Talk:Chicago pile – 1

Quotation citation?[edit]

Pasted this text over to the discussion page at Stagg Field.

If the block quote portion near the bottom of this article is an actual quote from another source, it needs to be cited. 216.204.183.50 21:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing looks like it might just be taken out of a book. The other article, Chicago Pile-1, looks like it has been around a lot longer. Dj stone 23:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think a lot of this can be merged into Stagg Field, and if the nuclear part gets too long there it could become its own article under the title that the National Historic Landmarks Program uses, Site of first self-sustaining nuclear reaction. I can do it if folks would like, I just cleaned up Stagg Field and think it would be a great place for this stuff and the stuff from the other article. I am copying this to the other talk page as well.A mcmurray 04:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds great. I only came across this because I just read a book on Hiroshima, but it sounds like you know more about it. I really think this text was just taken from somewhere else. There might be a little bit to add to Chicago Pile-1, but otherwise I think it should just be made into a redirect... Dj stone 15:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it looks like an uncited copyright violation, well I will merge the articles and redirect these pages to Stagg Field and take the text here and just drop it on the talk page that way whoever added can come back and cite it if they would like to readd it because it seems useful, its just uncited, which wouldn't pass the verifiabilty test as is.A mcmurray 15:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]