Talk:Port Chicago disaster

Port Chicago disaster is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 17, 2009.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 5, 2009	WikiProject A-class review	Approved
March 17, 2009	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 17, 2014, July 17, 2017, and July 17, 2022.

Current status: Featured article

California: San Francisco Bay Area High‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as High-importance).

Military history: World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	World War II task force

Additional information:
/
	This article has passed an A-Class review.

Discrimination Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Disaster management Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Military history / History Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history.

African diaspora High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organized Labour Low‑importance

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by .

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Propeller#Marine|propeller]] The anchor (#Marine) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Fireball[edit]

"detonated in a huge fireball some 3 mi (4.8 km) in diameter". That seems rather big for a fireball. Even more in relation to "Suisun Bay is connected to the Pacific Ocean by San Francisco Bay. In 1944, the town was a little more than a mile from a U.S. Navy munitions depot," The fireball must have engulfed Suisun Bay for at least half a mile. Still there where no civilian casualties.

This sounds rather odd. Was that fireball really that big in diameter? Are there any sources for that? The Banner talk 02:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! I took a quick look through sources that were published before this Wikipedia article was written, and here's what they say:

"Hardly a man, woman or child in a three mile radius escaped injury." (1992) Proceedings of the Marine Safety Council, page 25.
Kevin Starr (2003) Embattled Dreams, page 119: "An Army Air Force crew flying overhead at the time reported a fireball that covered approximately three miles and sent metal fragments nine thousand feet into the air."
Robert Joseph Chandler (2004) California: An Illustrated History, page 200: "The fireball, three miles in area and equal in power to the atomic bomb that vaporized Hiroshima..."
Steve Estes (2006) I Am A Man!, page 28: "An Army Air Force plane flying nearby reported seeing a fireball three miles wide..."

So it looks like the 3-mile figure is applied to the diameter by two authors quoting the USAAF crew, one source writing it down as a 3-mile radius (wow!), and one source saying 3 miles in area, which is a circle just under 2 miles in diameter. Binksternet (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to believe something like "a fireball three miles high" or "a big fireball followed by an area on fire three miles in diameter" but just one fireball, no. The Banner talk 11:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipawyering at its worst.

There was no "3 mile wide" fireball. The opinions of unqualified observers and second-hand statements by people who weren't present do not constitute reality, no matter if they were published in (non-peer-reviewed) books or not. The explosives involved totalled approximately 1800 tons of TNT equivalent: by definition that's 1.8 kilotons, or a small fraction of the explosive power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima which produced a fireball well under a mile in diameter. And something less than the 1800 tons present actually exploded at Port Chicago. Unexploded ordnance was scattered all over the area and is still being found nearly 70 years later.

I agree with the above assessment (by user 63.152.108.53; please sign in the future!) Even at the larger figure of 3 kT that I've sometimes seen cited for the explosion, the fireball could not have been anywhere near three miles in diameter. My guess is that an initial report (Proceedings of the Marine Safety Council) of a damage radius of three miles grew in the telling. --Yaush (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most respected book sources say 3 mi in diameter, which is why this number was put into the article. I think the most we can do until some materials expert publishes a new analysis is give the report attribution. The USAAF pilot is the original source. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it is clearly at odds with other facts. Just look at the pictures in the article. A fireball would have left some damage, at least to the cars on picture 4. But no traces of fire-damage in any of the pictures. The cars however show blast/shockwave damage. In fact, this source] from the Naval History and Heritage Command, does not mention the firebal. It "only" states: At 10:18 p.m., a hollow ring and the sound of splintering wood erupted from the pier, followed by an explosion that ripped apart the night sky. Witnesses said that a brilliant white flash shot into the air, accompanied by a loud, sharp report. A column of smoke billowed from the pier, and fire glowed orange and yellow. Flashing like fireworks, smaller explosions went off in the cloud as it rose. Within six seconds, a deeper explosion erupted as the contents of the E.A. Bryan detonated in one massive explosion. The seismic shock wave was felt as far away as Boulder City, Nevada. The E.A. Bryan and the structures around the pier were completely disintegrated. A pillar of fire and smoke stretched over two miles into the sky above Port Chicago. The largest remaining pieces of the 7,200-ton ship were the size of a suitcase. A plane flying at 9,000 feet reported seeing chunks of white hot metal "as big as a house" flying past. The shattered Quinault Victory was spun into the air. Witnesses reported seeing a 200-foot column on which rode the bow of the ship, its mast still attached. Its remains crashed back into the bay 500 feet away. The Banner talk 00:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And this source also contradicts the fireball. The Banner talk 00:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Vogel[edit]

An IP added some info to the article based, according to the summary, "see page 14 paragraph 2 http://www.petervogel.us/lastwave/chapters/LastWave_Ch10.pdf". This was reverted by Binksternet with as summary "Revert... Peter Vogel is not a reliable source.". That is not impossible, but why is Vogel not a reliable source? The Banner talk 18:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reasonable question, as Vogel may (just may, I don't know) fall under one of the exceptions to WP:SPS in that he's published material on this same subject in traditionally reliable sources, e.g. [1], which is cited in some, though not many, other traditional reliable sources. So it's plausible, anyway, although I'm not arguing for it here, that his self-published "web based book" may be reliable for some things.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Peter Vogel the nuclear explosion conspiracy theorist? I regard the theory that the black sailors were used as guinea pigs in a nuclear test as being about as credible as the theory that HIV was invented by the CIA to eliminate the black population of the United States. --Yaush (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:Port Chicago disaster/Archive 0, Vogel's theory was discussed in depth: he thinks that the Port Chicago explosion was really a nuclear explosion, with the government trying to cover it up. Vogel was determined to be a fringe character worthy of brief mention, for the purpose of shooting down his theory. If there was an article about Vogel his theory would be more prominently discussed, but Vogel does not meet WP:BASIC and so he has no Wikipedia bio. Vogel's theory gets a bit of ink at List of conspiracy theories. Note that there are lots of other Peter Vogels on the planet, including some with Wikipedia biographies, and a banned user who was socking. The Peter Vogel who has a nuclear explosion theory is none of these people—he was an information officer in New Mexico, then he became a journalist, then a self-published writer. Binksternet (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That settles that for me. Thanks— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed a reasonable explanation. The Banner talk 19:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Port Chicago disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100608163922/http://www.history.army.mil/books/integration/IAF-03.htm to http://www.history.army.mil/books/integration/IAF-03.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Port Chicago disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Location of Trial[edit]

Robert Allen's book says that the trial was held "on Yerba Buena Island, more popularly known as Treasure Island." In fact Yerba Buena and Treasure Islands are distinct islands, connected by a causeway, and Naval Station Treasure Island consisted of both of them (except for a Coast Guard station on Yerba Buena). The exact location of the trial is unknown, but I find Dr. Allen credible that it was on Yerba Buena. All the buildings documented as marine barracks, and the one mentioned as used for courts martial, were on Yerba Buena.^[1] Since most accounts say the trial was "on Treasure Island," the least confusing statement is that it was held "on Naval Station Treasure Island." Bilofsky (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After further research, it's clear that the trial was on Yerba Buena Island.^[2]

Yerba Buena Island is often lumped together with Treasure Island. It was part of Naval Station Treasure Island, and is now part of the Treasure Island redevelopment project. And Treasure Island is widely accepted as shorthand for the trial location, due to confusion generated by Prof. Allen's reference, and by Javier Arbona's recent essay^[3] which uses Treasure Island throughout except for a "could have been" tip of the hat to Yerba Buena. So I think it's helpful to retain the Treasure Island naval base name as part of the location description, while correcting the actual location to Yerba Buena.

If I were starting over, I’d use only the WWII designation “Naval Training and Distribution Center” instead of “Naval Station” But there’s a lot of material out there now with “Naval Station” and I think that designation is at least arguable. It was Naval Station for 45 of its 56 years of existence, including the last 17 years. Bilofsky (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Historical Study of Yerba Buena Island, Treasure Island and their Buildings (PDF) (Revision 01 ed.). Mare Island Naval Shipyard. 1996. Retrieved 10 November 2018.
^ "Fifty Sailors Go on Trial as Mutineers". San Francisco Chronicle. 15 September 1944. p. 7.
^ Arbona, Javier (2017). Horiuchi, Lynn; Sankalia, Tanu (eds.). Urban Reinventions. University of Hawaii Press. p. 127.

Good research work, Bilofsky. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Historical Study of Yerba Buena Island, Treasure Island and their Buildings (PDF) (Revision 01 ed.). Mare Island Naval Shipyard. 1996. Retrieved 10 November 2018.

[2] "Fifty Sailors Go on Trial as Mutineers". San Francisco Chronicle. 15 September 1944. p. 7.

[3] Arbona, Javier (2017). Horiuchi, Lynn; Sankalia, Tanu (eds.). Urban Reinventions. University of Hawaii Press. p. 127.

[1]

[2]

[3]