Talk:Operation Crossroads/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Operation Crossroads. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Operation Crossroads. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
* The three dead links had to be corrected by the GreenC Bot on 16 October 2017. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Plutonium not detectable by Geiger counters?

In the section “Warren persuades Blandy”, it is stated that plutonium isn’t / wasn’t detectable by Geiger counters. If that is / was true, then the reason why should be given, and included in the article about plutonium. ZFT (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, alpha particles have too much charge and weight to be very penetrating, failing to penetrate the glass tubes on the counters and the plastic on the dosimeters. Alphas are how plutonium radiates, so no plutonium detection. Fixed an explanation, removed a dubious tag. Better detectors in use today allow for alpha detection, if you get really close (alpha penetration through air is about 50% per centimeter.) SkoreKeep (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Material used?

Which material has been used - uranium 235, Plutonium? --Werfur (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Plutonium. Read the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

About Osomite's Edits to the "Nickname" Section

@Hawkeye7: Yes, I agree that Alpha and Baker were the names of the bomb tests at Biniki Atool. As the section was "Nicknames", I incorrectly thought that Alpha and Baker were bomb nicknames. I was focused only on the Nicknames section so I neglected to comprehend the true identification of Alpha and Baker. My bad.

I am a bit disappointed that you reverted my entire edit while my mistake was made only in the first sentence. I think you did a bit of overreach when you reverted my entire edit of the section.

If you would carefully read what you put back in place, it isn't written very well and is a bit difficult in facilitating comprehension. I made an honest effort to improve the article's Nickname section. Did you ignore that I did make some improvements (although I did error about thinking Alpha and Baker were bomb names)?

For instance, the following sentence from the end of the section you put back in place is quite egregious.

This femme-fatale theme for nuclear weapons, combining seduction and destruction, is epitomized by the use in all languages, starting in 1946, of "bikini" as the name for a woman's two-piece bathing suit.

That is a pretty bad sentence. "femme-fatale theme"? It is/was so melodramatic and its construction was so strange, I doubted its accuracy. On reading the referenced book, I found that it was not at all reflective of the source material. At best it was a bad impression obtained from the book and at worst a personal opinion based on the editor's own "original research".

I think I also made other changes that improved the section and made it more readable. Other than my mistake in the first sentence, I strongly believe that my edits did improve the article.

Did you read all of my changes or did you only read the first sentence and then reverted it? Aren't you interested in improving the article on Wikipedia?

I intend to re-edit the section with what I consider to be improvements. I would appreciate some feedback so I can improve my subsequent edits.

Osomite 🐻 (hablemos) 01:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

There was another bit I objected to: the notion that the Hiroshima and Nagaski bombs had names. Fat Man and Little Boy were the names of the types of the bombs. For the the femme fatale theme, consider Bombs and Beauty Queens: Female Sexuality and the Iconography of Destruction. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it was added by HowardMorland (talk · contribs). [1] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7:

It is apparent that you are going to ignore that I made some improvements.

Yes, the Nicknames section was largely written by HowardMorland in 2008. HowardMorland's contribution to the Operation Crossroad article after 14 years is 52 percent. And your point being? Are you seeking @HowardMorland: to support your position?

You disappoint me. Rather than providing constructive criticism, you attempt to support your argument with more disagreement. How tedious. It is easy to voice objections that are apparently based on your own opinion and "original research". Apparently, you are unable to engage constructively demonstrating that you aren't interested in improving the article.

About that you "objected to: the notion that the Hiroshima and Nagaski [sic] bombs had names. Fat Man and Little Boy. . ." Those bombs had those names. Read the Wikipedia Fat Man article. Note the section titled "Fat Man Naming". If you really object to those names, why don't you remove them? Walk your talk.

You defend your preference for "the the [sic] femme fatale theme" sentence by citing as support an opinion piece from the wearethemutants website, an online magazine, that has the purpose of "focusing on Cold War-era sci-fi, fantasy, genre, pulp, cult, occult, and anti-establishment media". Hmmm, a fanzine blog.

The sentence claiming the "Femme fatale" relationship to "bikini" bathing suit is egregious. Can you explain its construction and what it actually means? The sentence is word salad with an extra helping of ranch dressing. As it stands, it is not worthy of being in an encyclopedia article. Can you really support it?

After doing some extensive reading, I do see how femme fatale via the movie Gilda relates; however, it needs to be spelled out and not just implied in a single badly written ambiguous sentence. If you really want to maintain the Femme fatale concept, it needs to be better explained and properly supported by references.

Are you interested in improving Wikipedia? Or are you comfortable being a disagreeing gatekeeper with no desire to collaborate in its improvement? It is lazy to just disagree. What is your choice? And, if you are only interested in disagreement and argument please let me know.

Hawkeye7, please focus. Osomite 🐻 (hablemos) 19:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Read the Fat Man article? I wrote it! I agree with you about the text in question being a bit clunky and perhaps needing some expansion. We had gone into a WP:BRD cycle so I was expecting you to propose a wording here on the talk page so we could discuss it. Miranda Corcoran has a PhD in Cultural Studies and is an expert on the subject. I am on leave at the moment but when I get back and have my books on hand I can gather some sources and propose a new wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)