Talk:Nagasaki

"According to statistics given at the Nagasaki Peace Park, the dead totalled 73,884, injured 74,909 and diseased 120,820." I don't think it was written by an English speaker - it doesn't make sense. Does anyone know what it should say?

--- Radiation poisoning perhaps, the sentence reads fine as is.

Furthermore, below that sentence, there's one that says the Japanese deserved it for the atrocities at Nanking, which is hardly relevant. I suggest it either be removed or clarified to show the whole scope of the second world war, and its impact.

Not sure if a revision was made prior, but currently the end of this sentence reads, "and another several hundred thousand diseased and dying due to fallout and other illness caused by radiation."

Several points:

1) Fallout is not an illness but rather leads to an illness if contracted with its accompanying radiation, contrary to the statement as written.

2) Does the term "diseased and dying" mean these people ultimately died? I believe if one is declared "dying," it implies an inevitable outcome unless a curative intervention takes place. According to the "Database of Radiological Incidents and Related Events--Johnston's Archive," as well as multiple citation sources, as a high estimate roughly 75,000-80,000 died in the bombing and during the immediate following months with about the same number injured (although that latter figure varied significantly). If we are to assume the statement stands as written, several hundred thousand were at one point dying above and beyond the current casualty estimates. This gives us a total of 150,000 immediate casualties dead and injured and a additional 300,000 sick from radiation poisoning (that being somehow different from injured) with a suggestive inevitable fatal outcome. No source that I have encountered has ever stated a figure anywhere near 375,000 dead.

And this additional 300,000 figure makes no sense at all--whether these people lived or died--seeing as the estimated population of Nagasaki at the time of the bombing was 263,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caracoid (talk • contribs) 01:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Um ... 7 (6?) to 5 is a consensus? I'm not really sure votes should be "cut and pasted" ... it sets a very bad precedent. I think this page should be moved back to where it was short of a clear consensus. CES 02:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

The vote was included because it was a vote for the exact same thing - it's just the situation has been badly organised following opening and closing votes. I count 8 to 5 for the move (you missed the submitter of the request) and that is a clear enough majority for the move. I suggest that the naming conventions should be updated and such situations discussed. violet/riga (t) 08:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

I didn't count him/her because they are not a registered user. The vote you cut-and-pasted was made before the ensuing discussion that changed at least one other person's mind, who knows how he would've voted ... please don't cut and paste other people's votes. Personally I'm not really sure that 8-to-5 even is enough for a move. A majority is not the same thing as a consensus ... does Wikipedia have a policy on what makes a consensus to avoid this kind of disagreement? CES 12:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

There is no reason not to count registered users. The vote I copy/pasted is acceptable as it is a vote for the exact same decision – if you are bothered about it I suggest contacting the user involved. If he objects to me doing that then by all means he can retract the vote, though I still see the decision as fair. The majority of people wanted the move and it has been done – there is no mandate that we must gain a specific number/percentage of votes. violet/riga (t) 14:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't want to turn this into a war of words, so I'd like to make this my last comment on the subject.

• The naming convention is pretty clear, and on the Japan-related Manual of Style we're working to make it clearer. To the best of my knowledge, Hiroshima, Kyoto, and now Nagasaki are the only cities in Japan not in the "City, Prefecture" format.
• I think counting unregistered users gets a bit dicey ... it makes it hard to make sure there isn't ballot stuffing going on (which I don't think happened here, but it is a general point).
• It is the principle of cutting-and-pasting votes to which I object. It doesn't matter that it's the same subject--let people vote for themselves. I know that I for one have changed my mind before and would be upset if someone took my opinon as a given.
• A simple majority is not a consensus. A consensus is "an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole". To move a page without even a 2/3 majority seems hasty and encourages pages being switched back and forth depending on which way the wind blows that week.
• What disturbs me the most is the method in which you handled the situation. You took a vote that practically tied at 6-5 and hadn't been commented on for almost a week, and then without warning or discussion added two votes and promptly moved the page at the same time. We need clear cut procedures for page moves so that it is a community decision and not the whim of an individual.

CES 16:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

I followed WP:RM procedure and, considering I am basically the only admin that does those requests (and has ever done) then I'm pretty fluent about the process. The naming convention is disputed on the talk page as being "ambiguous" as well you know and it is standard policy that we should adhere to on this (not requiring the prefecture). I agree that IPs should be discounted sometimes but, as you said, I think this case is clearly acceptable. The principle of cut/pasting a vote is fine in this case in my opinion - it is obviously the same vote and that user may not have returned to change his mind anyway. The idea of consensus is difficult as there is no middle ground, hence having to go with majority rule. Finally, the move was given two days more than the usual five days and me coming and adding two votes is not really a problem. violet/riga (t) 17:26, 10 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

I can see your points, and I have no doubt if you followed the process. But, this is just not the way we work in wikipedia. To begin with, wikipedia is not democracy, and no matter whatever the number in the poll is, I don't think people like CES are persuaded. It is true that sometimes we need a poll like at a time when either option is problematic. But I don't think this is a right way, whatever guideline you cite says. This is a delicate issue, and we have to realy make sure about what we want. If we made a wrong decision, somone someday would point out a problem and suggests changes. In any event, I started a slighly different but less problematic poll, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)/Survey. This issue is, unfortunately, not over. At least, the title of the article should follow the manual of style, and the title of this article does not. -- Taku 19:56, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

WP:RM is all about polls. Wikipedia has to be about democracy when the policies are not clear enough, but the policy should be fixed rather than having a move request for one article. violet/riga (t) 20:34, 21 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

We really cannot debate this. Suffice it to say that I am not the only one who believes 51% support is enough to change anything from NPOV policiy to the name of an geographic article. As you may or may not notice, currently Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) says this article should be named Nagasaki, Nagasaki. The reality is that whatever the poll for request for move says, the title of an article should follow the naming convention and if you want to change the title of this one, we first have to discuss the modification to the manual of style. -- Taku 20:39, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

As you said yourself "the sentence is ambigious" regarding the convention. This move has highlighted that problem and has led to the beginnings of clarification. A page move is not permanent and when the policy decision is made we can sort it out. violet/riga (t) 21:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm new to wikipedia so this probably isn't formatted right, but I just wanted to let you know that I've changed some elements of the city's history. Whoever wrote the Sengoku-Edo stuff was missing a lot of details, especially regarding the expulsion of Christianity from the country. I don't know how much detail to go into, but I tried to keep it related to Nagasaki itself.

• Talk:Nagasaki, Nagasaki ? Nagasaki, Nagasaki → Nagasaki ? Because it is a very significant city, since an atomic bomb was dropped on it. 132.205.45.148 17:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
• Support, Support. Proteus (Talk) 19:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
• Support -- Oarih 19:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose - Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Japan-related_articles)#Place names -- Rick Block 20:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose - "City, Prefecture" is the standard form for articles on Japanese cities. It helps disambiguate cities with the same name in different prefectures, and especially in the case of cities such as Nagasaki, differentiates between the city of Nagasaki and the prefecture of Nagasaki. CES 20:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose - Considering I proposed the same yesterday, then withdrew to propose the other way for Hiroshima & Kyoto to make everything consistent (see above archive). I guess I have to vote this way :D -- KTC 21:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose Still. See the comments I made on yesterday's vote (above). Fg2 21:33, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Support —Michael Z. 2005-05-3 01:39 Z
• Support, for the same reasons as for Talk:New York City#Oppose. DmitryKo 19:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
• Support. James F. (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC) (restated James F. (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2005 (UTC))Reply
• Oppose - Agree with Rick Block and Fg2. Atsi Otani 20:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
• Support, other Japanese cities with the same name of city and prefecture are located at [[cityname]] rather than [[cityname,prefecturename]] (e.g. Kyoto, Hiroshima). New York City sets the precedent for losing the [[cityname,geographicregionname]] format for notable city articles. - MykReeve T·C 22:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
• Support - violet/riga (t) 18:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 18:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

An anon IP changed the density from 1321 to 1322. I do not know which one is incorrect; however, I've decided to rv to the original revision (1321). Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• I just spent over two and a half hours eliminating a 'horrible' esthetic appearance wherein large verticle blocks of whitespace migrated to different and awkward places in the article depending on the brower font size selected. The resultant effort displays nicely regardless of which of the five browser font size settings a user may view.

The key auto-formatting problem here is the outsized Japan City template Box, and persons on the Japan Cities project might take it under advisement to break this into smaller boxes, or many Japan Cities articles are going to be UGLY (With a capital 'UG'), IMHO.

• The chain of breaks and divs and the placement and sizing of the initial picture are integral to the success of that effort, so move them or alter them only if you can guarantee a similarly nicely displayed output! Without significant textual additions, these should stand up pretty well to small edits and sentence-sized changes where they are.
• Otherwise, only eliminating one pic or another could ease the Wiki-autoformating to give a more evenly dispersed textual output, IMHO.

FrankB 15:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to return to this topic but all official documents released by Nagasaki City refer to Nagasaki as 'Nagasaki City'. This is their official policy and seems to be the policy of most places where city and prefecture share a name.

Wikipedia does not have to refer to a city by the form of the name the city chooses for itself. Japanese cities generally name themselves according to the pattern X-shi (-shi is the kanji 市). This is true of Nagasaki and hundreds of other cities nationwide. Similarly, in the US, cities typically choose either the form City of X or the form X City. See, for example, the *official web site of the city of Los Angeles. Outside of the US, Toronto follows this pattern, too. And within the US, an unusual example is the City of Oklahoma City. The Wikipedia articles for LA, Toronto, and Oklahoma City are at Los Angeles, California, Toronto, Ontario, and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, not City of Los Angeles, City of Toronto, City of Oklahoma City. That is, none of these article titles follows the official name of the municipality.

The article on Nagasaki was previously at Nagasaki, Nagasaki, following the (city name, prefecture name) naming convention that the Wikipedia community adopted for cities, towns, and villages in Japan. Someone renamed the article Nagasaki, and here it is today. I would prefer that it be at Nagasaki, Nagasaki for uniformity among all municipalities in Japan.

Fg2 07:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

From the perspective of WP:ENGLISH I'd have thought [[Nagasaki]] should be the city, or at least a redirect to [[Nagasaki, Nagasaki]] with a hatnote to [[Nagasaki Prefecture]]. Making it a disambiguation page just adds a click to most searches, and creates a needless pitfall for people linking to [[Nagasaki]] (for instance from G. E. M. Anscombe) who would be linking to [[Nagasaki Prefecture]] if that was what they meant. I'm curious as to how the bot is recognizing which links to change ... --Paularblaster (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm confused - why is it wrong to say "Nagasaki, Nagasaki" as the official title, even if we call it "Nagasaki" in English. We also call it "Houston" but the article is "Houston, Texas." I will comment that the disambig is questionable - I would consider the city to be the primary meaning (in English anyway). I also consider it a bit unnecessary to tack "City" on there, since that's something that's picked up in translation. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

But we do not call it New York, New York or anything but Paris, London and Rome nor with other types of city like Birmingham, Munich, Lyon, and Barcelona. Moving this article name without a another WP:RM is not what should have been done. The naming conventions are explicit on this point articles should be named using their common English name. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it probably should have been discussed before the move, but re: "articles should be named using their common English name," there are three important points:

1. Some Japanese municipalities have conflicting names and therefore need to be disambiguated by appending the prefecture.

2. The practice of appending a larger government body to the municipality name is in wide use throughout Wikipedia (example: Minneapolis, Minnesota). I don't see why Nagasaki, or any of the other Japanese cities people keep getting into a huff about (Kyoto, Kitakyushu, etc.) should be exceptions. As long as you can find the article from "Nagasaki" then who cares?

3. "Nagasaki City" is just wrong. The name of the city is "Nagasaki." If you're ok with "Nagasaki City" then you should be ok with "Minneapolis City," "London City," "Paris City" etc. as well.

-Amake (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree that it should not be "Nagasaki City", it should be "Nagasaki" as that is the common usage for the word Nagasaki in English is to refer to the city just as it is for Shanghai another well known Asian city. The other names should be available under Nagasaki (disambiguation) as a hat note at the top of this page just as with Tokyo. To address you other points (1) only if they are not well known in English. (2) It is an American habit, you do not find it on many articles outside the U.S. for example it is Birmingham there is not even a link called Birimingham, West Midlands and even the U.S. articles make exceptions for well known cities, such as Chicago and others such as Los Angeles are redirects to the city article not the disambiguation page --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

This issue has been debated extensively at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles). Discussion belongs there. Fg2 (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Discussions about page names and the content of articles should be on the talk page of the article, not in some other forum. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nagazaki is the only place where Mesotardigrada have been spotted in history. Doesn't that warrant inclusion in the article?--SidiLemine 10:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, why not? Perhaps add a wildlife or fauna section. cyclosarin 01:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've corrcted a sentence that said that tempura was imported by the Portuguese. Boy, was it embarrassing when my supervisor pointed out this error to me when I wrote it in an essay.

More importantly, it says here that the Portuguese were confined to a prison in Deshima. I have two problems with this: first, it was the Dutch who were confined here; second, the word, 'Prison,' takes the perspective of those confined - we're not talking Guantanamo Bay here, it was a mere restriction on the movement of foreigners. Seems like it will be more difficult to change this inaccuracy as it's pretty tangled into its paragraph. For this reason, and also because I'm sure people will disagree with my second reservation on the matter, I've not changed it myself but thought I should put it on the table.

Much love, Rupa zero 19:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)rupaZer0Reply

I also removed a factual error about the death toll; there was an unsourced wildly off figure for radiation illnesses. Gtadoc 17:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Added a photo of a good Kameyama Yaki jar with trading scenery of the city. Iwanafish

Thanks, it's a nice photo. Do you know about Wikimedia Commons? If you upload your photos there, they can be used on all Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia articles in all languages. It's fun to find your photos in articles in Japanese, French, Russian, Hungarian, and various other languages. Simply get a user name on Commons and upload your photo, with a free license. It's recommended to add it to a category or gallery too, such as Nagasaki or Category:Nagasaki. Thanks! Fg2 09:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

It would be great if there was a second (or just a better) map in the article to help readers have an idea of where Nagasaki is globally. I have no idea how to do it otherwise I would. 138.16.52.11 (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I had a similar reaction. Any ideas as to where to turn for help? Liam Patrick (talk) 03:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Is there really a need to put the city's name twice in the title? Anywikiuser (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

See the Nagasaki vs. Nagasaki City section above. Oda Mari (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, there's not. The article should be at Nagasaki. In situations requiring clarity, English should call the larger area Nagasaki Prefecture. — LlywelynII 04:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

This article has too many photos which are messing up the layout. We need to trim 3-5 from the article, and then just point people to Commons. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

How can the city have been founded by Portuguese before 1500 if the Portuguese first arrived in Japan in the 1540? Either the town was founded by the Portuguese after that, or the town was founded before 1500 but not by the Portuguese, or none of the above. One thing is for sure: you cannot have both. Gazilion (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

The link labeled "Listen" goes to a player that claims "Nagasaki" is pronounced "Halifax." I don't think so. And I don't know how to fix it, so could somebody do that fixing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonyack (talk • contribs) 21:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

The link labeled "Listen" goes to a player that claims "Nagasaki" is pronounced "Halifax." I don't think so. And I don't know how to fix it, so could somebody do that fixing? Sonyack (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

The article currently states "the death toll from the atomic bombing totaled 73,884, as well as another 74,909 injured, and another several hundred thousand diseased and dying due to fallout and other illness caused by radiation."

That last statement has to be wildly wrong on many levels. Firstly and most importantly the Fatman bomb was exploded as an airburst, so there was no fallout (fallout only being produced by a groundburst or near groundburst). Close to 60% of deaths were caused by the intense heat and percussive effects of the explosion and only around 20% due to the exposure to very short-lived 'initial' flash radiation at the time of burst. Additionally the bomb, by modern standards, was simply not that big and its effects, due to the valley terrain, were localised; many British and American POWs only 4 miles away from ground zero survived the blast (and lived into normal old age) despite being out in the open and only wearing shorts and shoes.

The Japanese survivors of both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs have been closely monitored by several medical teams throughout the years since 1945 and deaths attributed to radiation effects since December 1945 are numbered in the hundreds, not thousands and certainly not hundreds of thousands. That statement above is POV, innaccurate and cannot possibly be supported by its stated reference. All reputable sources indicate a final death toll from the Nagasaki bomb to be close to 78,000. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 13:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm not saying you're wrong, but do you have documentation to support those assertions? Liam Patrick (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Nagasaki Gaigotandai is no longer a Junior college. I don't have the date at hand, but if it is necessary, let me know. Here is their web-site: http://www.nagasaki-gaigo.ac.jp/english/index.htmlPizzamancer (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I found 2 sources, but they are only in Japanese. The school became an accredited university in 2007. Source 1: http://www.juaa.or.jp/images/accreditation/pdf/result/university/2007/nagasakigaikokugo.pdf

and a citation in the Asahi Newspaper: ^ 「大学評価――宇都宮共和大『不適合』――定員割れ・財務改善できず」『朝日新聞』43801号、朝日新聞東京本社、2008年3月25日、37面。

I found both sources on the Japanese page of Nagasaki University of Foreign Studies.Pizzamancer (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

"New temples were built, as well as new churches due to an increase in the presence of Christianity" Is simply untrue. Temples are Buddhist. Shinto Shrines were built in Nagasaki to combat Christianity, but that was 400 years ago, for example Suwa Jinja and the Nagasaki Kunchi festival.

It also is not a port town. It is built around a port, but shipping is virtually non-existent. The economy is based on Mitsubishi Heavy industries and tourism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizzamancer (talk • contribs) 01:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Can we get some definitive information on this? After all this time, the article still says, "The little harbor village quickly grew into a diverse port city..." According to Pizzamancer, this is false information. Liam Patrick (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

There is a great deal of interesting information in this article, but I'm surprised by the lack of citations/supporting documentation. This article is very different from the documentation found at the article on Hiroshima: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima Liam Patrick (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content! Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 08:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

12/30/2015 on TV was a program about Sadako Sasaki. Then I read the survivor accounts of those who lived through Hiroshima A-bomb. I realized no one mentioned Nagasaki. So I called up Nagasaki. On the Wikipedia page at section 1.3 is a photo of the mushroom cloud. If you look at it, zoom it bigger, you see two adults holding several babies. Under them in the darker area are what looks like the heads of other children and people. What a sad surprise that probably nobody has ever noticed before. Retiredand2busy (talk) 08:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC) L. W.Reply

I have added info about the attack time to the introduction so that people don't have to read the entire article to get an idea of when during the day it happened. Hopefully this will not be too contentious.

ASavantDude (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

173.70.125.42 (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)hfReply

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

In the history section is stated that Nagasaki was occupied by the portuguese, first paragraph, yes they were there but did not occupied the city.

Saw some earlier request about if Nagasaki had been founded or occupied by the Portuguese, both are wrong. It’s not exactly change x to y but to remove the occupation...

First time I send a request. Thanks, João 25.04.2019 Jrnclondon1976 17:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Done – Þjarkur (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

WP:NOTDICTIONARY: Aside from being unsourced and wrong, the Japanese IPA is trivia for the English Wikipedia and shouldn't be cluttering up the lede. (Shunting it into a Name section, infobox, or footnote would be fine if it were helpful, which it mostly isn't. Japanese romanization is already fairly phonetic.)

The English IPA might be useful if it could be sourced authoritatively, given that people might pronounce it like a nag horse instead of the more proper NAHG... but, given that it's an anglicized name in the first place, the horse-people aren't really any more wrong than people who leave the -AH off Rome's real name. That is, any likely attempted pronunciation is fine, making the IPA overprecise and unnecessary for an encyclopedia article. The curious/hypercorrect can click over to the Wiktionary entry, which of course should've been linked through the kanji. (Also fixed.) — LlywelynII 05:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Breathe air 66.52.70.192 (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

The sentence "Less than a second after the detonation, the north of the city was destroyed and more than 10% of the city's population were killed" uses Robert Hull (October 11, 2011). Welcome To Planet Earth – 2050 – Population Zero. as its source. Every seller gives the following description of this book: "Biblical Prophecy, the predictions of The Hopi Indians, Sir Isaac Newton's calculations for Armageddon, The final War described in The Dead Sea Scrolls, the current unrest on Planet Earth and nuclear proliferation point to W.W.lll unless Jesus Christ returns."

So, uh, that deserves a [better source needed] at the very least, right? PenCatWire (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

It says that this city was the second city to experience a nuclear attack. Maybe would be good to qualify that it is also, at this point, the last or most recent. 2603:7000:9600:1A2D:28DC:C932:2584:7D63 (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply