Talk:Surrender of Japan

Were the atom bombs the main reason for surrender?

According to these Stanford and MIT professors , later released docs show that it was known that it was well-known that the main condition the Japanese wanted was that no harm would come to the emperor and that Truman finally signaled he would abide by this only after the two bombs were dropped.

References

Jewel Voice Broadcast ➡ Hirohito surrender broadcast

Please change "Jewel Voice Broadcast" to Hirohito surrender broadcast, per the revent move of that page (because Jewel Voice Broadcast is, it turns out, a 2006 Wikipedia user-spawned neologism).

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2023

Simple spelling mistake/typo. "the Emperor's will that Japan surrender."

Change "Afterward, Tōgō told Suzuki that there was no hope of getting better terms, and Kido conveyed the Emperor's will that Japan surrender.".

To

"Afterward, Tōgō told Suzuki that there was no hope of getting better terms, and Kido conveyed the Emperor's will that Japan surrenders."

Or rewrite this part entirely. 109.235.37.171 (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. The existing grammar is fine. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Not entirely. 'afterward' (as opposed to 'afterwards') suggests the use of English American grammar and the use of the plural form for 'Japan surrender' suggests the use of British American grammar. In any case, I can agree it's probably fine as is; at most a minor confusion on the use of grammar

. Thank you for looking at it. 89.205.135.89 (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

FAR needed

A 2009 FA with notable issues:

• Countless sentences and paragraphs without refs.
• The article overuses quotes and blockquotes, of which many are lengthy.
• Some large paragraphs only supported by one citation at the end.
• Many webpages referenced when they're better covered by high-quality academic books and journals.
• More than a third (73/185) of all citations rely only on Frank 1999 and Hasegawa 2005 as of now.
• Thousands of new, quality texts on this vital topic exist in TWL. Some are definitely due for inclusion.
• Citations and explanatory notes are mixed, but the problem is that different refstyles are used for each note.

Pinging FAC nominators Wwoods and Raul654. Wretchskull (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Wretchskull: Do you still have these concerns with the article? If so, do you want to take this to FAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

the intro is too long

I hope it's not too unhelpful to give general feedback? the introduction is too long but I'm not sure how I'd summarise it. So just leaving it as a general suggestion. FourPi (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)