Talk:Atomic demolition munition
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wtshymanski's merge of everything
edit- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- After many months, it is not clear exactly what was being proposed, but it is slightly clearer that there is a consensus of do not merge. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose SADM & MADM were specific types, with large, visible histories available for as much sourcing as one might wish. They should be mentioned in the general article, but not merged into it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Likewise the T4 Andy Dingley (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Also Oppose - The main article as an overview with separate articles per unit is the best approach. No merge, imho. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Likewise the T4 Andy Dingley (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Also see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wtshymanski#Mergeitis Andy Dingley (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's really hard to do an overview of a 4-sentence article with no references. You don't think we're better off with a coherent explanation in one place of what these things were, the different models, and the strategic and political consequences of their deployment and recall? I think gathering all the stubs in one place, with their references, gives a more coherent picture of the US ADM program. There's some discussion of the numbers and deployment in the "Bulletin of Atomic Scientists" and "New Scientist" articles available through Google Books, which gives some useful context other than our usual recitation of catalog numbers and parts lists. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Overview is great. Expand the main article by all means. Just don't turn article quality into a view that the stand-alone articles on particular weapons are thus non-notable independently.
- For sources, then there's the High Energy Weapons archive on line, then there's Chuck Hansen: US Nuclear Weapons and also Swords of Armageddon on CD. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but...once you get down to the idea of "bomb that one or two soldiers can carry around", is there really any notable difference between the models? We got rid of the individual "Pokemon" articles years ago. Just what is the threshold of notability? What I've read so far seems to discuss these things as a class with no distinctinos between jargon of SADMS and MADMS and TADMS etc. - the alphabet soup acronyms are a way of sanitizing the brute fact that this is a bomb designed to go off in some highway or bridge in West Germany when the Soviet tanks come swarming over the border. They are more alike that dissimilar; and are notable as a class, not because of fairly minor details of implementation. If you were teaching a class about electric motor control, would you prepare one lecture on a Size 0 contactor, a second on a Size 1, etc.? Or would you instead advise your students "Contactors come in different sizes, here's how to select a size, for details see your local Siemens/Rockwell/GE catalog" ? --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Nearly all nuclear weapons of the same role are individually notable, because the reason that they existed (as a new weapon) in the first place is because one represents a new generation of warhead technology over the other. They're enormously expensive to develop, so it's not (since the early '50s anyway) done on a whim. A key part of any nuclear weapon description is the identity of the physics package within it. If you look at those, you'll see the difference. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Is every model of shotgun individually notable? Do the fine distinctions between one model and the next get any recognition outside of the world of bomb manufacturers? Where do we draw the line between WP:N and fanboyism? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- These aren't shotguns. If you don't understand the differences between a gun-assembly device like the W9 / T4 and a device like the W45 / MADM, then you just shouldn't be making big changes to these articles, per WP:COMPETENCE. Your refusal to either limit yourself to subjects you vaguely understand, or at least to do some research on them before you dive in, is just one reason why you're at WP:RFC/U Andy Dingley (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Seems too fine-grained for a general interest encyclopedia, but perfectly appropriate for nuclear fanboys. They are a lot more alike in the fact that they go "bang" than in the grubby details of how they go "bang". Is there any strategic, political or environmental effect of a SADM that doesn't exist in a MADM? We shouldn't really care too much of the color of the bezel. And this is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- These aren't shotguns. If you don't understand the differences between a gun-assembly device like the W9 / T4 and a device like the W45 / MADM, then you just shouldn't be making big changes to these articles, per WP:COMPETENCE. Your refusal to either limit yourself to subjects you vaguely understand, or at least to do some research on them before you dive in, is just one reason why you're at WP:RFC/U Andy Dingley (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Is every model of shotgun individually notable? Do the fine distinctions between one model and the next get any recognition outside of the world of bomb manufacturers? Where do we draw the line between WP:N and fanboyism? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Nearly all nuclear weapons of the same role are individually notable, because the reason that they existed (as a new weapon) in the first place is because one represents a new generation of warhead technology over the other. They're enormously expensive to develop, so it's not (since the early '50s anyway) done on a whim. A key part of any nuclear weapon description is the identity of the physics package within it. If you look at those, you'll see the difference. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but...once you get down to the idea of "bomb that one or two soldiers can carry around", is there really any notable difference between the models? We got rid of the individual "Pokemon" articles years ago. Just what is the threshold of notability? What I've read so far seems to discuss these things as a class with no distinctinos between jargon of SADMS and MADMS and TADMS etc. - the alphabet soup acronyms are a way of sanitizing the brute fact that this is a bomb designed to go off in some highway or bridge in West Germany when the Soviet tanks come swarming over the border. They are more alike that dissimilar; and are notable as a class, not because of fairly minor details of implementation. If you were teaching a class about electric motor control, would you prepare one lecture on a Size 0 contactor, a second on a Size 1, etc.? Or would you instead advise your students "Contactors come in different sizes, here's how to select a size, for details see your local Siemens/Rockwell/GE catalog" ? --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Apt pictures
editAndy, just a heads up, I removed the picture you like putting into the article Atomic Demolition Munition again. The reason being, is that the Sedan crater was caused by a deeply buried thermonuclear device with a yield around 104 kilotons. In contrast to ADM's that would not conceivably be deeply buried when in use very often, if at all, as I don't think most targets would allow someone to drill a giant well hole to oblige would be atomic demolition teams. You dig? If you could find a picture of a surface burst or shallow underground nuclear explosion in the 20 to 40 kiloton range to cover the effects of the MADM, that would be a lot more apt. What do you think? As I've just added one that was ~ 1 kiloton in yield which covers the SADM. 83.71.31.96 (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Suggest merge
edit- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Do not merge. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Tactical Atomic Demolition Munition is one paragraph which is already in this article. That title could be redirected to this one. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- This was discussed before in 2012 by you and other. I agree with them and oppose the merge. This ADM article is a summary, while the dedicated TADM article will be larger as further information is released into the public domain.
- 178.167.194.168 (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Possible copyright, copy/paste issue with recent additions
editRwessel (talk) suspects that this article (specifically this version) may be a copyright violation, but without a source this cannot be definitively determined. |
Ramirez15 (talk · contribs) Has added an extensive section on possible issues with Soviet/Russian ADMs, particularly after the breakup of the Soviet Union and after 9/11. The added material is after the one paragraph MADM section, starting with "Russian Controversy With ADM's" and continuing to the end of the article. The additions are extremely well written, and have a fair number of serious sources.
It is, however, written in the style of an essay, and not formatted as you would expect a Wikipedia article to be (incorrect headings, no wikilinks, no links in the refs, despite those being easily available for several - [1] and [2], for example). For these reasons, I suspect this material was not written for Wikipedia originally, although I have nothing other than the stylistic issues listed above as evidence. Perhaps this is from a research paper written by the editor, perhaps in an educational context. Earwig's Copyvio Detector does not detect any issues (the major detections are quotes *of* this article).
I would start by asking @Ramirez15: to clarify the origin of this material. And I'd also like to apologize to Ramirez15 in advance if my suspicions are unfounded. Rwessel (talk) 05:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- See A REVIEW OF THE SUITCASE NUCLEAR BOMB CONTROVERSY by David Smigielski Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Atomic demolition munition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130302091606/http://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/nm_book_5_11/appendix_F.htm to http://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/nm_book_5_11/appendix_F.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201083701/http://nautilus.org/DPRKbriefingbook/nuclearweapons/PacificPowderkegbyPeterHayes.pdf to http://www.nautilus.org/DPRKBriefingBook/nuclearweapons/PacificPowderkegbyPeterHayes.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100615231826/http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/publications/historical/DOENV_209_REV15.pdf to http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/publications/historical/DOENV_209_REV15.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060318020109/http://www.brook.edu/FP/projects/nucwcost/madm.htm to http://www.brook.edu/FP/projects/nucwcost/madm.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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).
- 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) 00:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Atomic demolition munition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509080818/http://geology.er.usgs.gov/eespteam/pdf/USGSOFR01312.pdf to http://geology.er.usgs.gov/eespteam/pdf/USGSOFR01312.pdf
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.upi.com/FBI-focusing-on-portable-nuke-threat/90071008968550/
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).
- 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) 12:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)