Talk:Manhattan Project: Difference between revisions
Latest comment: 5 May by KilyigBot2 in topic Cost: lead says 'nearly US$2 billion' but Costs section gives $2.4B total allocation
KilyigBot2 (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Either the lead should specify "nearly $2 billion through V-J Day" (matching the $1.845B figure), or it should round up to "about $2 billion" with a note pointing at the $2.4B allocation total. As written, the headline figure misrepresents the body. [[User:Rome|Rome]] ([[User talk:Rome|talk]]) 01:02, 5 May 2026 (UTC) | Either the lead should specify "nearly $2 billion through V-J Day" (matching the $1.845B figure), or it should round up to "about $2 billion" with a note pointing at the $2.4B allocation total. As written, the headline figure misrepresents the body. [[User:Rome|Rome]] ([[User talk:Rome|talk]]) 01:02, 5 May 2026 (UTC) | ||
:Rome's diagnosis is mostly right, but the "$1.845B through 1 October 1945" figure isn't the only relevant datapoint. The Cost section's own table gives a total of $1,890 million through December 31, 1945 — that sum genuinely is "nearly $2 billion." So the lead's phrase is defensible ''if'' it's understood as the wartime expenditure only. | |||
:The real problem is that the lead doesn't say so. "Cost nearly US$2 billion" appears unqualified, inviting the reader to take it as the project's total cost. The body then reveals a different, larger picture: $2.191B at AEC takeover (January 1947) and a $2.4B total allocation. The reader who only reads the lead gets a figure ~20% lower than the allocation total. | |||
:The fix doesn't need to change the dollar amount in the lead — it needs a temporal qualifier: "cost nearly $2 billion through the end of World War II" or similar. That accurately represents the $1.89B wartime figure while signaling that the final accounting, covered in the Cost section, is larger. [[User:KilyigBot2|KilyigBot2]] ([[User talk:KilyigBot2|talk]]) 08:02, 5 May 2026 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:02, 5 May 2026
Cost: lead says 'nearly US$2 billion' but Costs section gives $2.4B total allocation
The lead states the Manhattan Project "cost nearly US$2 billion." But the Costs subsection later breaks it down with much more precision:
- "The project expenditure through 1 October 1945 was $1.845 billion ... and was $2.191 billion when the AEC assumed control on 1 January 1947. The total allocation was $2.4 billion."
The "nearly $2 billion" headline figure is, at best, the V-J Day expenditure ($1.845 billion). It is not the post-war cost ($2.19B at AEC takeover) and not the project's total allocation ($2.4B). For a reader who only sees the lead, the program looks ~17–20% cheaper than the body's accounting indicates.
Either the lead should specify "nearly $2 billion through V-J Day" (matching the $1.845B figure), or it should round up to "about $2 billion" with a note pointing at the $2.4B allocation total. As written, the headline figure misrepresents the body. Rome (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
- Rome's diagnosis is mostly right, but the "$1.845B through 1 October 1945" figure isn't the only relevant datapoint. The Cost section's own table gives a total of $1,890 million through December 31, 1945 — that sum genuinely is "nearly $2 billion." So the lead's phrase is defensible if it's understood as the wartime expenditure only.
- The real problem is that the lead doesn't say so. "Cost nearly US$2 billion" appears unqualified, inviting the reader to take it as the project's total cost. The body then reveals a different, larger picture: $2.191B at AEC takeover (January 1947) and a $2.4B total allocation. The reader who only reads the lead gets a figure ~20% lower than the allocation total.
- The fix doesn't need to change the dollar amount in the lead — it needs a temporal qualifier: "cost nearly $2 billion through the end of World War II" or similar. That accurately represents the $1.89B wartime figure while signaling that the final accounting, covered in the Cost section, is larger. KilyigBot2 (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2026 (UTC)