Talk:Pacific War

Attitudes Towards the Enemy

I have added a section to shed light on the attitudes that each participant in the war held towards their enemy as I was surprised that there was little mention of this on the page. I have only written about American attitudes however as this is the only side which I know enough about to write on, but I was hoping that someone more knowledgeable than me on Japanese social history could write a section on the Japanese attitudes, and it time more sections can be added for other participants such as China, Australia etc. Rhinocerous777 (talk) 09:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

While I do feel there can be a place for a section on this topic, I also feel that this section can only be included if it covers Japanese attitudes as well. Either someone should immediately add a subsection on Japanese attitudes, or the whole section should be removed for the time being and later reinstated when it includes a Japanese subsection.104.228.9.173 (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi I am a university student and I have studied the Japanese in World War Two for the past 2 years and could write the Japanese narrative for this section. I also have studied the American attitudes so I could possibly assist with that as well. Please let me know what you think. Goldenl03 (talk) 10:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

This section seems to have been removed (I approve). Generally Homo sapiens individuals have a belligerent attitude towards and enemy, and each warring party is called a Belligerent. Nuances of belligerence are generally manipulated by government propaganda. A short 'Propaganda' section would make sense, each sentence having one or two links to articles on WWII Propaganda or the nature of racism during WWII—but no such dedicated articles exist. There is an article on Anti-Japanese sentiment in the United States with 1300-word section on World War II; the balancing material Anti-Americanism#Japan is very short and only covers the postwar period, so a balanced NPOV will require a lot of research/editing. In Japan there is the fascinating phenomenon of "war painting," with Tsuguharu Foujita as the most famous painter; a category page for "Japanese war artists" also exists. Vagabond nanoda (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

US casualties in infobox

Meeepmep, when you amended the US casualties in the infobox by changing the number of KIA, you did not amend the total. This is not a simple addition as the source will probably have MIA as an additional casualty category. Please amend the figure according to the source. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

And once again about American losses

My edit to the article was removed, and they said that before these figures were published, they needed to be discussed.I think the losses are a little higher than those given in the article. 72k dead in the army, 40k dead in the navy, and 24k dead marines.https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-us-military-numbers https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/Casualties/index.html https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/u/us-navy-personnel-in-world-war-ii-service-and-casualty-statistics.html 95.25.208.74 (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

As per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, modern secondary sources are preferable to the older primary ones you have posted and your general feeling that 'the number was probably higher' has no real bearing on site policy. And the fact this point has been continually raised by IPs over a total of 2 years, all of which are based within Moscow which indicates they all the same person, the fact that several editors on this page have continually rejected these changes, then this seems to indicate that these changes are unwanted, and the best course of action would be to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Loafiewa (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok 176.59.82.175 (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Death Toll

The allied civilian death toll is given as 26,000,000+ but that isn't even close to the upper bound of the numbers cited. The Chinese civilian casualty toll is also grossly underestimated and the very source cited for the 1-6m estimate only states military and civilian casualties which it places at 25,000,000 as opposed to 1-6m.

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/asia-pacific-war-1945 https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-worldwide-deaths-world-war Originalcola (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

https://guides.loc.gov/sino-japanese-war-1937-1945#:~:text=With%20half%20of%20China%20ruined,the%20bloodiest%20in%20world%20history.

The easiest available reliable online sources give far higher death tolls for China. Originalcola (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Casualties for China in the infobox reflect the scope of the article - ie from December 1941. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  It says 1937-45 for casualties for China and total on the article. Originalcola (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  "Estimates of 1 to 6 million Chinese civilian deaths (1937–1945)", "Civilian deaths 26,000,000+ (1937–1945)" and the source for Chinese casualties also doesn't give a number of casualties from December 1941. Originalcola (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Number of killed

It may be a stupid question, but why does the article indicate in the column that 1.7 million died on the Allied side. When China alone lost 3.8 million Nationalists and Communists killed, and other non-Chinese allies lost 400k ? Hikka1999 (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)