Talk:Manhattan Project

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleManhattan Project 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.
Featured topic starManhattan Project is the main article in the History of the Manhattan Project series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 16, 2013.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 11, 2010Good article nomineeListed
January 27, 2011WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
March 18, 2011WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
August 23, 2011Featured article candidatePromoted
July 16, 2013Today's featured articleMain Page
December 21, 2016Good topic candidateNot promoted
May 29, 2018Featured topic candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 2, 2004, December 2, 2005, December 2, 2006, December 2, 2007, August 13, 2011, August 13, 2012, August 13, 2015, and August 13, 2017.
Current status: Featured article

Length[edit]

Moved from my talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The original article was written before the subarticles were created, so there is scope for reducing the main article. However, we need to take into account what is in the subarticles and what is not. Let's workshop our way through it on the talk page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've tagged it in the interim. There does appear to be material that really doesn't need to be anywhere, so it's not entirely on what's in the subarticles. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is a drive-by tag with no discussion helpful? Can you point to the sections you think should be trimmed? The project is _that_ important so it's quite natural that the article is long. Subarticles just hide the complexity of any subject that was deemed "too long", many readers will never find their way to a dozen or so related subarticles of questionable quality. Artem.G (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[1]. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
nice answer! You tried to remove sourced text, got reverted, and placed a drive-by tag. This "too long" issue, based on some ten-year-old policy, should really be retired - dial-up era is over, there is no need to condense every article to a bare minimum. Artem.G (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to resolve a clear problem, and when that resolution did not meet with acceptance, added a tag pending an alternative. That's the opposite of drive-by tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The tag is only to alert people to an ongoing discussion. (There is also an ongoing one at Wikipedia talk:Article size that might interest you.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You proposed workshipping here - what did you have in mind for that? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pitching proposals for what is in the subarticles and no longer so necessary here. All the stuff on the project organisation stays because it is not duplicated in any subarticle. But I'm flat out at the moment due to a large volume of page views on the Manhattan Project articles. Average page views for the article have risen from 9,000 per day to over 140,000 per day. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Doesn't look like there is consensus for cuts to the article. You now have three editors Randy Kryn, Artem.G and myself who disagree. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You indicated that you did not have capacity to discuss cuts at this time. If that's now changed, we can workshop as you proposed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Things have died down now. Oppenheimer's page views are down to below 200,000 per day. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Some preliminary points:
I have trimmed the bombings, Trinity and Project Y. I really want to keep the ratings, as (1) they pertain to the project as a whole and therefore belong here; (2) are not described in any of the subarticles; and (3) the high priority of the project is often mentioned, but precisely what that meant, and how it was established is the sort of information that readers could be looking for. I have deleted the bit about the babies. What do you have against babies? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They don't belong around nuclear bombs ;-)
What are your thoughts on construction contracts and uranium processing? Can the ratings information be streamlined? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the Ore section? It is pretty small, and I did not create a subarticle on the Ore program. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the whole Uranium section. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Already done. Each of the isotope separation sections has been trimmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are opportunities to do more. What are your thoughts on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made one change. Otherwise it is alright. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since the user above seems intent on continuing to complain about length — I will just chime in and say that the ratings information is absolutely important to how the project operated and why it was successful. The importance could be expounded upon at more length, if desired. But it is not "inside baseball." Any serious account of the Manhattan Project spends time on it; it is absolutely worth a sentence or two here. --NuclearSecrets (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity detonation in color[edit]

The lead image of this article and Trinity (nuclear test) is File:TrinityDetonation1945GIF.gif, which is a GIF in color of the Trinity test. However, the YouTube source video (linked in the GIF's description), uploaded by "atomcentral", of this explosion is in black-and-white. As far as I can tell, this GIF was colorized by the uploader, GalaxyNite. This would be a violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images § Editing images, which says: An image that was originally published as a monochrome image, such as black-and-white or sepia photographs, should not usually be colorized. Adding color to such an image constitutes original research.

According to OSTI [2] and Popular Science, the Trinity test was filmed in both black-and-white and color, but the color version is of a much lower quality than the black-and-white version. Malerisch (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for File:TrinityFireballGif.gif (also uploaded by GalaxyNite), which just seems to be a colorized version of the second explosion in the same YouTube video. The immediate source video of this second GIF is a random YouTube channel ("The Centralnuclear"); at least "atomcentral" has some credibility. Malerisch (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree 100% that the version at present is artificially colorized and inappropriate (the colors are not at all accurate; the orange implies a much cooler fireball than it was in reality). Its timing also seems quite "off" to me. --NuclearSecrets (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funding source[edit]

Edmondson, Catie (January 17, 2024). "A Reporter's Journey Into How the U.S. Funded the Bomb". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.

Some useful detail in this source in how the project was publicly and secretly funded. Also "I went home and Googled, expecting to find a lengthy Wikipedia entry or an article in a history magazine [about how the U.S. government funded the project]. But all I found was a snippet ... that Roosevelt administration officials had sought in 1944 to smuggle money for the bomb into a military spending bill, and were assisted by Congress." Now we know. czar 13:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! That was really interesting. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edmondson’s main source was Elmer Thomas, ‘’Forty Years a Legislator’’. Google Books has most of the key pages online. John M Baker (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a great article — it is missing a lot of context and understanding, because the author is not a historian and apparently consulted no historians. I rewrote a funding section that is actually useful and interesting and not just trivia about what account name it used. The funding situation is deeply tied into the size and secrecy of it. --NuclearSecrets (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published sources[edit]

@Hawkeye7: Could you please provide evidence to support that the source you restored here is by a recognized expert on this subject? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second of those appears to be a letter to the editor; anything else? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The website in question is a compilation of excerpts from other sources about a singular topic. It does not rest on his authority (one can easily confirm the sources say what they do; it is included here because it is far more convenient than tracking down all of the individual sources). He is an independent scholar who is particularly interested in Szilard. --NuclearSecrets (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't edit Wikipedia, but he does read it, and sends me emaˆls if he doesn't like something. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With support from UK/Canada[edit]

The revision by Whizz40 on 20:59, 2 September 2023 is not referenced, POV, and incorrect. The original sentence read "It was led by the United States with support from the United Kingdom and Canada." which is more correct than their revision. 70.51.132.220 (talk) 04:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "It was led by the United States in collaboration with the United Kingdom and Canada." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]