Talk:William L. Uanna

Untitled

Thanks to DragonflySixtyseven for the redirect and additions.

Contributing information to William L. Uanna

This evening I added a few images to Wikimedia. They are photographs and an FBI background investigation conducted for the Atomic Energy Commission. The FBI document verifies Uanna's service as head of investigations at First Service Command Boston and with Tenth Corps. In addition I included a picture of Uanna with the mission to Nagasaki to study bomb damage and a picture of him at a US Marine Security Guard Graduation. And there are some other pictures. I have hundreds of documents and pictures from his personal file and FOI requests. I have Uanna's Foreign Service Essay which is very informative. And employment applications that he filled out for the various jobs he held, each one giving more information on the other. Some of the people who are the recipients of the documents are David Lilienthal, Carroll Wilson, J. Edgar Hoover, Sheffield Edwards, Edward Lansdale, Mickey Ladd, V.P. Keay, Otto Otepka and others... I have over 50 newspaper clippings form his days as an athlete at Medford High School and Tufts University. And many newspaper and magazine articles about his career during the war and after. This is the first time I used Wikimedia, I did it under the name CIC777, category Bud Uanna. At this point I am unfamiliar with the process. I have a number of FBI Documents that I feel are very interesting. And the one from Ed Lansdale could have some significance. I appreciate the editing that has been done on this site and want to help clear up any questions about Uanna's bona fides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CIC7 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

William Uanna more information on Wikimedia Commons

I have uploaded some files and pictures to Wikimedia. I will add more soon. The Foreign Service Essay is an overview of Uanna's career. Background investigations memo's and employment applications fill in more details. The FBI files from the AEC and AFSWP 1946-1949 tell me that the FBI was on the outside looking in. Thanks for all the editing.CIC777 (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Bud Uanna on Wikimedia Commons

I have uploaded some more files and pictures today to the Commons. I am still a novice at this. I would appreciate any help. I feel that some of these pictures and documents have historical significance. I am trying to keep any bias I have out of the descriptions, but stillCIC7 (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC) give enough information to encourage but not lead researchers. It is a fine. Thank you for your edits.

"Bud Uanna" images being deleted from Wikimedia

Hello, earlier this morning I uploaded some more images to Wikimedia. They relate to Air Force One, John Foster Dulles, Bud Uanna's passport... images are being deleted from the Category:Bud Uanna. I would appreciate any help anyone can give me. I thought Wikimedia was the way to get images into Wikipedia. Most of the images relate to William Lewis "Bud" Uanna - now deceased. They are newspapers, photos he owned, books in which the author and date of publication is given ... I was very encouraged with the additions made to the William L. Uanna page. I am convinced it can be a page of interest to many readers. --CIC7 (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Advice - Wikimedia upload removals.

Hello, I asking for help and or advice on the trouble I am having with Wikimedia and uploads that I put on Category:Bud Uanna. It seems that certain individuals are intent on removing uploads. One that I am especially concerned with is about a book called Above Top Secret by Timothy Good. This was removed almost immediately because I did not use "Copyright" although I gave the date of publication and all other information that I felt was necessary. This upload connected the 509th Composite Group to the Roswell - UFO incident. Other things were mentioned in that upload. It does not seem fair to me that someone can just delete something that is put up. There have been quite number of removals. I would appreciate any help or advice that anyone can give. CIC7 (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide links to any relevant discussions? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't know exactly what you mean.CIC7 (talk) 01:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

What I mean is that you're saying that you've had a problem with uploads, and I don't know if you mean uploads to Wikipedia or to Commons, and where to find them. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Tags

I've tagged this article for COI and OR, as a person claiming to be the subject's son has been introducing original research, edit warring over it for inclusion. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Both tags removed, as the OR has been cured and the COI seems manageable at this time. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

"Murder"

The article contains the following under the subject header "film portrayals":

At the end of the movie Enola Gay, an update of the post World War II careers of the movie's main characters was shown. In a short clip showing Macht in his role as Bud Uanna it said "Stephen Macht as Major William "Bud" Uanna - Uanna became a member of the CIA and was murdered in Africa, any records of his death have subsequently disappeared."

Some movie, not a documentary but a fictionalized account, says something. So what? It is unsubstantiated and a rather wild allegation, totally at variance with the New York Times obituary which stated that he died of a heart attack. Such a serious and troubling statement, in effect indicating skullduggery of some kind as well as a cover story propagated to the public, requires multiple reliable sources if it is to be included in the article. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

All it is doing is reporting what the movie says, and that is not in dispute. On what basis are multiple sources required? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE. It's a fringe theory. Being mentioned at the end of a movie of unknown reliability is insufficient for inclusion. For all we know, it could have been made up out of whole cloth. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

But is the mention of it WP:UNDUE? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

We're not even at that point in the analysis because we are utilizing a fictional film as a source for an allegation about the subject's death. If it was a documentary by a credible person I would feel differently. But this is some words on the screen at the end of an obscure 1980 fiction film that mixes fact and fiction. The most we should say is that Uanna was portrayed by Macht in the film. We shouldn't use the "film portrayals" section to repeat factual claims like this, even innocent ones, much less fringe theories, in fictional works. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 02:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I found this film on YouTube. I won't link to it as it is a copyright violation. It was a TV movie. No, we don't care what TV movies say about real people, except in the article about the TV movie. This might he worth an article as it stars Billy Crystal. The statement about his death is UNDUE there; here, to answer your query above, yes it is UNDUE here too, for this "murder" accusation would inappropriately dominate the "film portrayals" section. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 03:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• I am pleased that the article is up for GA, and there appears to be few barriers to its promotion. Uanna is an important and interesting historical figure. As long as we rely on the very good sourcing available it certainly should qualify. Ancestry, as noted below, is problematic. But otherwise it seems to be in good shape. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Murdered in Africa

I would like to request that some editor put the inclusion of the statement that was make at the end of the movie ENOLA GAY that William Uanna was murdered in Africa on the Request for comment on articles page. I am his son and I have given my opinion on this a number of times. To me, my father was a part of history, although he was written out of it by some authors like Leslie Groves, Kenneth Nichols... William Uanna was portrayed in 3 movies. He was also featured in many newspaper articles and included in books. The fact that the movie ENOLA GAY said he was murdered is a fact. Was the movie up to snuff. Watch it yourself. All the way to the end where it says he was murdered. Whoever watches it can make up their own mind up. That is all I ask. Would the producers of the movie put something like that in just to spice up a movie that was already one of the most controversial subjects of the century? That's a starting question for someone who watches the movie. Food for thought and research. I wish the issue were put before some editors for comment. Then it can go to Mediation if necessary. Thank you, Steven Uanna — Preceding unsigned comment added by CIC7 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

William Uanna is a part of history. His fame ("notability" in Wikipedia jargon) is clearly established. Nothing will diminish now. Part of the pleasure of working on the Manhattan Project articles has been ensuring that Uanna, and others like him receive due acknowledgment, and will not be written out. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

"Their seed shall remain for ever, and their glory shall not be blotted out. Their bodies are buried in peace; but their name liveth for evermore." Ecclesiasticus 44:14-15

Thank you Hawkeye7. I really appreciate your input. Ecclesiastes 9:13-18 CIC7 (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

FOI disclosures

The material here is not verifiable and of questionable utility in the article. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

(below moved from Figureofnine talk page Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC))

Hello. Can you tell me what information prompted you to undo. As I think you know William "Bud" Uanna was my father. I have a wealth of information about him. I think he was a part of history. Can we discuss this on my User talk:CIC7 page? Thank you, Steven Uanna CIC7 (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

See above. See previous discussions re WP:OR. Also the material in question, and the other text you reverted yesterday, is trivia and puffery in additional to being original research. Not going to repeat myself, even if I had the time to deal with your refusal to "get" Wiki policies, so that is all I have to say on this. (Note: user blocked 24 hours but presumably will be free to contribute to this page upon lifting of block) Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

To CIC7

Steven will you please respond to the note I left at your talk page here? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC) Talk:William L. Uanna/GA3

Hello. Jytdog has informed me about the Wikipedia policies, we discussed them on my CIC7 Talk page and I will do my best to follow the guidelines. CIC7 (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight

Am tagging per my comment in the reassessment. There is insufficient text on Uanna's role in the Manhattan Project. I think that is self-evident. We don't even have an enough for a separate section. Absurd. Will address this personally upon my return to regular editing but am tagging in the interim. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Have removed tag, as noted, because the amount of text on the project has been greatly expanded. I hope to contribute to this section myself but at this time am contributing only sporadically. I would implore my brethren to concentrate on this and not on the postwar career, which at this time is overemphasized and excessive in detail. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 11:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Community reassessment

William L. Uanna

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Keep This is coming up to a year now since it was opened, so it is well beyond time it is closed. This was nominated on three criteria 3a (Broadness), 5 (Stability) and 2 (Verifiabilty). It is not specified exactly what verifiabilty criteria it fails, but I feel it is safe to assume 2b and 2c. The broadness issue has been resolved during the review. Stability is not a good reason to delist an article; otherwise articles would qualify for delisting whenever an edit war broke out. It is more a convenience criteria for reviewers (it is hard/impossible to review an article that is constantly changing). In any case there has been no recent stability concerns. That leaves verifiability. The issue here relates to the use of primary sources. As has been pointed out primary sources are not disallowed so what we really need are instances of unreliable primary sources used for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons. No one has actually provided examples of this. Therefore I am closing this as keep. AIRcorn (talk) 06:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I've commenced this reassessment because

1. The article fails GA Criteria No. 3 by focusing in excessive detail on non-notable and trivial biographical details, with insufficient attention - only one paragraph - on the primary reason for Uanna's notability, his role as security officer in the Manhattan Project, for which he was a subject of a number of movie portrayals and extensive mentions in secondary sources oddly not utilized in the preparation of this article. The article fails WP:UNDUE by failing to give appropriate weight to this aspect of his life. I would template for undue emphasis but I am not sure it's appropriate while this GA review is pending.

2. The article has been a subject of edit warring by a COI editor, is unstable and is tagged for major issues: excess reliance on primary sources and COI, as it was created by and was principally edited until a few days ago by a self-described connected editor, the son of the subject. More than four out of ten edits to the article were by the COI editor, more than any other editor. Because of these serious issues it fails GA Criteria No. 5 and meets criteria No. 3 for immediate failure. (Note also removal of "resume" cleanup tag after commencement of this review [1] by an involved editor. I believe this tag should not have been removed.)

3. It rather blatantly fails GA Criteria No. 2, "Verifiable with no original research." The majority of footnotes are to original research uploaded to Commons by the son of the subject.

There are problems with the following references:

• 1. "Uanna – Public Member Trees". Ancestry.com. Retrieved October 22, 2013.
• 2. "Anthony Uanna from Ward 3 Medford in 1940 Census District 9-318". Archive.com. Retrieved September 3, 2015.
• 6, 7, 8. pages from Uanna, William (November 19, 1956). "Bud Uanna Foreign Service Essay". Wikimedia Commons.
• 9. "William L Uanna". World War II U.S. Army Enlistments U.S. Army Enlistment Record. Retrieved October 25, 2013.
• 10. (six footnotes) "FBI background check on William Lewis Uanna". Wikimedia. March 31, 1947.
• 13. "Bud Uanna AEC FBI Armed Forces Special Weapons Project V.P. Keay to D.M. Ladd". February 2, 1948.
• 14. "Bud Uanna Armed Forces Special Weapons Project requesting investigations for personnel that will maintain the Atomic Bombs and the facilities where they are stored". July 1, 1949.
• 17. Uanna, William (November 19, 1956). "Bud Uanna Foreign Service Essay". Wikimedia Commons. p. 5.

Except for the first Ancestry link, which goes to user-created content, and the second Ancestry link, which goes to a census page, the remainder go to self-published primary source material uploaded to Commons by the son of the subject. WP:PRIMARY requires that primary sources must be "reputably published" and this is self-published original research.

--Coretheapple (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC) (revised 02:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC))

Primary sources are permitted to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source. The upload to Commons is merely to make it easier for us to collaborate and verify the source. The documents are all available through NARA. There is no question about their authenticity. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

They also have to be "reputably published." The COI editor's word processor is not a reputable publisher. NARA isn't a reputable publisher, it is a document repository where people go and request material via the FOI act in the course of their original research. And surely you're not suggesting that NARA documents are verifiable because you or I can file an FOI request, pay some bucks, and then wait a year or two for compliance? You're not seriously suggesting that I hope? Commons is not a reputable publisher, it is a conduit for any member of the public who wants to upload stuff. What we're talking about here is OR that he's put on Commons and that you've allowed to source the article. Coretheapple (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

NARA is a reputable publisher. Publication is defined as being made available to the public. I have spent a lot of time there, and you don't need an FOI request for material more than 30 years old. The documents are not being published by Commons, just being made easier for us to verify them. Commons, Wikinews and Wikisource were established precisely for this purpose! Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think we can accept that every government agency is a publisher because it makes documents available to the public. By using primary source materials to such a massive extent, you've deep-dived into his career to an almost absurd extent, with intricate details that really belong on a personal website. He is notable primarily for his work on the Manhattan Project, and there is all of one paragraph on that. That is what happens when a COI editor dominates the editing of an article and pours the product of his original research into the article. Come to think of it, that is actually a somewhat more serious issue than even the sourcing and I've added it above. Coretheapple (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I have written over 200 biographical articles, and this is their nature. Most are famous for one thing but it was only a small part of their life. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

A Google Books search for Uanna shows two books on the Manhattan Project, both of which contain much interesting material on Uanna related to his work on the Project. I find it odd to say the least that neither of these books is utilized in the preparation of this article. I would urge that you remove the excessive details that you have on his various duties and functions and focus on his work for the notable atomic bomb project, so that the latter is given proper weight. Since apparently it did not much interest the COI editor it got short shrift. This article is little more than a memorial website with great masses of trivial material, and I do not understand why it is so when there is source material to prevent that from occurring. With all due respect, I simply at a loss to understand why you leaned so heavily on the COI editor's hand-picked primary sources on minor details of his life, when there were not one but two perfectly usable secondary sources that delved into the most notable aspect of Uanna's career. The fact that you've done 200 bios just makes me even more mystified. Coretheapple (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The Manhattan Project has its own article, which I improved and took to FAC. Running the search myself turns up mentions of Uanna in several books about the atomic bombing mission, including Harlow Russ' Project Alberta, Paul Tibbets' Tibbets Story and Leslie Groves' Now It Can Be Told. More interestingly, Advanced Criminal Investigations and Intelligence Operations talks about his establishment of the Q Clearance, and four books mention his movie and television portrayals, notably Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image in Film. This establishes his notability; but readers do not come to the article to find out about the Manhattan Project; they come to find out about Uanna. To be comprehensive, a biographical article needs to cover the biographical details, and the article does that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Uh yeah, I imagine the Manhattan Project would have its own article. The fact that you don't see a problem in the little in this article on Uanna's role in that project is less than startling at this point. And by the way, I assume that he is in that "military images in film" book because of his work on the Manhattan Project, which is now given far less attention in this article than is warranted by WP:UNDUE. It really deserves a maintenance tag for that, but I don't think it's appropriate for me to do so while this is pending. I don't believe that it is in the "nature" of biographies to underweight major aspects of a subject's life. If there are multiple books on the project with references to Uanna, not just the two that turned up on the first page of the search, than the underweighting is even more inexcusable. Coretheapple (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Delist In addition to the given reasons, reads like a resume. 2600:1017:B40F:A478:44:8E3B:210:559D (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

  WP:GAR requires you to be logged in. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

  No, afraid not. See talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Keep (after tweaks): overall, the article seems to conform with what I would expect of a biography, having seen a few come through ACR and FAC. Remember we are telling the whole story of the man's life, so we need to be careful not to overload the article with too much detail on one aspect (remember also he was a pretty junior officer at the time, too). I would like to see a few tweaks, though, for instance:
  • some more references to secondary sources if possible;
  • references added to the Film portrayals section;
  • the imaging/description pages need work. For instance, "File:Bud Uanna State Department 3jpg.jpg" should include the date of when it was taken, not when it was uploaded or scanned. Same same with "File:Bud Uanna State Department 1jpg.jpg", and "File:Bud Uanna War 3jpg.jpg" and "File:Bud Uanna State Department 2jpg.jpg". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I have made the suggested changes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
      • I hope that we can cut back on some of the material in the overlong postwar section. Were it not for the primary sourcing it would not be in the article, and I think it overweights, though not so dramatically as to warrant a tag at least in my opinion. Building up the section further as has been done recently makes this problem worse. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
• Delist. Traveling now so don't really have the opportunity to go into enormous detail, but I agree with Core's analysis. For some time I have been troubled by the COI editor's dominance of this article, and I agree that his influence has resulted in a ridiculous situation. Uanna is notable for his work at the Manhattan Project, where he was security chief. I agree, we don't want the entire article on that. But just a couple of sentences? Ridiculous. It is barely mentioned in this article at all! I am guilty as any for not previously even noticing that. Primary sources are overused, to be sure. That is a problem. The fact that there is insufficient material on the Manhattan Project to warrant a separate section is indicative of the extent to which this article fails to properly cover the subject. So I therefore agree that it must be delisted and I frankly am surprised that other editors fail to recognize this serious flaw, which clearly indicates a lack of broad coverage required for GA status. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

  Perhaps because the GA "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

  Perhaps if persons other than fellow Military History Project coordinators commented on this article we might get a less self-serving view of the article's obvious imbalance. I would be curious to see the views of editors who perhaps are less steeped in the minutae to which this article is over-dedicated, to the detriment of material that would interest the general reader. Coretheapple (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Keep The article is well-written, well-sourced, broadly covers the topic and is illustrated by appropriate images. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

  I have added some more material on the Manhattan Project. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

  I am glad to see this, and the text that you added is interesting and useful. In my opinion this section needs to be fleshed out fully so that it receives its proper emphasis in the article. Obviously managing the security for the atomic bomb squadron is far more notable than anything else he may have done in his life. The article as currently written unfortunately is bogged down in trivia still, largely due to an overreliance on primary source material on secondary aspects of his career. Coretheapple (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - for now at least. While I agree that there have been some valid concerns raised per Coretheapple's commentary above and Figureofnine, it seems to me that much of it has been addressed by a number of editors working in good faith to improve the article. At any rate GAs are not meant to be perfect, and this one does seem to be adequate enough to not warrant delisting, while further improvements can of course continue to be made. FWIW the article seems to cover the individual's life as a whole, which is what I'd expect from a biography, so I'd actually be concerned about UNDUE if it mainly focused on his involvement in the Manhattan project. Finally, if the COI issues were to reappear and become persistent then that might change the equation but at this stage it seems to be being managed. Anotherclown (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The amount of material on the Manhattan Project was expanded sufficiently in my opinion to warrant removal of the undue weight tag. I am afraid that the other tags do point to issues in the article that unfortunately remain, and the Manhattan Project section definitely can be expanded perhaps into subsections too. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC) This is the type of nonsense that has kept this article a mishmash of trivia. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with User:AustralianRupert. The article conforms to what a Wikipedia biography should consists of, and I also agree that it is along the lines (in terms of similarity of content) compared to other Wikipedia bios. However, I feel like the "Film portrayals" section should be expanded (and could be expanded). The Above and Beyond "sort-of" statements should follow each portrayal; including with films Hiroshima and Enola Gay: The Men, the Mission, the Atomic Bomb. Most of what brought this article to the reassessment discussion has been handled, so I don't see the need to delist it, especially now. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC).
• Comment: I was invited to participate in the discussion by Figureofnine on my Talk page. While going through the article, I noticed that I relies to a large extent on primary source. Would this not be a concern for a GA article? Since it seems to suggest that the material being cited has not been noted by secondary sources, and thus could be not important and indeed unneeded intricate detail. There are close to 40 citations to such primary sources:
  • "Uanna – Public Member Trees". Ancestry.com. Retrieved October 22, 2013.
  • "Anthony Uanna from Ward 3 Medford in 1940 Census District 9-318". Archive.com. Retrieved September 3, 2015.
  • "Tufts Quarterback is Due Back Today". Lowell Sun. October 18, 1932. p. 38. Retrieved October 22, 2013. (subscription required (help)).
  • "NCAA 1931" (PDF). National Collegiate Athletic Association. Retrieved October 25, 2013.
  • a b c d e f g h i j k l "Security is his Job – William Lewis Uanna". The New York Times. July 26, 1958. Archived from the original on October 22, 2013. Retrieved October 22, 2013.
  • Uanna, William (November 19, 1956). "Bud Uanna Foreign Service Essay". Wikimedia Commons. p. 1.
  • Uanna, William (November 19, 1956). "Bud Uanna Foreign Service Essay". Wikimedia Commons. p. 2.
  • Uanna, William (November 19, 1956). "Bud Uanna Foreign Service Essay". Wikimedia Commons. p. 4.
  • "William L Uanna". World War II U.S. Army Enlistments, U.S. Army Enlistment Record. U.S. Army. Retrieved October 25, 2013.
  • a b c d e f g "FBI background check on William Lewis Uanna". Wikimedia Commons. March 31, 1947.
  • a b c d e f g h "Short Biographical Sketch of William Uanna". Archived from the original on October 22, 2013. Retrieved October 22, 2013.

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Newspaper articles are not primary sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Newspapers are down there on the list of RS unless written as an investigative report by a notable writer. Regardless, this still leaves about 30 citations to primary sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Delist: the article is not stable (subject to some edit warring) and some of the sources are problematic (heavy reliance on primary sources, indicating that the details cited may not be important). I'm sure the article can be improved and be re-nominated for GA in the future. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The point about edit warring is correct. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that everyone stop editing the article until the review is over. Bold editing is not the way to go here. It is clear that there are pretty entrenched differences of opinion, so the only way to move forward is to wait for a few other opinions to swing the consensus either way (to delist or not) and then accept it (whatever the outcome) and move on. The best way to achieve this may be a Request for Comment. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Keep The reasons have been well-established by the other keep reviewers. There is also some rather odd stuff going on here with some of the contributors to the review. Editors shouldn't be being BOLD while the review is ongoing, as that automatically affects the stability criteria and shows a distinct lack of respect for our processes. K.e.coffman once again demonstrates a lack of understanding of the notability policy and its application, comprehensiveness, the parameters of reliability, and the proper use of primary sources in articles. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The absence of a Manhattan Project segment or barely a mention of that, a principal flaw and reason this reassessment was started, was rectified during the course of the reassessment. There are other flaws: primary sources, unencyclopedic detail, which has resulted in extensive instability in this article. Indeed, instability in the form of editing warring over trivia was the proximate cause of the ANI. The article is being improved and is halfway toward the goal of not being a personal website containing family nostalgia and patently nonessential material, like the reading matter of the subject of the article while studying up for a non-notable aspect of his career. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It is worth noting that Uanna's Who's Who entry merely notes that he served in the Army during World War II. So that source considered him notable for his other work. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe Who's Who in America entries are written by the subject. Coretheapple (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• I believe that this article has been greatly improved since I commenced this GAR. References to the Manhattan Project have gone from nil to an entire section. The article still relies excessively on primary sources, which appear to be fragments of larger documents uploaded piecemeal to Commons. Though most trivia has been removed, there is still an overambundance of intricate detail. Coretheapple (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This is a well-written article about a significant individual. It seems like it was tagged mainly for using primary sources, but there's nothing wrong with using primary sources for basic information. There is a featured article on [Altgens] that also uses lots of primary sources for the same type of information.Homemade Pencils (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Note The above !vote is from an effectively new user and is clearly not based on the GA criteria, as well as apparently indicating not having read the OP's delisting rationale, which focused largely on GAC#3. This is not, technically, a case where Template:Single-purpose account can be invoked, but this user's edits to the Wikipedia namespace have almost uniformly been disruptive and should probably be evaluated on that basis. Their edits to other namespaces have almost all been minor, which makes it look like a troll attempting to cover their tracks by making a lot of kinda-sorta constructive edits but focusing most of their efforts on !voting against community consensus. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

None of my edits have been disruptive. The reasons for delisting this article are simply flawed. If you don't have anything constructive to say, then you don't need to say anything.Homemade Pencils (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I am troubled by the usage of primary documents:

1. What confirmation do we have that Uanna himself is the writer of the Foreign Service essay, used for Ref 6, 7, 8, and 23? Was it ever published anywhere? Why was it written?
2. What is the provenance of the FBI background check document on William Lewis Uanna? It's used to source 6 different statements. Shearonink (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Brava/bravo, @Shearonink:, spot on. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Strong delist. There is no real question here. The only sound rationale based on the criteria, and emphasizing WP policies and Guidelines, is that of Core. We are not deleting the article, we are saying simply saying it is not Good. Because it is not. The preponderance of references to self-published (family-published), non-third part sources alone should make this clear. In the sciences, this would have been a 30 minute discussion and a unanimous delist. So delist it already, to give impetus to its improvements, so interested editors can sort the warring problems, and make clear to the "owning" editor that the citations to his families stories at the ancestry sites are not valid encyclopedic sources. Let the article work back to being Good. Don't redefine Good to keep things you like or want. If everything (like this) is good, nothing really is. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

William L. Uanna Marine Security Guards

I would like to open a discussion about Uanna's career at the U.S. Department of State where he was the Chief of the Division of Physical Security and his relation to the Marine Security Guards. Uanna appears to have had a varied career after the Manhattan Project and the Marine Security Guards - MSG's appear to be one of his accomplishments at the State Department. I refer to the line "Over time, the Marine Security Guards have become the "custodians"...My issue is the term "over time" as if it just evolved. In fact they are "custodians" by law - Title 10 USC 5983. This can be viewed at www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/5983. The web site Marine Corps Embassy Security Guard Group at www.msg-history.com/detachments/MCESC/MCESC_V.1.html gives a timeline of events leading up to the law. "Over time" is an oversimplification of the difficulty encountered by the Department of State and Marine Corps to bring the Marines into the Department of State. It almost did not happen. This is explained at the Security of the Department of State web site at www.state.gov/documents/organization/176702.pdf. Start at p.137 for the Marine Security Guard Story. Uanna is pictured some pages down and some of his duties described. I invite other editors to review these documents and consider revising the "over time" statement. It diminishes the efforts put into the Marine Guard program, like diplomatic immunity and Top Secret Clearances for the Guards. Uanna may have played the leading role at the Department of State. He is the only civilian on the stage in the picture showing the Marine Guard graduation that is featured on the William L. Uanna page and a photo on Category:Bud Uanna on Wikimedia - Bud Uanna State Department Marine Security Guards p.2.jpg shows him shaking hands with a Marine officer. The picture is signed "To Wm. L. Uanna with sincere appreciation, R.E. Roach. A Lt. Col. R.E. Roach is listed as the Commanding Officer of the Marine Security Guards on the Marine Corps Embassy Security Guard Group web site timeline referred to above. CIC7 (talk) 02:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi CIC7 - what would be most useful, would be to write here what language you would like to see. Like: Can we please change ""Over time, the Marine Security Guards have become the "custodians"" to "blah blah blah" cited to these sources:

• Title 10 USC 5983
• Chapter 4, McCarthyism and the Cold War: Diplomatic Security in the 1950s p. 137 in History of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security of the United States Department of State United States Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, Printed October 2011

Please note that www.msg-history.com/detachments/MCESC/MCESC_V.1.html is a dead link.

Please provide the exact change you would like to see and please make sure that the sources you give provide support for the content. Thx Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I will write a suggested change. The link I provided to the Marine Corps Embassy Security Group website does work on the search engine "mywebsearch" it takes you to their search engine page and that takes you to the timeline section within the MCESG website to view the timeline of events concerning the Marines and the State Department. Also I wanted to mention that notes 42, 48 and 57 of Chapter 4 of the Department of State website mentioned above show more of Uanna's involvement bringing the Marines into the Department of State. CIC7 (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Great editing. Can we please change: "He them published the Protection of Dignitaries Manual and developed the handbook used at the training school for Marine Security Guards who would be employed as "custodians" of U. S. Embassies, legations and consulates overseas." to "He then published the Protection of Dignitaries Manual and developed the handbook used at the training school for Marine Security Guards who would be posted to U. S. Embassies, legations and consulates overseas as "custodians". This seems like a small change but I suggest this because my reading of the Wikipedia Marine Security Guard page linked to William L. Uanna seems to describes the Marines position not as employees but unique and elite members of the diplomatic community. I had thought of using the term "deployed" but that seems like a term that should be used for larger military groups. CIC7 (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. CIC7 (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

This strikes me as excessive and unnecessary detail in a section of the article that needs to be cut back, not expanded. If there is going to be bloat in the non-Manhattan Project areas of this article then it is a backwards step. This strikes me as routine biographical material and not especially notable. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

509th Composite Group Security

I would like to open a discussion about making additions to the paragraph next to and below the picture of Uanna in his military uniform on Tinian Island in 1945. After the line that ends with "...the combat element of the 509th Composite Group." I would like to suggest adding "The dossiers represented the most thorough investigation to date secretly carried out in the name of the United States Government."

And after the line that ends "...back to prison for any dereliction of duty or security breaches." I would like to suggest adding "Tibbets liked Uanna's style, he was coolly pleasant and uninterested in anything but his work." This information is from pp. 23-24 of the book RUIN FROM THE AIR by Gordon Thomas and Max Morgan Witts, the same book that is noted and referenced in the existing paragraph although it is noted on pp. 45-46 in the existing paragraph's notes. My copy is the First Scarborough House Paperback Edition 1990. The paperback edition states that the book ENOLA Gay was first published in the United States by Stein and Day and that RUIN FROM THE AIR is an expanded version and was published in hardcover in Great Britain by Hamish Hamilton, Ltd. Copyright 1977. Near the bottom of the page it states - Reprint. Originally published: London: Hamilton, 1977. CIC7 (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

What is the source for the change in the first paragraph? Please remember that for every change you propose you also need to suggest a reliable source. And if you format that source so it can be copy/pasted folks here will have less effort to implement your suggestions - it is in your interest to make this easy for them.  :) Jytdog (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. The source is the same: RUIN FROM THE AIR pp. 23-24 1990 paperback, but I think it is the same reading as the hardback pp.46-46 which I do not have. This section was edited recently by another editor. CIC7 (talk) 11:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Any suggestions on expanding the Manhattan Project section would be welcome. Ihave split off as a separate section. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Trivia

The material reverted here meets the definition in my opinion, compounded by its WP:PRIMARY sourcing and its WP:COI origin. My optimism on the ability to improve this article is fading considering the WP:OWN character of the editing of this article, which has kept this article overly detailed to an extreme extent and containing much extraneous and insignifcant information. The fact that the subject of the article claimed in a primary source document that he read certain material related to a secondary aspect of his career is non-encyclopedic. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Uanna thought it was worth mentioning in his Foreign Service Essay on p.2 which can be viewed through the Wikimedia Commons Bud Uanna link on William L. Uanna. I can only guess but I think having City Manager information helped him at Oak Ridge where according to his autobiography at the Atomic Heritage Foundation "www.atomicheritage.org/profile/william-l-bud-uanna" he managed the police, detectives and welfare bureau. Also, he appears to have been a City Manager of sorts on Tinian Island. Page 5 of his Foreign Service Essay states that he was working on his doctorate degree in Public Administration. And knowing how a city runs probably helped him in his coordination of security for visiting diplomats during the Cold War. Knowing the ins and outs of city life may have helped him manage security at Oak Ridge where any number of issues could arise. The United States did not have the luxury that Germany and Japan did - slave labor. And he was the Administrative Officer in Addis Ababa at the time of his death, I think that means he managed the Embassy. I suggest we keep it in - I think it was a tool he used. CIC7 (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

But it's just reading he did to prepare for this position. We're getting in the weeds here. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree. Qualifications are relevant to a biographical article, and his self-study tells us about his character. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

One way to solve this is whether any independent source mentions this. If so that is a good argument against TRIVIA. Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

City Manager is mentioned again at Wikimedia Bud Uanna, the link from William L. Uanna. It is the image 3/4 of the way down the page, right above the image of his passport. But, this is listed as background information for his Foreign Service Essay prepared by Uanna. Also - It is listed on p.3188 of Volume 32 of WHO'S WHO IN AMERICA 1962 - 1963, his listing finishes with: Served with AUS 1941-1947. Registered profl. civil engr., Mo. Mem. Mass., Fed. bar assns., Internat. City Mgrs. Assn. Address: American Embassy APO 319, N.Y.C. I don't know how WHO'S WHO collects it's information. Perhaps it is supplied by the individual listed. If so, for what it's worth, Uanna thought the International City Managers Association worth mentioning along with his engineering registration and bar membership. CIC7 (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The question is not about his City Manager Association affilation job but this bit about his reading that book many times. And I asked if there are independent sources and you have not brought any. Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC))

OK, I am in the weeds. What are we talking about? It appears Uanna read the seven volumes several times then became a cooperating member of the City Managers Association in 1940. Trivia would seem to me to be "he liked to refinish furniture in his spare time." Apparently he listed this among his accomplishments. Can we mention that he read the books? Can we mention that he was a City Managers Association member? The Wikipedia's listing for City Manager shows that it is a very interesting position, the Profile shows that in the early years they were usually engineers Uanna was an engineer today they usually require a Masters in Public Administration, Uanna was working on his Doctorate. CIC7 (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

He never was a city manager and his reading a book is only tangentially related to his notability. Apart from the subject and a document you obtained via the FOI Act, where is the independent sourcing of this or for that matter any of the primary sourced material you have obtained for this article on your father? For some months now I have been perplexed by first the extent to which this article has been salted with trivial details, and now by the fierce defense of every single bit of trivia in the article, and the kneejerk defense of its GA status by coordinators of the Milhist project in the GAR even when it had virtually nothing on why he is notable. It is strange. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 03:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Please try and keep things civil. Labelling editors' actions/opinion as kneejerk and "strange" is not conducive to collaboration. It is easy to find pejorative ways of describing someone's actions. Perhaps you could apply the same good faith to others here that you expect them to show you. Please remember that others are allowed to hold contrary opinions and that sometimes consensus is about compromise (on both sides). Beyond that, on many of your points I happen to agree with you (to an extent), which is why I have tried to tighten the article as best I can. That being said, overall, I'd say it is close to being what I would expect to find in a biography on a person (I've reviewed quite a few for GA, ACR and FAC, and I have written a few which have been published professionally offline). That being said, I wouldn't personally include some of the information that is currently in the article (the anecdote about the conversation with Russ on the plane and the missing shirt for instance), but equally I disagree with the characterization that it focuses unduly on intricate details. Indeed, I think it still needs a little bit more about his personal life if it could be reliably sourced (not a lot more, but some information on when and where he he met his wife, when were they married etc) and also some explanation about why he was commissioned into the engineers but assigned to the CIC as Director of Operations. Where possible, primary sources should be replaced by secondary ones also, but remember WP:PRIMARY does not totally preclude use of such sources. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It is what it is, which is strange, and I am not the only editor to notice about project coordinators rallying around another project coordinator to defend an article at a time when it clearly and obviously gave insufficient attention to the most notable aspect of this man's career (if we determine notability on the basis of secondary sources and not FOI documents obtained by the son of the subject). The article was approved for GA status with almost nothing on what makes this man notable, which is that he was in charge of security for the first atomic bomb! That is why he is the subject of so many film portrayals. Not because he was on the football team or was in the CIC corps or the State Department. I'm not blameless in this; this article simply was not on my radar. I suggest that you not flaunt all the reviews you've done if you think it is OK for an article to be so ridiculous imbalanced and packed with trivia like "he sold his home." WTF? "He sold his home"?????? That's not trivia? Why in this edit did you remove about him submitting names to the FBI while retaining that he "sold his home"? Please explain your rationale. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Just to be very clear as to what I am referring to when I say "strange," I am referring to this version of the article, which made it seem as if the Manhattan Project was just a secondary aspect of his life. Its unjustified GA status (in that version) is then defended as perfectly fine. The reader knows more about what's important about this man by watching the James Whitmore movie than reading this article. I would say "strange" is an understatement.Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't flaunting anything, merely pointing out that this compares with what I've seen elsewhere at high levels of assessment and offline (not really sure how else I can say that). Equally, there is no need to shout in your edit statements or call things ridiculous or say "WTF" about other people's edits or opinions. My rationale for my edit was that I was making an effort to reduce some of the detail of the article, which is, I believe what you have been asking for. I removed a large part of the sentence because it seemed like a run of the mill part of his job as security officer (I filed 20 of those applications last week in fact at my work where security officer is only a secondary appointment i.e. I'm expected to do it in my own time). If I got it wrong, apologies. That said, you will find people more amenable to your position if you use a less disparaging approach. As I said, I happen to agree with you on a number of your points. Please read the comments at the GAR again. I said "keep (with tweaks)" and then I listed several significant issues. Anotherclown also acknowledged that there were issues, but pointed out that this is only a GA, which means it doesn't have to be perfect. So, no it wasn't defended as "perfectly fine". There has been considerable editorial effort put into improving the article by a number of people. If you wish for people to continue to make an effort, encouraging them would be a better way to achieve that. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

No we don't allow grossly unbalanced articles as Good Articles. That's a totally incorrect statement; it is cotnrary to the GA criteria. We don't let basket cases like this limp along until they are FA. And no, I think we have quite enough on Mr. Uanna's personal life, and your comment about adding material on how he met his wife, and your edit cited above, indicate that we have different views of what constitutes trivia. And with that, I have pretty much exhausted the spare time that I can devote to Wikipedia. Thanks for taking up my time with this useless discussion. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Further personal details

I found an article that sheds some light on where Uanna met his wife. It is a front page story in the MEDFORD MERCURY from Tuesday, February 28, 1956 entitled "Top Security Post.... Ex-Medford Athlete Now Guards World Diplomats" by Al Frezza. It also has a picture of Uanna - the same picture on his passport. It continues on p.7 with "Now living in Washington, Uanna is married to the former Bonnie Leonard of Knoxville, Tenn., who was his secretary while he was assigned to the Atomic Energy Commission. The position of Chief of Physical Security is somewhat opposite to playing football, teaching, legal work or engineering but Uanna say's "it's interesting." The story I heard is that 27 year of Bonnie Leonard was working out of the secretarial pool at the Pentagon in Washington and living in the women's dormitory which was nearby called Arlington Hall in 1947. Every day she would be given her assignment and would get on the back of an electric cart and be driven to "who knows where" in the labyrinth halls of the Pentagon to type, take shorthand or file. One day her assignment was: Major Uanna. At the end of the day she got on a cart and went back to the pool. The next day the dispatcher said that Major Uanna had called the pool and said "Send that girl back." She became his personal secretary. Some of the first work she did was making corrections on a report that Uanna had typed about the Manhattan Project. After corrections and editing it was to be re-typed as a permanent record. She recounted how she had to white out the word "Punkin" and re type "Pumpkin" and she said that this was in reference to the practice bombs the 509th Composite Group used to practice for the Atomic Strike. They were married on August 29, 1947 in Washington. Shortly after that they moved to Kansas City, Missouri where Uanna oversaw the construction of the Atomic Bomb storage bases. They had not been there long when they sold their home "at a loss" which irritated her because they had put a lot of work into it but did not bother Uanna, and this irritated her. According to her Uanna did not care about money and was "generous to a fault." They moved back to Washington where Uanna went to work for the CIA. History, nostalgia, trivia...I know it is difficult to sift. Sometimes truth bursts upon the scene, other times it evolves and you have to beat the bushes to find it. Obviously the information above would only be interesting to a small audience. But it does show some of the back story and the human side. I'll do what I can to help. I am trying to understand where William l. Uanna is headed. Granted, his Manhattan Project work was part of history but his career in the Cold War was notable too. The Manhattan Project was the beginning of the Arms Race and the proverbial Military Industrial Complex. CIC7 (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Correction: Bonnie Leonard was not staying at "Arlington Hall" when she met Major Uanna but at Arlington Farms. The dormitories were called "halls." CIC7 (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I've separated this into a different section, if you don't mind. WP:NOTEVERYTHING discusses why we do not include all facts about a subject, even if sourced, and that would seem to cover what you are suggesting here. Have you considered creating a personal family website into which you can deposit documentation and also personal details that don't make the cut for Wikipedia? This article probably could link to it in the "external links" section. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@CIC7: Do you have a source for the wedding date? Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. 2 sources so far. Among her personal employment papers she states that she was married in Washington, D.C. on August 29, 1947. And, same document, I see that she lived in Rm.H-121, Kansas Hall - Arlington, Va. Aug. 1946 - Aug. 1947. WHO'S WHO gives the date as Aug. 27, 1947. CIC7 (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

G'day, I think it would be ok to mention the marriage date and place, but only very briefly (i.e a single sentence). I wouldn't suggest using the personal employment papers as references. The Who's Who reference should be ok, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)