This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 29, 2016. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7158 -- Jonathan Williams 07:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
my mistake. I have rewritten the post to remove inflammatory language. As far as globalresearch being invalid, the article itself was written by Wayne Madsen, who is an investigative journalist, ex-intelligence officer in the NAVY, has worked for the NSA and has testified before congress. To claim he is not a reliable source is misleading.
El Juche
The "Possible role of Iran" section is trending toward a biased slant--undue emphasis with little supporting evidence. The addition of direct quotations with inflammatory terms (immoral, illegal) etc. is what prompted my POV tagging. - Ageekgal 18:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
How do the views of ex-NSA agents, counterterrorism experts, investigative journalists and high ranking intelligence experts count as 'little supporting evidence'? El Juche
There are many reports on the internet about the subsequent 'suicides' or possible murder of many of the officials at Minot Air Force Base that had information on this incident. Why is there not even a section here to discuss this? Is Wikipedia easily manipulated by government trolls? It seems like a total act of censorship. This goes against the supposed principles of Wikipedia. I would provide links but am afraid to be accused of spam. Berrtus ( talk) 07:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
This article in general, is not that great. It repeats things, has many unsourced statements, and the controversy section is awful. If there are no reliable sources for this stuff, or even reliable opinion pieces for the conspiracy theory stuff, please remove it. The conspiracy section is also, quite confusing. I don't know who was conspiring for what, and why, and what does it mean now? -- Rocksanddirt 20:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
FYI, there are still a few more actions pending on this incident, so I'm going to hold off nominating this article for FA until they appear to be completed, hopefully in a couple of months or so. Cla68 ( talk) 02:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
In this context, the first things that occur to me as primary sources are message logs, indications of compliance or noncompliance with standing operating procedures (SOP), and raw interviews of participants. Reviews by the chain of command might be considered primary, although the Inspector General reports might or might not.
The Defense Science Board is not in the chain of command. Its entire function here is reviewing and analyzing. It is introduced as an independent review.
Why is this treated as primary source material? Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 01:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to criticize the work here, but for a featured article I expect a little more. The Incident section -- the first paragraph in particular -- comes off a bit murky, seeming to pass off the confusion/mistaken identity issue onto unknown persons prior to those in the narrative, partly through the use of passive voice. I don't feel at all like I've understood the cause other than the use of an "informal system". This probably lies in part on the heads of the report writers and investigators, and there may even be reasons of secrecy that obscure the cause, but I would hope we could be a little more clear here. -- Dhartung | Talk 08:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2008/02/nuclear_safety_and_the_saga_ab.php#more-193
The Air Force still hasn't classified this incident as a Bent Spear yet. Until they make up their minds how to classify it, this article shouldn't make that call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.92.29 ( talk) 07:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the unapproved editing earlier. Saw a flaming error on the page that needed correcting.
The portion of the article stating that the weapons load crew failed to verify the warheads is false. The weapons load crew performed flawlessly in this operation. At the time of this incident, there was no requirement for load crews to verify the payload of the missile packages when delivered to the aircraft, since the accountability process for decades had proven worthy up to this point.
Additionally, the time required for the loading of this aircraft would have been only an hour and a half were it not for some trailer malfunctions which necessitated the delivery of a new trailer to complete the loading.
I was the flightline expeditor who oversaw the operation and postloaded the aircraft when it was complete. -- Don't Panic! ( talk) 00:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 19:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I suggest a better reference for the Taiwan incident where fuses for Minuteman nuclear missle warheads were mistakenly shipped. This reference could be used to clarify the article's description:
Instead of sending helicopter batteries, the United States shipped four electrical fuses for Minuteman nuclear missile warheads to Taiwan, a mistake that was discovered only last week — a year and a half after the erroneous shipment, Pentagon officials disclosed on Tuesday.
Missile Parts Sent to Taiwan in Error, Thom Shankermarch, The New York Times, March 26, 2008 [3] — Neonorange ( talk) 18:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The article lede states this was a BENT SPEAR event, while the article 'Incident' section goes "The USAF has yet to officially designate what type of incident occurred, Bent Spear or otherwise." Aside from that likely needing tense editing, the latter probably should be updated? - The Bushranger One ping only 03:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 29, 2016. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7158 -- Jonathan Williams 07:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
my mistake. I have rewritten the post to remove inflammatory language. As far as globalresearch being invalid, the article itself was written by Wayne Madsen, who is an investigative journalist, ex-intelligence officer in the NAVY, has worked for the NSA and has testified before congress. To claim he is not a reliable source is misleading.
El Juche
The "Possible role of Iran" section is trending toward a biased slant--undue emphasis with little supporting evidence. The addition of direct quotations with inflammatory terms (immoral, illegal) etc. is what prompted my POV tagging. - Ageekgal 18:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
How do the views of ex-NSA agents, counterterrorism experts, investigative journalists and high ranking intelligence experts count as 'little supporting evidence'? El Juche
There are many reports on the internet about the subsequent 'suicides' or possible murder of many of the officials at Minot Air Force Base that had information on this incident. Why is there not even a section here to discuss this? Is Wikipedia easily manipulated by government trolls? It seems like a total act of censorship. This goes against the supposed principles of Wikipedia. I would provide links but am afraid to be accused of spam. Berrtus ( talk) 07:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
This article in general, is not that great. It repeats things, has many unsourced statements, and the controversy section is awful. If there are no reliable sources for this stuff, or even reliable opinion pieces for the conspiracy theory stuff, please remove it. The conspiracy section is also, quite confusing. I don't know who was conspiring for what, and why, and what does it mean now? -- Rocksanddirt 20:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
FYI, there are still a few more actions pending on this incident, so I'm going to hold off nominating this article for FA until they appear to be completed, hopefully in a couple of months or so. Cla68 ( talk) 02:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
In this context, the first things that occur to me as primary sources are message logs, indications of compliance or noncompliance with standing operating procedures (SOP), and raw interviews of participants. Reviews by the chain of command might be considered primary, although the Inspector General reports might or might not.
The Defense Science Board is not in the chain of command. Its entire function here is reviewing and analyzing. It is introduced as an independent review.
Why is this treated as primary source material? Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 01:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to criticize the work here, but for a featured article I expect a little more. The Incident section -- the first paragraph in particular -- comes off a bit murky, seeming to pass off the confusion/mistaken identity issue onto unknown persons prior to those in the narrative, partly through the use of passive voice. I don't feel at all like I've understood the cause other than the use of an "informal system". This probably lies in part on the heads of the report writers and investigators, and there may even be reasons of secrecy that obscure the cause, but I would hope we could be a little more clear here. -- Dhartung | Talk 08:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2008/02/nuclear_safety_and_the_saga_ab.php#more-193
The Air Force still hasn't classified this incident as a Bent Spear yet. Until they make up their minds how to classify it, this article shouldn't make that call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.92.29 ( talk) 07:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the unapproved editing earlier. Saw a flaming error on the page that needed correcting.
The portion of the article stating that the weapons load crew failed to verify the warheads is false. The weapons load crew performed flawlessly in this operation. At the time of this incident, there was no requirement for load crews to verify the payload of the missile packages when delivered to the aircraft, since the accountability process for decades had proven worthy up to this point.
Additionally, the time required for the loading of this aircraft would have been only an hour and a half were it not for some trailer malfunctions which necessitated the delivery of a new trailer to complete the loading.
I was the flightline expeditor who oversaw the operation and postloaded the aircraft when it was complete. -- Don't Panic! ( talk) 00:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 19:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I suggest a better reference for the Taiwan incident where fuses for Minuteman nuclear missle warheads were mistakenly shipped. This reference could be used to clarify the article's description:
Instead of sending helicopter batteries, the United States shipped four electrical fuses for Minuteman nuclear missile warheads to Taiwan, a mistake that was discovered only last week — a year and a half after the erroneous shipment, Pentagon officials disclosed on Tuesday.
Missile Parts Sent to Taiwan in Error, Thom Shankermarch, The New York Times, March 26, 2008 [3] — Neonorange ( talk) 18:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The article lede states this was a BENT SPEAR event, while the article 'Incident' section goes "The USAF has yet to officially designate what type of incident occurred, Bent Spear or otherwise." Aside from that likely needing tense editing, the latter probably should be updated? - The Bushranger One ping only 03:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)