Talk:Manhattan Project/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Ray-La facility

I think I have been there. there is a part of the site where they do criticality experiments. Sort of "starting to put the parts of the bomb together". It's miles from other buildings and has a bunker and all. Place looked just like that with the trees and house and all.TCO (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Manhattan Project emblem

I've been working on the images, in particular sourcing higher resolution versions and have been cleaning them up. I also added a better version of the infobox image and SVG version of the shoulder badge. I'm currently working on the Hanford site map and while looking for the highest res version I could find, I stumbled across this in Manhattan: The Army and the Bomb. Thought it might be useful and was wondering whether it could be of any use in the article? Regards, Fallschirmjäger ✉ 15:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Manhattan Project emblem

• Sure. I've added it. What I'd really like is for the big map of the US to be updated to added the two Canadian sites at Chalk River and Trail. They would need to be the same size and font as the other minor sites, and I don't know haw to do that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

FS can do that. He rox!TCO (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added a new SVG now including the Canadian sites. Hopefully it includes everything correctly, if it needs a tweak just say the word. As the new map is a different size dimensions wise to the old one, the image map links will need to be re-located :S Regards, Fallschirmjäger ✉ 20:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Tweaked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Featured Picture Candidacy

I put in the Ames U-reduction collage for an FP. TCO (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

And then I pulled it. Need higher res images. I may write to the Ames historian or public affairs and see about getting better copies.TCO (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Image status from National Labs?

I started wondering about the copyright of the Ames Process photos. I know currently that the National Labs retain some copyrights, rather than it being a DOE thing. Any idea on what would have been the case at the time? 42? Also, could we have an issue with other photos (like the calutron) if taken at National Labs during the war.TCO (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I did work at Los Alamos a couple years ago. Long story short: Los Alamos was run by the University of California under government contract from World War II (or immediately thereafter, I'm not quite certain) until about about 2006. Circa 2006, the old contract expired and a new one was awarded to Los Alamos National Security [LANS], LLC, a consortium of institutions including the University of California. Employees of the lab prior to 2006 were considered by UC to be UC employees, including for purposes of pension and whatnot. I can't remember if my post-2006 paycheck came from the deparmtent of energy or LANS. Raul654 (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The article says: Initially Los Alamos was to have been a military laboratory with Oppenheimer and other researchers commissioned into the Army. Oppenheimer went so far as to order himself a lieutenant colonel's uniform, but two key physicists, Robert Bacher and Isidor Rabi, balked at the idea. Conant, Groves and Oppenheimer then devised a compromise whereby the laboratory was operated by the University of California under contract to the War Department. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I get all that. Was just hoping you had already thrashed some of this out. I did my time on the mesa and yeah it is a UC facility and has been for a while. Ames is adminstered by a school too. If you look on the Ames website, you will see that their site has a copyright notice and then says that the government has usage and publication rights, but that's for government usage only. And if you just look at the image file page for any image from DOE it has a big warning that says national labs may not be OK on copyright. I wondered if you had already thrashed all this out on other images or if the war changed things or even the publication of that report at the end. I can clear my image out of there (not sure you even liked it), in caution, but I had a little bit of concern on several of the others, then. Also, I was planning on writing and getting a larger size image scan for what I had (to go for FPC), and could also ask for a donation or clarification at same time. But obviously that takes a while.TCO (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It's still a little fuzzy to me, but we are probably clear. Asked about Wescott at his page ([1]). Asked for Commons input ([2]). Sent a note to Ames asking for their take on the ore pics.TCO (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ames says PD for their photos but gave me a donation regardless. Also gave bigger file copies, so I can try for FP.TCO (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Subject bar

Is there any objection to use of the {{Subject bar}} template in this article, as I've set up here? I feel that use of this template is an excellent way to expose relevant portals. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll try it out. I've put it down the bottom with the other bars. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks great! --Gyrobo (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

DuPont

I have a copy of a pretty dense history of their 20th century R&D [3]. If there's anything you need looked up or checked over, let me know.TCO (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I just skimmed some of the stuff in this ref (top notch, btw) and it's amazing the opportunities they passed up after the project, turning over Hanford to GE and getting GE up to speed and all. I think they were smart not to go down the defense contractor route. But just being a basic nuclear reactor design/construction/supply company. They were totally set up for that and had already wasted a bunch of top fundamental science guys's time doing applied research to get there.TCO (reviews needed) 04:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead relook?

Think we might want to do a relook at the lead before hitting the presses as starred. And I def-fuh-nitely think this thing is something Wiki should be extremely proud of and deserves a star!

We've added some content. I am NOT a believer that every section should have a sentence (nessessarily). Or that they should be in article order. But we ought to at least look and consider the new pieces added and even some rearrangement that was done and see how it might give us ideas for the lead.

Things to consider:

• reactor operation and Pu separation
• "90% of costs were for plants and making materials, 10% for bomb design and construciton". I think this is a terribly high gain insight to give a perspective for the whole shebang. It helps explain why this story is not just about the mesa! Really sets the stage for a lot of the depth we have on sites and technical processes and the like.
• espionage
• Probably a little recrafting of the "after the war" sentences, looking at the content we have now (see if anything should be added)
• Given the above leads us in direction of adding things, in general, also doing a parse and seeing what can be cut as less crucial.

TCO (reviews needed) 21:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• I re-worked the intro to incorporate the suggested changes. It is fixed at four paragraphs of course. Removed the stuff about the Einstein-Szilard letter and added all the above. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Sounds good, babe. I just thought we have done so much, it was time to take a look. I trust ya on the tradeoffs.TCO (reviews needed) 22:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I like the ending quote...

Digging it.TCO (reviews needed) 22:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 188.169.22.145, 21 July 2011

Ref 239 is a dead link, so here is the wayback machine link: http://web.archive.org/web/20101122185554/http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/potsdam_decision.htm

188.169.22.145 (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Done and thanks Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Heritage or Culture section?

Good idea or bad? Was thinking 1-2 paras covering the ORLady's parks and monuments, documentaries, more fictionalized films like Fat Man and Little Boy, that one film that has the same name but a different concept, and books (allows us to pimp Dick Feynman's at that time, which is the sort of thing popular and recognizable with a lot of people that come to the article...good to let reader feel included, that he actually knew something). Not sure if you think it crufty though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs)

I'm not the one who suggested a "heritage" section at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manhattan Project/archive1. I believe that was Carcharoth. Regardless, I have thought about the suggestion.

IMO, the most significant legacies of the Manhattan Project were the follow-on programs and follow-on uses of the facilities and sites, as outlined in the "After the war" section of the article. The 'after the war" discussion doesn't seem to carry things much past 1946, however, and it doesn't mention what happened after the war except in the U.S. -- such as the AECL establishment at the Canadian site at Chalk River.

I think that the longer-term (beyond 1946) and larger legacies of the Manhattan Project, including (for example) the MP's being considered the progenitor of Big Science, ought to be touched upon in the article.

Additionally, I think that the initiative to establish a U.S. National Historic Park for the Manhattan Project is a significant item should be documented in the article. (It also deserves an article of its own...) The U.S. Congress passed a law several years ago (circa 2003 or 2004; I am not looking at the details right now) directing the National Park Service to study the feasibility of a multi-site park at Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, Hanford, and Dayton, and to report back to Congress. Several years of draft reports and political maneuvering followed. Just last week it was announced that the final study report is complete and the NPS is recommending establishment of the three-site park (not including Dayton). This is a major official effort that I think should be mentioned in the article. The various initiatives for historic preservation and tourism have been happening somewhat independently of the park initiative, but they are related in kind, so they could be discussed in the same general context.

I don't much like the idea of a "popular culture" section. --Orlady (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Me neither. The story of Chalk River appears in the Canadian sites section. And last I heard about the tri-site park, which was last week, it had still not progressed beyond a recommendation. But I'll keep an eye on it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The park doesn't exist yet, but I see the Congressional action (the Manhattan Project National Historical Park Study Act, PL 108-340, passed in 2004) coupled with the NPS recommendation as a significant item deserving of mention in the article. The Park Service recommendation is strong; Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar is quoted as saying "The secret development of the atomic bomb in multiple locations across the United States is an important story and one of the most transformative events in our nation’s history. The Manhattan Project ushered in the atomic age, changed the role of the United States in the world community, and set the stage for the Cold War." Some surviving Manhattan Project veterans of my acquaintance are particularly gratified that this signifies that these developments signify that the country is no longer ashamed of what they did. --Orlady (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks TCO and Orlady for raising and discussing this here. My views are the same as expressed at the FAC: "the military history and the technology and science has been expertly covered, but the cultural history and ongoing legacy and heritage of the Manhattan Project is missing from the article as it currently stands. [...] there is a legitimate argument that all this can be covered in a separate article, but at least an overview of this aspect of things is needed in this (the main) article, even if no great amount of detail is added". Links are at the FAC.

In some ways, this relates to what Hawkeye said at the start of the FAC: "cover the project as a single coherent article, while at the same time acting as a gateway to the hundreds of sub articles". It is possible that the subarticles on the heritage and cultural aspects are not fully developed, but should the approach be to exclude a summary until the subarticles are ready, or should the approach be to have a summary on this, the top-level article, and link out as and when appropriate?

I'm reluctant to add anything myself, as the article as it currently stands has had such a lot of excellent work put into it, and I realise it may be difficult to bring something like this in at the last minute, but I felt it had to be raised. The other reason I wouldn't add something myself is that I'm somewhat biased towards coverage of memorials and heritage materials on Wikipedia, and I would find it difficult to strike the balance needed here. At an earlier stage of the article's development, I might have added something (which might have ended up incorporated into what this article is now, or might have been chopped, I have no way of knowing), but I wouldn't add anything at this stage of the article's development.

As I also said elsewhere, I'm happy to disagree on this, as long as it is discussed and some reason given for what is or is not included. As to specifics, I would suggest that the Manhattan Project Preservation Initiative gives a nice overview of that, and the material about the Signature Facilities is also a good start. FWIW, the culture stuff might as well be dropped - it is more important to sort out the heritage and preservation material than worry about mentioning films and things like that. Also, the 'Big Science' point that Orlady mentioned is already covered in the mentions of the network of US national laboratories that arose out of the Manhattan Project. Carcharoth (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I think parks and films are an aspect of the same thing...the cultural mythos of the shebang. When I was on the mesa, you could almost feel it, even 40 years later. I'm not asking for some section with bullet points about mentioned on the Simpsons. But it really is a subject that has been treated in depth in popular books and films. Plus I think it will bulk up what would be a sentence or two on the parks.TCO (reviews needed) 20:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the consensus is that a short section would be warranted. I will add one over the next few days. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Did anything happen with this? Carcharoth (talk) 06:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine whatever the author wants, but he ought to communicate. At this point, I kinda feel the thing has a nice wrapup with the quote and all and adding a section at the end on pop culture seems low value (and the parks are still embryonic).TCO (reviews needed) 06:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a section on pop culture (that is what you were asking for, not me). Please don't confuse heritage and culture - they are very distinct things (and people also don't distinguish enough around here between culture and popular culture). As far as (popular) culture goes, there is a link to the "in popular culture" article already, and I wouldn't even have that there, as 'in popular culture' is something different from 'legacy' (which covers genuine encyclopedic legacy, plus memorials, museums, and heritage and the like, all the way down to cultural representations). Anyway, finally getting to the 'parks', could you please read the 'Manhattan Project Preservation Initiative' and 'Signature Facilities' links I gave above? Those should be read in conjunction with the parks proposal and act. Also, some of the sites are in the process of being demolished and redeveloped (only sections were proposed for preservation). That should at least be covered here. None of that relates to popular culture, of course. Carcharoth (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Getting the source check

The directors here don't provide reviewers or source/image checkers. And I don't think one is going to just appear out of the blue.

We gotta make it happen. Either one of us that has the references (ORL?, Carc?, no me) needs to do the paraphrasing check...or we need to hunt one down. Hawkeye, if you know know of someone who can do the check, might as well go ask him to do it. Maybe someone at Mil Hist?TCO (reviews needed) 16:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

External links

Bringing up the other issue I raised at the FAC, which has had no response yet, which is the matter of external links. Raising it here to see if some discussion will help, rather than overwhelming the FAC page. I said at the FAC that I thought every article had external links, though I now see that is wrong. There are many (featured) articles that don't have external links at all, but those seem to be mainly ones where there is not a lot on the internet related to the article topic. That is not the case here. Obviously there are many sites out there that don't add anything to what is already present in the article, but I can't believe that there are no external sites that it is not worth referring the reader to. Anyway, for what it is worth, the external links section back in December 2009 is here. Presumably those got whittled down and down as the article developed, but I haven't yet managed to find the exact point when they were removed entirely (this edit is correctly removing an inappropriate external link). Anyway, is there any support at all for my position that it should be possible in principle to have an external links section on this article? Carcharoth (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I support it if the links are high value and not covered in references. I think we need a reasoned argument, based on the actual links. Not "looks funny not to have one".TCO (reviews needed) 20:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:EXT, I normally regard the external links as a set of notes left by editors gathering material for the page. My normal attitude towards them is "use it or lose it". So, for example, the first link "Why they called it the Manhattan Project" is used in the article, and can be found in the references. So too were many of the images linked to. Other links were pruned when link rot took them. They disappeared entirely when I overhauled the article in November 2010 [4] but had been somewhat whittled down by then. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely, use them or lose them, but I disagree that a single use means lose them. Sometimes an external link can be a gateway to a large website with lots of material. If you only cite a small portion of that website, you don't inform the reader which (of all the sources you use) are worth reading up on in more detail. Some sources are used in passing, others are used in depth, some lend themselves more to further reading. I feel very strongly that although external links/further reading shouldn't devolve into a directory or guide to "websites or other books out there", there should be some effort to provide the reader with an onwards path to explore the topic further. Rather than trying to package the whole article as a self-sufficient endpoint, it should be a comprehensive starting point where readers learn more about a topic, and then are inspired to go on and read more about the topic. Sometimes that will be by clicking through to other Wikipedia articles, sometimes by clicking on an external link, sometimes by picking one of the major sources to read in full, sometimes by reading a book provided in a further reading section. I can understand 'see also' diminishing to the point of not being present at all by the time you reach FAC (and have suggested that for other articles in the past), but I am not sure the same applies to external links.

I guess this also arises partly from me looking at this from the point of a reader. I enjoy reading many of the featured articles on Wikipedia, but I sometimes get to the end and I look at the daunting array of references and sources and I wonder which would be a good starting point to read further on the topic. I generally have to work it out myself, as article editors rarely seem to want to do that (to be fair, that may be because they don't want to be seen to be favouring one website or book over another one). In this case, I look at the references and wonder which is a standard, book-length treatment of the subject? Well, I know the Richard Rhodes book (The Making of the Atomic Bomb) is good, but don't know enough about the others. The Groves book Now it Can be Told: The Story of the Manhattan Project looks interesting as well. I would throw in the Jones book (Manhattan: The Army and the Atomic Bomb) as well, but don't know what sort of book the Nichols one is (The Road to Trinity: A Personal Account of How America's Nuclear Policies Were Made). See also what is said here. Though I see that the 'further reading' page is still marked as proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The article draws mainly on the two official histories: the Army's Manhattan: The Army and the Atomic Bomb and the Atomic Energy Commission's The New World, 1939–1946. These are excellent, comprehensive accounts. The British bit used their official history, Britain and Atomic Energy, 1935–1945. I also used Grove's Now it can be Told, which is essential for any account because it contains details not easily found elsewhere. Nichols is mainly useful for the post-war period. Naturally, I checked the archives, which are at NARA Archives II in College Park and NARA Atlanta. For the technical details of how to build a bomb, Critical Assembly: A Technical History of Los Alamos during the Oppenheimer Years, 1943–1945 is the best account. Hansen's Swords of Armageddon is also essential, but, again, mostly covers the post-war period. Rhodes is a popular treatment but like the Wikipedia, it is a tertiary account. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I take a pretty liberal POV on linking externally. (More than the consensus.) I don't like our Wiki almost self-promotional walled-garden approach to sometimes push people to very marginal on-wiki content for instance. I don't even think that external links should be so low in the structure (down next to categories!) That I can think of examples where calling out another site would be really valuable though. For instance "Jimmy Carter" should have a link to the Carter Library as it is a central repository of all kinds of Carter info. said, I think if you have both a citation section and a bibliography, the bibliography will point out some key sources. TCO (reviews needed) 23:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any websites that deserve to be here as external links according to the criteria at WP:EL. However, I sympathize with Carcharoth's points about the value of identifying a couple of key online ("External links") and offline ("Further reading") resources. The Department of Energy's online history and the Rhodes book would be good candidates. I haven't read the Groves book or the Nichols book, but I wouldn't recommend first-person accounts when secondary sources like the Rhodes book exist. As for WP:EL-compliant ELs, there are some interesting videos and photo collections related to individual MP topics (such as some recently discovered movie footage of construction at Oak Ridge) that could be linked in topic-specific articles, but I'm not aware of anything that belongs at the level of the Manhattan Project article. --Orlady (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I know way less than you peeps. I read the Campbell book a long time ago. It was very readable and very soon after the bomb, so therefore probably not very definitive. The DuPont book I mentioned is pretty bitching as a history of organizational science type book, but not FR worthy. I could slime it in as a ref somewhere or even break down and read the chapter and think about the content and see if you are missing anything (doubt it, as what you have here is ness at a summary level).TCO (reviews needed) 00:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

(responding to Orlady) In my experience, further reading pages at the back of books vary between being bare lists and annotated thematic guides (which would guide the reader to both primary/personal and secondary sources for further reading). For an example of an annotated further reading section, which I found very useful, see Guy Fawkes Night#Further reading. The editorial tone used there may be a step too far for some, but as a reader, I found it incredibly useful. Your point about ELs as link to 'other' (non-textual) materials is a good one. Carcharoth (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I will add a further reading section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Noting here that a further reading section was added, but seems to have been more a staging post for books to use as references to add more material to the article, and it was then later removed. This is not what a further reading section should be used for at this stage of an article's construction. By this stage, most of the references to be used should have been settled on, and a further reading section should be for the reader (to use after reading the article), not the editor (to use while writing the article). I've said more on this here. Carcharoth (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Come on man. I get how you like to have an annotated bibliography, with commentary and all. But different strokes for different folks. Could do the whole thing with citations as well. I can pretty easily scan the bibliography at least and portion out what the books are versus journal articles and make decisions from titles and such as what to look at. This article is the bomb.  ;-) TCO (reviews needed) 06:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It was more the way 'no external links section' became 'add further reading', at which point I realised that this section is what I had really been missing here for a topic as large as this, and when it was added I was really pleased to see it there, and then it got yanked away again (once it had been used for references). And you do get my point that at this stage of an article's development a further reading section is for the readers of an article, and not for the editors of an article to mine for references for future editing? There is a reason it is called further reading and not further editing. Carcharoth (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've ALWAYS thought of the Further Reading section being for readers.  ;) Yeah...it's nice. I just think TBH, what you would really want is an annotated bibliography (one with comments). And at this stage, a lot of the "good stuff" may already be in his Bibliography. Peace. Sleep.  ;)

TCO (reviews needed) 06:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Saw this from my watchlist. I deal a lot with EL issues, and a few of the past ELs were removed by me a year ago. I'll gladly explain why I removed them if you have any specific questions. Now I'd be very surprised if there aren't any valid ELs for this page out there somewhere on the internet. The best use for ELs is to enhance a reader's encyclopedic understanding of a subject (with extended subject matter beyond where a featured article would take a reader-- in practice this is somewhat lax but here of course the qualifier is needed). It would be great if we could find an EL to a scholarly directory or database of material concerning the Manhattan Project, or perhaps one to loads of great copyrighted photos, where the website owns the copyright (or has permission to host them). ThemFromSpace 11:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Added an External links section with some links. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Those are good links, though retrieval dates aren't needed for external links. The only additional suggestion I would make is something more official than the AHF (which is not an official organisation - the official organisations appear to be the DOI for any potential park stuff and DOE for the actual sites). Unfortunately, the preservations stuff is split between different organisations, so you have to provide more than one external link. Manhattan Project Preservation Initiative; Signature Facilities (both US Department of Energy), and the 2003-4 Act and the news from July 2011. It is also all still up in the air and not decided, though it looks hopeful. Like TCO, I love the way the article ends with that quote from Groves, so I suspect either a grouping of external links on the preservation efforts (you can group external links the same way you grouped the references), or a "see also" link to the 'later history' is the best way to address this. There would certainly be enough material for a 'Legacy of the Manhattan Project' article where it would be easier to expand on all this without disrupting the flow and ending of this article. Also just found the DOI official links on this (well worth reading): Salazar Seeks to Commemorate Manhattan Project through New National Historical Park and NPS Manhattan Project Sites. The document list looks good, though I haven't had the time to read through any of those documents. I'll try and check back, but may not have time to return to this for a few days now, as there are some other things I need to do. Carcharoth (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

First sentence

I'm trying to perform a FAC review, but my reading of the article is immediately disrupted by the first sentence. Please, let me explain. The first sentence should be a clear explanation of the article name. Instead, it is immediately disrupted by the long second clause, without some type of carry-over between the first and third clause. This doesn't pass the first requirement of WP:FACR.

I attempted to re-write the sentence as follows:

"The Manhattan Project was an undertaking, led by the United States with participation from the United Kingdom and Canada, that developed the first atomic bomb during World War II."

but it was immediately reverted. Here "the undertaking" at least gives the reader a clue what it is about; long enough for them to get to the third clause. Please, do something to fix this. Remember that "Manhattan Project" is a code name; it could just as easily refer to dropping propaganda leaflets on Berlin. The reader needs a clarification right from the get-go. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi RJ. Your other edits look great; this one, not so much, and the problem is that it's in the first sentence ... I'm a lot pickier with first sentences than elsewhere. Do you have a dictionary definition of an "undertaking" that isn't roughly equivalent to "thing"? What clarification does that word provide? Meaningless words in the first sentence are bad. Bad! - Dank (push to talk) 15:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added "research and development program"; is that better? - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Much better. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion of "Manhattan" nomenclature at the end of the first paragraph interrupts the flow. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be my preference too, but I'm aware that Hawkeye has gotten hundreds of requests for tweaks during the FAC, some of them asking for those clarifications in the lead, so I'm not going to make that request. - Dank (push to talk) 14:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I know. But maybe we can make this change going forward. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks pretty good

Article looks good content-wise. Especially covering the huge technical and logistic effort involved in the separation (which most popular books do, too, but for some reason the public just connects the project to the mesa). Granted the mesa does have stronger memories in a way of the MP. I spent time in the 80s and there were still a few old hands left. Had lunch with the mold maker.

At DuPont, there was a mythos, that the company had been the integral part of the separation effort ("we did half the Manhattan project"). This article seems to clarify that they were just involved with plutonium? Or were they a lead contractor in a sense for all the separation work? Do any U work?

DuPont's half was the Plutonium project. It was not involved in uranium separation, although it did the uranium work for the reactors. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sea story: (This ain't no shit, it really happened) My old man was the CO for the little amphib boat that trans-shipped the bomb from the Indy to Tinian. He said it was guarded by marines and they were not told what it was.

This is true. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Who ran the Argonne facility? Which contractor?

The University of Chicago Hawkeye7 (talk)

Big science

Kind of remote connection, honest. But maybe not so remote I can't get away with it in article talk.

I read a book once on the founding of NSF. Had lots of Vannover Bush stuff in it and all. I think ONR (or was it NRL) was running NSF for the country before they got a civilian agency. There was a whole big kerfuffle that went down after WW2.

Remember corresponding with the author and he was a cool dude and very simpatico about slamming the Air Force versus the Navy.

TCO (reviews needed) 21:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not a remote connection — the Manhattan Project was one of the biggest forms of big science, and was used to usher in more big science through the creation of the national laboratory system, which was run initially by the Manhattan Engineer District, and later by its successor, the Atomic Energy Commission. The connection is quite direct, though the NSF was envisioned to be quite a different sort of organization than the MED or AEC. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Fast/slow vs. high/low

There are two recent edits that discuss the same point, but using wording that have subtly different meanings:

1. Implosion would use chemical explosive lenses. in which a combination of high and low explosives are used to focus an explosion and crush a subcritical sphere of fissile material into a smaller and denser form.
2. The design of lenses that detonated with just the right shape and velocity turned out to be slow, difficult and frustrating; fast and slow explosives were needed to focus the compression wave on the spherical core.

Can they be reconciled? Do we need both? Is the slow explosive definitely a low explosive? Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• No, it is not. Both the "slow" and "fast" explosives are high explosives. My fault. I have rewritten this part. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Cost

Could we add the amount in 2011 dollars? It would give the readers a much better idea. --Sam 17:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe this section was poorly worded around how much the bombs costed. I had to read over it several times to comprehend the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrkyleman (talk • contribs) 00:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

District and Project

Two things:

1. Manhattan District vs. Manhattan Engineer District? There are mixed usages in the article. I prefer MED, just because that is what Groves used when he talked about it, most of the time (I have seen him once refer to it as the "Manhattan Engineer District Project" as well, which is kind of amusing). It also makes it clear that it is in the Corps of Engineers. My understanding is that the MED was the official name.
2. Project vs. District? Personally the only thing that makes sense to me is calling the wartime effort the Project, and the organization itself the District. In many cases it doesn't matter — the sentence works either way — so calling it a Project is fine for most cases, since that's the common term. But especially when talking about postwar things, like Crossroads, it seems really silly to say that they were administered by the Project, as opposed to the District.

Neither of these are mission-critical, but it would be good to be consistent. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not correct. The district was the US Army unit, which was headed by Colonel Marshall and then Colonel (later Brigadier General) Kenneth Nichols. The project was the whole effort, which was headed by Brigadier General (later Major General) Leslie Groves. Note the organisation chart included in the article, which is dated 1 May 1946. As you can see, both names were official by this time. Most activities came under the MED in any case, but it important to realise that some activities, most notably Projects Alberta, Camel and Y, were directly under the Project. The Manhattan Project continued until 31 December 1946, when it was superseded by the AEC. The MED actually lasted longer, until 15 August 1947, when it was officially disbanded, and the remaining personnel transferred to the AFSWP. I tried to carefully use the correct one in the article every time. I spent some time looking into when the term "Manhattan Project" superseded "Development of Substitute Materials". Both were in use by April 1945, but the latter was not used after December 1945. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the distinction between the District and the Project, but the page title is Manhattan Project, while the sidebar box is about the Manhattan Engineering District. Perhaps the distinction needs to be made on the page itself, not in these comments. Perhaps the District should have it's own page? Something needs to be done to clearer distinguish the Project from the District. The present combination is confusing. (The org chart does indeed clarify). --Wormholio (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 March 2012

"Manhattan District" in box, should be "Manhattan Project"

114.76.108.251 (talk) 08:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. See the discussion above "District and Project" Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit dispute

Hawkeye7 and I are in dispute over a particular sentence. The text in question is from a reliable source, namely page 108 of a lengthy and detailed Life magazine article published almost immediately after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. As I told Hawkeye7 when restoring it for the second time, the proper way to fix an incorrect cite that is properly sourced is to find another cite that contradicts this and explain the differences as needed. The improper way is to, as he did, delete the cited text and offer nothing better in its place than to empirically claim that "the article is incorrect". Ylee (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 states that he has provided corrective cites elsewhere in the article. I disagree. The article states that the overall project initially, in 1942, did not receive the top priority rating, but that by 1944 it did so for personnel. There is nothing that contradicts the disputed text's statement that when the embargoed Life article was written, likely in June-August 1945 before Hiroshima, the project overall had the highest possible priority for both men and material (and I'd be flabbergasted if this were otherwise by then). I will not revert again due to 3RR, but ask Hawkeye7 to discuss the issue here. Ylee (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

During the war, the words "Manhattan Project" gave any request for workers or rationed materials the highest priority. The source says (p. 108): In Washington during the construction stage of the plants, the mere words "Manhattan Project" were magic for obtaining the most critical materials in any amount and skilled labor in any volume. The article goes into considerable detail about the actual priority accorded to the Manhattan Project:

The top ratings were AA-1 through AA-4 in descending order, although there was also a special AAA rating reserved for emergencies. Ratings AA-1 and AA-2 were for essential weapons and equipment, so Colonel Lucius D. Clay, the deputy chief of staff at Services and Supply for requirements and resources, felt that the highest rating he could assign was AA-3, although he was willing to provide a AAA rating on request for critical materials if the need arose.[36] Nichols and Marshall were disappointed; AA-3 was the same priority as Nichols' TNT plant in Pennsylvania.[37]...
On 19 September Groves went to Donald Nelson, the chairman of the War Production Board, and asked for broad authority to issue a AAA rating whenever it was required. Nelson initially balked but quickly caved in when Groves threatened to go to the President.[45] Groves promised not to use the AAA rating unless it was necessary. It soon transpired that for the routine requirements of the project the AAA rating was too high but the AA-3 rating was too low. After a long campaign, Groves finally received AA-1 authority on 1 July 1944.[46]

The source is arguably correct, although hyperbolic in that the Manhattan Project did not actually use limitless quantities of labor or materials. However, your edit goes beyond what the source says. As the article already states, the words "Manhattan Project" did not automatically give any request the highest priority. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we're talking about the same thing from different perspectives here. Nuclear weapons are very cheap, on a per-kiloton basis, for their effects; as the Cost section discusses, more than 90% of the $2B spent on the project went to building the gigantic sites at the likes of Hanford and Oak Ridge, most of which became reusable, sunk costs used for decades. In other words, the vast majority of the expense of the Manhattan Project from a supply perspective was construction, not the few dozen physicists using slide rules and chalk on blackboards in Los Alamos. From this perspective, I see no inaccuracy in my paraphrase of the cite. Ylee (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I like about that section, in that it talks about the majority of the workers. I didn't think it lost anything by dropping the bit about priority, which was out of sync with the rest of the section, which was about what happened after Hiroshima. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No, the contrast adds to the effectiveness of the section. The disputed text: 1) Succintly communicates the top priority of the project during the war, which is otherwise easily overlooked in the article's discussion of varying priority levels for men versus material and their changes. 2) It sets up an interesting contrast for the reader to contemplate between the top priority given to all aspects of the project and how little 99% of the personnel knew about any aspect of this top-priority project other than their immediate daily duties. Ylee (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Problems with this article

Minor nit 1: The article does not use military rank consistently. This made a difference (Groves knew this which is why he wanted his star (one can tell civilians mostly contributed to this article): were Groves alive he would take wikipedia to task). This inconsistency would be OK were it at least chronologically consistent (e.g., "Col. vs. Brig Gen. Groves" vs. say Boris Pash who started as a Major, but is cited as an Lt. Col.).

Minor nit 2: lacks adequate representation of computation in the Theory Division: mostly started by spouses at Los Alamos but spread else where. Feynman spoke about this in his memoirs (poorly worded caption on one photo, needs slight wordage editing) and was detailed 3 decades later in a NCC paper by Jack Worlton (declassified).

Minor nit 3: The article fails to explain how clueless the Brits really were once they left the US (surprise!).

The article probably could use a finer toothed comb (I studied this topic), but I don't have time to go it as I came looking for other material and could not find it. 99.11.227.190 (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

1. Military ranks are used consistently. Per the MOS, they appear only the first time someone is mentioned. Groves would take the Wikipedia to task, but not about this; the article was primarily written by someone with a military background.
2. The article does not go into detail about Project Y. It has to cover the entire scope of the Project
3. The Brits were able to construct their own bomb with substantially less resources in 1946-52, mainly because they knew how it was done. Again, this is the subject of another article.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

@99.11.227.190, in what way were the Brits clueless? What is the surprise? Explain yourself. Britain has a modern nuclear deterrent right now. I am bemused. DJDunsie (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Hawkeye7's unexplained revert

hi...I see from your edit history on this article that you seem to like to control it, and are very revert happy. What's up? This is a WIKI. Do you know what that means? You don't own any article, so stop acting like you do. You should NEVER revert someone simply because you don't like the edit.

WP policy is to undo only when there's clear vandalism, or truly inaccurate things, etc, (that you have to prove is inaccurate, not just assert that it is), etc. Just saying "not true" in your edit comment is not a real explanation or valid clear reason to undo a good-faith edit. I mean, if it was not the reason for the term "Manhattan Project", then just what WAS the reason for that name? You didn't exactly say, did you.

You could have stated HOW it was "not true"...instead of rudely reverting...with no real explanation. I mean, if I'm wrong, then point out exactly how, in black and white, chapter and verse, as it were, and then I'll admit the error. But that still doesn't excuse the lack of real explanation in the edit comment. You coulda stated briefly just what the reason is for the name "Manhattan Project". You notice that this article does NOT even really say why clearly. The article is therefore lacking in a way.

So please tell me why exactly they named it "Manhattan Project" if the "Columbia University" thing was not part of it. I'd like to hear it. Hashem sfarim (talk) 08:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That appears to already be explained as part of Manhattan Project#Organization. Can you please provide a reliable source which supports your alternative account of how the name came about? Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I just find it kind of hypocritical and convenient that you only pick at that specific statement in that paragraph when every other sentence in that paragraph (and that whole lede area) has NO ref citation at all, anywhere, yet those sentences are left untouched. Why is that? As for the explanation for the name, it should be clear in this article. If it is, I didn't find it. It may have been alluded to a little bit in the subsection, but even there you see the clear words "Columbia University". So doesn't that lend weight to my point? But if it's not there, the article is incomplete. If "Columbia University" (which is in Manhattan) was not part of the reason for the name, then it should be stated in the article just what was the reason for the term. Thank you. Hashem sfarim (talk) 08:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The lead sections of articles aren't normally referenced, as they're a summary of the referenced material which appears later in the article. Please see WP:LEADCITE. Given that you're adding new and material to a featured article, the burden is on you to provide a reference (please see WP:BURDEN). Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC

It may have been alluded to a little bit in the subsection, but even there you see the clear words "Columbia University". So doesn't that lend weight to my point? Hashem sfarim (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is there no clear unambiguous reason for the term "Manhattan Project"? Even in that subsection of "Project", it's not clear, though "Columbia University" is brought up there, as seemingly part of it. So doesn't that prove the point? Again, tell me, just what was the reason(s) for the name "Manhattan Project"? If Columbia University (being in Manhattan) was not part of it, then how was it not? And then just what was the actual reason for the name? Why do I keep hearing crickets from you guys on that? Hashem sfarim (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The article is clear about the reason for the name: Since engineer districts normally carried the name of the city where they were located, Marshall and Groves agreed to name the Army's component of the project the Manhattan District It also acknowledges that the district headquarters was located in New York due to the presence there of Stone & Webster and Columbia University. Cheers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

What Hawkeye said. If you've got a reliable source which attributes the name exclusively to the Columbia University connection then it would be good to see it. Otherwise, please drop the attitude and move on. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Ayayaya, the "attitude" is warranted, as this only proves what I've been saying all along. I said that the "Columbia University" thing was PART PART of the reason. And it clearly is from what was stated there. Maybe not the only, granted, but at least part of it. Thanks. Hashem sfarim (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You didn't provide the sources to support it, add it to the correct section and gave undue weight to it in the lead. This is a featured article, so accusations of ownership are not assuming good faith on your part. --LauraHale (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

The article says that the project was "led by the United States with participation from the United Kingdom and Canada". However, lots of non-American scientists from Europe, like the German Albert Einstein, the Hungarian John von Neumann or Danish Niels Bohr for example, came to the US to participate in the project. These countries are not mentioned alongside the UK and Canada. It is not fair only to mention the UK and Canada. Either all the countries or none should be mentioned. Therefore it should be changed to "led by the United States with participation from other countries". DJDunsie (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Those scientists were contributing in their personal capacity, and their involvement was obviously not endorsed by their national governments (which were either at war with the Allies - and potential targets for the bomb - or occupied by Germany). The British and Canadian governments contributed significant resources to this project, and the British played a role in its governance. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As noted in the article, Canada too was involved in the governance of the project. This had important repercussions after the war, and these three counties deserve to be singled out. Beyond them, participation becomes problematic. Does Mark Oliphant's participation mean Australia participated? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess it depends if you see individuals acting for their country or for themselves. I did not realise that the the UK and Canada contributed resources, so their mentioning is justified. Thank you both. DJDunsie (talk) 10:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Physicists opposition to the use of the bombs

How can this be a featured article without any mention of Szilárd petition and the Emergency Committee of Atomic Scientists ? I'll add a word about the latter, but I have no clue about where to talk about the former, so please someone do it. Also, I'm not quite knowledgeable in this field so I guess this can and should be developped further. Skippy le Grand Gourou (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I made a try, clearly not satisfying but it's late and I couldn't find a better place so I hope someone else can develop further. Maybe the Russell-Einstein Manifesto could be also mentionned, as well as Joseph Rotblat and his Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. Skippy le Grand Gourou (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Something that is not mentioned in the major sources had little chance. If you can provide a reference to the Emergency Committee of Atomic Scientists I will incorporate a mention into the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, they are a number in Google Books or Google News, pick the one(s) you prefer… As for the Russell-Einstein Manifesto : [5] & [6], and for Rotblat and Pugwash conferences : [7] & [8]. Finally, maybe there is something to do with this interview of Szilárd (U.S. News & World Report, August 15, 1960, pages 68-71), I don't know. Skippy le Grand Gourou (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I will add something when I get a chance. Hawkeye7 (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a link to one of the Szilard petitions. This is located in the Truman library and only has a handful (one of them being Szilard's) of the 155 signatures which it eventually received. Also, the petition was written and signed in July, prior to the bombings. The article states that it was written and signed in August. The date of the letter in the Truman library refutes this as it is dated July 17, 1954. on http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/documents/index.php?documentdate=1945-07-17&documentid=79&studycollectionid=abomb&pagenumber=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Brundrett (talk • contribs) 20:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

DuPont participation footnote

In November 1942, the representative DuPont dispatched to meet with Gen. Leslie Groves in Chicago was chemical engineer Thomas H. Chilton, because it was an engineering service involving chemistry. As promised, it went BOOM.

Although Tom had been authorized to deal for the Famous Dollar, when the time came after the war for the dollar to be paid, Chilton stood outside a ring of worthies who had never heard of the Periodic Table. Citation: Talk (laughter) at the family table over a turkey dinner. Signed --Edward M. Chilton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.56.107 (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you be able to upload a pic of him for his article? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Canadian Flag

Please correct the Canadian Flag! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.175.82 (talk) 03:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

plutonium weapon design needs just a bit more explication to make it comprehensible.

Note, I'm not trying to lard the thing down with length or technical detail, but as is, it has some "huh" factor.

1. Break off the Ray-La sentence and make a short paragraph of it. The sentence fits poorly in the para it is in (even with the connector). And then there is really no explanation of what the thing did (essentially taking an X-ray movie of the conventional explosion). Instead we get some detail about the ionization chamber and such (which makes no sense if we don't understand what was being done and is really kinda an apparatus detail). To build the paragraph, just steal a little bit of the content in the lead for the Ray-La experiment. In particular, the quote there will really resonate well in this article with its historical tone. It will also make the photo you have nearby seem more meaningful (right now it is kinda cryptic and just looks like some extra photo stuck in...versus something very important).

2. (not as important). Add a little more detail about the exploding bridge-wire. At least that they fire faster than blasting caps and were invented by Alvarez (wikilink him, he is an incredible guy).

2.1 If you wanted to build a whole para on this you could but I'm not sure it is needed. Can just expand the sentence. If you do build a para, then go snag the wonderful quote in Alvarez's article about the difference between uranium and plutonium bombs (very cool and explanatory).

(me) 71.246.150.230 (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Will do. I just have to sort out the sources. Will also mention Alvarez. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I have done that. Also fixed up Alvarez's article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Security on the Manhattan Project

The article states that the security was very tight on the Manhattan Project, however in Richard Feynman's autobiography, Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!, Dr.Feynman talks extensively about the many glaring flaws in the Project's security, including the fact that many safes containing classified documents all used the same combinations for their locks, as well as a large hole in the fence at the facility through which project staff would enter and exit when they didn't feel like going through security — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.6.113 (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I might add this in. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Unsupported and uncited error regarding Declaration of War.

Under the "Feasability" section is the statement:

"...in the wake of the attack on Pearl Harbor and the subsequent declaration of war by the United States on Japan and Germany. "

This statement is egregiously wrong: The United States NEVER declared war on Germany in WWII! Please correct this misinformend error (that also remains uncited).

Boneheaded errors such as this one have no place in Wiki.99.2.69.38 (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The United States declared war on Germany and Italy on 11 December 1941. See United States declaration of war upon Germany (1941). Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Location of Montreal Laboratory

Montreal Laboratory is mentioned as being located within McGill University, whereas the team sent to Montreal only resided for a few months in a McGill-owned house, and subsequently moved to a location inside the Université de Montréal (the page on the Montreal Laboratory is correct in this).

That page is worthless as it has no references. Made a minor change to the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

First sentence

• "The Manhattan Project was a research and development program by the United States with the United Kingdom and Canada that produced the first atomic bomb during World War II."
• It is well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard
  • Comments? --John (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The Manhattan Project created the first atomic bomb during World War II. The program was led by the United States with the support of the United Kingdom and Canada.

FIFY.

71.246.150.230 (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

That's better, thanks. --John (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No. I don't think Canada had any thing to do with it.174.57.114.97 (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Z Fri. March 8 2013 2:58

Well now you can read the article and be better informed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean?174.57.114.97 (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Z

See also: Canada's Historical Role in Developing Nuclear Weapons, courtesy of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Praemonitus (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

What dialect of English is the following? Can anyone interpret?

...while the U.S. government increasingly convinced to the fact that prevented Great Britain from being able to build a postwar atomic weapon.[15] The Military Policy Committee (MPC) supported Bush's arguments and restricted the classified information to what Britain could succeed to develop its atomic weapons program even if it slows down the American efforts for nuclear weapons. APW (talk)

Where does it say that? Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Anniversary of Trinity Bomb Test: slideshow

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has a slide show by Alex Wellerstein commemorating the 68th Anniversary of the Trinity test. Amazing archived footage of the test site, and explosion, with good historical information. Lisamccabe (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Getting bigger?

Nice job getting the article featured, but 102 kB of prose is massive. It's even longer than World War II! Any chance that some of this high quality content could be moved out to bolster related topics?

Peter ^Isotalo 19:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

What's all this on the top of this talk page?

Is the Q&A at the top of this talk page the official position of Wikipedia? If not, then why is it at the top of this page in an official looking box rather than presented as an entry like everyone else's contribution?

Also, what's up with the answers to Q2 and Q3? If the Canadian flag is in the article page's infobox due to a "governance role" in the project then that's fine, then let's label it as such. The countries in the infobox should be described as "Governing Countries" rather than "Active Country [sic]." Canada was active in a very indirect sort of way that is analogous to, but slightly greater than, the role of the Belgian Congo. It is no way comparable to the role of the US or even the UK. Having a Canadian flag in an infobox labeled "Active Country" is true in a literal sense only, but it's more misleading than informative without further caveats.

But, if the infobox is referring to governance then why is Q3 and A3 necessary? (To avoid confusion, in the drop-down box A3 is mislabeled A2; I'm referring to the answer to Q3). If it were referring only to governance, then the inclusion of the Canadian flag wouldn't be contentious. However, in response to A3, why would events that supposedly "had important consequences in the post-war period" that occur after the project had ceased to exist be relevant to Canada's inclusion? And in which section are these Canadian-driven events that had "important consequences in the post-war period" mentioned? --Wikiddingme (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The infobox is just a just a way of summarising information. Most articles have one. They don't imply any official endorsement by WMF. Rather, the articles reflect the consensus of the editors. The FAQ is just to bring new editors up to speed on the consensus already arrived at, and the reasons for it. The Infobox says "Country"; "Active" is a separate heading on the line above, for the years that the project was active. Canada was involved in as much a direct way as the United States or Britain, in that there were Manhattan Project research and production facilities in Canada, and, through the CPC, Canada was also one of the three countries involved in the governance of the project, making the project officially a US-British-Canadian one. Canada's role was less than that of the US and Britain, but was still much greater than Allied countries like Australia and Denmark which contributed key scientists. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Engagements

Per this diff. I have read through the article and completely disagree. The project, as described, aimed to produce a bomb which was then used on Japan. That is the only engagement, as this article states, the project took part in. The engagement box gives an erroneous view of the project: no atomic bombs were dropped on Italy, France, or Germany, and the project did not partake in the occupation of Japan.

To say they partook in such events is questionable, and not supported by the article. The article notes the following, tedious, links to being able to say it did:

Italy: "The Alsos Mission to Italy questioned staff of the physics laboratory at the University of Rome following the capture of the city in June 1944". Questioning staff is a far cry from engaging in the Italian campaign.

France: "tracked down 68 tons of ore in Belgium and 30 tons in France". Tracking down ore following the liberation of France not engaging in the invasion.

Germany: "The interrogation of German prisoners indicated that uranium and thorium were being processed in Oranienburg, 20 miles north of Berlin, so Groves arranged for it to be bombed on 15 March 1945". Providing intelligence on, what appears to be, a single bombing mission is a pretty tedious link to active participation. There appear to be several allusions to Operation Paperclip, which again does not warrant the claim the project took part in the invasion. Per the article, it would seem Operation Harborage would be a better replacement for engagement box.

Japan: The article clearly notes that post-war the project was scaled down and the people demobbed. It also notes that only survey teams were sent, to examine the damage inflicted: "On 11 August, he phoned Warren with orders to organize a survey team to report on the damage and radioactivity at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A party equipped with portable Geiger counters arrived in Hiroshima on 8 September headed by Farrell and Warren, with Japanese Rear Admiral Masao Tsuzuki, who acted as a translator. They remained in Hiroshima until 14 September and then surveyed Nagasaki from 19 September to 8 October.[281] This and other scientific missions to Japan would provide valuable scientific and historical data.[282]" That does not support that any members of the project, or the project itself, took part in the occupation of Japan.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The article fully supports the claims in the FAQ. The Alsos Mission participated in the campaigns in Italy, France and Germany. Tracking down materials and scientists is participation in the campaigns. It was not involved in Operation Paperclip. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, and despite your comments in the edit box I have read through the article. The only way the Manhattan Project participated in the campaigns the infobox claimed, is by the above quotes. That is an extremely tedious link to the claim that they actively participated in those campaigns. Participation means actively engaging in something: the article clearly highlights that the project and the men involved did no such thing.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Participation means that personnel were present in the theater of operations during the period of active operations. By "actively participated" I presume you mean as opposed to official visits. The Alsos Mission did actively participate in the campaign, and its personnel were duly decorated for it by their respective governments. The personnel of S Force in Italy and T Force in France and Germany whose mission was to secure scientific and cultural works played an important part in the campaigns, as did the Allied Military Government units. Such forces are a vital part of any military operation. The Alsos Mission went further than most because at times it operated behind the enemy lines in France, and later in Germany. Tracking down scientific staff and materials was very much part of the invasion, and the uranium ore recovered was sent to Oak Ridge, where it may have formed part of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Enigma; to classify the actions in Italy, France and Germany as 'engagements' on a par with the atomic bombings is, quite frankly, absurd. More to the point the links in the infobox currently point to the actual invasions of Italy and France, whereas the article does not support this. In fact it states that scientists went to Rome after it's capture, much later than the 1943 invasion, and that most of the actions in Europe were in Belgium, which was not liberated until after Operation Overlord. Quite simply, the scientists were not engaged in combat with the enemy during these campaigns and it is not logical for the infobox to claim that the Manhatten project contributed to the D-Day landings, which it currently implies, especially when the atomic bombings are uttered in the same breath. Ranger Steve ^Talk 23:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I have switched the Italian link to point to the Italian Campaign, which is appropriate. As explained in the articles, the Manhattan Project was involved in Operation Overlord through Operation Peppermint, did participate in the fighting in Brittany and in the liberation of Paris, and in combat operations in Germany. Not to mention the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (through Project Alberta). Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Controversial names

Taking into account historical facts and the main goal of the Manhattan plan, to call the Manhattan project a "research and development" project is a very controversial way and extremely biased and subjective denomination at least.

I believe Wikipedia has to challenge this sort of denominations or otherwise will be soon under rated.

It is like calling the genocide of Native Americans the "Spanish conquest". User:90.244.5.71 (User talk:90.244.5.71) 12:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I almost bet that if, for instance, the "Manhattan project" had been carried out by Iran, with the support of let's say North Korea and Cuba, then instead of a "research and development" project as Wikipedia mentions in the first line, it would read very different adjectives, like the "Manhattan project" was a terrorist project, or the Manhattan project was a genocidal project, or the Manhattan project was a war project, or a destructive project. But because it was carried out by the USA, with support from the UK and one of its colonies, then it is a "research and development" project. It is seriously worrisome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.5.71 (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Please go to Iran or North Korea and spend some time there. When/if you return, let us know if your equivocation still makes any sense - North Korea and Iran are not equivalent to the US and Britain. 70.104.195.119 (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It's called a research & development project because that's what it was. They were researching and developing a nuclear bomb. The adjectives you give are POV, since they make the project sound bad, but "research and development" is neutral. It was indeed a war project, but the article makes that obvious. I don't think the article particularly whitewashes the nature of the project -- it focuses more on the project itself than the weapon, anyway -- and it leaves it up to the reader how to assign judgment. So calling this controversial doesn't really hold water.

The genocide of the Native Americans was Spanish conquest too. The two aren't exclusive. Brutannica (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Flag

Just wondering why the old Canadian flag is used. Is it because that was the flag used in the 40's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.76.180 (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Per MOS:FLAGS, the contemporary flag is used. It was not overlooked that few Canadians recognise it, and the maple leaf flag would suit the purpose better. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Bloch was a theorist...

Under bomb design concepts, Bloch is listed as an experimentalist. He was Heisenberg's student and foremost a theorist. Is this incorrect or was he doing experiments at this time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.146.68.104 (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The article reflects the source (p. 43) where Bloch is described as an experimentalist. Wish his article was better. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Sir Marcus "Mark" Laurence Elwin Oliphant, Founder of the Manhattan Project & the Man who split the atom.

Please edit this page to reflect the truth' & not the U.S lies & propaganda.

How in the name of Zusus butt-hole can you have a page about the Manhattan project & not include the man who Set it up, & Ran the Program in Australia first, Then later The United Kingdom & in the USA After he convinced the USA to fund the program & allow the Program & his teams relocation to the USA to prevent the technology from falling into enemy hands.

The Manhattan project was set up by Australia Marcus "Mark" Oliphant, ... Mark Oliphant ... The man who split the Atom under New Zealander Ernest Rutherford, .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford

Mark Oliphant ... the man who discovered Helium 3 ... & the man who ran Australia's nuclear program & latter the United Kingdom Nuclear program, Before he / Mark Oliphant lobbied / convinced the USA to fund his Project & relocate the program to the safe haven of the USA away from the war against the Germans in Europe & Japanese in the south Pacific, After employing Mark Oliphant to set up & run The Manhattan Project in the USA to create a bomb, Mark Oliphant relocated to the USA.

(( From the Wikipedia Mark Oliphant page ))

Sir Marcus "Mark" Laurence Elwin Oliphant, AC KBE FRS FAA (8 October 1901 – 14 July 2000) was an Australian physicist and humanitarian who played an important role in the first experimental demonstration of nuclear fusion and also the development of nuclear weapons.

Born in Adelaide, South Australia, Oliphant graduated from the University of Adelaide in 1922. He was awarded an 1851 Exhibition Scholarship in 1927 on the strength of the research he had done on mercury, and went to England, where he studied under Sir Ernest Rutherford at the University of Cambridge's Cavendish Laboratory. There, he used a particle accelerator to fire heavy hydrogen nuclei (deuterons) at various targets. He discovered the nuclei of helium 3 (helions) and tritium (tritons). He also discovered that when they reacted with each other, the particles that were released had far more energy than they started with. Energy had been liberated from inside the nucleus, and he realised that this was a result of nuclear fusion.

Oliphant left the Cavendish Laboratory in 1937 to become the Poynting Professor of Physics at the University of Birmingham. He attempted to build a 60-inch (150 cm) cyclotron at the university, but its completion was postponed by the outbreak of the Second World War in Europe in 1939. He became involved with the development of radar, heading a group at the University of Birmingham that included John Randall and Harry Boot, who created a radical new design, the cavity magnetron, that made microwave radar possible. He also formed part of the MAUD Committee, which reported that an atomic bomb was not only feasible, but might be produced as early as 1943. Oliphant was instrumental in spreading the word of this finding in the United States, thereby starting what became the Manhattan Project. Later in the war, he worked on it with his friend Ernest Lawrence at the Radiation Laboratory in Berkeley, California, on Electromagnetic isotope separation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Oliphant

&

PROFESSOR SIR MARK OLIPHANT, who has died in Canberra aged 98, ( 2000 ) played a central role in the development of the first atomic bomb. The incineration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, however, left Oliphant with a burden of guilt that ever after affected his public life and work, and accounted for some of his puzzling incon-sistencies.

Oliphant was already renowned for his work on sub-atomic particles at the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge, when, in the darkest days of the Second World War, the refugee German scientists Otto Frisch and Rudolf Peierls delivered to him their famous memorandum arguing the feasibility of the uranium bomb.

Oliphant backed Frisch and Peierls, and through Henry Tizard, scientific adviser to the Air Ministry, the British quest for the bomb took shape. Oliphant feared the outcome, but feared even more that the Nazis might get the bomb first. Through his colleague Professor Ernest Lawrence, of Berkeley, California, the inventor of the cyclotron, Oliphant was able to inject some purpose into the desultory American investigations.

Later, he was second only to James Chadwick (who had discovered the neutron) in the British team which from 1943 worked with the Americans on the Manhattan Project, the wartime atomic bomb programme. The British scientists concentrated in particular on the electromagnetic separation of uranium isotopes.

But the use of the atom bomb in Japan in 1945 horrified Oliphant - a man who found the slaughter of animals for food so disagreeable that he observed a strict vegetarianism. Thereafter he preached international control of nuclear weapons, but a bright future for mankind through peaceful nuclear energy.

At Bertrand Russell's urging, he joined Albert Einstein and others as a founder member of the Pugwash Movement of scientists against nuclear weapons; he came to avoid all research of a military nature. Oliphant spoke up for J Robert Oppenheimer, the American nuclear scientist who became a victim of McCarthyism, and he marched in the streets against the Vietnam war.

Describing himself as a belligerent pacifist, he inveighed against French nuclear tests in the Pacific. "France," he said, "is like a bandit with a sawn-off shotgun holding the rest of the world to ransom." At the same time, he held some strong conservative views.

After his appointment as Governor of South Australia, he strenuously opposed the libertarian policy of the Labour Premier, Don Dunstan, towards pornography. He stood for the monarchy, family values and conventional education. His guests at Government House ranged from the Duke of Edinburgh to North Vietnamese trade unionists.

Marcus Laurence Elwin Oliphant was born in Adelaide, South Australia, on October 8 1901, the eldest of five sons. His father was a civil service clerk whose reading encompassed theology and the classics; his mother was a schoolteacher. After the Unley and Adelaide secondary schools, Oliphant went on to Adelaide University, where in 1925, when working as a science demonstrator, he heard Ernest Rutherford lecture.

Inspired by the great man, he reached Cambridge two years later as an exhibitioner at Trinity. Working under Rutherford in nuclear physics at the Cavendish Laboratory, he made his mark among a brilliant collection of scientists including John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton, who split the atom; James Chadwick; and Patrick Blackett, who traced the electron and positron.

Among those working at the Cavendish in the early 1930s were eight Nobel prizewinners. Oliphant was particularly close to Rutherford and Cockcroft. Sometimes, he delivered lectures for Rutherford, and together they worked on heavy hydrogen reactions.

In 1937 Oliphant was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society. That year he also took up the Poynting Chair of Physics at Birmingham University, where he oversaw the building of the Nuffield Laboratory. As war approached, Oliphant turned to developing microwaves that would transform radar into a war-winning device.

In February 1940 two of his team, John Randall and Harry Boot, achieved the breakthrough with a new type of magnetron. After his work on the atomic bomb, the post-war years were a period of growing frustration for Oliphant.

From 1950, as director of the Research School of Physical Sciences at the newly founded Australian National University, he was determined to build the world's most powerful accelerator for particle research.

It was destined to be mocked as Canberra's "White Oliphant". Plagued by engineering difficulties and lacking resources, Oliphant saw both the Americans and the Russians pass him and achieve the goal of the anti-proton. When he retired in 1966 this remained his great failure.

In 1971 the South Australian Premier, Don Dunstan, secured Oliphant's appointment as Governor - the first native-born South Australian to hold the post. In his five lively years he spoke out in unprecedented fashion for causes such as conservation and the environment and against drinking drivers, racism, violence and single-sex schools.

Time and again he challenged Christian orthodoxy: "Surely if there is a God, he is this universe." Ultimately, he fell out with Dunstan, mainly over pornography. A tall, solid figure, with a ruddy face and a shock of woolly white hair, Oliphant was a man of unassailable integrity who could be impetuous, indiscreet and stubborn. He had a hearty style but was markedly sensitive to injustice.

For many years he was followed by baseless smears suffered during the McCarthyist days, when the eminent scientist who had helped to win the war was unable to obtain an American visa. Yet immediately after the war Americans had decided to award Oliphant the Medal of Freedom with gold palm, the highest among various honours for nearly 100 foreign scientists, and intended for him alone.

But the Australian government of the day refused to allow foreign awards for civilians, and not until 1980 did Oliphant's case come to light, through the researches of Oliphant's joint biographer, Stewart Cockburn. Oliphant was co-founder, with Dr D F Martyn, of the Australian Academy of Science, and president of the Academy from 1954 to 1957.

He was appointed KBE in 1959, and a Companion of the Order of Australia in 1977. He published numerous scientific and technical papers, as well as Rutherford: Recollections of the Cambridge Days (1972). He married, in 1925, Rosa Wilbraham, of Adelaide, who died in 1987. A son died in 1933, another in 1971; a daughter survives.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1349058/Professor-Sir-Mark-Oliphant.html 1.125.170.160 (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I was involved in the writing of both this article and the one on Mark Oliphant. Oliphant's role is prominently recounted in the Manhattan Project article, and he is one of a small number of physicists mentioned in it by name. His own article will go to FAC later in in the year, and I hope that it will appear on the front page. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

dead link

Dead link comes up with wayback machine. Not sure how to cite that or archive it:

[9]  Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

History of the Dayton Project

Broken: http://www.eecap.org/PDF/Dayton_Project/History/HISTORY_OF_THE_DAYTON_PROJECT.pdf

This page, on the same site, is also full of broken links: http://www.eecap.org/Covered_Facilities/Ohio/Dayton_Project.htm Broken. I tried to report it to them, but their contact form is also broken:- http://www.eecap.org/contact.htm I called in the phone number and nobody picked up the phone.

I don't know if eecap is authoritative, but that website if theirs is no good.

Another Dead Link on Wayback

I also tried to get the alleged PDF through the Wayback machine, but could not find it there, either. http://web.archive.org/web/20130601000000*/http://www.eecap.org/PDF/Dayton_Project/History/HISTORY_OF_THE_DAYTON_PROJECT.pdf

The resources and links need to be fixed and working.

Possible Replacement?

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2013/ph241/jiang1/docs/4807049.pdf

 Done The article just moved to [10]. So fixed the link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Link to source 302 is dead

Found an archive of the same source here on the same website http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/archive/nucweapons/manhattan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.110.120 (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

John von Neumann is not present in the list of scientists

Is there some mysterious criteria? Jancsi was pretty involved. — MaxEnt 03:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to keep the overall list down to a manageable size so it could be turned into a good topic. My criteria for inclusion are:

1. Was the head of one of the laboratories or at least a division of one (Alvarez, Bacher, Bradbury,...)
2. Won the Nobel Prize (Bethe, Bohr, Chadwick, Fermi,...)
3. Was particularly notably associated with the project in another way (Fuchs, Koval, Slotin,...)

Johnny might qualify under (3) but... his article is a real mess, and unless you're offering to help fix it up I am pretty reluctant. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Minor Punctuation Issue

In the first paragraph under "After the war", there is a comma missing. The original sentence states, "Although the bombs' existence was public secrecy continued, and many workers remained ignorant of their jobs;" There should be a comma after public, so it reads, "Although the bombs' existence was public, secrecy continued, and many workers remained ignorant of their jobs;" However, I only have 6 edits and am not in the "autoconfirmed" group, so I am not able to edit it myself. –Bassmadrigal (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2015

The Metallurgical Laboratory at Iowa State College was under the direction of Frank Spedding and Dr. Harley Wilhelm. Please change the text from:

"A special branch of the Metallurgical Laboratory was established at Iowa State College in Ames, Iowa, under Frank Spedding to investigate alternatives, and its Ames process became available in 1943."

to: "A special branch of the Metallurgical Laboratory was established at Iowa State College in Ames, Iowa, under Frank Spedding and Dr. Harley Wilhelm to investigate alternatives, and its Ames process became available in 1943."

Twaldof (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

No. The article is correct. Spedding was the director of the Ames Laboratory. Wilhelm was one of the two associate directors he brought in. Wilhelm helped develop the Ames Process. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Lake Ontario Ordnance Works

Should the Lake Ontario Ordnance Works (LOOW) / "Niagara Falls Storage Site" be mentioned in this article? It was a major dumping ground for Manhattan Project waste. If others feel it would be an appropriate addition to this article (other than a "see also"), I'd appreciate some help finding the right place to add it. I've included a few quotes--each from a government source--to provide some background on the LOOW.

"The LOOW site became a principal repository for Manhattan Project waste for the Eastern U.S. as well as for nuclear reprocessing waste from a GE pilot nuclear reprocessing plant at Schenectady."[11]

"In 1944, the LOOW was reassigned to the Manhattan Engineer District (MED) and began to be used as a storage location for radioactive residues and other radioactive material that resulted from the development of the atomic bomb."[12] Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

British Contribution

Improved the chronology a little to better reflect parity with the main British collaboration article, laying out the beginnings of co-operation with Britain, regards. Twobells^t@lk 17:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

But most off it duplicates what has already been said in the Origins above. So I have merged it back into the Origins, keeping the extra text about the Tizard mission. It is a pity that historians tend to home in in the differences and frictions between the US and Britain rather than the results of a remarkable collaboration. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)