Talk:Atomic Energy Act of 1946

Sub-pages
Anybody reading this have any suggestions on how to sub categorize this page. It's a very dense topic and I'm having trouble separating all the information. Any advise would be helpful.

Thank you! Ohheyheidi (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Peer Editing
I went through your article and did some copy editing in class today. I found that you often separate your sentences by multiple commas in order to fit all the information possible. I think that it is important to go through and figure out the best way possible to separate these sentences so that it is easier for the reader to make sense of what is being said. I also think that your sub heading the Born Secret and the information under it can be expanded a little bit more. You talk about the "second item" and then discuss section 9 but nothing in between. That could help expand on your article. It was a nice touch having all the links to other wikipedia articles within your article and good job so far.

Michalge (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Online ambassador comments
Hi, this is just a quick peer review. I'll try and point out some available sources which aren't in the article, some style issues and some other stuff.

Style/content

 * The lead of the article is too long. For an article of reasonably short length (~1000 words), you can use a 1 paragraph lead and should at most have a 2 paragraph lead.  Imagine the lead as the executive summary.  If someone lands on this article from a wikipedia link or a web search, what do you want them to know after reading for only a few seconds.
 * As you will notice from the sources above, there are other implications of the law not mentioned in the article. The article itself focuses on the "restricted data" component of the AEA and this should be a major focus, but other elements of the law need coverage and we should not give undue weight to one section.
 * Be careful making assertions or guarded assertions without a source. saying the act was "probably a factor in the American refusal to allow a French officer to take command of Allied Forces Southern Europe in 1997" requires some source otherwise I have no choice but to interpret the statement as a supposition on the part of a wikipedia author, which does not carry a lot of weight.
 * Also, you have used a thesis as a source. while not completely forbidden, we have a lot of trouble judging the reliability of a thesis (masters or PhD) if it has never been published in any form.  Usually a good bet for use of a thesis is to confine it to what you would were you publishing a book on the subject: a narrow point of interest left uncovered by other material, not broad support for major claims.

Thats all for now. I think this is a great start to an article and should only improve as breadth and coverage increase. Protonk (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Response
Thank you for the review and suggestions. I've shortened the article's introduction and moved the extra information into different subheadings. Bryan Miller's article was a useful source in discussion of the public's involvement in the Act. I will do some more research on the implications of the act and add that information in the next week.

If you have any more suggestions I'd appreciate them. Thank you for taking the time to read this and to provide some good sources.

Ohheyheidi (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Chronological internal coherence
The act is from 1946, but a 1943 Churchill decision ins mentioned as a consequence. How so?


 * — Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Control of information and allies' reaction: Belgium?
Belgian reaction should be included. They controlled the most valuable uranium ore deposits at the time and in 1944 agreed to deliver exclusively to the United States and the United Kingdom. In return Belgium would get access to nuclear know how for commercial, non-military applications. Most of the uranium for the Manhattan project (70%) came from Union_Minière_du_Haut_Katanga, a Belgian mining company. In 1939 Edgar_Sengier, the director of the company, shipped 1200 tons of high quality (65% U3O8) uranium ore to the US and stored it in a depot on Staten Island, where it remained until 1942 when the Manhatten project started. DS Belgium (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Atomic Energy Act of 1946. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130702164759/http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/funds-fs.html to http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/funds-fs.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Congressional requests for information pertinent to the act
I'm not sure of the process for making more than minor edits to good or featured articles, so I thought I would raise the topic here.

Independence and Deterrence by Margaret Gowing details enquires made by the US Congress about secret agreements regarding the bomb; enquiries to which May, the chairman of the house committee on military affairs replied that it was his understanding that such agreements existed, but had been unable to obtain details. Meanwhile, another committee member stated "we received definite and positive word without qualification to the effect that there was nothing affecting this legislation that had not been completely published and publicised". Gowing concludes this brief interlude on the details of House deliberations by stating that McMahon told the British Minister of Defence in 1949 that had he known about the agreements, there would have been no act, and told Churchill the same in 1952. Currently, our article includes the very last element of this, the statement to Churchill, but I believe the rest is relevant and important to understanding the context in which the bill was signed in.

Would anyone object in principle to the inclusion of details relating to this, and would anyone object to a broader explanation of the British reactions to the bill?

BilledMammal (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * That sounds fine. The main thing is not to drift off-topic. If you are concerned about it, you can post the proposed text on the talk page here. I have Gowing's books here. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * They are excellent books; engaging and informative; the only negative is their age, but given her access to confidential files I don't believe that is much of an impediment. But to return to the topic, my plan is to finish at least the McMahon Act section of the article I am drafting for the Modus Vivendi, and then use that as a springboard for to propose changes for this; thank you for the advice. BilledMammal (talk) 03:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be a great article. I look forward to seeing it. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at James Madison University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)