Talk:Manhattan Project/Archive 3

Manhattan District ??
The headline on top of the info box reads Manhattan District, not Manhattan Project — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.58.142 (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That is correct. The infobox is about the Manhattan District, not the Manhattan Project. We decided that there should only be one article though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Fermi
Fermi was the actual builder of the Atomic Bomb, and Director Oppenheimer's main duty was to take care members of the Manhattan project as well as their wives', as stated by Segré, Szilard and others. Oppenheimer could not create any nuclear weapon without the help of Fermi. This article does not include enough things about Fermi. --Rightkeatsboom (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I wrote the article on Fermi, and I know what he did. Fermi did not arrive at Los Alamos from Argonne (where he had worked on reactor development) until September 1944, by which time all the bomb design work was done. His main work at Los Alamos concerned the neutron initiator; his F Division was largely concerned with the Super. He gets planty of mentions in the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with your first point. This article doesn't a lot of things on him. There must be something about him on the top? What could we mention. If he is called the architect of the atomic bomb, then obviusly we should write something. Regarding my last edits, why did you remove it? Segré and others were Fermi's students.--Rightkeatsboom (talk) 11:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The article says: Robert Serber, Stan Frankel, and Eldred C. Nelson, the latter three former students of Oppenheimer. None of these three were students of Fermi. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We added Oppenheimer to the lead to squelch the misconception that he was in charge of the project. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Flags
Per WP:INFOBOXFLAG, flag icons shouldn't be used in the infobox here. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In regards to the use of flag icons in non-conflict military articles, the matter may need to be posted at WikiProject Military history. It appears that other non-conflict military articles also have flag icons.  There may be a genuine misunderstanding surrounding the use of flag icons in infoboxes on military articles.


 * In regards to Featured articles, the flags were present before the article was promoted to FA status on August 23, 2011, not afterwards. Therefore, WP:Consensus may be in conflict with WP:INFOBOXFLAG.  I propose the same resolution as above to straighten out this matter.  I appreciate your patience with this issue.  Mitchumch (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether the flags were present before promotion or not is immaterial to whether they should be present. WP:MILMOS would also seem to support their removal in this case since they provide no additional information to the simple country names; situations on other articles may be different. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:Consensus is always material. WP:MILMOS states, "In general, the use of flag icons is not recommended; neither, however, is it prohibited."  Flag icons are also used in military infoboxes of biographical articles.  For these reasons, I recommended this matter to be handled at WikiProject Military history.  I placed a request for comment at their discussion page.  Mitchumch (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This matter has already been handled by MILHIST, in the style guide you quote which goes on to say that icons which convey only redundant information (as in this case, where the country names are also present) should not be used. It also explains the use of flag icons in biographies to indicate allegiance. This style guide (and the broader WP:INFOBOXFLAG) indicate the current consensus on the matter of flag use; this article is out of step with that. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you feel that strongly about it, then remove them. Mitchumch (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have; you've reverted me, thus we're here. If you're saying you're no longer going to revert me, I'm happy to re-remove. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not. I don't like the hlist in infoboxes which makes them much harder to read. WP:INFOBOXFLAG specifically includes the exemption for military history contexts Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, we could easily use a different template for formatting, such as ubl. But WP:INFOBOXFLAG includes an exemption for conflicts, not all milhist contexts. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not what it says. What it says is: "It may in some narrow military history circumstances be appropriate to use flags, as they were used at the time being written about, including naval ensigns, provided that the flags are (as usual) accompanied at first occurrence by their country (or more narrow) names—our readers are not expected to be military historians. An example might be an in-depth exploration of a famous battle involving numerous forces with known flags; such flags might be used in summary tables to make it clearer which force was being referred to for a particular detail."


 * There is nothing specifically restricting it to conflicts. The famous battle is just an example. I'm not just using the flags to make the infobox look a whole lot nicer; my purpose was to emphasise the tri-national nature of the Manhattan Project, which is not widely appreciated. So the use is not undue. Unfortunately, the MOS requires the use of the Canadian flag at the time, which Canadians in particular do not recognise. So I'm open to removing the flags, if you can come up with a slightly better argument. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Er...that quote isn't from WP:INFOBOXFLAG, it's from a later section of MOS:ICON dealing with flag use in articles more generally. And if we need the country name in order to be able to recognize the flag at all, why do we need the flag? It conveys no additional information to having the three country names. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Terminology for tests
and others: Our articles in this area often refer to test devices as "bombs" (e.g., reference in this article to the Trinity "implosion-type bomb"; Ivy Mike as a "hydrogen bomb"). Since these devices were not in fact weapons, and should we not call them only devices, rather than bombs? Kablammo (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2016
Yodabear144 (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

From 1942 to 1946     Specific date  September 17, 1942
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It already states that in the "Military Policy Committee" section - the lead section is a summary, so deliberately does not repeat all the details. - Arjayay (talk) 10:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Featured Topic?
I noticed how many articles directly related to the Manhattan Project are Good or Featured. I was wondering if you all are working on making it a Good/Featured Topic? If so, how far in are you? I'm rather impressed with the kind of work that is being done here, so I was getting curious. ~ Mable ( chat ) 18:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There are 100 articles in total, and we are currently two articles short. The state of play can be seen here. The two remaining articles are both currently Good article nominations. So we are nearly there. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's incredible. Thanks for clearing that up; I hope those GA nominations will come through soon. And damn, you got a lot of G/FAs. I need to step up my game, haha. ~ Mable  ( chat ) 06:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The list (which corresponds to the Template:Manhattan Project navigation template) has been chosen after some discussion. There are a lot more articles; about 40 more are GAs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I had been looking through the Manhattan Project navbox, yes. Where did this discussion take place anyway? I wasn't able to find anything of the like. I assume on one of the related Wikiproject talk pages? ~ Mable ( chat ) 08:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The navbox's talk page, but looking at it now, much went onto the talk pages of the articles. If there's something you'd like to discuss, the navbox talk page is best. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm alright, but thank you for clarifying all that! :) ~ Mable ( chat ) 11:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Link Fix
Just a minor edit, but the link to the Thin Man bomb in the second paragraph of the introduction leads to an disambiguation page, rather than the article itself [Thin Man (Nuclear Bomb)]. 198.48.172.143 (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Good catch. Mitchumch (talk) 01:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manhattan Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090825162412/http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev25-34/chapter1.shtml to http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev25-34/chapter1.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Adamboro (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Link added - it was/is linked way up top, but no harm having another ... Vsmith (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

Name
Is it known who exactly (which person) came up with the name Manhattan District and Manhattan Project? Or why these project names, specifically, were chosen; the official reason given? 5.147.88.61 (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Read the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

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

That should help figure out who it was.Sam483 (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Read the article.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Image size
Is there a reason most of the images in this article are so large? 220px is the standard, per MOS:IMAGES. Thanks for the feedback. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The reviewers felt they couldn't read the details at that size.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Read what details? Magnolia677 (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Of the maps. Oh I see. Someone has peppered the article with upright=1.35 tags rather than adjusting their own image default size to 300px. (It may have been hard-coded at one point; WMF decided on this, then changed its mind.) I have removed all the upright tags except those on the maps.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. Any objection to moving some of the images to the right, per MOS:IMAGELOCATION?  Cheers.  Magnolia677 (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The layout has been carefully sited per MOS:IMAGELOCATION: Multiple images can be staggered right and left and It is often preferable to place images of people so that they "look" toward the text.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. But in this photo on the left, all their backs are turned to the text.  This one too.  Thanks again.  Magnolia677 (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The layout has been carefully sited per MOS:IMAGELOCATION: Multiple images can be staggered right and left. Articles looks terrible with all the images on the right. The article has been reviewed at FAC, and there is no basis for ruining the image layout in defiance of the MOS.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

While I appreciate how "carefully sited" the images are, and that this article has been reviewed at FAC, there remain issues regarding the formatting of the images. I moved most of the images in the article to the right, where they neatly fit (one image could not be moved right without disrupting the section). At MOS:IMAGELOCATION, a consensus of editors agreed that images should be right justified, writing, "in most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement. If an exception to the general rule is warranted, left can be used." This is in fact a prudent formatting rule, because left justified images are often disruptive to section headings, bullets, and so forth, and are especially awkward if viewed on a pad or older browser. If there are multiple images to place into a section, then MOS:IMAGELOCATION states "multiple im­ages can be stag­gered right and left", but again, that is not the case in this text-rich article; nearly all the images neatly fit onto the right. User_talk:Hawkeye7 has twice reverted my effort to right justify images in this article, writing in their first edit summary, "Images must alternate right left per MOS:IMAGELOCATION", and in their second edit summary "MOS:IMAGELOCATION is CLEAR - images alternate left and right". This in fact is not what is what is written at MOS:IMAGELOCATION. As well, I'm not sure that an editor feeling that right justified images "look terrible" meets the threshold for "an exception to the general rule". Not all Wikipedia users are fortunate enough to have big screens or newer browsers, and Hawkeye7 may wish to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. The input of other editors would be appreciated. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi all, answering your request for a third opinion. I don't think the images need to be all right aligned. The wording in MOS:IMAGELOCATION isn't particularly strong on the issue of right alignment, I'd say this article flows just fine with the staggered alignment. The first photograph in the body and the last photograph of the article should both be right aligned to make it properly staggered. I would say the images should be reduced to the regular thumbnail size; if someone wants to see the details they can click the thumbnail to enlarge, which is the whole point of a thumbnail. †Basilosauridae  ❯❯❯Talk  03:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Not the Manhattan Project
Greetings: It is NOT the Manhattan Project, and never has been. The official designation was the Manhattan Engineering District, commanded by BG Leslie Groves. The Manhattan "Project" was a manifestation of the "District." For reference, please refer to "The Making of the Atomic Bomb," the winner of the 1987 Pulitzer Prize, by Richard Rounds. Let us get it straight, here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.74.228.235 (talk) 05:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * [and I always thought Richard Rhodes wrote that book and got the Pulitzer. Silly me.  Kablammo (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)]
 * Better still, you could read the article.  Hawkeye7   (talk)  08:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * better still, the article would be open to editing!934nutcase (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Point taken on the protection, now lifted. Please read the article as suggested above, please read WP:COMMONNAME, which governs the naming, and please adopt a less confrontational approach to other editors. No name change or move should he undertaken without discussion and consensus. This is a featured article, and bold changes to FAs are generally viewed as disruptive.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Requests for changes in article protection levels can be submitted at Requests for page protection.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I unprotected it, as noted above. So far, no major trouble.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Article wring says in Origin that German scientists first developed fission 1938-39!
Yet there is no mention of the fact Mark Oliphant & Rutherford were the first in the world to discover fusion’ in or around 1908. they split the atom for the very first time in world history an Mark Oliphant set up the Manhattan project! This article is wrong an people should stop trying to re-wright history.

How is it two different Wikipedia article both say completely different things. Comon people be consistent. Keep to the facts.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford

&

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Oliphant

If somebody could correct the facts around this article to include the two biggest hero’s of the Manhattan project ... being Rutherford & Oliphant that would give this article a hint of credibility. especially in the ( Origins ) section. Cheers guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.178.36.171 (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I wrote both this article and the one on Mark Oliphant. His work on fusion was in 1932-33. Oliphant is mentioned in this article. John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton were the first to split the atom at the Cavendish laboratory in 1932, for which they shared the Nobel Prize in 1951. It was the first artificial disintegration of an atomic nucleus, but was not what we call fission today.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

"University of California" vs. "University of California, Berkeley"
In the article, it refers multiple times to the "University of California", meaning Berkeley. I know that, historically, the university was referred to as the University of California, but it hasn't been called that for almost 60 years. Some people still refer to Berkeley as the University of California, which may be fine in normal conversation, but it is ambiguous. I suggest that we replace all mentions of the "University of California" with "University of California, Berkeley" or "University of California at Berkeley", because it is unambiguous as to what it is referring to. 15:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The sentence in question is: Conant, Groves and Oppenheimer then devised a compromise whereby the [Los Alamos] laboratory was operated by the University of California under contract to the War Department. Here, the University of California really is meant, and not Berkeley.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but it was referring to UC Berkeley specifically, not the university system. I know that's the name that was used at the time but we shouldn't use historical names of things that have since been renamed.   20:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * it was not referring to UC Berkeley specifically. The national laboratories were and are run by the University of California, under the UC Office of the President, not by the Berkeley campus. See   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I changed the first pre-1951 reference to "University of California, Berkeley" to "University of California and subsequent ones to "University of California.
 * I hope most people will accept this as a reasonable description of the facts. DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No objection in general to a footnote but such a note would need to directly cite a reliable source, not another WP article, so I've reverted the change for now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * OK. Give me a few minutes.  I will revert your reversion, then fix the one named reference.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * German Experimental Pile - Haigerloch - April 1945.jpg

Consent to bombing
'Part of the Quebec Agreement specified that nuclear weapons would not be used against another country without mutual consent.' The 'mutual consent' in question was presumably the agreemnt among the bombers not between the bombers and the (to be) bombed (Pamour (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)).


 * I think it is clear from the context that the mutual consent referred to is between the US and UK, but added words to that effect. This became controversial in the post-war period when Congress discovered that the UK had a veto over the use of nuclear weapons.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Infobox title "Manhattan District"
Seeing this article from the perspective of someone that did not knew the fact that it is code-named something along the lines of "project Manhattan District", that seemed like an odd and inappropriate name to put over the picture of the trinity bomb fireball. Now that I know it, it does not seem too good and obvious to me either. Wouldn't it be more appropriate for the title to read:

project "Manhattan District"

with the parentheses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowBee (talk • contribs) 10:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The infobox refers to the Manhattan District, which was the official name of the military unit; the Manhattan Project was the name of the project. See the article for details. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2020
The Canadian flag represented is wrong it a maple leaf with red border and white center. 70.83.158.229 (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done! Netherzone (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Canadian flag was correct. It was the flag at the time. The maple leaf flag was not adopted until 1965. See MOS:FLAGS: Use historical flags in contexts where the difference matters. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that Hawkeye7. Netherzone (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Erroneous image header
The header on the right column reads 'Manhattan District'. The header should read... 'Manhattan Project'. :) 07:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.67.142.41 (talk)

Nothing wrong. The infobox is for the military unit, the Manhattan District. It is not unusual; some articles have multiple infoboxes. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  07:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The two are not identical (as mentioned in the article itself and its FAQ). The infobox attributes feats to the namesake of the project. That is the article's leading infobox and represents the Manhattan Project. Los Alamos National Lab (https://www.lanl.gov/museum/news/newsletter/2017/2017-06/manhattan-project.php) seems to reinforce this viewpoint.23:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.67.142.41 (talk)

U.S. Declared War on Germany
In fact, Hitler declared war on the United States a few days after Pearl Harbor.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_against_the_United_States — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsdonnelly (talk • contribs) 18:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Under the Constitution of the United States, only Congress gets to declare war. Other countries can declare war on the US all they like, but only a law passed by Congress makes it official. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * LOL! Yeah, because war requires the "official" consent of the second party before becoming a reality, right? Look, regardless of how much it may sting your sense of what constitutes historical fact, Germany and the United States were in a de facto state of war, the very second Germany declared war on the U.S., not the other way around, and certainly not unless or until the U.S. Congress agrees to such a declaration. It is risible to try and claim otherwise, and stretches parochial knowledge into the world of fiction. Germany declared war on the U.S. and that's all there is to it... anything the U.S. Congress did afterwards, is merely bureaucracy; and a nugatorius bit of bureaucracy at that. M R G WIKI999 (talk) 10:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Germany and the United States were in a de facto state of war from 11 September 1941, when Roosevelt issued shoot on sight orders to US Navy vessels that sighted German ships or U-boats. Germany's official declaration came on 11 December, and the US one was issued on the same day. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2021
According to the following sources, Qian Xuesen was involved in the Manhattan Project. At the bottom of the article, there is a list of scientists who were involved in the project. His name is not on the list. What is the reason for his exclusion? If there is not a valid reason for his exclusion, I would like to request a user to include his name in the list.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/nov/01/qian-xuesen-obituary https://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/qian-xuesen-scientist-and-pioneer-of-china-s-missile-and-space-programmes-1819724.html CrimsonBullDogs (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: The list of scientists is part of the Manhattan Project template, not part of the main page, so you'd need to make this request on the template talk page rather than here. Personal opinion: Thousands of people worked on the Manhattan project, and I don't think there's enough documentation of this scientist's involvement in the project to warrant inclusion in the template, but feel free to make the request. PianoDan (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AJMARI.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GIAP0896.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Calutron Girls photo and caption
I saw you reverted my edit. Could you point out where specifically in the source it says that Gladys Owens, seated in the foreground, was unaware of what she had been involved with until seeing this photo on a public tour of the facility 50 years later? I'm not seeing it. It says that she's in the foreground of the picture and that she had recognized herself in the photo on touring the facility, but nowhere does it say that she was unaware of what she had been involved with until she saw the photo- unless I'm missing something? Aerin17 (t • c) 05:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It says she was unaware. he was one of a special group of young high school graduates hired and trained to do only what they were told to do without questioning and without discussion. She only knew she was doing something vital to her nation and was helping win the war. The wording used was of the original caption taken from the Atlantic Monthly. That could be added as a second source.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Atlantic source is not useful; it's from 2012, while this caption was added in 2010 (by you, actually). It's more likely that the Atlantic article is pulling from Wikipedia than the other way around. And yes, the source does say that she was unaware of what she was doing, but it does not make the connection that seeing the photo was what told her what she had been doing. Aerin17 (t • c) 23:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have removed that from the caption. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Why isn't Leslie Groves listed as a commander in the infobox?
It seems like a complete oversight to not have Leslie Groves mentioned as the commander of the Manhattan Project in the infobox doesn't it? I had to find out he was in charge from reading the text! 146.200.202.126 (talk) 12:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Thanks for your comment - and suggestion - added "Leslie Groves" (see => related edit) - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Leslie Groves was the head of the Manhattan Project. The infobox refers to the Manhattan District, which was commanded by Nichols. Please read the article before making suggestions or changes. (Also the FAQ - note Q6) Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Testing Avro Lancasters to drop the bombs
There is a line of text Tests were carried out with modified Lancasters at Enstone Airfield referenced back to a Youtube video. The Youtube video does not make reference to any primary or secondary sources on the actual in-service testing and training of Lancaster crews for this mission. The claims in the Youtube video are also hotly disputed by others who reference back to primary source material. I would suggest removing this line of text unless other source material can be referenced. --harry543454 (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Text removed. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Typographical Errors
The introduction reads "The Project let to the development of two types of atomic bombs..." while it should read "The Project led to the development of two types of atomic bombs...". I advise an admin for the page to change "let" to "led". CallSignChaos (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The introduction reads "Because it was chemically identical to the most common isotope, uranium-238, and had almost the same mass..." while it should read "Because it is chemically identical to the most common isotope, uranium-238, and has almost the same mass...". The factual information conveyed on the properties of uranium are true in perpetuity and should be referenced in the present simple tense, present continuous tense, or the [resent perfect continuous tense, and are not be referenced in the past tense.

✅ Sure. Changed as suggested. It was the way it was to keep the tense consistently in the past. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  21:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2023
"please change unecessary to unnecessary" Fix typo 176.222.59.21 (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tollens (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Missing word
In the section Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, subsection Preparations, third paragraph, it reads "... the codename for the modification of the to carry atomic bombs." 192.76.8.86 (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Added "B-29" Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2023
2601:47:4781:1D50:2C41:3142:AB39:9340 (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Change Nagasaki bomb name from “Thin Man” to “Fat Man” (correct).
 * Did you read the article? The Thin Man was the first attempt at a plutonium weapon, which was abandoned in the final device design in favor of the much more complicated Fat Man design, which had to be tested at Trinity.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Unofficial emblem
Should the unofficial emblem be removed from the infobox? I don't see what value it adds. CarpCharacin (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Add link to See also
This link needs to be added to the see also section as the Manhattan Project is intergral to its beginnings

146.199.57.209 (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Timeline of nuclear weapons development


 * ✅ Parham wiki (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

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


 * Thanks for that! That was really interesting. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Edmondson’s main source was Elmer Thomas, ‘’Forty Years a Legislator’’. Google Books has most of the key pages online. John M Baker (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It's not a great article — it is missing a lot of context and understanding, because the author is not a historian and apparently consulted no historians. I rewrote a funding section that is actually useful and interesting and not just trivia about what account name it used. The funding situation is deeply tied into the size and secrecy of it. --NuclearSecrets (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

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

The original article was written before the subarticles were created, so there is scope for reducing the main article. However, we need to take into account what is in the subarticles and what is not. Let's workshop our way through it on the talk page. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  01:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've tagged it in the interim. There does appear to be material that really doesn't need to be anywhere, so it's not entirely on what's in the subarticles. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * How is a drive-by tag with no discussion helpful? Can you point to the sections you think should be trimmed? The project is _that_ important so it's quite natural that the article is long. Subarticles just hide the complexity of any subject that was deemed "too long", many readers will never find their way to a dozen or so related subarticles of questionable quality. Artem.G (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * . Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * nice answer! You tried to remove sourced text, got reverted, and placed a drive-by tag. This "too long" issue, based on some ten-year-old policy, should really be retired - dial-up era is over, there is no need to condense every article to a bare minimum. Artem.G (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I tried to resolve a clear problem, and when that resolution did not meet with acceptance, added a tag pending an alternative. That's the opposite of drive-by tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The tag is only to alert people to an ongoing discussion. (There is also an ongoing one at Wikipedia talk:Article size that might interest you.) Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You proposed workshipping here - what did you have in mind for that? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Pitching proposals for what is in the subarticles and no longer so necessary here. All the stuff on the project organisation stays because it is not duplicated in any subarticle. But I'm flat out at the moment due to a large volume of page views on the Manhattan Project articles. Average page views for the article have risen from 9,000 per day to over 140,000 per day. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like there is consensus for cuts to the article. You now have three editors, and myself who disagree.   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You indicated that you did not have capacity to discuss cuts at this time. If that's now changed, we can workshop as you proposed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Sure. Things have died down now. Oppenheimer's page views are down to below 200,000 per day. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Some preliminary points:
 * We already have a very lengthy article on Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; the summary here could be much more concise.
 * Ditto Trinity (nuclear test)
 * Ditto Project Y
 * The discussion of ratings reads as inside baseball - suggest removing
 * Ditto the details of construction contracts and the PO box of babies
 * The description of uranium processing could be made more streamlined. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have trimmed the bombings, Trinity and Project Y. I really want to keep the ratings, as (1) they pertain to the project as a whole and therefore belong here; (2) are not described in any of the subarticles; and (3) the high priority of the project is often mentioned, but precisely what that meant, and how it was established is the sort of information that readers could be looking for. I have deleted the bit about the babies. What do you have against babies? Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * They don't belong around nuclear bombs ;-)
 * What are your thoughts on construction contracts and uranium processing? Can the ratings information be streamlined? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You mean the Ore section? It is pretty small, and I did not create a subarticle on the Ore program. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean the whole Uranium section. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Already done. Each of the isotope separation sections has been trimmed. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there are opportunities to do more. What are your thoughts on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I made one change. Otherwise it is alright. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  09:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Since the user above seems intent on continuing to complain about length — I will just chime in and say that the ratings information is absolutely important to how the project operated and why it was successful. The importance could be expounded upon at more length, if desired. But it is not "inside baseball." Any serious account of the Manhattan Project spends time on it; it is absolutely worth a sentence or two here. --NuclearSecrets (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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


 * Same goes for File:TrinityFireballGif.gif (also uploaded by GalaxyNite), which just seems to be a colorized version of the second explosion in the same YouTube video. The immediate source video of this second GIF is a random YouTube channel ("The Centralnuclear"); at least "atomcentral" has some credibility. Malerisch (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree 100% that the version at present is artificially colorized and inappropriate (the colors are not at all accurate; the orange implies a much cooler fireball than it was in reality). Its timing also seems quite "off" to me. --NuclearSecrets (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Self-published sources
Could you please provide evidence to support that the source you restored here is by a recognized expert on this subject? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hawkeye7  (discuss)  06:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hawkeye7  (discuss)  06:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hawkeye7  (discuss)  06:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The second of those appears to be a letter to the editor; anything else? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


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