Jump to content

Talk:Atomitat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by Bruxton (talk) 04:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Bruxton (talk). Self-nominated at 21:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: I do have some questions around the hook and the associated text in the article. The hooks refers to "United States Civil Defense" and in the article it states the home "meet their specifications". "United States Civil Defense" isn't an actual entity so de-capitalisation definitely needs to occur and ideally a clearer source would be found to attribute who set the regulations (without original research)

The other issue is whether it's factually correct. This source states:

"But, as illustrated in the infamous West German government pamphlet Jeder hat eine Chance (Everyone has a Chance) (1961), or in the Underground Space Center (in the University of Minnesota), Swayze’s underground dream-world, was just one of endless schemes for subterranean survival that proliferated throughout the Cold War."

I haven't done a deep dive looking for sources to provide some clarity here but I suspect we would need an ALT hook with adjusted language. Seddon talk 22:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Seddon: Thanks for the review! I very much appreciate it. You are right about the capitalization. Regarding the claim of meeting the specifications, in the source I provided the house met the requirements. In the source you provided, "according to Swayze, it was the first underground house in the US to meet civic defence specifications." I don't know if it is fair for the researcher in the source you found to say it was a "scheme", people like Swayze and Henderson actually lived underground. The word scheme is a charged word and a form of editorializing. It was also written in 2018 and it minimizes the very palpable fear of nuclear war that the Americans of the 1960s lived with. I can find no other source which refers to these Swayze designed homes as a scheme. The cold war and the 1962 Cuban Missle Crisis were the backdrop. The lead lined doors on the Atomitat were specifically for protecting occupants from nuclear fallout. Swayze believed in the homes and even wrote a book about them just one year before he died. Would you like me to come up with more hooks? Here are two.
  • ALT1 ... that the Atomitat home is secure against damaging weather?
is secure against damaging weather.
  • ALT2 ... that the Atomitat home is 13 ft (4.0 m) underground?
13 feet underground Bruxton (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Seddon: I rewrote parts of the article in regard to the CC and rewrote the ALT0. Bruxton (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Seddon: Hi, wondering if you are coming back to the nomination. I made some changes. Thanks Bruxton (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Pass @Bruxton: I'm happy with the tweaks to the original hook. Seddon talk 14:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current wording of ALT0 is fine. The article itself is fascinating and I can't see any reason to continue holding up the DYK given the changes to the hook. I can't help but wonder if Heinlein's post-Solution Unsatisfactory vision of the USA living in underground homes was at least partially based on this? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton, Seddon, Maury Markowitz, and Kavyansh.Singh: I'm just reopening this as I'm concerned that the text of the hook doesn't match what the article says. The thrust of the hook is that the architect claims his house as the first to meet the specifications. But our article says It was the first bunker-home to meet their specifications as a nuclear shelter", seemingly in WP:WIKIVOICE (although the single closing unquote with no corresponding quote suggests perhaps this is a typo?). It sounds from the sources above that consensus is that it was actually the first, but either way the article and hook should agree if it's the architect's claim or a verified fact. As an aside, we also shouldn't be using the term "claimed" per MOS:CLAIM; "said" would be better. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru, Seddon, Maury Markowitz, and Kavyansh.Singh: New ALT and I fixed the article. The reference actually said first "underground home" and I put it in the article instead of bunker-home. Regarding whether or not it met the specs. The attached article said it did, but I changed the ALT to say Jay Swayze said. Bruxton (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: thanks for the modification, although I think the question still remains - is the notion that it was the first underground home to meet the specifications just something the architect said, or is it in some sense verified fact? The two sources [1] and [2] just seem to give it as a fact rather than attributing it to Swayze. It's not even clear whether he did claim that or not, as the sources don't exactly say he did. As Seddon says above, though, we might need some more independent verification from other reliable sources if we're to state it in Wikivoice.... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru, Seddon, Maury Markowitz, and Kavyansh.Singh: Thanks for the message. The question Seddon had is: ...clearer source would be found to attribute who set the regulations. Two sources say it met the specs of civil defense, but an ALT0 with that as fact was rejected - here was the original (... that the Atomitat was the first home which met the specifications of the United States Civil Defense as a nuclear shelter?). So to address the concern raised by Seddon, I presented the modified ALT0 and two additional ALTs, and then another ALT1/ALT3 (misnumbered) recently. I would suggest that we choose another ALT - I am unable to find original specs from civil defense. Bruxton (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct in reading that this is being held up simply because we don't know if the architect was the one that claimed it, or someone else? It appears, if I am reading it correctly, that there are published claimed that it did mean it (or was at least designed to do so). Is that correct? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what to do with this message I got regarding this nomination. Bruxton (talk) 00:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Check out this 1951 civil defense film. They do recommend a basement and they recommend getting under a table. And this is a more comprehensive film, which says an underground shelter with at least three feet of earth above it would give "complete protection". That was the depth of Swayze's homes. This source: "The roof is three feet of soil." Bruxton (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru, Seddon, Maury Markowitz, and Kavyansh.Singh: i think we should go back ton the original ALT. I have updated the article with the civil defense claim. Seems the recommendation of being three feet under the earth was the main requirement. Swayze built the Atomitat and the Underground World Home to that spec.
ALT0a... that the Atomitat was the first home which met the specifications of the United States Civil Defense as a nuclear shelter? Bruxton (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I always though this read better anyway. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

not sure what else this one needs but it is languishing. Bruxton (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry to throw cold water on this, because the topic should a be a super-terrific one for DYK, but ALTs 0, 1, and 3 are all either OR, not supported by the sources, or supported by sources we can't take as reliable for these kinds of claims. For example, a local TV station can't possibly be in a position to make a statement about a nationwide first. And there seems to be an attempt to WP:SYNTH the depth of the house vs some statement in a civil defense film, which is completely out of bounds. I'm certain there's a great hook in here somewhere, but first there needs to be a careful check of the article's assertions. I suspect that the best we'll be able to do, hook-wise, is say that the architect claimed it met CD specs, or was the first to do so, or something like that. I doubt seriously that you'll find an independent RS in a position to say it actually did meet the specs, or was the first to do so. EEng 04:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: Thanks for the opinion. I matched the claim to a civil defense official production which gave the spec of 3 feet below ground. The question holding up the nomination was -"what are the civil defense specs?" I was researching the claim, I do not consider that to be synth. Someone can still approve ALT2 or come up with a better hook. Shelter specs exist at the National Archives, they just have them restricted for some reason. Bruxton (talk) 05:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: The specs I find for the shelters are all rather pedestrian. Seems the office of civil defense wanted shelters to be designed so that the average American could put one together. Sandbags, plywood etc. The Atomitat certainly exceeded the specs that I can find. Civil defense even states that one version can be put together in 20 man hours. Bruxton (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but this is pure WP:SYNTH. EEng 22:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton: thanks for the updates, and apologies this one has languished for so long. It seems the source, article and hook are now in agreement and are stating this fact in wikivoice, which looks OK. Happy to approve your ALT0a as follows:

Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Amakuru: Bruxton (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to repeat that I think this article is exactly the sort of thing that makes DYK fun, but no one seems to be picking up what I'm putting down. There's no way we can accept a local newspaper's statement the "X was the first Y in the US" when there's nothing to indicate how a local reporter could possibly know that. Something like this needs to come from an RS on, say, the history of civil defense in the US (maybe [3], though that's more a cultural history), or of 1960s residential construction trends. Or, perhaps, the paper might have consulted and quoted Prof. A at some university School of Architecture. As it is, it's fairly clear that Swayze (who isn't in a position to know such a thing himself) simply asserted this claim and 60 years later it's a local-history "fact"; I note that (AFAICT) the Life article [4] doesn't make such a claim.
    While I'm being a party-pooper, the photos from Life are indeed covered by copyright (left col of [5]) and will have to be deleted. Also finally (and please forgive me): Jay Swayze himself appears to be nonnotable; the article on him really says almost nothing about him, but mostly repeats stuff in this article.
    This article needs an overhaul to restrict its assertions to what can be reliably sourced, and what can be salvaged from the Swayze article needs to be merged here. Then we can talk about hooks. Sorry, but I'm in a grumpy mood. EEng 22:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC) P.S. I now see that [6] might (I say might) be an RS for the "first in US" claim, but the rest of what I said above still holds. Now I'm going to go drown some puppies.[reply]
@EEng: This is an article about an underground home with large doors made of steel lined with lead to protect against radiation. It was built in 1962, directly following the Cuban Missile Crisis. The civil defense literature I shared with you this morning lists the simple specs for what they considered a fallout shelter. The Life article you referenced was just goofy and kitschy. It was meant to be fun and I think it is only four paragraphs long with page titles: "Living it Up Way Down" and "Self Sufficiency Under a Snorkel". In that Life article's lead they did state that Swayze was, "commissioned by the city to build a fallout shelter." Which I can only assume was constructed to the specifications of civil defense. Anyway...I have had great fun participating at DYK and I have found the editors and administrators to be collaborative and helpful. Participating in DYK is exactly what I hoped editing on Wikipedia would be like: editors rooting for each other, and celebrating each other. I was hooked from the first hook... and I learn quite a bit about everything from the editors here. I hope that I have been as helpful and supportive to others with my own reviews or editing. Thanks to all of you who keep this fun section on the front page going. I do not even read the other front page sections...I will admit that sometimes I look at the featured image. :) I wrote an article yesterday about LaVere Redfield - some references called him camera-phobic, some called him eccentric, some called him the Silver King, some called him thrifty. He was all of those things, but the references did not all parrot each other. If anyone wants my help I will be praying for those puppies. I do like puppies. Bruxton (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please bear in mind what I said about my grumpy mood today, and make allowances. Also, I decided not to drown any puppies, so there's hope. But we just need to slow down here. For example, when you look at the source carefully, it's clear that the fallout shelter Swayze built for the city was separate from Atomitat -- the shelter job inspired him to build Atomitat. And I don't think you're reading WP:SYNTH.
I can spend a little time tomorrow on the article. Be forewarned, a lot of material will probably have to be cut to conform to sourcing requirements, but that will leave it tighter and better read. EEng 03:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: I do not want you to think I cannot comprehend what I am reading. It was just four paragraphs and I was able to follow: He built a fallout shelter for the city, (as in the city's fallout shelter) - and then the article continues - he built his own Atomitat. I have participated too much in this nom and I do not look forward to participating here any more, so i will take my leave. Bruxton (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you understood that Atomitat and the shelter were two separate things, then I don't get why you're talking about the shelter at all above. Anyway, I'm disappointed that you're not willing to see through what you started. You're leaving a bit of a mess for others to clean up. EEng 04:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atomitat&oldid=1205470512"