Talk:2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident

message: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7158 --Jonathan Williams 07:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This probably doesn't fit the definition of a reliable source. Cla68 07:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guessed so much; any more mainstream criticism of this event? --Jonathan Williams 16:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was an editorial in the LA Times, I think, but I didn't put it in the article because it didn't add anything new in my opinion, but I wouldn't object if someone else added it.  Any editorial from a major publication like that can be mentioned. Cla68 21:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: How does being a Navy officer, or NSA (unless specifically involved with Emergency Action Messages) give any special expertise on Air Force procedures? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: anything notable here

message: The "Possible role of Iran" section is trending toward a biased slant--undue emphasis with little supporting evidence. The addition of direct quotations with inflammatory terms (immoral, illegal) etc. is what prompted my POV tagging. - Ageekgal 18:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NSA "agent"? I've encountered NSA computer scientists, cryptologists, antenna specialists, watch officers, traffic analysts, ELINT analysts, and quite a few NSA people, up to having worked for a retired Director (in a civilian job). I've never heard the term "NSA Agent" outside a novel. Please elaborate what an NSA agent does. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm referring to citations in the article, not names mentioned in the copy as purporting to have said certain things. "So and so said" is not evidence, without verifiable, reliable sources. - Ageekgal 21:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll need to examine the sources to see if meet the reliable sources guidelines.  At the least, the section heading needs to be retititled as "Controversy" or something like that. Cla68 21:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before starting a debate on this section here on this talk page, I've posted it at the WP:FTN board because participants there are experienced in discussing these types of issues.  The post is at  if you'd like to participate. Cla68 05:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing that. This isn't territory I'm familiar with, and in fact I removed my tagging it of POV in favor of just encouraging  and better sourcing and citations. Nevermind it garnered me a label of wikinazi. <shrug> I haven't removed any of the content and have in fact been trying to at least make it readable so others can decide what its merits are. I have my own feelings, and feel the section's on shaky ground for many reasons. - Ageekgal 06:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The opinion over there appears to be that it's a fringe theory unsupported by reliable sources and the entire section should be nixed.  I'll leave this open for more comments for a few days before taking any action. Cla68 02:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just took action. In addition to the OR and wildly inappropriate sources, much of the trailing content was lifted verbatim from Lindorff's article, a clear copyvio. - Merzbow 08:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 
There are many reports on the internet about the subsequent 'suicides' or possible murder of many of the officials at Minot Air Force Base that had information on this incident.  Why is there not even a section here to discuss this?  Is Wikipedia easily manipulated by government trolls?  It seems like a total act of censorship.  This goes against the supposed principles of Wikipedia.  I would provide links but am afraid to be accused of spam.  Berrtus (talk) 07:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of article 

message: This article in general, is not that great.  It repeats things, has many unsourced statements, and the controversy section is awful.  If there are no reliable sources for this stuff, or even reliable opinion pieces for the conspiracy theory stuff, please remove it.  The conspiracy section is also, quite confusing.  I don't know who was conspiring for what, and why, and what does it mean now?  --Rocksanddirt 20:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See section above for discussion on the controversy section.  As for the rest of the article, it will be fixed soon.  Please help out if you can. Cla68 23:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how Wikipedia is going to be a definitive source on this recent an event. Nuclear weapons procedures are, to a large extent, classified, and there will probably need to be Congressional or independent commission hearings, in executive session, before the facts are in. It is premature to consider this article other than an event-in-progress. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's more to come on this story although I think the USAF will try to put it in the past as quickly as possible.  We'll see how successful they are. Cla68 (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  article in general 

message: FYI, there are still a few more actions pending on this incident, so I'm going to hold off nominating this article for FA until they appear to be completed, hopefully in a couple of months or so. Cla68 (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article plans 

message: In this context, the first things that occur to me as primary sources are message logs, indications of compliance or noncompliance with standing operating procedures (SOP), and raw interviews of participants. Reviews by the chain of command might be considered primary, although the Inspector General reports might or might not.
The Defense Science Board is not in the chain of command. Its entire function here is reviewing and analyzing. It is introduced as an independent review.
Why is this treated as primary source material? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, after studying the policy carefully , I think the DSB report is a secondary source.  Even if it was a primary source, however, it could still be used in the article.  Anyway, if you'd like to use it to add or correct any information to the article, please do so.  I'll be doing that myself over the next few days as I prepare the article for FA nomination. Cla68 (talk) 01:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the Defense Science Board report considered a primary source? 

message: I don't want to criticize the work here, but for a featured article I expect a little more. The Incident section -- the first paragraph in particular -- comes off a bit murky, seeming to pass off the confusion/mistaken identity issue onto unknown persons prior to those in the narrative, partly through the use of passive voice. I don't feel at all like I've understood the cause other than the use of an "informal system". This probably lies in part on the heads of the report writers and investigators, and there may even be reasons of secrecy that obscure the cause, but I would hope we could be a little more clear here. --Dhartung | Talk 08:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Believe me, I've made it as detailed as the sources allowed.  Others, presumably with inside information, have added more detail to the article, but the details weren't supported by the sources so I had to remove them.  Since this is a featured article, it has to maintain a standard of verifiability.  I believe the sources, mass-market media, didn't go into great detail because the military didn't reveal a lot of detail for secrecy reasons and also the media reports were geared toward a general audience and so didn't feel that great detail was appropriate.  If an investigative journalist some day writes a detailed expose in a magazine or newspaper, or publishes a book, that would probably provide the level of detail that we'd prefer. Cla68 (talk) 12:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Being unfamiliar with the sources, I don't feel I can suggest any rewording, but I guess what would help me (and less-knowledgeable readers than myself even more) would be something on the order of "prior to X, Y had happened", even if it's not saying "Z did Y". But maybe that's where the passive voice comes from .... Maybe part of the problem is putting things in an omniscient voice right in the middle there, instead of "investigators concluded". Even an "investigators were unable to determine" could help. --Dhartung | Talk 20:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the suggestions and will look at it to see if I can make it more clear. Cla68 (talk) 21:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murky 

message: http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2008/02/nuclear_safety_and_the_saga_ab.php#more-193
The Air Force still hasn't classified this incident as a Bent Spear yet. Until they make up their minds how to classify it, this article shouldn't make that call.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.92.29 (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good catch and I changed the article to reflect that. Cla68 (talk) 10:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bent Spear.. 

message: Sorry for the unapproved editing earlier.  Saw a flaming error on the page that needed correcting.
The portion of the article stating that the weapons load crew failed to verify the warheads is false.  The weapons load crew performed flawlessly in this operation.  At the time of this incident, there was no requirement for load crews to verify the payload of the missile packages when delivered to the aircraft, since the accountability process for decades had proven worthy up to this point.
Additionally, the time required for the loading of this aircraft would have been only an hour and a half were it not for some trailer malfunctions which necessitated the delivery of a new trailer to complete the loading.
I was the flightline expeditor who oversaw the operation and postloaded the aircraft when it was complete.  --Don't Panic! (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem.  Please sign your posts with four tildes ~.  The article currently reflects what the sources say, even if what they say isn't accurate.  Should the munitions transport crew who delivered the missiles from the bunker to the flightline have looked through the little window to verify the payload? Cla68 (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't say what the munitions folks' procedures should have been, though it's clear from the official reports that they SHOULD have verified it through whatever means necessary.  I can assure you though, that the weapons loaders followed their technical data and training to the "T" and it's actually quite frustrating when I see it in news stories and such that "the loaders failed to blah blah blah".  That's BS and no matter how much we kick and scream nobody cares.  So I saw the opportunity to correct the story at least somewhere and would really love to see it set straight.    --Don't Panic! (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay one last comment and then I'll be done for the night.  I was reading the article cited as the "offical source"-#9- and nowhere does it say anything about the "munitions loading crew at the aircraft".   Thanks for your time.  --Don't Panic! (talk) 01:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several articles in that footnote.  But, I'll remove the sentence for now. Cla68 (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On behalf of me and the 48 other weapons loaders in my section, "Thank you".  --Don't Panic! (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mild editing need 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=6051
** In 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident on 2011-05-26 03:07:05, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident on 2011-05-27 15:23:37, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident on 2011-06-15 19:44:26, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: – voidxor (talk | contrib) 20:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: *I was looking into scheduling this for the anniversary of the incident later this year, but I noticed that there's no follow up on any long term impact (i.e. anything after 2008). Could this perhaps be looked into? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  TFA 

message: I suggest a better reference for the Taiwan incident where fuses for Minuteman nuclear missle warheads were mistakenly shipped. This reference could be used to clarify the article's description:
Missile Parts Sent to Taiwan in Error, Thom Shankermarch, The New York Times, March 26, 2008 
— Neonorange (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear warhead fuses shipped to Taiwan in error 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080603002404/http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/05/airforce_minot_failure_053008w/ to http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/05/airforce_minot_failure_053008w/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article lede states this was a BENT SPEAR event, while the article 'Incident' section goes "The USAF has yet to officially designate what type of incident occurred, Bent Spear or otherwise." Aside from that likely needing tense editing, the latter probably should be updated? - The Bushranger One ping only 03:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bent Spear, again...