Talk:Halifax Explosion/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Halifax Explosion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Biggest explosion at the time
Which explosion that was the biggest in 1917 is an outdated fact. What is relevant to our readers is which explosions are the biggest now.
We could of course say "still one of the biggest"... but if it actually remains the biggest, why not say so?
So, @Nikkimaria:, which source says Halifax isn't the biggest explosion? Or rather, which source claims another explosion as the biggest one? What is your basis for "the sources don't agree"?
Or, alternatively, could it be that your edit summary was just too short and you meant to say you would like us to use more qualifiers? CapnZapp (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- The way we were taught, the Halifax Explosion was the biggest "man made" explosion. Only with the dawn of the nuclear age was that superseded. Regards, Aloha27 talk 13:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have tried to clarify the statement in the article. Aloha27 talk 13:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- @CapnZapp: The Halifax Explosion was roughly equivalent to 2.9kt TNT.
- Multiple sources claim the N1 rocket explosion was more than double that, close to 7kt, and name this as the largest
- Minor Scale was over 4kt
- Misty Picture was around 4kt
- Operation Big Bang was 3 or 4kt
- Some sources place the Texas City disaster at over 3kt, although estimates are variable
- Similarly the Port Chicago disaster may have been as much as 5kt
- Plus many nuclear explosions were considerably larger. @Aloha27: I expect your change was meant to address this last point, but given Port Chicago was technically pre-nuclear age I'd suggest reverting. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- I was looking here the ranking of the Port Chicago blast places it at #3. As I read it, the first nuclear chain reaction was December 1942. Port Chicago was a year-and-a-half later. Aloha27 talk 14:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- The nuclear age is typically dated to Trinity in 1945. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- I was looking here the ranking of the Port Chicago blast places it at #3. As I read it, the first nuclear chain reaction was December 1942. Port Chicago was a year-and-a-half later. Aloha27 talk 14:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Talking about Largest_artificial_non-nuclear_explosions#Largest_accidental_artificial_non-nuclear_explosions_by_magnitude here. Nikkimaria, seems you disagree with our own list. If you would like to update the list to match your new sources, that'd be great. CapnZapp (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- To be honest I cannot see improving upon the definition given here. "The Halifax Explosion was the largest man-made explosion to occur before the dropping of the atomic bombs during the Second World War." Regards, Aloha27 talk 20:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- The issue is that sources don't agree on that claim. They do agree on the one currently in the article, at least as far as I'm aware. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Claiming what was biggest in 1917 just doesn't cut it for an encyclopedia in 2023 - it is an hopelessly outdated fact. You list sources that conflict with those selected by our Largest_artificial_non-nuclear_explosions#Largest_accidental_artificial_non-nuclear_explosions_by_magnitude page. In order to constructively move forward (i.e. updating the fact to no longer focus on what was biggest in 1917) you should gain consensus for the validity of your sources. I suggest over at our existing compilation page, so the discussion can be had just once. In the meanwhile, let us agree that page is definitive. Finally, allow me to clarify I have no beef in the game, insofar that I don't particularly care if the subject of this article ranks 1st or 10th. What I care about is getting the outdated claim off the page: we simply should not present hopelessly obsolete facts. We could instead say "it was the biggest at the time, and, as of 2023 still remains one of the largest non-nuclear explosions." or similar. CapnZapp (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- If we were to agree that that page is definitive, then - since I've already updated it, per your request - that page supports that this event is no longer the largest. Beyond that, I don't agree that we need to say anything more than this was the biggest ever at the time. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Claiming what was biggest in 1917 just doesn't cut it for an encyclopedia in 2023 - it is an hopelessly outdated fact. You list sources that conflict with those selected by our Largest_artificial_non-nuclear_explosions#Largest_accidental_artificial_non-nuclear_explosions_by_magnitude page. In order to constructively move forward (i.e. updating the fact to no longer focus on what was biggest in 1917) you should gain consensus for the validity of your sources. I suggest over at our existing compilation page, so the discussion can be had just once. In the meanwhile, let us agree that page is definitive. Finally, allow me to clarify I have no beef in the game, insofar that I don't particularly care if the subject of this article ranks 1st or 10th. What I care about is getting the outdated claim off the page: we simply should not present hopelessly obsolete facts. We could instead say "it was the biggest at the time, and, as of 2023 still remains one of the largest non-nuclear explosions." or similar. CapnZapp (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- The issue is that sources don't agree on that claim. They do agree on the one currently in the article, at least as far as I'm aware. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Dead external links
I am not sure how to remove dead external links as I am inexperienced and don't want to mess anything up, but there are a few audio links on this page that 'ave ceased to be :( Sorry about that! Pdxrosss (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)