Talk:William L. Uanna/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Thanks to DragonflySixtyseven for the redirect and additions.

Contributing information to William L. Uanna

This evening I added a few images to Wikimedia. They are photographs and an FBI background investigation conducted for the Atomic Energy Commission. The FBI document verifies Uanna's service as head of investigations at First Service Command Boston and with Tenth Corps. In addition I included a picture of Uanna with the mission to Nagasaki to study bomb damage and a picture of him at a US Marine Security Guard Graduation. And there are some other pictures. I have hundreds of documents and pictures from his personal file and FOI requests. I have Uanna's Foreign Service Essay which is very informative. And employment applications that he filled out for the various jobs he held, each one giving more information on the other. Some of the people who are the recipients of the documents are David Lilienthal, Carroll Wilson, J. Edgar Hoover, Sheffield Edwards, Edward Lansdale, Mickey Ladd, V.P. Keay, Otto Otepka and others... I have over 50 newspaper clippings form his days as an athlete at Medford High School and Tufts University. And many newspaper and magazine articles about his career during the war and after. This is the first time I used Wikimedia, I did it under the name CIC777, category Bud Uanna. At this point I am unfamiliar with the process. I have a number of FBI Documents that I feel are very interesting. And the one from Ed Lansdale could have some significance. I appreciate the editing that has been done on this site and want to help clear up any questions about Uanna's bona fides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CIC7 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

William Uanna more information on Wikimedia Commons

I have uploaded some files and pictures to Wikimedia. I will add more soon. The Foreign Service Essay is an overview of Uanna's career. Background investigations memo's and employment applications fill in more details. The FBI files from the AEC and AFSWP 1946-1949 tell me that the FBI was on the outside looking in. Thanks for all the editing.CIC777 (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Bud Uanna on Wikimedia Commons

I have uploaded some more files and pictures today to the Commons. I am still a novice at this. I would appreciate any help. I feel that some of these pictures and documents have historical significance. I am trying to keep any bias I have out of the descriptions, but stillCIC7 (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC) give enough information to encourage but not lead researchers. It is a fine. Thank you for your edits.

"Bud Uanna" images being deleted from Wikimedia

Hello, earlier this morning I uploaded some more images to Wikimedia. They relate to Air Force One, John Foster Dulles, Bud Uanna's passport... images are being deleted from the Category:Bud Uanna. I would appreciate any help anyone can give me. I thought Wikimedia was the way to get images into Wikipedia. Most of the images relate to William Lewis "Bud" Uanna - now deceased. They are newspapers, photos he owned, books in which the author and date of publication is given ... I was very encouraged with the additions made to the William L. Uanna page. I am convinced it can be a page of interest to many readers. --CIC7 (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Advice - Wikimedia upload removals.

Hello, I asking for help and or advice on the trouble I am having with Wikimedia and uploads that I put on Category:Bud Uanna. It seems that certain individuals are intent on removing uploads. One that I am especially concerned with is about a book called Above Top Secret by Timothy Good. This was removed almost immediately because I did not use "Copyright" although I gave the date of publication and all other information that I felt was necessary. This upload connected the 509th Composite Group to the Roswell - UFO incident. Other things were mentioned in that upload. It does not seem fair to me that someone can just delete something that is put up. There have been quite number of removals. I would appreciate any help or advice that anyone can give. CIC7 (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide links to any relevant discussions? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't know exactly what you mean.CIC7 (talk) 01:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

What I mean is that you're saying that you've had a problem with uploads, and I don't know if you mean uploads to Wikipedia or to Commons, and where to find them. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Tags

I've tagged this article for COI and OR, as a person claiming to be the subject's son has been introducing original research, edit warring over it for inclusion. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Both tags removed, as the OR has been cured and the COI seems manageable at this time. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

"Murder"

The article contains the following under the subject header "film portrayals":

At the end of the movie Enola Gay, an update of the post World War II careers of the movie's main characters was shown. In a short clip showing Macht in his role as Bud Uanna it said "Stephen Macht as Major William "Bud" Uanna - Uanna became a member of the CIA and was murdered in Africa, any records of his death have subsequently disappeared."

Some movie, not a documentary but a fictionalized account, says something. So what? It is unsubstantiated and a rather wild allegation, totally at variance with the New York Times obituary which stated that he died of a heart attack. Such a serious and troubling statement, in effect indicating skullduggery of some kind as well as a cover story propagated to the public, requires multiple reliable sources if it is to be included in the article. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

All it is doing is reporting what the movie says, and that is not in dispute. On what basis are multiple sources required? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE. It's a fringe theory. Being mentioned at the end of a movie of unknown reliability is insufficient for inclusion. For all we know, it could have been made up out of whole cloth. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

But is the mention of it WP:UNDUE? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

We're not even at that point in the analysis because we are utilizing a fictional film as a source for an allegation about the subject's death. If it was a documentary by a credible person I would feel differently. But this is some words on the screen at the end of an obscure 1980 fiction film that mixes fact and fiction. The most we should say is that Uanna was portrayed by Macht in the film. We shouldn't use the "film portrayals" section to repeat factual claims like this, even innocent ones, much less fringe theories, in fictional works. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 02:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I found this film on YouTube. I won't link to it as it is a copyright violation. It was a TV movie. No, we don't care what TV movies say about real people, except in the article about the TV movie. This might he worth an article as it stars Billy Crystal. The statement about his death is UNDUE there; here, to answer your query above, yes it is UNDUE here too, for this "murder" accusation would inappropriately dominate the "film portrayals" section. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 03:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• I am pleased that the article is up for GA, and there appears to be few barriers to its promotion. Uanna is an important and interesting historical figure. As long as we rely on the very good sourcing available it certainly should qualify. Ancestry, as noted below, is problematic. But otherwise it seems to be in good shape. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Murdered in Africa

I would like to request that some editor put the inclusion of the statement that was make at the end of the movie ENOLA GAY that William Uanna was murdered in Africa on the Request for comment on articles page. I am his son and I have given my opinion on this a number of times. To me, my father was a part of history, although he was written out of it by some authors like Leslie Groves, Kenneth Nichols... William Uanna was portrayed in 3 movies. He was also featured in many newspaper articles and included in books. The fact that the movie ENOLA GAY said he was murdered is a fact. Was the movie up to snuff. Watch it yourself. All the way to the end where it says he was murdered. Whoever watches it can make up their own mind up. That is all I ask. Would the producers of the movie put something like that in just to spice up a movie that was already one of the most controversial subjects of the century? That's a starting question for someone who watches the movie. Food for thought and research. I wish the issue were put before some editors for comment. Then it can go to Mediation if necessary. Thank you, Steven Uanna — Preceding unsigned comment added by CIC7 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

William Uanna is a part of history. His fame ("notability" in Wikipedia jargon) is clearly established. Nothing will diminish now. Part of the pleasure of working on the Manhattan Project articles has been ensuring that Uanna, and others like him receive due acknowledgment, and will not be written out. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

"Their seed shall remain for ever, and their glory shall not be blotted out. Their bodies are buried in peace; but their name liveth for evermore." Ecclesiasticus 44:14-15

Thank you Hawkeye7. I really appreciate your input. Ecclesiastes 9:13-18 CIC7 (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

FOI disclosures

The material here is not verifiable and of questionable utility in the article. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

(below moved from Figureofnine talk page Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC))

Hello. Can you tell me what information prompted you to undo. As I think you know William "Bud" Uanna was my father. I have a wealth of information about him. I think he was a part of history. Can we discuss this on my User talk:CIC7 page? Thank you, Steven Uanna CIC7 (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

See above. See previous discussions re WP:OR. Also the material in question, and the other text you reverted yesterday, is trivia and puffery in additional to being original research. Not going to repeat myself, even if I had the time to deal with your refusal to "get" Wiki policies, so that is all I have to say on this. (Note: user blocked 24 hours but presumably will be free to contribute to this page upon lifting of block) Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

To CIC7

Steven will you please respond to the note I left at your talk page here? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC) Talk:William L. Uanna/GA3

Hello. Jytdog has informed me about the Wikipedia policies, we discussed them on my CIC7 Talk page and I will do my best to follow the guidelines. CIC7 (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight

Am tagging per my comment in the reassessment. There is insufficient text on Uanna's role in the Manhattan Project. I think that is self-evident. We don't even have an enough for a separate section. Absurd. Will address this personally upon my return to regular editing but am tagging in the interim. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Have removed tag, as noted, because the amount of text on the project has been greatly expanded. I hope to contribute to this section myself but at this time am contributing only sporadically. I would implore my brethren to concentrate on this and not on the postwar career, which at this time is overemphasized and excessive in detail. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 11:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Community reassessment

William L. Uanna

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Keep This is coming up to a year now since it was opened, so it is well beyond time it is closed. This was nominated on three criteria 3a (Broadness), 5 (Stability) and 2 (Verifiabilty). It is not specified exactly what verifiabilty criteria it fails, but I feel it is safe to assume 2b and 2c. The broadness issue has been resolved during the review. Stability is not a good reason to delist an article; otherwise articles would qualify for delisting whenever an edit war broke out. It is more a convenience criteria for reviewers (it is hard/impossible to review an article that is constantly changing). In any case there has been no recent stability concerns. That leaves verifiability. The issue here relates to the use of primary sources. As has been pointed out primary sources are not disallowed so what we really need are instances of unreliable primary sources used for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons. No one has actually provided examples of this. Therefore I am closing this as keep. AIRcorn (talk) 06:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I've commenced this reassessment because

1. The article fails GA Criteria No. 3 by focusing in excessive detail on non-notable and trivial biographical details, with insufficient attention - only one paragraph - on the primary reason for Uanna's notability, his role as security officer in the Manhattan Project, for which he was a subject of a number of movie portrayals and extensive mentions in secondary sources oddly not utilized in the preparation of this article. The article fails WP:UNDUE by failing to give appropriate weight to this aspect of his life. I would template for undue emphasis but I am not sure it's appropriate while this GA review is pending.

2. The article has been a subject of edit warring by a COI editor, is unstable and is tagged for major issues: excess reliance on primary sources and COI, as it was created by and was principally edited until a few days ago by a self-described connected editor, the son of the subject. More than four out of ten edits to the article were by the COI editor, more than any other editor. Because of these serious issues it fails GA Criteria No. 5 and meets criteria No. 3 for immediate failure. (Note also removal of "resume" cleanup tag after commencement of this review [1] by an involved editor. I believe this tag should not have been removed.)

3. It rather blatantly fails GA Criteria No. 2, "Verifiable with no original research." The majority of footnotes are to original research uploaded to Commons by the son of the subject.

There are problems with the following references:

• 1. "Uanna – Public Member Trees". Ancestry.com. Retrieved October 22, 2013.
• 2. "Anthony Uanna from Ward 3 Medford in 1940 Census District 9-318". Archive.com. Retrieved September 3, 2015.
• 6, 7, 8. pages from Uanna, William (November 19, 1956). "Bud Uanna Foreign Service Essay". Wikimedia Commons.
• 9. "William L Uanna". World War II U.S. Army Enlistments U.S. Army Enlistment Record. Retrieved October 25, 2013.
• 10. (six footnotes) "FBI background check on William Lewis Uanna". Wikimedia. March 31, 1947.
• 13. "Bud Uanna AEC FBI Armed Forces Special Weapons Project V.P. Keay to D.M. Ladd". February 2, 1948.
• 14. "Bud Uanna Armed Forces Special Weapons Project requesting investigations for personnel that will maintain the Atomic Bombs and the facilities where they are stored". July 1, 1949.
• 17. Uanna, William (November 19, 1956). "Bud Uanna Foreign Service Essay". Wikimedia Commons. p. 5.

Except for the first Ancestry link, which goes to user-created content, and the second Ancestry link, which goes to a census page, the remainder go to self-published primary source material uploaded to Commons by the son of the subject. WP:PRIMARY requires that primary sources must be "reputably published" and this is self-published original research.

--Coretheapple (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC) (revised 02:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC))

Primary sources are permitted to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source. The upload to Commons is merely to make it easier for us to collaborate and verify the source. The documents are all available through NARA. There is no question about their authenticity. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

They also have to be "reputably published." The COI editor's word processor is not a reputable publisher. NARA isn't a reputable publisher, it is a document repository where people go and request material via the FOI act in the course of their original research. And surely you're not suggesting that NARA documents are verifiable because you or I can file an FOI request, pay some bucks, and then wait a year or two for compliance? You're not seriously suggesting that I hope? Commons is not a reputable publisher, it is a conduit for any member of the public who wants to upload stuff. What we're talking about here is OR that he's put on Commons and that you've allowed to source the article. Coretheapple (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

NARA is a reputable publisher. Publication is defined as being made available to the public. I have spent a lot of time there, and you don't need an FOI request for material more than 30 years old. The documents are not being published by Commons, just being made easier for us to verify them. Commons, Wikinews and Wikisource were established precisely for this purpose! Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think we can accept that every government agency is a publisher because it makes documents available to the public. By using primary source materials to such a massive extent, you've deep-dived into his career to an almost absurd extent, with intricate details that really belong on a personal website. He is notable primarily for his work on the Manhattan Project, and there is all of one paragraph on that. That is what happens when a COI editor dominates the editing of an article and pours the product of his original research into the article. Come to think of it, that is actually a somewhat more serious issue than even the sourcing and I've added it above. Coretheapple (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I have written over 200 biographical articles, and this is their nature. Most are famous for one thing but it was only a small part of their life. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

A Google Books search for Uanna shows two books on the Manhattan Project, both of which contain much interesting material on Uanna related to his work on the Project. I find it odd to say the least that neither of these books is utilized in the preparation of this article. I would urge that you remove the excessive details that you have on his various duties and functions and focus on his work for the notable atomic bomb project, so that the latter is given proper weight. Since apparently it did not much interest the COI editor it got short shrift. This article is little more than a memorial website with great masses of trivial material, and I do not understand why it is so when there is source material to prevent that from occurring. With all due respect, I simply at a loss to understand why you leaned so heavily on the COI editor's hand-picked primary sources on minor details of his life, when there were not one but two perfectly usable secondary sources that delved into the most notable aspect of Uanna's career. The fact that you've done 200 bios just makes me even more mystified. Coretheapple (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The Manhattan Project has its own article, which I improved and took to FAC. Running the search myself turns up mentions of Uanna in several books about the atomic bombing mission, including Harlow Russ' Project Alberta, Paul Tibbets' Tibbets Story and Leslie Groves' Now It Can Be Told. More interestingly, Advanced Criminal Investigations and Intelligence Operations talks about his establishment of the Q Clearance, and four books mention his movie and television portrayals, notably Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image in Film. This establishes his notability; but readers do not come to the article to find out about the Manhattan Project; they come to find out about Uanna. To be comprehensive, a biographical article needs to cover the biographical details, and the article does that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Uh yeah, I imagine the Manhattan Project would have its own article. The fact that you don't see a problem in the little in this article on Uanna's role in that project is less than startling at this point. And by the way, I assume that he is in that "military images in film" book because of his work on the Manhattan Project, which is now given far less attention in this article than is warranted by WP:UNDUE. It really deserves a maintenance tag for that, but I don't think it's appropriate for me to do so while this is pending. I don't believe that it is in the "nature" of biographies to underweight major aspects of a subject's life. If there are multiple books on the project with references to Uanna, not just the two that turned up on the first page of the search, than the underweighting is even more inexcusable. Coretheapple (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Delist In addition to the given reasons, reads like a resume. 2600:1017:B40F:A478:44:8E3B:210:559D (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

  WP:GAR requires you to be logged in. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

  No, afraid not. See talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Keep (after tweaks): overall, the article seems to conform with what I would expect of a biography, having seen a few come through ACR and FAC. Remember we are telling the whole story of the man's life, so we need to be careful not to overload the article with too much detail on one aspect (remember also he was a pretty junior officer at the time, too). I would like to see a few tweaks, though, for instance:
  • some more references to secondary sources if possible;
  • references added to the Film portrayals section;
  • the imaging/description pages need work. For instance, "File:Bud Uanna State Department 3jpg.jpg" should include the date of when it was taken, not when it was uploaded or scanned. Same same with "File:Bud Uanna State Department 1jpg.jpg", and "File:Bud Uanna War 3jpg.jpg" and "File:Bud Uanna State Department 2jpg.jpg". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I have made the suggested changes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
      • I hope that we can cut back on some of the material in the overlong postwar section. Were it not for the primary sourcing it would not be in the article, and I think it overweights, though not so dramatically as to warrant a tag at least in my opinion. Building up the section further as has been done recently makes this problem worse. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
• Delist. Traveling now so don't really have the opportunity to go into enormous detail, but I agree with Core's analysis. For some time I have been troubled by the COI editor's dominance of this article, and I agree that his influence has resulted in a ridiculous situation. Uanna is notable for his work at the Manhattan Project, where he was security chief. I agree, we don't want the entire article on that. But just a couple of sentences? Ridiculous. It is barely mentioned in this article at all! I am guilty as any for not previously even noticing that. Primary sources are overused, to be sure. That is a problem. The fact that there is insufficient material on the Manhattan Project to warrant a separate section is indicative of the extent to which this article fails to properly cover the subject. So I therefore agree that it must be delisted and I frankly am surprised that other editors fail to recognize this serious flaw, which clearly indicates a lack of broad coverage required for GA status. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

  Perhaps because the GA "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

  Perhaps if persons other than fellow Military History Project coordinators commented on this article we might get a less self-serving view of the article's obvious imbalance. I would be curious to see the views of editors who perhaps are less steeped in the minutae to which this article is over-dedicated, to the detriment of material that would interest the general reader. Coretheapple (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Keep The article is well-written, well-sourced, broadly covers the topic and is illustrated by appropriate images. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

  I have added some more material on the Manhattan Project. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

  I am glad to see this, and the text that you added is interesting and useful. In my opinion this section needs to be fleshed out fully so that it receives its proper emphasis in the article. Obviously managing the security for the atomic bomb squadron is far more notable than anything else he may have done in his life. The article as currently written unfortunately is bogged down in trivia still, largely due to an overreliance on primary source material on secondary aspects of his career. Coretheapple (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - for now at least. While I agree that there have been some valid concerns raised per Coretheapple's commentary above and Figureofnine, it seems to me that much of it has been addressed by a number of editors working in good faith to improve the article. At any rate GAs are not meant to be perfect, and this one does seem to be adequate enough to not warrant delisting, while further improvements can of course continue to be made. FWIW the article seems to cover the individual's life as a whole, which is what I'd expect from a biography, so I'd actually be concerned about UNDUE if it mainly focused on his involvement in the Manhattan project. Finally, if the COI issues were to reappear and become persistent then that might change the equation but at this stage it seems to be being managed. Anotherclown (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The amount of material on the Manhattan Project was expanded sufficiently in my opinion to warrant removal of the undue weight tag. I am afraid that the other tags do point to issues in the article that unfortunately remain, and the Manhattan Project section definitely can be expanded perhaps into subsections too. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC) This is the type of nonsense that has kept this article a mishmash of trivia. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with User:AustralianRupert. The article conforms to what a Wikipedia biography should consists of, and I also agree that it is along the lines (in terms of similarity of content) compared to other Wikipedia bios. However, I feel like the "Film portrayals" section should be expanded (and could be expanded). The Above and Beyond "sort-of" statements should follow each portrayal; including with films Hiroshima and Enola Gay: The Men, the Mission, the Atomic Bomb. Most of what brought this article to the reassessment discussion has been handled, so I don't see the need to delist it, especially now. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC).
• Comment: I was invited to participate in the discussion by Figureofnine on my Talk page. While going through the article, I noticed that I relies to a large extent on primary source. Would this not be a concern for a GA article? Since it seems to suggest that the material being cited has not been noted by secondary sources, and thus could be not important and indeed unneeded intricate detail. There are close to 40 citations to such primary sources:
  • "Uanna – Public Member Trees". Ancestry.com. Retrieved October 22, 2013.
  • "Anthony Uanna from Ward 3 Medford in 1940 Census District 9-318". Archive.com. Retrieved September 3, 2015.
  • "Tufts Quarterback is Due Back Today". Lowell Sun. October 18, 1932. p. 38. Retrieved October 22, 2013. (subscription required (help)).
  • "NCAA 1931" (PDF). National Collegiate Athletic Association. Retrieved October 25, 2013.
  • a b c d e f g h i j k l "Security is his Job – William Lewis Uanna". The New York Times. July 26, 1958. Archived from the original on October 22, 2013. Retrieved October 22, 2013.
  • Uanna, William (November 19, 1956). "Bud Uanna Foreign Service Essay". Wikimedia Commons. p. 1.
  • Uanna, William (November 19, 1956). "Bud Uanna Foreign Service Essay". Wikimedia Commons. p. 2.
  • Uanna, William (November 19, 1956). "Bud Uanna Foreign Service Essay". Wikimedia Commons. p. 4.
  • "William L Uanna". World War II U.S. Army Enlistments, U.S. Army Enlistment Record. U.S. Army. Retrieved October 25, 2013.
  • a b c d e f g "FBI background check on William Lewis Uanna". Wikimedia Commons. March 31, 1947.
  • a b c d e f g h "Short Biographical Sketch of William Uanna". Archived from the original on October 22, 2013. Retrieved October 22, 2013.

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Newspaper articles are not primary sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Newspapers are down there on the list of RS unless written as an investigative report by a notable writer. Regardless, this still leaves about 30 citations to primary sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Delist: the article is not stable (subject to some edit warring) and some of the sources are problematic (heavy reliance on primary sources, indicating that the details cited may not be important). I'm sure the article can be improved and be re-nominated for GA in the future. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The point about edit warring is correct. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that everyone stop editing the article until the review is over. Bold editing is not the way to go here. It is clear that there are pretty entrenched differences of opinion, so the only way to move forward is to wait for a few other opinions to swing the consensus either way (to delist or not) and then accept it (whatever the outcome) and move on. The best way to achieve this may be a Request for Comment. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Keep The reasons have been well-established by the other keep reviewers. There is also some rather odd stuff going on here with some of the contributors to the review. Editors shouldn't be being BOLD while the review is ongoing, as that automatically affects the stability criteria and shows a distinct lack of respect for our processes. K.e.coffman once again demonstrates a lack of understanding of the notability policy and its application, comprehensiveness, the parameters of reliability, and the proper use of primary sources in articles. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The absence of a Manhattan Project segment or barely a mention of that, a principal flaw and reason this reassessment was started, was rectified during the course of the reassessment. There are other flaws: primary sources, unencyclopedic detail, which has resulted in extensive instability in this article. Indeed, instability in the form of editing warring over trivia was the proximate cause of the ANI. The article is being improved and is halfway toward the goal of not being a personal website containing family nostalgia and patently nonessential material, like the reading matter of the subject of the article while studying up for a non-notable aspect of his career. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It is worth noting that Uanna's Who's Who entry merely notes that he served in the Army during World War II. So that source considered him notable for his other work. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe Who's Who in America entries are written by the subject. Coretheapple (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• I believe that this article has been greatly improved since I commenced this GAR. References to the Manhattan Project have gone from nil to an entire section. The article still relies excessively on primary sources, which appear to be fragments of larger documents uploaded piecemeal to Commons. Though most trivia has been removed, there is still an overambundance of intricate detail. Coretheapple (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This is a well-written article about a significant individual. It seems like it was tagged mainly for using primary sources, but there's nothing wrong with using primary sources for basic information. There is a featured article on [Altgens] that also uses lots of primary sources for the same type of information.Homemade Pencils (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Note The above !vote is from an effectively new user and is clearly not based on the GA criteria, as well as apparently indicating not having read the OP's delisting rationale, which focused largely on GAC#3. This is not, technically, a case where Template:Single-purpose account can be invoked, but this user's edits to the Wikipedia namespace have almost uniformly been disruptive and should probably be evaluated on that basis. Their edits to other namespaces have almost all been minor, which makes it look like a troll attempting to cover their tracks by making a lot of kinda-sorta constructive edits but focusing most of their efforts on !voting against community consensus. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

None of my edits have been disruptive. The reasons for delisting this article are simply flawed. If you don't have anything constructive to say, then you don't need to say anything.Homemade Pencils (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I am troubled by the usage of primary documents:

1. What confirmation do we have that Uanna himself is the writer of the Foreign Service essay, used for Ref 6, 7, 8, and 23? Was it ever published anywhere? Why was it written?
2. What is the provenance of the FBI background check document on William Lewis Uanna? It's used to source 6 different statements. Shearonink (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Brava/bravo, @Shearonink:, spot on. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Strong delist. There is no real question here. The only sound rationale based on the criteria, and emphasizing WP policies and Guidelines, is that of Core. We are not deleting the article, we are saying simply saying it is not Good. Because it is not. The preponderance of references to self-published (family-published), non-third part sources alone should make this clear. In the sciences, this would have been a 30 minute discussion and a unanimous delist. So delist it already, to give impetus to its improvements, so interested editors can sort the warring problems, and make clear to the "owning" editor that the citations to his families stories at the ancestry sites are not valid encyclopedic sources. Let the article work back to being Good. Don't redefine Good to keep things you like or want. If everything (like this) is good, nothing really is. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

William L. Uanna Marine Security Guards

I would like to open a discussion about Uanna's career at the U.S. Department of State where he was the Chief of the Division of Physical Security and his relation to the Marine Security Guards. Uanna appears to have had a varied career after the Manhattan Project and the Marine Security Guards - MSG's appear to be one of his accomplishments at the State Department. I refer to the line "Over time, the Marine Security Guards have become the "custodians"...My issue is the term "over time" as if it just evolved. In fact they are "custodians" by law - Title 10 USC 5983. This can be viewed at www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/5983. The web site Marine Corps Embassy Security Guard Group at www.msg-history.com/detachments/MCESC/MCESC_V.1.html gives a timeline of events leading up to the law. "Over time" is an oversimplification of the difficulty encountered by the Department of State and Marine Corps to bring the Marines into the Department of State. It almost did not happen. This is explained at the Security of the Department of State web site at www.state.gov/documents/organization/176702.pdf. Start at p.137 for the Marine Security Guard Story. Uanna is pictured some pages down and some of his duties described. I invite other editors to review these documents and consider revising the "over time" statement. It diminishes the efforts put into the Marine Guard program, like diplomatic immunity and Top Secret Clearances for the Guards. Uanna may have played the leading role at the Department of State. He is the only civilian on the stage in the picture showing the Marine Guard graduation that is featured on the William L. Uanna page and a photo on Category:Bud Uanna on Wikimedia - Bud Uanna State Department Marine Security Guards p.2.jpg shows him shaking hands with a Marine officer. The picture is signed "To Wm. L. Uanna with sincere appreciation, R.E. Roach. A Lt. Col. R.E. Roach is listed as the Commanding Officer of the Marine Security Guards on the Marine Corps Embassy Security Guard Group web site timeline referred to above. CIC7 (talk) 02:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi CIC7 - what would be most useful, would be to write here what language you would like to see. Like: Can we please change ""Over time, the Marine Security Guards have become the "custodians"" to "blah blah blah" cited to these sources:

• Title 10 USC 5983
• Chapter 4, McCarthyism and the Cold War: Diplomatic Security in the 1950s p. 137 in History of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security of the United States Department of State United States Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, Printed October 2011

Please note that www.msg-history.com/detachments/MCESC/MCESC_V.1.html is a dead link.

Please provide the exact change you would like to see and please make sure that the sources you give provide support for the content. Thx Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I will write a suggested change. The link I provided to the Marine Corps Embassy Security Group website does work on the search engine "mywebsearch" it takes you to their search engine page and that takes you to the timeline section within the MCESG website to view the timeline of events concerning the Marines and the State Department. Also I wanted to mention that notes 42, 48 and 57 of Chapter 4 of the Department of State website mentioned above show more of Uanna's involvement bringing the Marines into the Department of State. CIC7 (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Great editing. Can we please change: "He them published the Protection of Dignitaries Manual and developed the handbook used at the training school for Marine Security Guards who would be employed as "custodians" of U. S. Embassies, legations and consulates overseas." to "He then published the Protection of Dignitaries Manual and developed the handbook used at the training school for Marine Security Guards who would be posted to U. S. Embassies, legations and consulates overseas as "custodians". This seems like a small change but I suggest this because my reading of the Wikipedia Marine Security Guard page linked to William L. Uanna seems to describes the Marines position not as employees but unique and elite members of the diplomatic community. I had thought of using the term "deployed" but that seems like a term that should be used for larger military groups. CIC7 (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. CIC7 (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

This strikes me as excessive and unnecessary detail in a section of the article that needs to be cut back, not expanded. If there is going to be bloat in the non-Manhattan Project areas of this article then it is a backwards step. This strikes me as routine biographical material and not especially notable. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

509th Composite Group Security

I would like to open a discussion about making additions to the paragraph next to and below the picture of Uanna in his military uniform on Tinian Island in 1945. After the line that ends with "...the combat element of the 509th Composite Group." I would like to suggest adding "The dossiers represented the most thorough investigation to date secretly carried out in the name of the United States Government."

And after the line that ends "...back to prison for any dereliction of duty or security breaches." I would like to suggest adding "Tibbets liked Uanna's style, he was coolly pleasant and uninterested in anything but his work." This information is from pp. 23-24 of the book RUIN FROM THE AIR by Gordon Thomas and Max Morgan Witts, the same book that is noted and referenced in the existing paragraph although it is noted on pp. 45-46 in the existing paragraph's notes. My copy is the First Scarborough House Paperback Edition 1990. The paperback edition states that the book ENOLA Gay was first published in the United States by Stein and Day and that RUIN FROM THE AIR is an expanded version and was published in hardcover in Great Britain by Hamish Hamilton, Ltd. Copyright 1977. Near the bottom of the page it states - Reprint. Originally published: London: Hamilton, 1977. CIC7 (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

What is the source for the change in the first paragraph? Please remember that for every change you propose you also need to suggest a reliable source. And if you format that source so it can be copy/pasted folks here will have less effort to implement your suggestions - it is in your interest to make this easy for them.  :) Jytdog (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. The source is the same: RUIN FROM THE AIR pp. 23-24 1990 paperback, but I think it is the same reading as the hardback pp.46-46 which I do not have. This section was edited recently by another editor. CIC7 (talk) 11:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Any suggestions on expanding the Manhattan Project section would be welcome. Ihave split off as a separate section. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Trivia

The material reverted here meets the definition in my opinion, compounded by its WP:PRIMARY sourcing and its WP:COI origin. My optimism on the ability to improve this article is fading considering the WP:OWN character of the editing of this article, which has kept this article overly detailed to an extreme extent and containing much extraneous and insignifcant information. The fact that the subject of the article claimed in a primary source document that he read certain material related to a secondary aspect of his career is non-encyclopedic. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Uanna thought it was worth mentioning in his Foreign Service Essay on p.2 which can be viewed through the Wikimedia Commons Bud Uanna link on William L. Uanna. I can only guess but I think having City Manager information helped him at Oak Ridge where according to his autobiography at the Atomic Heritage Foundation "www.atomicheritage.org/profile/william-l-bud-uanna" he managed the police, detectives and welfare bureau. Also, he appears to have been a City Manager of sorts on Tinian Island. Page 5 of his Foreign Service Essay states that he was working on his doctorate degree in Public Administration. And knowing how a city runs probably helped him in his coordination of security for visiting diplomats during the Cold War. Knowing the ins and outs of city life may have helped him manage security at Oak Ridge where any number of issues could arise. The United States did not have the luxury that Germany and Japan did - slave labor. And he was the Administrative Officer in Addis Ababa at the time of his death, I think that means he managed the Embassy. I suggest we keep it in - I think it was a tool he used. CIC7 (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

But it's just reading he did to prepare for this position. We're getting in the weeds here. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree. Qualifications are relevant to a biographical article, and his self-study tells us about his character. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

One way to solve this is whether any independent source mentions this. If so that is a good argument against TRIVIA. Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

City Manager is mentioned again at Wikimedia Bud Uanna, the link from William L. Uanna. It is the image 3/4 of the way down the page, right above the image of his passport. But, this is listed as background information for his Foreign Service Essay prepared by Uanna. Also - It is listed on p.3188 of Volume 32 of WHO'S WHO IN AMERICA 1962 - 1963, his listing finishes with: Served with AUS 1941-1947. Registered profl. civil engr., Mo. Mem. Mass., Fed. bar assns., Internat. City Mgrs. Assn. Address: American Embassy APO 319, N.Y.C. I don't know how WHO'S WHO collects it's information. Perhaps it is supplied by the individual listed. If so, for what it's worth, Uanna thought the International City Managers Association worth mentioning along with his engineering registration and bar membership. CIC7 (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The question is not about his City Manager Association affilation job but this bit about his reading that book many times. And I asked if there are independent sources and you have not brought any. Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC))

OK, I am in the weeds. What are we talking about? It appears Uanna read the seven volumes several times then became a cooperating member of the City Managers Association in 1940. Trivia would seem to me to be "he liked to refinish furniture in his spare time." Apparently he listed this among his accomplishments. Can we mention that he read the books? Can we mention that he was a City Managers Association member? The Wikipedia's listing for City Manager shows that it is a very interesting position, the Profile shows that in the early years they were usually engineers Uanna was an engineer today they usually require a Masters in Public Administration, Uanna was working on his Doctorate. CIC7 (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

He never was a city manager and his reading a book is only tangentially related to his notability. Apart from the subject and a document you obtained via the FOI Act, where is the independent sourcing of this or for that matter any of the primary sourced material you have obtained for this article on your father? For some months now I have been perplexed by first the extent to which this article has been salted with trivial details, and now by the fierce defense of every single bit of trivia in the article, and the kneejerk defense of its GA status by coordinators of the Milhist project in the GAR even when it had virtually nothing on why he is notable. It is strange. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 03:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Please try and keep things civil. Labelling editors' actions/opinion as kneejerk and "strange" is not conducive to collaboration. It is easy to find pejorative ways of describing someone's actions. Perhaps you could apply the same good faith to others here that you expect them to show you. Please remember that others are allowed to hold contrary opinions and that sometimes consensus is about compromise (on both sides). Beyond that, on many of your points I happen to agree with you (to an extent), which is why I have tried to tighten the article as best I can. That being said, overall, I'd say it is close to being what I would expect to find in a biography on a person (I've reviewed quite a few for GA, ACR and FAC, and I have written a few which have been published professionally offline). That being said, I wouldn't personally include some of the information that is currently in the article (the anecdote about the conversation with Russ on the plane and the missing shirt for instance), but equally I disagree with the characterization that it focuses unduly on intricate details. Indeed, I think it still needs a little bit more about his personal life if it could be reliably sourced (not a lot more, but some information on when and where he he met his wife, when were they married etc) and also some explanation about why he was commissioned into the engineers but assigned to the CIC as Director of Operations. Where possible, primary sources should be replaced by secondary ones also, but remember WP:PRIMARY does not totally preclude use of such sources. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It is what it is, which is strange, and I am not the only editor to notice about project coordinators rallying around another project coordinator to defend an article at a time when it clearly and obviously gave insufficient attention to the most notable aspect of this man's career (if we determine notability on the basis of secondary sources and not FOI documents obtained by the son of the subject). The article was approved for GA status with almost nothing on what makes this man notable, which is that he was in charge of security for the first atomic bomb! That is why he is the subject of so many film portrayals. Not because he was on the football team or was in the CIC corps or the State Department. I'm not blameless in this; this article simply was not on my radar. I suggest that you not flaunt all the reviews you've done if you think it is OK for an article to be so ridiculous imbalanced and packed with trivia like "he sold his home." WTF? "He sold his home"?????? That's not trivia? Why in this edit did you remove about him submitting names to the FBI while retaining that he "sold his home"? Please explain your rationale. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Just to be very clear as to what I am referring to when I say "strange," I am referring to this version of the article, which made it seem as if the Manhattan Project was just a secondary aspect of his life. Its unjustified GA status (in that version) is then defended as perfectly fine. The reader knows more about what's important about this man by watching the James Whitmore movie than reading this article. I would say "strange" is an understatement.Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't flaunting anything, merely pointing out that this compares with what I've seen elsewhere at high levels of assessment and offline (not really sure how else I can say that). Equally, there is no need to shout in your edit statements or call things ridiculous or say "WTF" about other people's edits or opinions. My rationale for my edit was that I was making an effort to reduce some of the detail of the article, which is, I believe what you have been asking for. I removed a large part of the sentence because it seemed like a run of the mill part of his job as security officer (I filed 20 of those applications last week in fact at my work where security officer is only a secondary appointment i.e. I'm expected to do it in my own time). If I got it wrong, apologies. That said, you will find people more amenable to your position if you use a less disparaging approach. As I said, I happen to agree with you on a number of your points. Please read the comments at the GAR again. I said "keep (with tweaks)" and then I listed several significant issues. Anotherclown also acknowledged that there were issues, but pointed out that this is only a GA, which means it doesn't have to be perfect. So, no it wasn't defended as "perfectly fine". There has been considerable editorial effort put into improving the article by a number of people. If you wish for people to continue to make an effort, encouraging them would be a better way to achieve that. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

No we don't allow grossly unbalanced articles as Good Articles. That's a totally incorrect statement; it is cotnrary to the GA criteria. We don't let basket cases like this limp along until they are FA. And no, I think we have quite enough on Mr. Uanna's personal life, and your comment about adding material on how he met his wife, and your edit cited above, indicate that we have different views of what constitutes trivia. And with that, I have pretty much exhausted the spare time that I can devote to Wikipedia. Thanks for taking up my time with this useless discussion. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

On further consideration I agree that submitting names to the FBI is as trivial as his selling his house. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 02:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Further personal details

I found an article that sheds some light on where Uanna met his wife. It is a front page story in the MEDFORD MERCURY from Tuesday, February 28, 1956 entitled "Top Security Post.... Ex-Medford Athlete Now Guards World Diplomats" by Al Frezza. It also has a picture of Uanna - the same picture on his passport. It continues on p.7 with "Now living in Washington, Uanna is married to the former Bonnie Leonard of Knoxville, Tenn., who was his secretary while he was assigned to the Atomic Energy Commission. The position of Chief of Physical Security is somewhat opposite to playing football, teaching, legal work or engineering but Uanna say's "it's interesting." The story I heard is that 27 year of Bonnie Leonard was working out of the secretarial pool at the Pentagon in Washington and living in the women's dormitory which was nearby called Arlington Hall in 1947. Every day she would be given her assignment and would get on the back of an electric cart and be driven to "who knows where" in the labyrinth halls of the Pentagon to type, take shorthand or file. One day her assignment was: Major Uanna. At the end of the day she got on a cart and went back to the pool. The next day the dispatcher said that Major Uanna had called the pool and said "Send that girl back." She became his personal secretary. Some of the first work she did was making corrections on a report that Uanna had typed about the Manhattan Project. After corrections and editing it was to be re-typed as a permanent record. She recounted how she had to white out the word "Punkin" and re type "Pumpkin" and she said that this was in reference to the practice bombs the 509th Composite Group used to practice for the Atomic Strike. They were married on August 29, 1947 in Washington. Shortly after that they moved to Kansas City, Missouri where Uanna oversaw the construction of the Atomic Bomb storage bases. They had not been there long when they sold their home "at a loss" which irritated her because they had put a lot of work into it but did not bother Uanna, and this irritated her. According to her Uanna did not care about money and was "generous to a fault." They moved back to Washington where Uanna went to work for the CIA. History, nostalgia, trivia...I know it is difficult to sift. Sometimes truth bursts upon the scene, other times it evolves and you have to beat the bushes to find it. Obviously the information above would only be interesting to a small audience. But it does show some of the back story and the human side. I'll do what I can to help. I am trying to understand where William l. Uanna is headed. Granted, his Manhattan Project work was part of history but his career in the Cold War was notable too. The Manhattan Project was the beginning of the Arms Race and the proverbial Military Industrial Complex. CIC7 (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Correction: Bonnie Leonard was not staying at "Arlington Hall" when she met Major Uanna but at Arlington Farms. The dormitories were called "halls." CIC7 (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I've separated this into a different section, if you don't mind. WP:NOTEVERYTHING discusses why we do not include all facts about a subject, even if sourced, and that would seem to cover what you are suggesting here. Have you considered creating a personal family website into which you can deposit documentation and also personal details that don't make the cut for Wikipedia? This article probably could link to it in the "external links" section. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@CIC7: Do you have a source for the wedding date? Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. 2 sources so far. Among her personal employment papers she states that she was married in Washington, D.C. on August 29, 1947. And, same document, I see that she lived in Rm.H-121, Kansas Hall - Arlington, Va. Aug. 1946 - Aug. 1947. WHO'S WHO gives the date as Aug. 27, 1947. CIC7 (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

G'day, I think it would be ok to mention the marriage date and place, but only very briefly (i.e a single sentence). I wouldn't suggest using the personal employment papers as references. The Who's Who reference should be ok, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I was looking through some of Uanna's newspaper clippings compiled by his mother. There are quite a number with Uanna mentioned and or pictured from his days at MEDFORD HIGH SCHOOL and TUFTS COLLEGE. Some from the Boston Globe and others no doubt from local papers around Boston. I'll mention 2 articles for now. Neither has the newspaper or the date but 1928 is penciled in under this: MEDFORD RUNNERS START FOR PHILADELPHIA TODAY - State Relay Champions After National High School Mile Championship at Penn - Sprint Team Also to Compete - Six Athletes Make Trip. Medford, April 25 - Six Medford High School Relay Men, accompanied by Edwin F. Pigeon will leave tomorrow at 9am for the University of Pennsylvania Relay Carnival. Uanna is pictured and the article says that he will compete in the 440 yard sprint. It looks like the Medford track team were the State Champs, now going to the Penn State Relays. Another article pictures Uanna in a suit and tie and says: Buddy Uanna was a half back on the 1928 undefeated (Medford High) club. He graduated from Tufts last year, but this year will graduate with his Master's degree. Buddy will be recalled as one of the All-Scholastic halfbacks in schoolboy days and he carried on in the same fashion on the Jumbo (Tufts) eleven. Small in stature, along the Henry Hormel type, a real speedster, Buddy was a terror on an end run or if he ever got loose through the secondary. Aggressive, he gave grid fans many a thrill on the football field. In track he was the mainstay in the dashes and the running broad jump, both at Medford High and at Tufts. He was also a star on the Jumbo wrestling team. (He was the New England 145 lb. Champion and went to the quarter finals in the National Wrestling Championship) He has been practicing teaching at Medford High for the past few months and plans to enter the teaching profession in the fall. So: Went to the Penn State Relays. According to the articles was a key player on the 1928 undefeated Medford High Football team. Was a three letter man at Tufts - track, football, wrestling - excelled in each. Plus, put himself through college on a football scholarship. If anyone wants me too I can dig deeper into these clippings. There is a lot of information, many pictures, even a cartoon of him running in football. Lots of background, especially the rivalry between Medford High School and arch rival Malden High School. Uanna's height (5'5") next to other players in the photographs is very obvious. CIC7 (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

1st Technical Service Detachment

Can a link be put on 1st Technical Service Detachment? And can we restore the references to Uanna's security responsibilities when he first entered the Counter Intelligence Corps. I don't know when they were taken out but they were there on 04:51 13 June 2016. And links can be added to "top secret" - keep the link to radar. I think this is important. Here is why: Bomb sights are mentioned - this must have been the Norden Bomb sight - the Wikipedia page shows Thomas Ferebee with a Norden in front to the Enola Gay. Firing mechanisms - this probably means Proximity Fuses. These were the most secret weapons leading up to the Atomic Bomb. In one of Uanna's background documents he said that he handled all the security for the tests done on Radar by the Army Air Corps. These weapons were major technological advances and were crucial to keeping the Axis from having an early victory and they bought time for the Allies. Radar defeated the Nazi Wolf Packs in the Atlantic. The Norden Bomb Sight and the Proximity Fuse were also very important. Uanna's involvement in these projects early in the war is noteworthy and was probably the reason he was given command of the 1st Technical Service Detachment. In a conversation I had with Jacob Beser I asked him if Uanna was just a security man or did he have a technical understanding of the Atomic Bomb. He said that he "absolutely" understood the most technical aspects. I have stated this before and it can be surmised from Uanna's educational accomplishments that he was a genius. Most likely a high genius. His wife stated that he had taken 3 different IQ type tests. He scored 160 - 180 - and topped out on the third. The information about radar, bomb sights and firing mechanisms can be seen at the Category:Bud Uanna Wikimedia page under State Department Bona Fides Foreign Service Background 1956 p.2.jpg. My understanding is that Uanna had these responsibilities as a Sergeant, before he went to Officer Candidate School. The CIC was made up of mostly enlisted men - all with IQ's over 120. They were not required to give their rank to anyone under the rank of General and if necessary they could say - "my rank is classified, in this investigation, I outrank you." I think Uanna kept on the cutting edge of technology in his post war career. He hired the anti bugging technicians at the Department of State and Otto Otepka told me that he gave an "amazing" demonstration to high ranking State and Defense Officials in 1955 demonstrating a laser beam directed against a pane of glass from a distance that could listen to a conversation on the other side of the glass. CIC7 (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

"I have stated this before and it can be surmised from Uanna's educational accomplishments that he was a genius. Most likely a high genius." -- WP:not a forum? K.e.coffman (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:not a forum? Did I do something wrong? Because I did not mean to break any rules. I am more familiar with the background documents than most. See what Dennis Flinn had to say about Uanna's mental abilities in the 1954 Performance Rating he gave him when Uanna became a physical security officer before he officially became Chief of the Division of Physical Security at the Department of State. It is the yellow colored document near the bottom of Category:Bud Uanna. "...profound knowledge of systems of procedures..." "...keen mind..." "...highly skilled in the preparation of directives, instruction manuals, lecture courses and procedures..." "He gets along well with people..." The 1955 Performance Review states "He is a forthright individual who commands the respect of his subordinates and fellow workers." Did I do something wrong? It seems that some do not want a human side to Uanna. If he was human then the idea that he was murdered...well then. Paul Tibetts liked Uanna's style, he was cooly pleasant and uninterested in anything but his work. Should that be included? Claude Eatherly's story is interesting. It is worth mentioning, but could we follow up on what Uanna's wife said. Because Uanna's advice to remove Eatherly from the 509th Composite Group was not followed he had to be watched for years, through the 1950's. The U.S. was afraid that he would defect to the Soviet Union and be used by them as a propaganda tool during the Cold War. Everything I read about Uanna indicates that he was almost always one step ahead. Like he was on the football field or on the track. The last thing I want to do is argue, use acronyms for curse word or say I have wasted quite enough of my time here - adios. No, I will stay as long as I am allowed, I just want a fair shake for the guy. CIC7 (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

CIC7 please restrain yourself. Writing walls of text like this is not appropriate. This is exactly what happens when people with a close personal connection are active at an article, and it is disruptive. Please limit yourself to proposing specific content that is supported by specific sources. If there is a discussion about X having too much or too little WP:WEIGHT, that discussion is mostly simply resolved by showing what weight 'independent secondary sources give X. You have all the independent secondary sources at your fingertips; please deploy that knowledge simply and concisely. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Footprints

lengthy permanent reminiscence largely unrelated to article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello again. I want to mention a few things. Get your opinions. What should a page contain? Nostalgia? Like the dream that haunted Bud Uanna's widow Bonnie for years after his death. She would be walking outside the fence line of the women's dormitory at Arlington Farms where she lived before they were married when she would encounter Uanna walking toward her. He would stop and stare at her somberly, never speaking. Sad, spooky? Lets go to another spooky place - Area 51. This place probably has his footprints all over it, but you wont hear much about him. In the Prologue to the book AREA 51 by Annie Jacobsen you learn that Area 51 was born out of the Manhattan Project "The Atomic Bomb was the mother of all black projects and it is the parent from which all black projects have sprung" and the Atomic Energy Commission from which the term "born classified" came. It mentions Secretary of War Stimson having to tell the new President Truman of the existence of the Atomic Bomb. Remember, Bud Uanna was the "Intelligence Officer for the Secretary of War on Tinian Island with the 509th Composite Group and then he set up the security at the AEC and wrote the Q Clearance. The book describes a debacle that Wackenhut Securities was involved in (P.337 - 338) but does not question of the wisdom of having a private security firm at such a secure site. And no one has really questioned the issue of the private guards that died along with Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi Libya. Should there have been an adequate contingent of Marine Security Guards? They are allowed to dress in civilian clothes. Hey, just like CIC Agents. Uanna addressed this issue on April 10, 1956 when he set up the Marine Security Guard School. See note 48 in Chapter 4 in the section above called William L. Uanna Marine Security Guards. "Marine Security Guard Personnel vs. U.S. Citizen Guard Personnel" Now think of this, William Boswell was the head of State Department Security when Uanna died and his son was forced to retire as head of Diplomatic Security over the Benghazi scandal. He is the "Eric" Hillary Clinton refers to in her Emails and the issue of security was central to Stevens death and Eric's exit from the State Department. But is he really gone? They thought he was gone before, is he still there? I am not going to give any examples of bugaboos like UFO's or the Kennedy Assassination but Uanna's footprints go there too. What I want you all to think about is like the question when you go to an art museum and someone asks "is it art"? Are these things history, interesting, motivation for more research. Some say that the statement at the end of the movie Enola Gay should not be on Uanna's page. What purpose does that serve? I want to say "how dare you" but really I am convinced time will tell. Footprints - he traveled with John Foster Dulles and met all the heads of state in the 50's, if there ever were great leaders this was their time. Did he know Allen Dulles, J. Edgar Hoover, Richard Nixon...what do you think? His FBI background investigation said he was "loyal, capable and of unimpeachable honesty and integrity" Why would somebody(s) want to kill a guy like that? CIC7 (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

This is where CIC7 is allowed to talk

Yes, this is where CIC7 can talk. Is it history? Thank you Jytdog. CIC7 (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes but you must make your posts concise and take greater care in relating them to the article. The consequences will be the least desirable possible from your perspective, which is that you will be ignored. I have reverted the removal of the wall of text above but that does not in any way constitute approval of the tactics that you are deploying here with some persistence. While I don't believe that your post above is harmful enough to necessitate removal, it is inappropriate and I have "hatted" it. You must either follow the rules here, which have been explained to you with excessive patience over a period of years, or find another hobby. Coretheapple (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Coretheapple. I will give some examples of how I think Uanna's career ties into other subjects, like the ones I mentioned above. Is there anyone reading this that is interested? But this involves broadening Uanna's material. Some of these subjects are described as conspiracy theories and those interested in them as conspiracy buffs. Like collecting coins or comic books. But I feel that for some people, at least for me, it is serious and not a time filler or morbid curiosity. They often involve people dying (JFK) or having their career ruined (Oppenheimer). So thanks again and I will think about it and I wish you all would too, think about how to refer to these other subjects and how they tie into Uanna's career. There is a direct connection to Oppenheimer on Category:Bud Uanna. And I think that some people would be interested in Arlington Farms where Uanna's wife lived, along with thousands of other "government girls" during and after WWII. CIC7 (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure but whatever you wish to add must be in reliable sources, as described in luxurious detail in WP:V. If they are not you will be wasting your time and irritating people. This is not rocket science, if you'll pardon the expression. Coretheapple (talk) 02:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Okey-dokey. Am I wasting my time and irritating people requesting that the statement made at the end of the movie ENOLA GAY about Uanna being murdered in Africa be allowed? It seems that some people are dead set, if you'll pardon the expression, dead set against allowing it. How does WP:V apply to this. It's a fact that it was at the end of the movie. If it is allowed should the reader be reminded that ENOLA GAY was after all just a made for TV docudrama so keep that in mind? It is beyond me why it cannot be allowed. It's a fact that it is in the movie. The movie said this is what happened to him after the war. Would those who are against it be willing to put a disclaimer next to it. Something like "HIGHLY UNLIKELY" See: (Talk pages of those opposed to including it). To me this comes down to an opinion. Does WP:V address this? CIC7 (talk) 14:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

That's discussed above at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:William_L._Uanna#.22Murder.22 I agree that its inclusion here is not appropriate on multiple grounds, including chiefly that a fictional movie's end titles don't even remotely meet the requirements of WP:V. The rest of your post indicates that you have not bothered to read the Wikipedia policies that have been patiently explained to you multiple times. Either that or you feel you are somehow exempt from them. Either way I am done here. Coretheapple (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You don't have to be done. You have your opinion and I have mine and apparently we need other opinions. What about a disclaimer. Don't be done. That's dead set. Is this really that important to you that it not be in there? You may not want to be on that side. In my opinion this is evidence in a case that has yet to be heard. So don't be done and let's get some more input. CIC7 (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The Dowry in Marriage

I cannot edit the Article. And it was suggested that the article be delisted! But I wish editors would broaden their vistas about "history" and available information. Uanna's son is apparently suspect. He has information, written in publications, FOIA and passed down by his mother. Admittedly some of her information was delivered under the influence of alcohol, but they were consistent deliveries over decades. I want to talk about Uanna's career, which revolves around the Manhattan Project. Because as the book AREA 51 says, that is where the present U.S. security structure began. But as we know Uanna's career in Intelligence and Security began before WW II with the Counter Intelligence Corps, before the CIC was given the security of the Manhattan Project. The book TUXEDO PARK by Jennet Conant describes the decision that Winston Churchill made before America entered WW II to give all of the British scientific developments to the United States. This was while the Nazis were on the French coast across the channel and the Blitz was going on. Jet engines, proximity fuses and the resonant cavity magnetron. Described as "a pearl beyond price" it would be the "dowry in marriage" between the United States and Britain. A giant leap forward in radar development and a gamble by Churchill it sealed the plans FDR and Churchill had already agreed upon to support each other. Bud Uanna handled all the security for Radar done by the Army Air Corps, which did the bulk of radar experimentation and development for the United States. In the 1950's when Uanna was the Chief of Physical Security at the U.S. Department of State he would protect Churchill when he came to the United States as Prime Minister of Britain. Among many scientists mentioned in the book is a little known man by the name of Carroll Wilson. He would send Uanna a letter of thanks after the war when they both worked at the Atomic Energy Commission. Wilson as General Manager and Uanna as Chief of the Office of Personnel Clearance. Wilson, like Robert Oppenheimer would fall out of favor when the Eisenhower Administration took over in 1953. Nuclear strategy would be influenced by people like Edward Teller, Leslie Groves and his deputy Kenneth Nichols who was instrumental in ousting Oppenheimer. From what I have read, Teller was a detriment to the Manhattan Project, always demanding his way. Nichols did Groves bidding. Groves was disrespectful of the scientists and in his book NOW IT Can BE TOLD does not mention Uanna once. Amazing because Uanna was everywhere on the Manhattan Project and was Secretary of War Stimson's representative on Tinian Island where the Atomic strike against Japan originated. My research has led me to the conclusion that Groves was a front. He was introduced to the public immediately after the bombs dropped and by January 1946 was gone from the project. And Nichols was on thin ice too. David Lilienthal's Journal describes how both were minimized. When Eisenhower became president their stars rose and Oppenheimer and the original members of the Manhattan Project were pushed aside. Teller's star was to soar. With the Cold War going full speed ahead, politics and science influenced by Nazi scientists ensconced here in the United States...anything was possible. How well did Teller get along with the Nazis? Was he involved with Sabatean Satanism? Did this mesh with their brand of Thule Society Ritual? What was really going on in New Orleans at the U.S. Public Health Hospital and Dr. Mary Sherman's singed corpse. What was Lee Harvey Oswald doing there. Why did he go to AEC facility at Oak Ridge, Tenn. around this time. See: ME and LEE, also: Dr. MARY's MONKEY. Mind Control, Astral Projection...maybe helped by electronics? At any rate, Uanna's career is not just the Manhattan Project. He met and hung out with all the world leaders in the 1950's. And he was a genius. Look at the cartoon on Category:Bud Uanna. He is being carried out still at work at his desk, which is covered with books and experiments. "Loyal, capable and of unimpeachable honesty and integrity" said the FBI background investigation. What good is a guy like that? Not any if you are planning a coup. Especially a coup so carefully crafted that even though many people sense one has happened they still get bogged down arguing how. Jack Ruby said a new form of government was going to take over. So again, my question...let's open up a discussion about whether the statement at the end of the movie ENOLA GAY can be included in Uanna's Article. You know, where it said he was murdered and all records have disappeared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CIC7 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Letter To Allen W. Dulles From William L. Uanna

Hello. I just finished David Talbot's book THE DEVILS CHESSBOARD Allen Dulles, the CIA and the Rise of America's Secret Government. And I discovered some recently released CIA documents on the internet on the CIA website by searching for "Letter to Allen W. Dulles from William L. Uanna." www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/search/site/William%20L.%20Uanna These documents involve the National Security Council Special Committee on Technical Surveillance Countermeasures NSC5610. William L. Uanna was the Acting Chairman. The documents include a request to Allen Dulles to describe CIA counter measures against enemy surveillance and Dulles' response. Counterintelligence Chief James Angleton is mentioned in the documents and they are heavily redacted in some parts, even though they cover a period from February 1957 to April 1957, 70 years ago. After reading Talbot's book I think that the request sent to Dulles by Uanna must have gone over like a lead balloon. Dulles was worse than J. Edgar Hoover when it came to being asked to give an account of his Agency's activities. What I take away from Talbot's book is that Dulles handled things by media manipulation, bribery and murder. And he did not like to be taken to task. Here someone on the NSC was asking him, of all things, about how the CIA handled "bugs." On Wikimedia - Category:Bud Uanna on the first line at the right is a hand written letter by Edward Lansdale of the Office of Special Operations of the Defense Department saying that "Folks in defense are quite surprised State is sending William Uanna to be an Administrative Officer in Ethiopia. Uanna impressed us highly in his imagination and competence in the field of bugging and anti-bugging..." Compare this letter to one that author Gus Russo says that District Attorney Jim Garrison suspect Layton Martens was supposed to have written. Very similar handwriting. Look at Martens signature on the ID card. Martens probably did not write the letter, it is more of a note and the size and handwriting look like the Lansdale note about Uanna. The "Martens" note suggests that Robert Kennedy gave the go ahead to activities by anti-Castro Cubans supported by the CIA and all the people Layton Martens was hanging around with, like David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Guy Bannister, Jack Ruby and according to some researchers Lee Harvey Oswald. The note is shown on the first line of Category:Bud Uanna, and copied out of Gus Russo's book LIVE BY THE SWORD. Edward Lansdale had somehow become someone the Kennedy Administration listened to. He is a key suspect by many researchers into the assassination of President Kennedy. Directly below the Lansdale note, on Category:Bud Uanna is a telex that contains "hold three seats Quantas to Cairo" it is stamped by Under Secretary of State Christian Herter. Uanna, his wife and son were on their way to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia where Uanna died 3 years later on the grounds of the American Embassy. I thought it was worth mentioning that while he was the Chief of the Division of Physical Security at the Department of State Uanna was the Acting Chairman of a special NSC Committee. This coincides with what CIA Security Director Sheffield Edwards said. Edwards is the writer of 2 documents on Category:Bud Uanna. The first in 1954 about a Russian defector and the other in 1958 about Uanna's contributions to the National Security Council Special Committee. While reading Talbot's book it is shocking to see that political murder was carried ordered regularly by Allen Dulles. He double crossed almost everyone he knew. And he and President Eisenhower seemed to think nothing of being involved in the killing of a head of state like Patrick Lumumba. And the CIA appears to be involved in the attempted assassination of Charles deGualle. Part of Uanna's responsibility while Chief of Physical Security at the Department of State was keeping foreign heads of state alive. I am hoping that someone will incorporate the letter to Allen Dulles and the NSC5610 information into the William L. Uanna page. CIC7 (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Correction - it has been 60 years since the documents mentioned were written, not 70 years. And, a more complete review of the documents can be seen by going to the link provided above at the CIA website and then searching there for Letter to E. Tomlin Bailey from Allen W. Dulles. When the documents appear go to the one that says Letter to "M" Tomlin Bailey from Allen W. Dulles. This has more background information and appears to show that a policy or system did not exist at the CIA for CIA posts to notify CIA Director Dulles. A copy of the original letter that Uanna sent to Director Dulles with the Department of State letterhead is shown there. The letter head is removed elsewhere when this document is shown. Also more background on Countermeasure Program NSC5618 can be found by going to NSC5618 on the CIA Website. Uanna was the Acting Chairman and ran this program but correspondence was supposed to be directed to the Chairman E. Tomlin Bailey who was the head of Department of State Security. Uanna had run other programs as Acting Chairman, among them the Facilities Protection Board and the Industrial Evaluations Board while he was the Special Assistant to the Secretary of Commerce from 1951 to 1953. These Boards were also under the National Security Council. They are described in his Foreign Service Essay and his employment application for the Department of State - available for review on Wikimedia's Category:Bud Uanna. I think the letter that Uanna sent to Dulles is a request for a description of how the CIA Posts go about notifying Dulles and what procedures were followed after a "bug" was discovered. From what I see Dulles is trying to say that he is notified when bugs are found - case closed. Uanna may not have been put off that easily. He had started in intelligence just before WWII in the Corps of Intelligence Police later called the Counter Intelligence Corps and had been Secretary of War Stimson's representative on Tinian Island ensuring that the Atomic Bombs ended WWII. But Allen Dulles had been involved in the machinations of intelligence, politics and high finance since WWI. He was not used to answering questions and one of the things that David Talbot's book THE DEVIL'S CHESSBOARD reveals is that CIA Director Allen Dulles, along with his brother Secretary of State John Foster Dulles were used to telling President Eisenhower what to think and to say. Uanna was a short, dark skinned guy of Italian descent. It may have made no difference to him that Uanna was responsible for the protection of his brother the Secretary of State and for the protection of heads of state, emperors, kings, queens or other VIP's when they visited the United States. Talbot's book is a must read. Allen Dulles apparently had no regard for anyone. And was able to do whatever he wanted in Washington and in other countries. CIC7 (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Please be more concise. if your goal is to get other editors to adopt your content, writing long things like this does not help you. Please provide concrete suggestions for content, with sources, that people could copy/paste into the article if they find the suggested content acceptable. Long posts like this don't help anyone. Jytdog (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

CATEGORY:BUD UANNA

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Photos and documents about William L. "Bud" Uanna are on Wikimedia at Category:Bud Uanna. A recent addition was a U.S. Department of State document from March 12, 1957 relating to the National Security Councils SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON TECHNICAL SURVELLANCE COUNTERMEASURES known as NSC 5618. Uanna was the Acting Chairman of the Committee. This document is a request to CIA Director Allen W. Dulles to inform the Committee that the CIA has a procedure when the CIA discovers their facilities have been "bugged" and it follows a copy of a handwritten memo by Edward Lansdale of the Office of Special Operations in the U. S. Department of Defense that says "Folks in Defense are quite surprised that State is sending William Uanna to be an Administrative Officer in Ethiopia." This not exactly a smoking gun for me but I can smell the powder. I recently got out my 1973 copy of L. Fletcher Prouty's THE SECRET TEAM (very rare, most of the original copies were removed from libraries or bought up in mass quantities) in which he describes how the CIA is under the authority and "direction" of the National Security Council. By degrees Dulles put his operatives on the NSC staff so that CIA operations were rubber stamped after the CIA "suggested" them. The CIA grew into a monster and did things that were illegal under their mandate. Prouty states on p. 105 that "Allen Dulles had the special knack of being able to move forward in adversity. He could shed problems and move forward into the next series of ventures while the Government, the public, and the newspapermen were sifting through the ashes of a past failure. He was confident in his ability because he knew how to make secrecy work for him and how to compartmentalize so that few people, even within his inner circle, really knew which way he was going to go." Bud Uanna may not have know which way Dulles was going to go but he was well acquainted with how far he could legally go since Uanna had written the briefing manual for the OFFICE OF POLICY COORDINATION in 1949 before Dulles hijacked the OPC from the Departments of State and Defense in the early 1950's. And Uanna's March 12, 1957 letter to Dulles shows that he could get right to the point when making a request to Dulles. A review of the 7 pages relating to this document (which can be found by looking for "Letter to M. Tomlin Bailey from Allen W. Dulles) shows that the CIA knew that they had to give an answer. Research into the NSC 5618 shows that his was a very high lever intelligence undertaking and NSC 5618 was still staffed into the 1980's. And it is pertinent to our day with the allegations involving Russia's involvement into the recent elections. Those on the CIA's list of interested parties include a rogues gallery of Kennedy Assassination suspects. Dulles himself, CIA Counterintelligence Chief James Angleton, Deputy Director Charles Cabell, Security Chief Sheffield Edwards... And "assassination buffs" know that Edward Lansdale was Dulles's man at the Department of Defense. Lansdale would somehow become a trusted advisor to President Kennedy working along with National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy. And Uanna knew them all and many more more. Uanna traveled with Dulles's older brother Secretary of State John Foster Dulles as his bodyguard. When the pilot of the the B-29 Bomber the Enola Gay, Paul Tibbets, told VIACOM who had made the movie ENOLA GAY that Uanna had been murdered in Africa he was really sticking his neck out. He and Uanna were good friends and Uanna had been his bodyguard and handler for the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima. In his words he was "very fond" of Uanna. So rather than go on and on into the many side issues like Charles Cabell's connection to the UFO cover up while he was head of Air Force Intelligence I want to simply state that it is beyond me why the statement at the end of the movie ENOLA GAY that Uanna was murdered in Africa cannot be included in WILLIAM L. UANNA. Aside from smoking guns. Did the movie come out? Was Uanna portrayed in it? Did it say he was murdered? How often did this kind of thing happen in 1980, that a statement is made on national television that someone was murdered? It was over classification that allowed Dulles to operate so freely. He wanted everything given a high classification. But as Executive Order 10501 makes clear (the page referring to this is on Category:Bud Uanna) over classification overburdens staff and takes away from the importance of classified information that should be Secret or Top Secret, degrading the very system Dulles wanted the public to think he cared about. Nixon tried this, National Security. But in my opinion Nixon was set up. "Deep Throat" Mark Felt met with the new FBI Director Patrick Gray to decide how to handle Nixon's obstruction. Another connection to today's events. There was a third man there FBI Agent C. W. Bates. He was the FBI liaison at the Atomic Energy Commission in the late 1940's while Uanna was the Chief of Personnel Clearance at the AEC. Bates is mentioned in a letter to Uanna from J. Edgar Hoover (on Category:Bud Uanna). Bates also appears to be instrumental in the blacklisting of J. Robert Oppenheimer who ran the scientific research into the Atomic Bomb on the Manhattan Project. This is just the tip of the iceberg in Uanna's connection to the Intelligence community and world events, rogue operatives and operations and strange characters, even in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, where the Air Attach at the U.S. Embassy was or was not, this is a very strange case, the nephew of Hermann Goring the Commander in Chief of the Luftwaffe, a Nazi right next to Hitler. The CIA became convoluted by Angleton and Dulles. Has it ever recovered? And what they find in these guys safes after they are gone! Often it the autopsy photos of their enemies. Would anyone recognize Bud Uanna among them? Probably not. We cannot say he was murdered. He just laid down and died of a heart attack in the Air Attache's Office. Think about it and please allow the statement at the end of ENOLA GAY be put in. CIC7 (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)