This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Considerably longer than the 1959 list on the site. I saved a blank AEC security form with the list in an appendix on the back. Glad to send a photo to anyone with the patience to type it in. Dmilt1896@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.58.49 (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AGLOSO of 20 March 1948; 4 December 1947 section: Strange inclusions
Hey there, @Aboudaqn, I was wondering why the table in the AGLOSO of 4 December 1947 section, was edited in by you withthis edit summary: added again!. It seems like it was the first time it was added. It was years ago; perhaps the "added again" is just because of an editing conflict with a bot? AGF. I'm also wondering why the table has the wrong # of entries. The referenced Times article is now at https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1947/12/05/104387538.pdf). The table you added has 50 entries, in two parts of 25, with [citation needed] and multiple entries not in the Times article - very strange. If included, it should match the 3 Times articles in that issue, no? It's way off. I propose we replace it with the version published in the Federal Register 13 on 20 March 1948. It's complete, unlike the Times list of the previous year; the front page of the issue says there were ~90 entries, but lists far fewer, and mismatches the 50 you added. RememberOrwell (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it has been a long time since I touched this entry – – early pandemic year one… If you have a complete list from March 1948 with citation, that sounds fantastic, so please do replace with your new, longer, more complete version. For those who follow, I would ask that you clearly mark that this is the AGLOSO dated 3 March 1948. Last but not least, thank you for your courteous message. Aboudaqn (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I look at the entry top to bottom once again, I think what I was trying to do was to preserve the different stages of this list's development. That is, if there are any differences between the December 1947 and March 1948 versions, then it is worth listing both for anyone who is looking at specific dates in history. In sum then, I would preserve any lists with specific dates if they differ (with citations). Looking back from today, a few changes in names at any given date may not seem important to us, but back then it could mean a world of difference. Aboudaqn (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do we preserve the 4 December 1947 list if we don't have it, @Aboudaqn? As I noted, the front page of the issue says there were ~90 entries, but the issue lists far fewer (and "include"s / doesn't purport to be complete). I would be fine with preserving it in the article if we had it... 47 vs 50 is pretty close, but vs 90? I don't think we can keep up a list of ~50 and claim it's the full list when we know it had ~90 entries at that time. Thanks for the compliment. I try hard to AGF and someone just implied I didn't on my talk page and I don't know how to respond cuz I think I did and it feels like the edit warring that troubled me (and was interfering with my attempt to improve the content) is being covered up or defended with a bogus attack. (Not saying that's so, just what it feels like; it's at least being studiously ignored.)
I refer to the 20 March 1948 list cited in the article already - footnote 8. It contains 202 entries/lines, including compound ones (X including Y) (Though oddly the non-archive link doesn't display properly within wikipedia, even though the URL itself remains valid.)
I am thinking it would be better if we list the entries here in the original grouping/order in which they appear in the Federal Register and NY Times - in three alphabetized lists. OK? RememberOrwell (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if we are going to we preserve the 4 December 1947 list you added, would be important for you to address the concerns I raised. Summarizing them:
Why the "added again" edit summary;
why the table has the wrong # of entries;
why the [citation needed]s and multiple entries not in the Times article?
