Talk:Enola Gay
Script error: No such module "Message box".
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Enola Gay Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Script error: No such module "Article history". Script error: No such module "Banner shell".
Too trivial to mention?
Is the apparently accidental flagging of references to the plane for removal by Hegseth (https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2025/03/07/enola-gay-aircraft-and-other-historic-items-inaccurately-targeted-under-pentagons-anti-dei-purge/) to short-lived to be included? Kdammers (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- I would think so. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
- As the person who initially removed it, twice, I agree. These are probably computer-flagged notices, and will eventually be straightened out. It's also possible that it's a case of "malicious compliance" on the part of some government employees. (On WP, we call that "being disruptive to make a point", such as with this IP edit.) Either way, at this point I believe it falls under WP:NOTNEWS. BilCat (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
- If the Department of Defense taking down a website about Ira Hayes is considered noteworthy enough to be included (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira_Hayes) then wouldn't the same apply here? 173.21.194.174 (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. BilCat (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Whataboutism. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 03:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- If the Department of Defense taking down a website about Ira Hayes is considered noteworthy enough to be included (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira_Hayes) then wouldn't the same apply here? 173.21.194.174 (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- As the person who initially removed it, twice, I agree. These are probably computer-flagged notices, and will eventually be straightened out. It's also possible that it's a case of "malicious compliance" on the part of some government employees. (On WP, we call that "being disruptive to make a point", such as with this IP edit.) Either way, at this point I believe it falls under WP:NOTNEWS. BilCat (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
- Omit. There was a proposal to include a mention at Donald Trump, and I'll copy a relevant part of my opposition argument (very similar to BilCat).Template:Tq2 ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 03:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Well, Yankees and Pommies, I Jack Upland who started this furore believes this might be a case of WP:FART.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
mention of Enola Gay in recent EDI purge
can we mention that the Enola Gay was flagged for removal by the Pentagon in their current EDI purge, according to Forbes? FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- See previous section. BilCat (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- I did not see the previous section, sorry for the duplication. FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
The conversation above is very thoughtful, but feels esoteric, and a bit condescending toward commoners. To me, it is a news, even if ephemeral: https://www.npr.org/2025/03/20/nx-s1-5334461/pentagon-black-veterans-navajo-code-talkers-website-diversity --Idris.albadufi (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a news source. The consensus so far here has been to keep it out of the article on that basis. BilCat (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- BilCat, hi. There are several meanings of the word News. One of them, the most prominent according to some dictionaries, applies to Wikipedia (Merriam-Webster): "1a: a report of recent events; b: previously unknown information; c: something having a specified influence or effect."
- The fact that gay as a word was flagged [by whomever/whatever flagged it] at the department of defense is relevant piece of unknown information, which we wouldn't otherwise be aware of, hadn't Enola Gay been flagged for removal by AI, software, Hegseth himself, etc.
- But there seems to be some opposition here to the inclusion of this info in the entry [not sure if necessarily majoritarian, though]. To a certain extent, I understand the principle. And I trust the good intentions of the erasers. Thank you for your work Idris.albadufi (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- Not only that basis. It could be omitted on that basis even if it had any substance. As far as we know as of now, it has no substance. When it's reported that Enola Gay references were actually removed from Pentagon documents, then we can talk about it further. I haven't a clue what "esoteric" and "commoners" mean in this context, not that it matters. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 03:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Little Boy falling time
The bomb is described in the article as falling for 53 seconds before exploding. However, in the article Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the bomb is described as falling for 44.4 seconds before detonation. How should we reconcile these differences? It seems to me as though the scholarly article on the other article is more precise than the video source used in this article for now. Canned Soul 🥫 18:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)