Jump to content

Talk:General Atomics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clipped Section

[edit]

/* begin clip */ 

 Unfortunately that has not always been smooth as told in the Lessons Learned from the General Atomics Hot cell facility Decontamination & decommissioning project. http://www.wmsym.org/archives/1999/33/33-44.pdf

/* end clip */ Not sure, and I could be wrong, but this looks to me to be vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.103.35.72 (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

Does anyone else think this article may not be in compliance with the NPOV policy? Several accusations are mentioned (most notably "which the generals didn't want") that lack citations or any kind of substantiation. The only outside link is to a source that one could hardly consider credible mainstream media, so the article is (for all intensive purposes) lacking outside validation. In the interest of fairness and honesty, I will not edit this article myself beyond questioning its neutrality. I am an employee of General Atomics, so I can hardly claim to have a neutral point of view of my own. Kob zilla 04:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your not editing the article, and your disclosure of your status. I have changed the only section that I think you were referring to, citing a San Diego newspaper. I hope that it acceptable. John Broughton 13:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph
  • "General Atomics (GA) was founded on July 18, 1955, in San Diego, California as the General Atomic division of General Dynamics "for harnessing the power of nuclear technologies for the benefit of mankind".[citation needed] Unfortunately that has not always been smooth as told in the Lessons Learned from the General Atomics Hot cell facility Decontamination & decommissioning project. http://www.wmsym.org/archives/1999/33/33-44.pdf"
is awkwardly phrased.
Its first sentence would be fine if it were inline cited from, say, the company's founding document or a quote by its founder, Frederic de Hoffman (could we have a reference to him at this point - did he actually write that line about "harnessing the power of nuclear technologies for the benefit of mankind"? I'll see if I can find a source for an inline citation, either way).
The second sentence of the second paragraph seems to me to say General Atomics' issues in decontaminating hot cells are so notable they are at the same level of significance as its invention of the TRIGA nuclear reactor (surely a major notable positive in that life-saving medical isotopes were made in TRIGAs and many nuclear engineers trained on them) and its contributions to military technology by its Aeronautical Systems' development of the Predator family of military drone aircraft - none of which are mentioned in that paragraph.
I'm going to add, as well, reference to General Atomics' part in Project Orion, which may one day still be General Atomics' most consequential project (it's still being discussed as the best way to intercept asteroids on Earth-intercept trajectories detected from sunward). Certainly at the time the project was originally active, it had some of the greatest potential for placing man into space in an unprecedentedly big way, with huge payloads lofted on nuclear pulse detonation engines. This was an ambitious General Atomics project which is notable and deserves some mention.
Finally, there needs to be an expanded section on General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Ins's military drones, which are extremely notable - the first combat kill by a military drone was made with a GA-ASI Predator firing a Hellfire missile during the initial phase of the Global War on Terror. Late versions of the General Atomics military drones figure prominently in the US Air Force's 'black' weapons development budget, most notably the Predator-C (also known as "Avenger"), which is designed to fly in remotely-piloted swarms and mount the HELLADS laser weapon (also partly a General Atomics development).
These are all notable technological developments by General Atomics perhaps deserving of greater mention than they now have.
As far as editor conflicts of interest, I am not, nor ever have been associated with General Atomics in any way.
So very far from being "written like an advertisement," in its present form the article starts off reading like a journalistic exposé, which is also an NPOV issue. loupgarous (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time to block?

[edit]

Anyone notice that it's the third time that 141.248.184.210 has deleted content critical of General Atomics?

Note that 141.248.184.210 is an IP owned by General Atomics: [1] 05:19, 5 July 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.86.10 (talk • contribs)

Nice job on editing the article, by the way.
As for blocking an IP address, my sense is that what's happened with this article is considered so low-level a degree of vandalism (only four times in the last year) that an automated approach is overkill. The article is on my watchlist, and I hope it's on yours, and it seems to be on other people's watchlist as well, and that seems to be enough right now, I believe. If someone were to attack the article several times a day, that would be different. John Broughton 12:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:General Atomics.png

[edit]

Image:General Atomics.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

A BOT removed a link I added to the Smithsonian's Drone exhibit. Is You tube excluded automatically ... for some reason? I suppose I can find a newspaper that has the same story, if that is the situation... (?) I see that I hadn't logged in, so that was one factor. The article is so pro-drone ("accolades" for example in place of "awards"). I wanted to include a link to an anti-drone video recorded at the Smithsonian Drone exhibit, just to toss in the issue of collateral damage, or "bug splat" as it is sometimes called, to the otherwise "Military Industrial Complex" tone of the article.

If you can find a well-regarded secondary source critical of the military use of General Atomics Aeronautical Systems' drones and their potential for causing collateral damage, that's fine and balances any positive mention of the military use of those specific drones. Raising this issue for military drones in general might be best done in our article Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle, because General Atomics Aeronautical Systems is just one of several manufacturers of combat drones, so that the ethical issue's not confined to their drone aircraft. There's already a discussion of the ethics of using drones in that article .
However, the other issue you mention, "("accolades" for example in place of "awards")" seems to me to be just word choice - using the term "accolades" instead of "awards" isn't an NPOV issue, it's just a different term.
Hypothetically, if the article mentioned "Well-deserved accolades", that would be an example of an NPOV issue. But simple word choice doesn't rise to that level. loupgarous (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EM2

[edit]

GA has recently announced that they're working on what they call the EM2, a very advanced, high-temperature helium-cooled fast reactor, a type of GFR with some similarities to GA's existing graphite-moderated reactor proposal. Andrewa (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stolen data and technology?

[edit]

No talk about the accused, data, blueprints, and technology stolen by china? --172.251.204.186 (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us a good newspaper article or a good magazine article - or an article on the World Wide Web - describing this theft? It might be something we can use in this article. Thanks! loupgarous (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on General Atomics. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on General Atomics. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on General Atomics. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:General_Atomics&oldid=1202241431"