Talk:M42 (sub-basement)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Reports of Nazi target

Many questionably-reliable, modern sources:

--ɱ (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy

I have to question one of the claims in this article, as it makes no sense. And as the reference is a book which I do not have, I wish others would check into it.

But the article claims that "during World War II, the facility was featured in a navy training film as the safest place in New York during a nuclear strike" Which makes no sense, as how many training films made during WWII covered the risk of nuclear war? This to me appears to be a spurious and anachronistic claim, and does not fit in why anything I am aware of during the era. Mushrom (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
The M42 sub-basement
The M42 sub-basement
  • ... that the M42 sub-basement (pictured) under Grand Central Terminal, thought to be 105 to 109 feet (32 to 33 m) below ground, is considered the deepest basement in New York City? Source: Roberts, Sam (January 22, 2013). Grand Central: How a Train Station Transformed America. Grand Central Publishing. This source is unpaged.
    • ALT1:... that during World War II, the M42 sub-basement (pictured) was featured in a navy training film as the safest place in New York during a nuclear strike? Source: Roberts 2013
    • ALT2:... that a steam plant in the M42 sub-basement (pictured) became an electrical substation when a corresponding power plant was torn down to make way for the Waldorf Astoria New York hotel? Source: NY Times 1929

Created by Ɱ (talk). Nominated by Epicgenius (talk) at 17:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article is new enough (created Dec 12), long enough and well sourced. The main hook seems way too squishy -- the depth is not known but "thought to be" a particular depth, and "considered" (by whom?) to be the deepest basement in NYC. Alt1 looks solid: short enough, interesting, and appropriately cited. Alt2 is ok too but not neary as hooky as alt 1. Image has Share Alike 4.0 license requiring attribution and link to the license. Also QPQ needs to be done.Cbl62 (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cbl62, thanks for the review. I'll do a QPQ soon - currently, the copyright violation detector is down. Epicgenius (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, the main hook is the most interesting, and could be more factually stated as the "deepest known basement in the city", though the Grand Central LIRR terminal is fully dug out, so that could always qualify as an unfinished basement that is deeper? ɱ (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cbl62: Thank you again for the review, I've done a QPQ now. @Ɱ: Grand Central on the LIRR might not really qualify as a basement story, similar to how the subway is not considered a basement in itself (otherwise, there are several subway stations which are much deeper). However, as Cbl62 already said, the main hook may have problems because, even considering that the LIRR isn't a basement, we don't even know the exact depth. If the LIRR is a basement, then the main hook is outright false. Epicgenius (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about the subways. I'm not sure the proper way to qualify a basement when you consider tunnels, platforms, power stations, and passenger concourses... ɱ (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With the QPQ supplied by Epicgenius, I am now approving the alt hooks. I am striking the main hook given the concerns raised by myself and by Epicgenius. Cbl62 (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent edit removed the information mentioned in ALT1. Jose Corregidor (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quite rightly too, as it can't possibly be correct. The nuclear bomb was top secret until the last days of the war, so wouldn't have been in training movies. If the training film actually existed, I imagine it was a post-war film? @Epicgenius: can you please re-check the source and make corrections? Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your own classroom-learned knowledge of events won't cut it. A reliable source has information - do you have references to support that it could be false? I imagine the US nuclear program was secret, but from reading history of nuclear weapons, it seems clear that multiple nations were developing projects like this, and that scientists thought it directly possible even before the war, so a mention of a shelter from strike does not seem unreasonable. Then there's the thought, do you know that no US Navy officials of any rank were allowed to know about the possibility of a strike from a super-weapon? ɱ (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I emailed Roberts, we'll see what comes of it! ɱ (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where the weird complaint about "classroom-learned knowledge of events" comes from (what's this meant to be compared to?), but see Gerard DeGroot's book The Bomb, for instance, for discussions of the intense secrecy around the World War II nuclear bomb program. It was so secret it was hidden from US senators, and even Vice-President Truman only learned about it after being sworn in to replace FDR (pp. 54-55). There's no way it would have been mentioned in training films at this time, but it's entirely likely that this would have happened during the Cold War. Nick-D (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M42_(sub-basement)&oldid=1207719517"