Talk:Castle Bravo
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Castle Bravo 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 |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 1, 2006, March 1, 2007, March 1, 2008, March 1, 2009, and March 1, 2010. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gif on page
editI like the gif, but its 6.42 MB. That's way too large, could we convert it into a video instead and embed it on the page? MarkiPoli (talk) 12:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- That's not a bad point. Converting to .OGV cuts it down to ~600 Kb, so that's probably the best bet. That said, I have zero experience with uploading to commons, so I'm not sure how best to handle it. If anyone else feels up to the task, https://convertio.co/gif-ogv/ does the job of converting our GIF. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- It seems the ogv file has been converted directly from using the .gif file source instead of the actual listed source within the file's commons description section and has resulted in a very poor quality low bitrate video. Unless the new .ogv video file is created directly from the higher-quality original video source located at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYJ5JfrK7KE I have already contacted the original .gif maker's talk page requesting for him/her to reduce/compress the original .gif file size further if possible to more manageable levels. If any consensus is made to establish the use of the .ogv instead of the .gif file, please do so using the original high-quality source rather than the .gif source HanyNAR (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Right, the entire point was to convert from the original source video to OGV. Someone must've misunderstood. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- It seems the ogv file has been converted directly from using the .gif file source instead of the actual listed source within the file's commons description section and has resulted in a very poor quality low bitrate video. Unless the new .ogv video file is created directly from the higher-quality original video source located at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYJ5JfrK7KE I have already contacted the original .gif maker's talk page requesting for him/her to reduce/compress the original .gif file size further if possible to more manageable levels. If any consensus is made to establish the use of the .ogv instead of the .gif file, please do so using the original high-quality source rather than the .gif source HanyNAR (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Stastitics on cancers among islanders that I removed
editThis section I removed needs to be re-written to say which diseases (or what % increase) is ATTRIBUTABLE to this test (or nuclear testing in general). Some of these diseases may have other causes. ---Avatar317(talk) 03:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, this was a good removal. Clear synth. VQuakr (talk) 04:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
@SteveChervitzTrutane: Hello! You added the sentence: "The Marshall Islands have the highest incidence rate of cervical cancer in the world at 74 per 100,000 which is four-times higher than most U.S.-affiliated Pacific islands and about ten-times higher compared to the U.S., primarily attributable to challenges with HPV vaccination which began in 2009 in the Marshall Islands." to this article. This sentence doesn't talk about how much of this cervical cancer rate is attributable to radioactivity from nuclear weapons testing. Since this article is about a nuclear test, cancers attributable (or attributed) to other causes shouldn't be mentioned in this article. Thanks!!
If I have time, I'll look through these sources and see what kind of statements I can add based on statements or conclusions in the sources of specifically how much higher cancer rates are estimated to be AS A RESULT OF the nuclear testing. ---Avatar317(talk) 17:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Avatar317: Valid point. Previous to my edit, the article had a "better source needed" flag regarding its claim about elevated cervical cancer rates in the Marshall Islands. I then embarked on a search for a reliable source in support of that claim. I found such a source, but it attributed the high cervical cancer incidence to low HPV vaccination rates and did not mention nuclear test radioactivity as a cause.
- Therefore, the only relevance of the cervical cancer statement to the article would be something to the effect of: "Marshall Islanders have elevated rates of cervical cancer, but this has been attributed to low HPV vaccination rates rather than to nuclear test radiation.(citation)"
- So bottom line: I'm fine with your removing my sentence from Castle Bravo: Health impacts. But I think the citation I found would be a relevant addition to cervical cancer epidemiology.
- Citation: National Comprehensive Cancer Control Plan 2017-2022" (PDF). Ministry of Health & Human Services, Republic of the Marshall Islands. p. 19. — SteveChervitzTrutane (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- "But I think the citation I found would be a relevant addition to cervical cancer epidemiology." - Yes, it very much would be for that article. Thanks for finding that! ---Avatar317(talk) 19:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)