Talk:Manhattan Project

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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, and August 13, 2015.
Current status: Featured article
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Organization


Other issues

Name[edit]

Is it known who exactly (which person) came up with the name Manhattan District and Manhattan Project? Or why these project names, specifically, were chosen; the official reason given? 5.147.88.61 (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Read the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


"When the Atomic Energy Commission came to Rochester at the beginning of World War II, they and the medical school created the Manhattan Project by selecting key people from many departments of the university." https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article/53/2/157/1650389

That should help figure out who it was.Sam483 (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Read the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manhattan Project. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 22:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Not the Manhattan Project[edit]

Greetings: It is NOT the Manhattan Project, and never has been. The official designation was the Manhattan Engineering District, commanded by BG Leslie Groves. The Manhattan "Project" was a manifestation of the "District." For reference, please refer to "The Making of the Atomic Bomb," the winner of the 1987 Pulitzer Prize, by Richard Rounds. Let us get it straight, here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.74.228.235 (talk) 05:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

[and I always thought Richard Rhodes wrote that book and got the Pulitzer. Silly me. Kablammo (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)]
Better still, you could read the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
better still, the article would be open to editing!934nutcase (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Point taken on the protection, now lifted. Please read the article as suggested above, please read WP:COMMONNAME, which governs the naming, and please adopt a less confrontational approach to other editors. No name change or move should he undertaken without discussion and consensus. This is a featured article, and bold changes to FAs are generally viewed as disruptive. Acroterion (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Requests for changes in article protection levels can be submitted at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I unprotected it, as noted above. So far, no major trouble. Acroterion (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Having grown up nearby, and having listened as a child to hundreds, possibly thousands, of hours of reminiscinces of wartime Oak Ridge, I can assure you that neither designation was used during the war except in private, closely-guarded conversations or classified documents. The "Clinton Engineer Works" was an early moniker, when named at all. Oak Ridge did not appear on maps until 1959! In common parlance, the top-secret effort was always referred to (after Japan's surrender and partial public disclosure in the O.R. and Knoxville newspapers) as the Manhattan "Project". Even the names of the prime movers were classified. A relative related a phonecall she recieved at the Y-12 director's office, urgently insisting to speak to Dr. Fermi. On checking directory & personnel records, she assured the caller that no such person was onsite. When the caller persisted, emphasizing that Enrico Fermi was indeed present and needed by the U of Chicago, she crossed the hall to the director, who told her to send him the call, and emphatically to "forget you ever heard the name!" After routing the phonecall, she consulted the library, and found Fermi in Who's Who in modern science, but she didn't know enough physics: it didn't signify. To all but a handful, he was "Mr. Farmer," and that name and his presence were 'need-to-know.'

I never heard "Manhattan District" even once in those years, and not until I began to read pedantic, 'scholarly' histories of the period. The District designation was one more form of deflection, and anyone overly interested in ferreting out further specifics was in real and serious danger of investigation, detainment even disappearing from the scene. "Loose lips sink ships." Paid informants kept Gen. Groves' cadres aware of undue interest and indiscretion. Stories were common of shop-talk in a cafe and notes written on a napkin or tablecloth and quickly confiscated by uniformed security or unidentified men in mufti. Those were different times, and success of the war effort was far from assured.rags (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

(removed mal-functioning edit request thingy Vsmith (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC))
Hi, the link to Otto Hahn is missing in Foreign intelligence section

Adamboro (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Link added - it was/is linked way up top, but no harm having another ... Vsmith (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Costs are miscalculated?[edit]

In the 12th paragraph named Cost says the 1,89 billion USD in 1945 worths about 66 billion USD in 2016. This is a harsch (maybe deliberate) miscalculation. The correct answer is around 25 billion.

http://www.in2013dollars.com/1945-dollars-in-2017?amount=2400000000 Here's a calculator, but you can try and use any calculators to prove the original calculation wrong.

Please change it. 2A02:AB8C:B321:6180:BC22:AA87:93D6:FA59 (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

 Declined Costs in the article are indexed on Nominal GDP rather than CPI. Per Template:Inflation: For inflating capital expenses, government expenses, or the personal wealth and expenditure of the rich, the US-NGDPPC or UKNGDPPC indexes should be used, which calculate inflation of the Nominal Gross Domestic Product per capita for the United States and United Kingdom, respectively. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Image size[edit]

Is there a reason most of the images in this article are so large? 220px is the standard, per MOS:IMAGES. Thanks for the feedback. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The reviewers felt they couldn't read the details at that size. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: Read what details? Magnolia677 (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Of the maps. Oh I see. Someone has peppered the article with upright=1.35 tags rather than adjusting their own image default size to 300px. (It may have been hard-coded at one point; WMF decided on this, then changed its mind.) I have removed all the upright tags except those on the maps. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: Thanks a lot. Any objection to moving some of the images to the right, per MOS:IMAGELOCATION? Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
The layout has been carefully sited per MOS:IMAGELOCATION: Multiple images can be staggered right and left and It is often preferable to place images of people so that they "look" toward the text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: Ah, ok. But in this photo on the left, all their backs are turned to the text. This one too. Thanks again. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
The layout has been carefully sited per MOS:IMAGELOCATION: Multiple images can be staggered right and left. Articles looks terrible with all the images on the right. The article has been reviewed at FAC, and there is no basis for ruining the image layout in defiance of the MOS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

────────── While I appreciate how "carefully sited" the images are, and that this article has been reviewed at FAC, there remain issues regarding the formatting of the images. I moved most of the images in the article to the right, where they neatly fit (one image could not be moved right without disrupting the section). At MOS:IMAGELOCATION, a consensus of editors agreed that images should be right justified, writing, "in most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement. If an exception to the general rule is warranted, left can be used." This is in fact a prudent formatting rule, because left justified images are often disruptive to section headings, bullets, and so forth, and are especially awkward if viewed on a pad or older browser. If there are multiple images to place into a section, then MOS:IMAGELOCATION states "multiple im­ages can be stag­gered right and left", but again, that is not the case in this text-rich article; nearly all the images neatly fit onto the right. User_talk:Hawkeye7 has twice reverted my effort to right justify images in this article, writing in their first edit summary, "Images must alternate right left per MOS:IMAGELOCATION", and in their second edit summary "MOS:IMAGELOCATION is CLEAR - images alternate left and right". This in fact is not what is what is written at MOS:IMAGELOCATION. As well, I'm not sure that an editor feeling that right justified images "look terrible" meets the threshold for "an exception to the general rule". Not all Wikipedia users are fortunate enough to have big screens or newer browsers, and Hawkeye7 may wish to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. The input of other editors would be appreciated. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, answering your request for a third opinion. I don't think the images need to be all right aligned. The wording in MOS:IMAGELOCATION isn't particularly strong on the issue of right alignment, I'd say this article flows just fine with the staggered alignment. The first photograph in the body and the last photograph of the article should both be right aligned to make it properly staggered. I would say the images should be reduced to the regular thumbnail size; if someone wants to see the details they can click the thumbnail to enlarge, which is the whole point of a thumbnail. Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 03:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)