, but you should be able to get them from your local library. Yes, most of the studies listed were done in 1945–47.
• Those numbers over 200k for Hiroshima are for all deaths, not just bomb-related ones. They're dieing at a rate of over 5k per year, but that's because the youngest of them were born in 1946.
• No, the hibakusha are 'victims'. Of course, 364 days of the year, it's the survivors who get most of the attention.

—wwoods 23:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't know the 200k is wrong, that's why we are discussing whether it is wrong. Your source for the hibukasha dead is given as footnote #5; it is a computer-translation of a Japanese Q&A page. No author or source is given, and it is very difficult to understand any details because of the translation: [21]. (Source 2 has the same problem). It seems to be an attempt to list names, not estimate total deaths. It doesn't include military people or unknown deaths. I am going on what is said at the sources you mentioned. The hibukasha are variously referred to as victims and as survivors. If the numbers are for victims, including those who died in the few days and months after the bomb, it is a bit odd that there are no numbers for either city before 1989.Bsharvy 00:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• From Richard Frank's Downfall, p. 286–7:

Decades afterward, revised estimates were put forward of much higher numbers for total deaths attributed to the bombs. These estimates worked backward from two dubious premises. First, they assumed the accuracy of a count of atomic-bomb survivors in 1950 numbering 158,597 for Hiroshima and 124,901 for Nagasaki (plus ten individuals present for both bombs). These numbers were then subtracted from a conjectured population of each city on the dates of the bombings. This process yielded a count of deaths by 1950 that totaled 200,000 for Hiroshima and over 140,000 for Nagasaki. While the very earliest low estimates of casualties should be approached with scepticism, these extremely high revised figures are at least equally subject to challenge.†

[footnote] For example, the 1950 total of identified survivors was 283,498, at a time when they often were shunned. Subsequently, the complex and highly politicized definition of a hibakushka[sic] (atomic bomb victim) became anyone who was within two kilometers of the epicenter of the bombs at the time or within a few days thereafter. In March 1995, no fewer than 328,629 living Japanese qualified by this definition.

So, as I said above, that 200k figure is based on a serious underestimate of the number of survivors. Garbage in, garbage out. In fact, I found a www.city.hiroshima.jp webpage which seems to claim that in 1981 the number of known survivors was much higher still: 372,264. It'd help if someone could check the original Japanese.

• Oh, that one. Well, I found different sources for 1994 and 1998 with the same numbers, so I don't see any reason to doubt the other years' numbers. And they're consistent with the pattern of the following years, except maybe for 1989. The table is about halfway down the page; search for "'89 157,071 names".

• Yes, the cenotaph registers are lists of names, of [deceased] atomic bomb victims, which are updated each August with the names of those who've died in the last year (plus any earlier deaths which have come to light).

• "it is a bit odd that there are no numbers for either city before 1989." I've no doubt the numbers exist, but it's hard to google a number if you don't know what the number is.

—wwoods 06:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The argument you've presented doesn't support the conclusion you are drawing. The fair conclusion, based on what you've presented, is: Richard Frank says some estimate of 200k dead by 1950 is "subject to challenge." That's all the facts (presented so far) support. You are saying the number is wrong, when your source merely says it is subject to challenge. That's a pretty weak objection, considering the DOE doesn't say 200k is right, it just gives that as an upper limit. You haven't given any reason to believe Frank's description of the methodology, or to prefer Frank over the DOE. Finally, Frank doesn't refer to the DOE and the DOE doesn't refer to Frank, so it's not clear the method Frank challenges was the method behind the DOE estimate. (It would help if Frank were an online source. I cannot get it from my "local library" because I live in Asia; neither can any of our readers or editors who don't live in English-speaking countries.)Bsharvy 21:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Wwood, I think its been discussed with several editors (both now and in the archives, when around 10 people came to a consensus then) that the general range for the death figures is around 100-140k. I don't really see anything contradicting all the sources saying that (at least nothing that hasn't already been discussed/discredited/explained/etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allgoodnamesalreadytaken (talk • contribs) 03:32, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be the authors job to decide which numbers are "good" or not, but only try to find out all estimations given by various sources, and let then the reader decide. From what I can read the 90-140k deaths by the end of 1945 is relatively unchallenged. The estimation of the amount of total deaths (including 1946-...) varies greatly, going as high as 200k (and probably as low as 90k, estimating there were no deaths because of the bomb after 1945). I dont see why these numbers shouldn't be mentioned, as long as they are referenced, even if you (or any given source) don't agree with them, for any reason there is. There should be no "agreement" necessary to include a new figure from a new source, as long as it is not some kind of personal blog... --Firkenknecht 03:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine as long as there is support for the numbers in the reference, so far we haven't seen anything supporting a 200k number. Also of issue is the proper place, fringe views should be placed in the body, not the intro, the agreement is necessary as to where to put those sort of things, and, unlike a personal blog, require consensus. Also at issue was some users wanting to ascribe the number to certain causes when the sources they use didn't say that and other sources specifically contradict it. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 03:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well the DOE page supports the 200k number, and cites its sources for doing so : "Summaries of Hiroshima and Nagasaki casualty rates and damage estimates appear in Leslie R. Groves, Now It Can Be Told (New York: Harper & Row, 1962), 319, 329-330, 346, and Vincent C. Jones, Manhattan: The Army and the Atomic Bomb, United States Army in World War II (Washington: Center of Military History, United States Army, 1988), 545-548.". You state it as fringe view, however after 10 mins of surfing I can read these estimates on 50% of the websites talking of the bombings... Understand me well, I am not saying that these numbers are "superior" but I think they represent what a fair amount of sources think is true, and so deserve to be mentioned even with some precautions like "Some less documented sources estimate the number of deaths as high as 200k". However I totally agree with you for the position of the estimate, I do not think it belongs to the intro. The intro should limit itself to the direct and short-after deaths estimates (as they do not bring up any debate), and the body should elaborate. And of course I agree with you with the causes issue, the 200k figure is only very vague about the exact origin of deaths. --Firkenknecht 05:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• I will reitierate that I think a good compromise is to give a lower limit as well as an upper limit for deaths after 1945. For example: "Estimates of total deaths by 1950 range from (lower limit) (source) to 200,000 (DOE or any other source), the increase atributed to cancer and other long-term effects."
• On the topic of how to organize the information, I think all the data on casualty estimates should be in one paragraph, whose topic is casualty estimates.
• It is now almost certain that Allgoodnamesalreadytaken is a sockpuppet of Gtadoc. Bsharvy 06:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, we've all heard why the "DOE" page isn't a real source, since its really just based upon a book (the real source) that has already been discussed. I think, in regards to fringe views, one needs only read the WP:source to understand the difference between webpages with random information and real sources. In any event, almost every source has numbers posted by myself and numerous other editors and those numbers belong in the intro, others can have their own section with a discussion about them (thats how every article is done on WP, with consensus/mainstream account in the intro and any dissenting views given a section showing all sides for a reader to decide upon).

Bsharvy please remember that this page is for discussion of hiroshima and nagasaki. If you wish to defend yourself and/or keep yourself from being blocked for wikistalking, meatpuppetry, vandalism, edit warring, being an all around (censored) then do that on the admin page discussing your behavior. No one cares what you think yourself to be "certain" of, after all, I'm fairly certain that I'm much more virile that anyone here, yet, likely no one cares, nor is it relevant to issue at hand. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 14:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, where you certainly miss the point is that the japanese figure seems to be much higher than the numbers you give, as can be seen in newspapers (Asahi Shimbun ref e.g) , official speech, history books (the ones I heard of at least). And I dont think that Japan represents a "fringe" view, at least on this particuliar subject. As stated by user Anynobody the best choice may be to give US and japanese numbers, as mainstream opinionS. The huge difference in numbers is of course based on which death you count as "related" to the bombings or not, with the japanese numbers probably tending to count every death of people exposed to the bombings as "bombing casualty". You and many different sources may find this "wrong", however, correct me if I am wrong, Wikipedia is not the place to define what the "truth" is, but merely give the reader the different mainstream and refererenced opinions about the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firkenknecht (talk • contribs) 01:51, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

That Japanese 237k number is the number of Hiroshima dead as of 8/6/2004. (This year's number is 253k, including the 5k who've died each year.) [22] It bears no relation to the number of dead due to the bomb as of 1950, save that of course the latter number must be less than the former. Presenting one number as the other is indeed "wrong".

—wwoods 19:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That just isn't clear. Here is what your source says: "A list of 253,008 people who have died since the bombing was placed in the cenotaph during the ceremony. The names of 5,221 more people recognized as atomic-bomb victims since August 6 last year were added to the list of casualties." Since these deaths are "atomic-bomb victims" it seems that they are deaths due to the atomic bomb. Another, recent, source: "...to remember the more than 250,000 people who ultimately died from the blast." [23] The 200k number is widely reported by the likes of CNN, Reuters, etc. If Wikipedia is going to take the position that all these news sources are wrong, we need to document that very strongly, which just hasn't happened here yet. It is much safer to simply give the range found in reliable sources.Bsharvy 22:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It becomes clear when you look at the evolution of that number over the years: Talk:Hibakusha#Numbers of Hibakusha The number of excess deaths each year — those deaths actually due to the bombs — must necessarily be a small fraction of the total deaths each year. But the annual increases in the numbers of the dead listed in the registers (5k + 3k) entirely account for the annual decrease in the number of survivors (7k).

It's true that a great many news reports do confuse 'deaths of people who were victims of the bombs' with 'deaths of people due to the bombs'. The people who died are atomic-bomb victims; in many cases, they suffered grievous injuries, physical and psychological. They also suffered decades of discrimination. They just didn't die as a result.

Anyway, the '2xx k dead in 200y' numbers aren't related to the '200 k dead in 1950' number we started talking about.

—wwoods 01:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I see as the limits of the hibukasha numbers and the Hiroshima cenotaph: 1) They are not an attempt to estimate casualty numbers. They are an attempt to list names; the cenotaph is a memorial. It doesn't account for the dead that it cannot name: those whose bodies were found but unidentified (70,000 according to Wikipedia Hiroshima_Peace_Memorial_Park#Atomic_Bomb_Memorial_Mound) and those were unidentified for all the other possible reasons. The number of hibukasha isn't an estimate of the number of survivors, but merely the number of known survivors. 2) The way the hibukasha are counted is unclear. The term is frequently defined as "survivors of the explosion" which excludes those who did not survive. In other sources, it seems to include everyone exposed, including the 70,000 or so who died immediately. 3) It is subject to the same objections as the DOE source, so it can't be a reason to reject the DOE: In neither case is the method of estimating transparent.Bsharvy 10:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

So we're in agreement that the cenotaph numbers are not estimates of the number of people killed by the bombs? Fine!

The reason to reject the 200k number on the DOE page is the bad methodology; assuming there were only 283,498 survivors, when there were actually more than 328,629 (i.e. 45k more), and maybe more than 372,264 (89k more).

—wwoods 23:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. Where does the DOE say how many survivors it assumes there were? How do you know how many survivors there "actually" were? The point about the cenotaph is that it is not an attempt to estimate any numbers at all. It is an attempt to list names. I've said this repeatedly. The number of names on the cenotaph can't be assumed to be the number of people exposed to the bomb. How many times does this point have to be made? The cenotaph lists names, and there very same memorial site includes a crematorium of 70,000 victims who were never named.Bsharvy 05:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Numbers from Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Here is some information provided at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Hall, which is the counterpart to the Nagasaki Peace Memorial Hall.

information about bombing casualties, as of the end of 1945

information about bombing casualties, registered at the memorial hall and cenotaph (apologies that this picture is somewhat blurry)

There is a caveat with the 1945 number, that the exact number cannot be determined, but this is their best estimate. The Nagasaki "official" number for the end of 1945 is 74,000, and the number registered today in the registry is 143,124. (see Image:Nagasaki deaths.jpg) Take these numbers for what you will, but those are official numbers provided by the respective cities. These are not "fringe" views, and should be mentioned. But I think other notable figures and views should also be mentioned. The debate about the numbers is in itself notable. --Aude (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

These number definitely should be mentioned; they just shouldn't be mischaracterized as deaths due to the bombings. Currently, they're given in Hibakusha thus:

Each year, on the anniversaries of the bombings, lists of the names of hibakusha whose deaths have been recorded in the previous year are added to the cenotaphs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As of August 2007, the death tolls stand at 253,008 at Hiroshima,[5] and 143,124 at Nagasaki.[6]

"Approximately 240,000" is a couple of years out of date, but I guess it beats updating with a Post-It, as in your Nagasaki picture.

—wwoods 04:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity I visited the revelant pages of the japanese wikipedia for Hiroshima bombing and Nagasaki bombing. They mention of course the numbers of acute deaths at the end of 1945, but make no further attempt to give an estimate of total deaths, only mentioning an increase in death rate due to radiation and other causes. Isn't it the best simple solution for a compromise intro? As I see, it seems no one contradicts much the numbers for 1945, 90-140k Hiroshima, 70-100k(?) Nagasaki. Then we could make two paragraphs, one directed to the acute deaths and injuries, and one to the long-term influence. In the latter we could say that the RERF estimates the numbers of deaths due to cancer and leukemia after 1950 to some hundreds. And that the japanese keep tracks of every deaths of people exposed with a total amount of 240'000 bombing "victims" (and not deaths...). How does it sound? --Firkenknecht 02:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

The revert war today has led to Bsharvy receiving a 24-hour block for four reverts. In investigating this case I have decided that the disputes outlined above are severe enough that the page should be fully protected until he, Gtadoc and other interested parties can work out a compromise. I would advise eneryone to just cool off and edit other articles until Bsharvy's block expires and you can continue in the direction above. Don't hesitate to seek further outside intervention such as mediation or 3O if you feel things getting out of control again. Daniel Case 02:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make four reverts. I made three reverts on the day in qurestion. I want an apology.Bsharvy 21:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

To see if there was a miscount (which can happen) I checked the page history, you did make four reversions.
1 12:26, 6 August 2007
2 14:22, 6 August 2007
3 14:30, 6 August 2007
4 14:56, 6 August 2007

Personally I check the history page if I think I've done more than two in order to double check. It can be easy to lose count. Anynobody 04:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The first item on that list is my edit which added content. It was not a revert; it came after 3 days of discussion here, after I posted a version here in the Estimated Deaths section and requested discussion. Gtadoc promptly reverted it. Only my subsequent three edits are reverts. User:Bsharvy 17:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR is not to be construed as permission to make three but as a limit. "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive"(from WP:3RR). A good rule of thumb is to go to the talk page before making a second revert. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 22:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody needs permission to edit at all: it is a wiki. To say a policy is "not to be construed as permission to make three [reverts]" is meaningless; permission to edit is the default. If you accuse someone of making four reverts, then the person should have made four reverts. The warning and block were factually wrong and ill-informed. The edit in question (mine) was made after 3 days of discussion, after being posted here for discussion, and after the opposed editor (Gtadoc) insultingly announced he would not discuss it. Your "good rule of thumb" hardly applies. The edit in question was minor, mostly adding info from sources already in use; it undid little of what was already written. The person who made the complaint about a revert war participated in the revert war. The admin's block of me and comment that everyone should "just cool off" was arbitrary, considering it came after no edits had been made for roughly 12 hours, after a request for comment had been made, and after a compromise had been proposed. The admin made no attempt to communicate with me before blocking me. The result is that the page is now stagnating with an edit nobody liked, and I (and you) am distracted by unfair and factually inacurate warnings in the history of my Talk page. This has been a study in how lazy, authority-happy editors and admins can add to the disruption caused by one editor (Gtadoc) who lies about sources (it takes time to actually verify a claim from source, so apparently few people do it).Bsharvy 06:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I see you need warned for personal attacks (again), unless you'd care to edit your posts some more; I encourage you to go back and read the rules of WP if you are truely here to be a constructive editor. Gtadoc 06:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the article "Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Editors more interested in continuing some dispute should do so elsewhere.—eric 21:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think thats why the blokes are writing under the "page protected" heading...Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 02:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Editors should know that User:Allgoodnamesalreadytaken and User:Gtadoc are almost certainly sockpuppets. See [24] and my Talk page User_talk:Bsharvy. So when they support each other here, it is a misleading indication of editor sentiment (and dishonest). The same is true of previous comments such as "I am weighing ion on Gtadoc's side" from User:Allgoodnamesalreadytaken Bsharvy 20:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, editors should know that an investigation showed them not to be sockpuppets, and showed that Bsharvy simply was trying to get his way on the talk page by creating false reports, instead of actually debating the points at hand. Also, and admin report page for Bsharvy has been created if any other editors have been harrassed by that editor. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 00:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the "investigation" just decided your behavior didn't warrant blocking (pity), and warned you to stop "jointly editing" with Gtadoc. Why don't you follow that advice. Bsharvy 21:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Debate section

By reading the whole debate section, I think it would require some addition and perhaps style standardization. In the french version of this page can be seen an interesting paragraph on the so-called soviet theory, stating that one of the argument in favor of the bombings was, for the US, to prevent the soviet union to have a major influence in the defeat of Japan. This would then have forced the US to share the profits of the surrender (influence zones, military bases...). For now I have only a reference of an article in Le Monde Diplomatique, french newspaper, I am trying to find more. I think it would be an interesting addition in the "Support" section, as a non-positive reason for the US final decision.

As for the style, it is clearly visible that the Support and Opposition sections have been written by different authors, which leads to some opposite views on writing debatory subjects. In the Speedy end of war saved lives subsection for example, we can read "The atomic bomb hastened the end of the war,...", "These war crimes were ongoing, and use of the atomic bombs brought them to an abrupt end." outside of citations, which seem to reflect the point of view of the writer(s) (NPOV issue?). On the opposite, the Opposition section is a list of citations against the bombings. I would have liked to propose an edit myself but English is not my native tongue, I am a new to Wikipedia editing, and the subject is protected anyway. --Firkenknecht 07:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have seen a documentary that also touched on the soviet theory. Shame I can't remember the name rightn ow --lucid —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 09:30, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

There is a discussion about this issue in The New York Review of Books: [25] Novickas 17:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Novickas (talk • contribs).

Isn't it Soviet therory? I copied this from the article's debate section. Kurznick is one of several observers who believe that the U.S. was largely motivated in carrying out the bombings by a desire to demonstrate the power of its new weapon to the Soviet Union. Historian Mark Selden of Cornell University has stated "Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan."81 Oda Mari 18:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is most often referred to as the "atomic diplomacy" thesis from Gar Alperovitz's 1965 Atomic diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam; the use of the atomic bomb and the American confrontation with Soviet power. It's a very notable position, not just because of the "revisionist" historians in the U.S., but because it's what appears in the textbooks of Japanese schoolchildren. There's a short prior discussion in archive 10#major POV issues near the end of the section.

My first memory of encountering the theory that the US wanted to send a message to the USSR was in a mainstream US newspaper. It was an article on the 60th anniversary of the first bombing.Bsharvy 13:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as the format and style of the "Debate" section, i've always hated it and would like to get rid of the support–opposition subsections and have a straight chronological history of the various arguments and changing perceptions. Mention the Lucky Dragon, the Enola Gay exhibit, the "Mushroom Stamp", etc. and the authors who's published works influenced the debate such as Hersey, Blackett, Alperovitz, and Sherwin. Unfortunately there's never been any consensus for getting rid of the this silly support–opposition division.—eric 21:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This "silly" support opposition part of the article, was the culmination of several editors working together to find the most palatable solution for a very long edit war. I would hate to see it scrapped. As is, it provides a clear summation of the major points between the two dominant POV’s, and I don’t see a compelling reason to change it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There are, in my humble opinion, many compelling reasons to change it, none of them leading to any "scrapping" of the work done, but merely structural enhancements (it is allways possible to do better!). Choices such as the bombings, and the different opinions and moral judgements on these choices, are to be understood in certain historical and cultural contexts. Therefore, an historical structure of the debates (before, right after, and until nowadays), as proposed by eric, is important for the reader to fully understand each POV. As a simple example, the bombings were decided on the informations the US possessed at the time, not on the informations discovered later on (sources saying that Japan would have surrendered anyway).

This leads me to an important omission (in my humble opinion) of the article, the public opinion reaction. From what I read, a vast majority of newspapers praised the bombings, considerating them a "scientific revolution", etc... Why so (war-climate, few informations on the effects of the bomb,...)? Were there other opinions? --Firkenknecht 08:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As for the style, I can't say which is better right now, but I think the section needs clean up. As for the Lucky Dragon, I think that doesn't belong here and adding Daigo Fukuryu Maru to the see also section is enough. Oda Mari 09:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting to look at the reference for this claim: "Japanese military officials were opposed to any negotiations before the use of the atomic bomb and favored a ceasefire over any sort of concession or surrender.[59]" Ref. 59 is a link to the DOE Web site that is being denounced elsewhere as unreliable. The reference was added by Gtadoc: [26] It is also worth noting that the source doesn't support the claim of opposition to "any negotioations". The DOE says things like: "the United States learned that some within the Japanese government advocated outright surrender....anything Japan might agree to would not be a surrender so much as a 'negotiated peace' involving numerous conditions.... I'm not sure if the US government should be used as a source here, but in any case, our text should be made accurate. Bsharvy 13:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose its because there isn't a whole slew of sources contradicting it? I think it could be sourced better though, not sure if that particular doe history page was based off the same book as the other ones were (since we know the previous pages weren't accurate), it might just be better to source the official japanese response to the potsdam declaration (or something similar). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allgoodnamesalreadytaken (talk • contribs) 04:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Weren't you told by admin about 30 seconds ago to stop editing the same pages gtadoc edits, and to stop these shows of support for yourself--er I mean your "friend and colleague?" Yes, you were. "I strongly advise them (you and Gtadoc) to avoid jointly participating in controversial discussions." [27]. You got the benefit of the doubt, perhaps rightly so, when the question was banning; that doesn't mean mean you still deserve an assumption of good faith.Bsharvy 06:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as usual, you are being dishonest, selective quoting aside there is no issue with my editing of this page, you on the other hand have already been referring to admins twice and banned over your editing of this page; and if I may, you have been warned repeatedly by admins and others to stop the personal attacks and comment on the article. While I understand your urge to "get your way" simply repeating yourself or attacking others doesn't help your arguments any. The red herring doesn't distract from the fact that you are making an argument for changes to a page that violate multiple quality sources and you seem to ignore others as well as WP:SOURCE in your attempts to push your personal agenda. Now, back to the point...perhaps the intro should use the numbers previously agreed upon (as archived) that User:eric mentioned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki/Archive_7#Casualties_revisited. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 00:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I gave a link, so editors can decide for themselves whether I misquoted. This is the only page you and Gtadoc have jointly edited, so maybe you can explain how "I strongly advise them (you and Gtadoc) to avoid jointly participating in controversial discussions" doesn't apply to this page. "Referred to an admin" means somebody edits an admin page. It is true, you "referred" me to an admin by launching a diatribe against me on an admin page (it was ignored by every admin who read it). You have also been referred to admins twice (by me). You are very knowledgable about these subjects, considering you are allegedly a newbie to Wikipedia, having registered less than a month ago. Bsharvy 21:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

!

The figure of the amounted losses in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not certain. Wouldn't it be reasonable to Round it to reasonable estimates, based on relevant sources? Odst 01:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Odst, your suggestion would be reasonable except that it would also be an original synthesis of data on our part to estimate what we consider a reasonable figure. Personally I think we should report the official Japanese and American estimates like this once we agree on sources:

1945

Japan estimated x killed y wounded

US estimated x killed y wounded

2007

Japan estimates x killed y wounded

US estimates x killed y wounded

And then mention that various authors and groups have their own figures without going into too much detail. (Note I've avoided synthesis by not adding a statement like "...the true figure doubtlessly lies in between them.") Anynobody 03:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree with Anynobody. The hard task will be to find (and agree on) the respective figures. --Firkenknecht 08:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It seems irrelevent to specify who made the estimate. The numbers are not different enough that they can't be summarized as a range with references. As a case in point where a range can not be used I seem to recall that in the Vietnam war the US had 50,000 casualties and estimated that they had killed 500,000 Vietnamese. Well surprise surprise the Vietnamese said that they had lost 50,000 and had killed 500,000 Americans. Saying that 50,000 to 500,000 died on each side is such a wide range that it is meaningless. 199.125.109.19 07:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Justification

Why not drop the bomb on a rural area first as a warning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajuk (talk • contribs) 11:33, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rural areas. They figured they wouldn't get international criticism if they dropped the bombs somewhere rural, instead of some big city like Tokyo. the top brass still wanted to test the bomb somewhere to see its destructive power. I still hate Harry Truman for his decision. Odst 21:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Hiroshima was one of the largest cities in Japan; Nagasaki was somewhat smaller. By August, Hiroshima was probably the second-largest undamaged city in Japan, after Kyoto.

—wwoods 23:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

What would have been the point? The conventional bombings in the war (not just in japan) were much worse that the atomic bombing, but no one even remembers most of them...it was war, dropping a bomb that you just spent years producing and had in very limited supply in an empty field during a time of fullscale war wouldn't have been a viable option. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 03:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A demonstration could have been written off by the Japanese as a trick of some kind but Allgoodnamesalreadytaken has a point too, in a world where carnage like the 9/10 March 45 raids on Tokyo didn't make people stop and take note, a crappy black and white film of nuclear test footage isn't going to get the attention it deserves. By dropping the bombs in urban areas the US was saying on 08/06 1) We have developed the most powerful weapon known then on 08/09 2) We have both more than one and of higher yield than the first. The proof being the cities themselves, and the letters to Japanese scientists urging them to explain the concept to their leaders. Anynobody 03:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

They were also saying that their politicians cared more about demonstrating their new 2-billion-dollars-spent-in-development toy to the Russians than not committing pointless mass murder. Reinis^talk 23:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't pointless to people that only survived becuase the war ended as soon as it did. Perhaps you'd have been happy to starve to death in a Japanese POW while the Japanese military government procrastinated for a while longer? --LiamE 00:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering the alternative, perhaps. You're making a false dichotomy anyway. Reinis^talk 18:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's actually not a false dichotomy, every day the war went on the food supply was getting smaller and air raids were increasing. (This is OR: With the entry of the Soviets it's not hard to imagine Stalin letting B-29s fly from bases in the USSR so northern Japan could be bombed. Planes only of course, any occupation of northern Japan would have been handled by the Soviets and having our bombers so close for observation would have no doubt made developing the Tu-4 even easier for them.)

Ignoring my OR in parenthesis above, there are sources to indicate that had the bombs not been used Japan would have faced over 3500 B-29s, a couple thousand B-24s/B-17s, quite a few Lancasters and an increasing number of Lincolns from the allied air forces. Enormous roving carrier task forces launching thousands of their own raids, as well as dozens of battleships and cruisers sailing with impunity bombarding their population centers (since most are near the coasts).

If there is a simple way to put it as an analogy, it'd be the boiling frog example where a steady change in temperature can be tolerated until death but a rapid increase will cause it to jump out (which is factually wrong concerning frogs, but seems accurate when describing the complacency for casualties the Japanese showed.) The high command didn't seem phased by the hundred thousand plus killed in Tokyo that March, or the many others in similar raids since. If they could overlook all that, then it would probably take casualty figures in the seven figure range to get noticed. Compared to what actually occured, the bombs really did save lives on both sides (just not in the two affected cities). Anynobody 07:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Stick to history and stay away from speculation and original research. More should be added to the article about the reason H/N had not been bombed much, plus documentation of people in H being leafletted, for example an image of the leaflet with a translation. By the way the quote from Bolton can be clarified because the ICC only applies to crimes committed after July 1, 2002, so his concern that someone in the US could be prosecuted for war crimes that occurred in 1945 is laughable. So laughable in fact that you can just toss his quote even. 199.125.109.19 07:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is this page protected?

From looing at the talk page, I can't figure out why this article has been protected. What happened? Because I have never seen an article on this level of protection before. Liamoliver 06:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is under page protection after being subject to edit warring by several editors and one editor having been temp blocked, it is full protection as opposed to semi protection as admins were afraid of vandalism and single purpose accounts causing a lot of trouble (I guess those types normally go away with time). Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 04:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You are quite the expert on this, considering it happened before you registered and weeks before you had ever edited this or any page. How did you become so wise, Gtadoc?Bsharvy 21:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hindsight is 20/20

As I read this talk page, I am struck by the tendency to underestimate the "fog of war" as it existed in 1945. The debate seems to center around the numbers of people killed but the implied view is about the morality of the bombing in the first place.

My suggestions:

1) The fog of war was a factor and individuals can disagree about whether the action was right or wrong. The Americans wanted to end a war that the japanese would not end. The americans didn't know if the bomb would work. The Japanese didn't know the extent of the bomb's destruction and the Americans didn't know if they had a real weapon until Nagasaki. The history of the bombings should acknowledge this fact

2) America did not have a real option to stop the war - only Japan did. It took a second nuclear bombing to make Japan surrender. Had Japan surrendered at any time before Hiroshima, the bombings would not have occurred.

3) The civilian/soldier distinction wasn't clear in a war where most allied soldiers were civilians who were drafted to become soldiers. The argument that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes because they killed civilians fails to take into account that most american soldiers would also be civilians had Japan not embarked on an expansionist war in the first place.

Mileage 05:53, 5 September 2007

The consensus of historians is that Nagasaki was "gratuitous at best and genocide at worst". Therefore comments that "it took a second bombing" are misplaced. Saying that the Americans did not know if the bomb would work is equally strange. The two bombs were of different designs, the first was not tested because it was so simple that it was known that it would work, the second, dropped on Nagasaki had already been tested at Alamogordo, a test that it was argued that the Japanese should have been invited to witness so that they also would know how horrible the weapon was. 199.125.109.19 06:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Who Can Edit?

Hm. Anonymous IP's are now editing this article. Before the full protection, I think this page was protected against editing by new users and anonymous IP's. That was probably a good idea. Already, one of the anonymous editors has vandalized the page. (Note: I edited this to sign with my login instead of IP.) Bsharvy 07:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it, but the edits don't look like vandalism so much as someone trying to help but making a mistake. To answer your question, right now anyone as the page is unblocked. Anynobody 04:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the edits was vandalism, and reverted. I think there is some sort of intermediate protection, which allows editing by registered accounts that aren't brand new.Bsharvy 07:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're talking about partial protection, it's not under that status either. Anynobody 08:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What I said: "Before the full protection, I think this page was protected against editing by new users and anonymous IP's." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsharvy (talk • contribs) 13:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I undid another undiscussed, unsourced edit by an anonymous IP. This article needs protection against IP editing.Bsharvy 23:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I requested admin help on dealing with this page: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Atomic_Bombings Bsharvy 23:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Debate gets its own article

Of the many thousands of articles on Wikipedia, this was:
423 Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ‎[111,324 bytes] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anyeverybody (talk • contribs) 08:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Folks the article was about 107 kb before I moved the debate section to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and trimmed much of the Manhattan project section down (really it has it's own article and doesn't need to take up so much space here.)

The discussions here have been a bit contentious, so in the interest of WP:SIZE and a slightly quicker load time I acted unilaterally. Anynobody 08:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree, quite a wise move in my opinion. The debate on such an important subject deserves its own page I think. I hope that we will be able to achieve some consensus on modifying it, now that it has its own page, to a more encyclopedic article, with a more historical evolution analysis of the debates as purposed by eric.--Firkenknecht 09:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You acted unilaterally because it's controversial? That is the opposite of WP policy and (to me) what makes sense. Changes on controversial matters should be discussed, otherwise you have wars. For instance, I don't agree with the move. Now the topic is too fragmented. The deaths caused is inseparable from the morality which is inseparable from the debate; is the new page going to have yet another paragraph (and argument) on death estimates?? If I acted on your principle, I would unilaterally undo your action.... Bsharvy 12:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:SIZE "There is no need for haste. Discuss the overall topic structure with other editors. Determine whether the topic should be treated as several shorter articles and, if so, how best to organize them. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage; certainly, size is no reason to remove valid and useful information." Bsharvy 12:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Bsharvy to correct your question You acted unilaterally because it's controversial? I said because discussions here have become so contentious, starting a new subject about a purely maintenance issue seemed like it might cause even more unnecessarily. Your logic in being unable to separate the debate from the event doesn't make sense and I'll tell you why; debate over its morality is irrelevant to the fact that the bombs were actually dropped. Whether it is determined moral or immoral won't undrop the bombs.

Put simply this article is indeed too big. The quote about hastiness you are citing is when an article is between 40-60 KB. An even more important part of WP:SIZE is its rules of thumb and I quote:

Template:MulticolProse size
> 100 KB Template:Multicol-breakWhat to do
Almost certainly should be divided upTemplate:Multicol-end

I realize it may seem fragmentary to you, but this is actually part of a bigger guideline called Wikipedia:Summary Style.

Perhaps if you rethink it, separating what happened from the debate over whether it should have will make more sense to you. There are currently 6,910,981 articles on Wikipedia, this article is number 423 in order of the largest. Anynobody 01:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I got a message on my talk page from another editor indicating either something didn't make it from here to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or they weren't aware the article existed. Re-reading Bsharvy's post I see ...certainly, size is no reason to remove valid and useful information.' in a different light. The same article can extend over several pages, have you noticed that some subjects have navigation templates to help readers navigate them? For example {{Stryker}}(see below) is one I made to help navigate through the various pages of specialized versions. They are all Strykers, but forcing them into sections on one page would make that page huge too. The subject of whether or not the bombings were right or wrong is related to but a separate part of the history because unlike the blasts and radiation there is no definite way to measure right or wrong.

Anynobody 05:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree the article is too long, and didn't say otherwise. Let's discuss the best way to shorten it. I'm unsure of the point in the rest of your comments. The point about hastiness is not limited to any particular size; the point is to do things consensually. Bsharvy 07:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

To sum up my point, I'm not shortening the article: I'm expanding it. Anynobody 07:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? The problem is that it was unilateral, and repeatedly so since you also undid the revision, pointing to an edit war. It was not "purely a maintenance issue". It was an editorial opinion on the best way to shorten (or "expand" (huh?)) the article. Maybe other editors had different opinions about the best way to handle the length; maybe there was filler and fluff that could be reduced without fragmenting the article; maybe eventually others would agree with your opinion. The point is you acted unilaterally, on the assumption that your way is the best way. Can we all do that? Bsharvy 09:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

In spinning material off into a daughter article, the toughest part is usually the drafting of the summary that's to be left behind. I favor prior discussion of such a move so that the proposed summary can be framed through consensus if possible. In this instance, the summary left for such an important aspect of the article is inadequate. To take just one example, it states the proponents' "military necessity" argument and then drops the subject. This leaves the impression that the only choices were a bombing that would kill many civilians and an invasion that would kill many soldiers.

I can live with the split provided that the summary is expanded. I'm more knowledgeable about the opposition arguments, so I'll be concentrating on that part. The tricky part, of course, is that each side wants just one more of its points noted in the summary, and you end up with a "summary" that's almost as long as what was removed. JamesMLane t c 14:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment 2

Template:RFChist Large section deletion and page creation without discussion. See: "Debate gets its own article, above."Bsharvy 07:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support article expansion per Wikipedia:Summary Style based on pretty clear need as dictated by Wikipedia:Article size. Anynobody 08:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support not just for style, but also for the sake of those poor people who still use dial-up. (I understand such people still exist.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't object in principle to the creation of the daughter article, leaving a summary behind, but only if the summary conveys a reasonable amount of information. In this instance, the moved material was replaced by a summary that's too terse. I reserve judgment on the matter being RfC'd until I see whether a generally acceptable summary can be crafted. JamesMLane t c 17:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Clarification: I'm not commenting on the contents of the current summary or daughter article or the method in which they were created. I am merely stating that the creation of the daughter article combined with a short summary of it is a good move. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• 'Support' splitting article into smaller chunks. It is too long and unwieldy.Skywriter 18:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support Article is too long, clearly enough to split into forks. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody listens to anybody here. This site is a nightmare of an attempt to communicate when anything remotely subtle is at stake. There was no request to comment on whether the article is too long, or whether a section should be split and moved. The request was for comment on whether unilateral action is appropriate, on whether an edit war is appropriate (undoing the undo) after an editor has objected to an edit. There was no request for comment on whether a certain improvement is needed. The request is for comment on whether arrival at the improvement is supposed to be consensual. READ THE DISCUSSION. Bsharvy 23:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)