Talk:J. Robert Oppenheimer/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Rumor of espionage by Robert Oppenheimer.

I recently saw on the cable television channel a program about espionage in the Manhattan project. Obviously, Fuchs was mentioned, but most surprisingly of all was a mention of Robert Oppenheimer's name and another senior Los Alamos Manhattan project scientist, who were accused of passing atomic secrets to the Soviets.

The data came from recently on the sealed KGB files on the Manhattan Project. It seems that Stalin had ordered all remaining files destroyed, but the KGB rather than destroying them lock them up in a cell at one of their prisons. These files were opened and analyzed and Robert Oppenheimer's name was clearly displayed therein. They claimed that Robert Oppenheimer and the other scientists did this in the interest of spreading knowledge of the bomb so as to create a standoff between superpowers, as they did not trust the United States as the sole possessor of nuclear weapons.

While this information is obviously critical to many of us consider Robert Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi, and others as personal heroes. On the other hand, it seems that Edward Teller may have been smack on if these rumors are true. I would like to see some expert academic type get to the bottom of this if possible.50.47.247.105 (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

While Oppenheimer's name appears in the files, there is no evidence that he ever passed any information to the Soviet Union. When it became clear that somebody was passing information, Oppenheimer, Fermi, Segré, Bohr, Peierls and many others fell under suspicion. This is understandable. The rumours were not true, and the Teller fans would want me to add that Teller never believed them. Rather, he merely felt that he was right on the H-bomb issue, and the others were wrong. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Citation #74 No Longer Valid

Can a registered user please update this page to reflect that the link for citation number 74 is now dead. It should be either updated, removed, or at least replaced with a "Citation Needed" note.

T.J. 68.146.8.183 (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I have mended six dead links. Thanks for reporting this problem, -- Diannaa (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Citation titled "Biography and online exhibit created for the centennial of his birth" should be updated

This citation is currently using a web archive version, when the link has moved. It still exists at a separate location.

This is the working Berkeley link. http://cstms.berkeley.edu/archive/oppenheimer/exhibit/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfonsojon (talk • contribs) 14:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Media suggestion

• I've uploaded File:Roosevelt letter for Oppenheimer.pdf on Commons. It may be useful for this article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2015

Second paragraph under "Studies in Europe": Referred to as Robert instead of by Oppenheimer in text. 50.179.179.214 (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Translations of the Bhagavad-gita

I am not in anyway trying to argue with the translation that Robert Oppenheimer came upon or translated him self from the Sanskrit verse from Chapter 11 Verse 32:

śrī-bhagavān uvāca

kālo 'smi loka-kṣaya-kṛt pravṛddho lokān samāhartum iha pravṛttaḥ ṛte 'pi tvāḿ na bhaviṣyanti sarve ye 'vasthitāḥ pratyanīkeṣu yodhāḥ

I have came upon quite a substantial amount of information from many sources that there is no reference to an entity that calls itself, "Death" in this verse.

I am not completely sure where that came from, which is why I think that it might have been Oppenheimer's own translation or the translation of a guru who may have used the word in that way.

The problem is that, even if that were to be true it still doesn't make any sense, because from all of the information I have found, that word in particular has been consistent in it's translation meaning:

Time

---

All, this being pointed out I am going to do further research and ask a few scholars/get more information. I think that you will find that what I am saying is fact.

Sanskrit translations are very difficult to quantify because often times there are many factors which lead to the various translations of one word. Yoga is a very good example of that.

Conundrumfever (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)AMP

Everything you say is completely correct. The translation was Oppenheimer's own. While it is normally translated as "time", Oppenheimer chose "death". I highly recommend Hijiya, James A. (June 2000). "The Gita of Robert Oppenheimer" (PDF). Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 144 (2). ISSN 0003-049X. Retrieved December 23, 2013. Hawkeye7 (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference to two-meson hypothesis in the section: Institute for Advanced Study

The second to last sentence in the section identifies a muon as a meson. This is true as the meson was defined at the time being discussed. However, in the interim the meaning of meson has been refined and a muon is no longer considered a meson; now being classified as a lepton per the standard model. I think it would be good to re-write this bit but don't know quite how to word it and don't want to be too long-winded on a subject that is peripheral to the main article. Klaun (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It is always difficult to decide whether to use the terminology of the time. In this case, the reader almost certainly comes to the article armed with a key piece of information that was not known in 1946: that there are a many more subatomic partciles than were then known. I have added a footnote explaining that the muon is now considered to be a lepton. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:J. Robert Oppenheimer/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Already assessed as a featured article. Tom 23:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC) needs inline citations --plange 20:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 09:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC). Substituted at 20:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference to two-meson hypothesis in the section: Institute for Advanced Study

The second to last sentence in the section identifies a muon as a meson. This is true as the meson was defined at the time being discussed. However, in the interim the meaning of meson has been refined and a muon is no longer considered a meson; now being classified as a lepton per the standard model. I think it would be good to re-write this bit but don't know quite how to word it and don't want to be too long-winded on a subject that is peripheral to the main article. Klaun (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It is always difficult to decide whether to use the terminology of the time. In this case, the reader almost certainly comes to the article armed with a key piece of information that was not known in 1946: that there are a many more subatomic partciles than were then known. I have added a footnote explaining that the muon is now considered to be a lepton. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Adviser / Advisor

It should say that Oppenheimer was an adviser [with an "e," not an "o," in the spelling of "advisor"(sic)]. Advisor is a bastardization of the correct spelling of adviser. The "o" spelling is found primarily in the financial sector; its widespread use there has regrettably been adopted by the general public much the same way a noxious weed spreads if not destroyed. The AP Stylebook is very clear on the correct spelling.97.92.11.171 (talk) 04:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

According to the Wiktionary: In the US, Associated Press style is adviser, and most newspapers and some magazines follow that spelling, whereas US federal government style, other government agencies, and many businesses prefer advisor. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2016

Change "I am become death" to "I have become death" as it's a grammar error. 71.244.147.252 (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

In the context of a quote it doesn't particularly matter what's (seen to be) grammatically correct but what was actually said, and the quote is typically rendered as "I am become death". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

You can listen to Oppenheimer here on YouTube Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Katherine's suicide age

Katherine "Toni" Oppenheimer died at 33. Not 32.

http://www.atomicheritage.org/profile/toni-oppenheimer

She was born on 7 December 1944, and died on 19 January 1977. So she was 32 when she died. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

His Impact

ATOMIC BOMB, is there a link to issue that it was not needed, or how Oppie's sercurity issues gave headstart to the Russians via Fuchs etc. Many parts are written at 6th grade level, is that wiki standard? Juror1 (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

There's no standard as to what reading level Wikipedia articles should be, but the required for Featured Articles (as this one is) to contain "brilliant prose" sets the bar high. I try to pitch articles at undergraduate level, and this one comes in at a reading level of 14.4, equivalent to an American college sophomore. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

External links

Things sometimes "creep in" so would someone look at the "External links" for possible integration or trimming? With exceptions 3 to 5 (four to five as possible exceptions), seems to be a "reasonable number" but 11 links starts to look like link farming. Otr500 (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• I have pruned two dead links, and removed Kitty's FBI file, as she now has her own article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, definitely an improvement. Do you know if there are any reasons some can't be incorporated into the article? Possibly:

• Biography and online exhibit created for the centennial of his birth On a brief read I didn't see anything "unique" but does offer opportunities for referencing.

  The Centennial conference produced a book containing the papers presented, Reappraising Oppenheimer: Centennial Studies and Reflections, which was used in the article in preference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• Freedom and Necessity in the Sciences: I didn't look at it yet. Otr500 (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

  No video, but you can hear a whole lecture from Oppenheimer in his own voice. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• What does Was Oppenheimer a member of the Communist Party? by the brotherhoodofthebomb.com have to offer over a conspiracy theory?

  It's by Gregg Herken, an expert on the subject. His book was used in the article. The external link was included because it allows the interested reader to examine the primary documents. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Thank you. Please be bold and pick some to trim if you would like. If I get a response I would prefer someone involved to work on it. You have named three of interest and if there are no other interested parties I will support your actions to reduce the number. Three or four has been shown to be acceptable and if I do trim I will just delete them all but your choices per consensus. That may not be the better of the actions for the article. I do appreciate your involvement. Otr500 (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I have trimmed the list by three (the two listed above plus the IMDB link).If you want any more removed, you'll have to produce a consensus to do so. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear esteemed Hawkeye7, I appreciate your attention to the issue. "External links" usually grows by incremental additions and often allowed by local or even project silence. When the "lists", be it "External links", "Further reading", or even "See also" (that does have more latitude) grows to a length and concerns are voiced, they can be trimmed per MOS and External links policies and guidelines. "IF" trimmed the burden falls on any editor wishing to have one or more included that actually "grows" the lists above the more broad community accepted length. I usually always seek collaboration on higher classed articles instead of any battles, which can also be signs that an article may not be assessed correctly, when the concerns are deemed valid.

I never have a goal of reassessing or tagging (that can lead to reassessment) a better classed article unless there are "blatant" violations or issues that cannot be resolved. Your words that I would have to "produce a consensus" if I wish any more changes has the connotations that all links now included have consensus. I did not come to this article seeking battles or edit wars. The links were over-excessive and you have made improvements, but the list is still longer than usually acceptable. Please remember I have not made any edits but have only continued discussions in agreement with your assessment.

You trimmed some you apparently deemed excessive and named three you assess as being important. Out of eleven it is now down to seven. I am not in some "hurry" but simply would prefer an ongoing dialog for improvement. Of the four I did not see you mention is my questioning. If you are "done" with this then I can take a look at the remaining. Again, the dialog is concerning improvements and avoiding (if possible) any contention or being "boxed in" that a long list can remain that way unless some battle (seeking RFC or other) or some edit war is initiated. :If you care to look at those remaining, or let me know you have, then I can possible decide that all the ones on the article are unique, relevant, needed for some above normal perspective, and not permitted to be integrated into the article allowing an exception. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Fergusson

I can't edit the article but there is a correction to be made. In the "Studies in Europe" section, the words "While Ferguson's account" should be changed to "While Fergusson's account." 173.61.223.136 (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC) De Mikeal Tibbetts

Resolved

 – Change made. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

J. Robert or just Robert?

I think the article should be changed back to J. Robert. If one does a google search for Robert Oppenheimer, most of the results are J. Robert, not just Robert. AndyBloch (talk) 09:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree: The meaning of the 'J' in J. Robert Oppenheimer has been a source of confusion. Whether the 'J' in Robert's name stood for Julius or, as Robert himself once said, 'for nothing' may never be fully resolved. His brother Frank surmised that the 'J' was symbolic, a gesture in the direction of naming the eldest son after the father but at the same time a signal that his parents did not want Robert to be a 'junior.'" It is not Askenazic Jewish custom to name children after living relatives. In Peter Goodchild's J. Robert Oppenheimer: Shatterer of Worlds, it is said that Robert's father, Julius, added the empty initial to give Robert's name additional distinction, but Goodchild's book has no footnotes, so the source of this assertion is unclear. Robert's claim that the 'J' stood "for nothing" is taken from an interview conducted by Thomas S. Kuhn on November 18, 1963, which currently resides in the Archive for the History of Quantum Physics. On the other hand, Oppenheimer's birth certificate reads "Julius Robert Oppenheimer". User:WernerHFan —Preceding undated comment added 13:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree; I think it should go back. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done I have changed it back. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Just saw this discussion. I agree with J. Robert. The "J" was omitted? I don't remember that. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The page was moved on 26 August. I moved it back on 28 August. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I see. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Weird footnote

"Japan surrendered unconditionally to the Allies on September 2, 1995, formally ending the Second World War." Japan surrendered in 1945, not 1995, and this factoid is unreferenced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

This seems to be vandalism. Japan surrendered on 2 September 1945, and the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco tidied up the end of the war (aside from the continuing dispute between Russia and Japan over the northern islands). Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Apologies. That was a typo. Nerd271 (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there any reason why we need it? It isn't in the article, and Oppenheimer wasn't involved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppenheimer played a role in the surrender of Japan because he was involved in the Manhattan Project, quite heavily in fact. One thing leads to another. Such is the chain of historical events. And we are talking about events from the same era here. Nerd271 (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

I would like to add a little more info of Dr.Oppenheimer's art collection content, as well as his lending of Van Gogh paintings to Van Gogh Exhibition in 1949. This is based on the following source:http://research.frick.org/directoryweb/browserecord.php?-action=browse&-recid=12000

I don't have the right to add these information, could you help?

Thanks! Maomao2019 (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I have added it for you, along with an image of his Van Gogh. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2019

please change "Katherine "Kitty" Puening (m. 1940)" to "Katherine Oppenheimer Kitty Puening Harrison (1910-1972)" because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Oppenheimer Jgarcia1974 (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Katherine Oppenheimer is linked; we use her maiden name for the infobox parameter. NiciVampireHeart 03:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Citation link now paywalled

The 1948 Time article link is now dead. The most recent useful archive.org version is at https://web.archive.org/web/20111009082022/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,853367-8,00.html and searching time.com itself says the article is now at http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,853367,00.html and available only to Time subscribers. I'm not sure which to fix the citation link to? 131.191.63.59 (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The latter is correct. There is no issue with linking to paywalled sites. I have corrected the link in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Awesome. Can you also correct the access date and add the "archived from" thing for the older link? 131.191.63.59 (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2020: add link to CPUSA abbreviation

At the end of the Security Hearing section, citation 213 mentions "CPUSA" without any other reference to this abbreviation in the article. Add a link to the page on the US communist party? (I had to google CPUSA to find out what it was referring to)

Y Added at first mention of Communist Party USA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

--Pahtrihk (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2020

Change "Because of the threat fascism posed to Western civilization" to "Because of the threat nazism posed to Western civilization".

It was not "fascism" but "Nazism" that was the real threat to the nations of the West. The role of fascist Italy in World War II was much smaller than that of Nazi Germany. During this war, the Soviet Union authorities used the term "fascism" to divert attention from the fact that they collaborated with Hitler's "Nazism" until 1941. Soviet culture was imbued with positive "Nazi" patterns, so a different term was needed. Thus, "fascism" became synonymous with evil. 79.191.191.56 (talk) 06:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

 Additional information needed Will you cite a reliable source (see WP:RS) for your assertion, please? — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 15:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2020

Change “Julius Robert Oppenheimer” to “J. Robert Oppenheimer.”

It was very obviously what he wanted to be called [Note 1], so it’s his name; birth certificates can have mistakes. The name Julius can be relegated to the footnotes where it belongs instead. 174.212.239.63 (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this request, but since it has been discussed in the past as I recall, we should probably discuss further. Figureofnine (talk contribs) 20:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

That was my feeling too. I also agree with it, but wanted to hear from others like yourself. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Per above. Melmann 00:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind waiting to see if anyone objects, but we seem to already have a consensus. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Washington U affair

I recently created the article of Edwin Albrecht Uehling, if anybody is interested, there is a description of a university affair related to Oppenheimer.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: Thanks. That's not currently in the article and deserves a mention. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Fix Sanskrit Text

> Oppenheimer later recalled that, while witnessing the explosion, he thought of a verse from the Bhagavad Gita (XI,12): divi sūrya-sahasrasya bhaved yugapad utthitā yadi bhāḥ sadṛṥī sā syād bhāsas tasya mahāḥmanaḥ

It's mahātmanaḥ not mahāḥmanaḥ Jeetbee (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

movie

Whoa, they are making a movie about Oppenheimer.[1] I'm staying out of theaters still, but if they sell scientist action figures as tie-ins for the movie, I might buy a few. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:D4A (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppenheimer's First name

So if this article is called "J. Robert Oppenheimer" what was his first name. I tried searching "Julius Oppenheimer" for some reasons and it redirected to this. Maybe "Julius" might be his first name, named by his father. WernerHFan (talk)User:WernerHFan —Preceding undated comment added 13:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Julius, J. Robert Oppenheimer's first name, should be display in the first paragraph of this article and inside the biography info-box. Someone should be able to come to Wikipedia in search of his first or full name and easily find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robel Aredo (talk • contribs) 16:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

This is explained in note 1. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments. The explanation of the initial "J" should also be in the main text of the article rather than only in note 1. It could even be its own section after the introductory portion. I came to Wikipedia looking for Oppenheimer's full name and spent way too much time before giving up and Googling it. I don't think such long and detailed explanations belong in footnotes. That information is worthy of its own space in the main text. Wikipedia users like me would greatly appreciate easier and quicker access to information and better organization of articles. It would be preferable to engaging in a game of "Where's Waldo?" whenever we want to satisfy our curiosities with random trivia. Just my humble opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.36.8 (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Another example of U.S lies, propaganda & thievery.

This page needs a major re-edit. It’s full of misinformation & lies.

Gives way to much credit to Oppenheimer who hade little to do with much of the splitting of the atom, fusion, or the development of the a-bomb or the Maud/ Manhattan project.

Fact.

Ernest Rutherford & Marcus Oliphant where the first people to split the atom.

Marcus Oliphant of Australia created the Manhattan project & the A-bomb.

“Oliphant also formed part of the MAUD Committee, which reported in July 1941, that an atomic bomb was not only feasible, but might be produced as early as 1943. Oliphant was instrumental in spreading the word of this finding in the United States, thereby starting what became the Manhattan Project. Later in the war, he worked on it with his friend Ernest Lawrence at the Radiation Laboratory in Berkeley, California, developing electromagnetic isotope separation, which provided the fissile component of the Little Boy atomic bomb used in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in August 1945.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Oliphant

Ernest Rutherford

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford

Also Australia has control of around 38% of the worlds supply of uranium.

I really think it’s important to be accurate on a page like this.

Cheers. 49.178.102.68 (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppenheimer had nothing to do with splitting the atom. He doubted that it could be done until it was. Marcus Oliphant did not split the atom; his colleagues John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton were the first ones to split the atom, although Oliphant helped build the device they used to do it. Oliphant discovered nuclear fusion, not nuclear fission. Oliphant was instrumental in starting Tube Alloys in the UK and the Manhattan Project in the US. Oppenheimer drew on his work with electromagnetic isotope separation with the development of the calutron. Oliphant pressed the Australian government to look for uranium in Australia. No reserves were known in 1940, mainly because it was not worth looking for. And yes, I wrote the article on Oliphant too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Dwight Schulz

Isn't it customary to include major theatrical and television portrayals in the legacy section? Dwight Schulz is mentioned on the page for Leslie Groves, but not this one.2604:3D09:C77:4E00:A083:852F:2AA3:76DB (talk) 02:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate source for second quotation in the "Legacy" section

Please change the attribution of the second quote in the Legacy section from Bhagavad Gita to Bhartrihari's Śatakatraya.

The quote "In battle, in the forest, at the precipice in the mountains, On the dark great sea, in the midst of javelins and arrows, In sleep, in confusion, in the depths of shame, The good deeds a man has done before defend him." is from Bhartrihari's Śatakatraya (specifically the Nītiśataka), not the Bhagavad Gita as is written in the text.

Source: Bhartrihari's Śatakatraya by D D Kosambi, ISBN 81-215-1034-1, in 2001 FourthAuthor (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a page number? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

On page 31, no. 97 of this English translation:

Biscoe Hale Wortham (1886), The Śatakas of Bhartr̥ihari, Trübner . London: Trübner, 1886, reprint Routledge 2000, ISBN 0-415-24510-9 https://archive.org/details/satakasofbhartri00bharuoft/page/n30/mode/1up?ref=ol&view=theater

Not the exact wording used by Oppenheimer, but that's most likely due to translation differences. FourthAuthor (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7 I think this edit request can be accepted and implemented, it does appear to be the correct quote, but I wanted to get your thoughts on it first. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done I have incorporated this correction into the article. My apologies for the slow response. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2022

Remove the last line in legacy:

"A big-budget Hollywood movie titled "Oppenheimer" is in production."

This is already mentioned in the sixth paragraph of the legacy section:

"In the upcoming American film Oppenheimer, directed by Christopher Nolan and based on American Prometheus, Oppenheimer is portrayed by actor Cillian Murphy." 2601:640:4000:3170:0:0:0:F6D3 (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request:

Oppenheimer wrongly stripped of security clearance, US say https://apnews.com/article/science-jennifer-granholm-76b643ffae7cca68c46db86f9ee9bfa3?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=b8aaa29e9f-briefing-dy-20221221&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-b8aaa29e9f-44361669

Y Already there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

KGB disinformation straight from the US Energy Secretary LOL

Oppenheimer had at least 3 KGB code names, was a secret member of the CPUSA, and was surrounded by the same KGB agents that thoroughly penetrated the US nuclear program.

This wikipedia page is just further Russian disinformation, whether you clueless dupes know it or not :) 81.28.80.19 (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Pravda? You know the rules. Provide a reliable source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2023

Section "Studies in Europe" contains the sentence "Oppenheimer published more than a dozen papers at Göttingen, ...". This is inaccurate according to the source provided. Cassidy 2005 writes on p. 109 "Oppenheimer published twelve research papers while in Göttingen and in subsequent European locations, before he finally settled in California in 1929", together with a footnote saying "This count ignores translations, abstracts, and notices". A complete list of Oppenheimer's early scientific papers can be found in Smith & Weiner 1980, p. 359. Many of those papers have not been published in or at Göttingen.

Therefore, I suggest changing the sentence "Oppenheimer published more than a dozen papers at Göttingen, ..." at least to "Oppenheimer published more than a dozen papers while in Europe, ...". Feynmansprinkler (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Movie?

Should the Oppenheimer movie at all be mentioned here? 165.234.101.96 (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

You mean what the article calls the "upcoming American film Oppenheimer, directed by Christopher Nolan and based on American Prometheus"? That film? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

It's been my observation that about 50 percent of the time someone posts to a Talk page asking some variant of "Why isn't X in this article?", X actually is in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I removed a sentence from opening paragraph

I have removed this sentence from lead:

He later remarked that the explosion brought to mind words from the Bhagavad Gita: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

this have no importance to be worth mentioning in in the lead. As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the "first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific". The Bhagavat Gita story is too specific. why give undue importance for his interest in literature/philosophy in the lead? the matter is discussed in detail in sections where it belong.ChandlerMinh (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Two reasons: (1) the quote is very well known and associated with him (2) it mentions his fondness for Sanskrit scripture. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC);;

1. Fondness for saṃskṛta scripture is a personal life choice. does not belong in the opening para. it is a "too specific" detail. Neil Armstrong's "That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind." quote is more famous than this and broadcasted live around the world. But, I don't see anyone putting that in the first paragraph of Neil Armstrong. Contrasted to that, the Bhagavat Gita quote was not actually even said, it was just in JRO's mind.
2. Oppenheimer was an atheist, giving undue importance for a religious scripture in the first paragraphs of this page doesn't make much sense ChandlerMinh (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
3. During the Trinity test, there were two quote that came to his mind: "divi sūrya-sahasrasya..." (" the radiance of thousand suns") and "kalosmi..." ("I am death"). So mentioning only one verse in the opening paragraph will not do justice his interest in Bhagavat Gita.

So it is better to leave both and deal it in sub sections instead of opening para

On balance, I think the quote belongs in the lede. It is very much identified with JRO and it conveys the emotional impact of the Trinity test, and of the advent of the nuclear weapons age. As for it being in the first paragraph, I am okay with that too. This particular lede is a little unconventional – the first paragraph deals almost solely with WWII and the Manhattan Project, the second paragraph covers post-war developments including the security hearings and aftermath, and the third paragraph rewinds in time to cover his pre-war career as a physicist. But that's okay – ledes are not one-size-fits-all and this one's ordering of the material is a reasonable way of approaching the subject. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd leave it out. While a consequential quote I think it is undue weight to leave it in the lead, especially in the first paragraph. Reference to the MOS is well-taken. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

In evaluating how to handle this, I'd suggest that we take the approach that is suggested in a parallel though dissimilar situation in Gene Kelly. In that article the issue was whether to put "dancer" first or "actor." There was an RfC and ultimately it boiled down to how the two were framed in reliable sources, which overwhelmingly put "dancer" first. In this case we may want to examine how sources deal with that iconic quote. In his NY Times obituary it is mentioned, but within the body of the article. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0422.html I suspect that is how it is generally dealt with by the independent reliable sources. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree that Oppenheimer's translation work belongs in the body of this article but not the lead.  — Freoh 14:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2023

Lemme edit this thang!! 2604:2D80:4D03:E900:F9AF:F16A:35C5:C714 (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Tollens (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Conversation line between Truman and Oppenheimer.

I cannot find any proper source of the line: "I don't want to see that son-of-a-bitch in this office ever again." I have researched, even the original memo on the Truman government website for the conversation, and I cannot find a single sense of proof for this to exist. If anyone has any knowledge on the actuality of the line being spoken, then please respond with any proof. As the the only source I have found for that line came from a biography, no factual likeness has been found in my research.

OdinDaBoi (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Why do you think that Ray Monk is not a proper source? Do you have sources that contradict his account or that show that he is unreliable?  — Freoh 20:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Monk cites Bird&Sherwin, p. 332 as his source. Bird and Sherwin cite the notes of the meeting as being in 5/7/46 box 201 in the Truman Library. They note another version of the meeting in Boyer, p. 193 and Herken p. 150. I have checked these too; they record the blood on the hands but not the "son of a bitch". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Wall Street Crash Reference

Where is the statement:

He claimed that he did not read newspapers or listen to the radio and had only learned of the Wall Street crash of 1929 while he was on a walk with Ernest Lawrence six months after the crash occurred.

in the reference? RogerTaft (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Herken, p. 12: "Oppie later claimed to have learned of the 1929 stock market crash some six months after it happened, while on a walk with Lawrence." cf. also Childs, p. 145: "Devoid of small talk, he read no newspapers of magazines of general interest. Though he had considerable means from his father's investments, he learned of the stock market crash months after it occurred from Ernest" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

Oppie currently redirects here. Please indicate the disambiguation page containing Oppie values for other uses.

Please add

{{redirect|Oppie|other uses|Oppy (disambiguation)}}

"Oppie" redirects here. For other uses, see Oppy (disambiguation).

-- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I've changed Oppie to go to the Oppy redirect page, which is stated as also covering "Oppie". That's more appropriate on an ongoing basis than redirecting to this one nickname usage. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

 Note: Marked edit request as answerd. NotAGenious (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

The introductory section (4th paragraph) includes this sentence:

"He lobbied for international control of nuclear power, to avert nuclear proliferation and a nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union."

Does the word "avert" apply to both nuclear proliferation and a nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union?

If so, this needs to be made much clearer.

Because as it stands it appears that the nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union is one of the things that Oppenheimer "lobbied for".

A simple fix, if appropriate, would be to insert the word "both" immediately after the word "avert" in the quoted sentence.

 Not done The comma makes the meaning clear. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2023

This article says that Oppenheimer was born to a Jewish family in New York, then says he was born in Prussia.

Ambiguous language should be cleared up Mars2468 (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done it should be clearer that JR Oppenheimer's father Julius was the one born in Prussia. Walt Yoder (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Birth place

It says Oppenheimer was born in NY, but he was born in Hanau Germany. 2A0D:3344:2371:5E10:310C:9FAD:9497:D2FE (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

He was born in New York. His father was born in Germany. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2023

Change “five decades after his death” to “almost seven decades after his death”. 98.61.153.76 (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done 2022 was 55 years after his death in 1967, so I changed the article from decades to years accordingly. Xan747 (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect immigration date

On the article it says that he returned to the U.S. in 1888, before he was even born. On https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/People/Administrators/robert-oppenheimer.html#:~:text=from%20G%C3%B6ttingen%20in%201927%2C%20Oppenheimer,Europe%20to%20American%20graduate%20students. it says that he returned in 1927. Mopeyduke (talk) 03:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

It says that his father Julius Oppenheimer came to the United States in 1888. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Daughter’s death

The article states that Toni committed suicide. It would be better to read “died by suicide.” The other term is not as accurate, since suicide is not a crime. AngelKMG (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem is easily avoided [2]. EEng 17:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2023

Change text of committed suicide to died by suicide. Suicide is no longer a crime therefore cannot be committed. Flamboyantist (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

• This is a stylistic choice -- see MOS:SUICIDE. But I'll change it to avoid the issue. EEng 21:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

He got to the US before being born

The article currently says he was born in 1904 and moved to the US in 1888.. 89.207.171.75 (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• That's the dad, Julius Oppenheimer, not the son J. Robert Oppenheimer. I've changed the wording a bit to make that clearer. EEng 17:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

"Unidentified man" in 1947 Harvard honorary degrees

The man between Oppenheimer and George Marshall in the 1947 Photo of Harvard Degree recipients is Ernest Cadman Colwell. 152.37.215.14 (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done EEng 17:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2023

I noticed a typo. The current page reads: At this point in the war, there was considerable anxiety among the scientists that the German nuclear weapons program might be progressing faster than the Manhattan Project effort.Bird & Sherwin 2005, pp. 221–222</ref>

We're missing the opening ref tag, which I'm requesting be added to before "Bird & Sherwin 2005, pp. 221–222</ref>" Hebbian2 (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done thanks! NotAGenious (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done because we need several people to say it's done! EEng 17:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, just want to mention that it's done. EEng 17:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Quotes in Note 4 mixed up.

It seems that the quotes in Note 4 are mixed up. The "destroyer of worlds" quote is verse XI,32. And the "thousand suns" quote is from verse XI,12. Oskkar (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Well spotted Oskkar. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I did that on purpose to see whether anyone was paying attention. EEng 20:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. But now the Sanskrit doesn't line up correctly with the verses. It should be:

If the radiance ..." is Bhagavad Gita verse XI,12 (divi sūryasahasrasya bhavedyugapadutthitā / yadi bhāḥ sadṛṥī sā syādbhāsastasya mahātmanaḥ); "Now I am become Death ..." is verse XI,32 (kālo'smi lokakṣayakṛtpravṛddho lokānsamāhartumiha pravṛttaḥ). Oskkar (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

For shame, Hawkeye, not recognizing that the Sanskrit was backwards. EEng 23:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I had a professor in college who announced one day that he was changing his office hours because was taking over a sick colleague's Akkadian class and (he said) "my Akkadian's a bit rusty". I absolutely adore the concept of someone's Akkadian being "rusty". EEng 00:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Los Alamos

This area was not desolate and uninhabited, it had been inhabited for many many years by Hispanos. During Oppenhiemer's search for land to build his lab the Hispano people who lived at Los Alamos were given less than 24 hours to evacuate and their farmland was bulldozed to make way for the laboratory. Their livestock were shot and killed and they were given next to no help from the government for their income loss. Some of the men from these lands were later employed by the lab to work with beryllium by Oppenheimer, however they were offered no protective gear incomparison to the white men who were given protective gear. Loyda Martinez was a computer wizz at Los Alamos. She began to look into thee death of many of these Hispano men during this time. She later filed a class action lawsuit and won. http://lanl-the-rest-of-the-story.blogspot.com/2008/07/lab-workers-awarded-12-million-by-sarah.html It is important not to white wash this era but instead to remember all who made the project a success (if that is what we want to call the birth of atomic weapons). 134.225.31.103 (talk) 07:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The url given is for something completely different, a class action lawsuit for the early 2000s period concerning LANL pay and promotion practices. The Project Y article does briefly mention the disparate compensation given for Anglo and Hispanic lands when Los Alamos was first started up, using this NYT story from 2001 as a source. More could be added, including a follow-up regarding the lawsuits and reparations efforts mentioned in the NYT piece. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the Project Y article does mention this. Since it only covers the wartime project, the post-1946 actions are out of scope? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

This from the Atomic Heritage Foundation seems like a fairly even-handed account of the displacements. So I think the Project Y article could be expanded on this aspect. As for Oppenheimer's role, American Prometheus pp 205–207 has him preoccupied with recruiting scientists to move there and not hands-on in the transformations of the site. Didn't look in any of the other biographies. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Place naming conventions

Per the Wikipedia style guide, Oppenheimer's places of birth and death should not include the country; they should only include the state, except for major cities (such as New York City), which don't require any country. 108.4.237.58 (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to where it says that in the style guide? Template:Infobox person says to include the country. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a longstanding headache. Somewhere, something says that articles on US cities should be titled City, State (except -- long story -- certain prominent cities like New York City and Chicago), and somewhere else it says that articles should refer to cities the way those cities' articles are titled. That certainly applies to article text, but it's a little unclear whether it's meant to apply to infoboxes as well. Over the years I've come to believe that it's helpful, for readers who don't know where New Jersey or Sussex are, to include the country in the infobox. But I wouldn't do it for major cities like New York City, Chicago, Berlin, Paris -- "New York City, US" looks just plain stupid. EEng 08:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It was added with this edit by Abbyjjjj96 (talk) in April 2019. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Atheist or not?

JRO's name have been included in the list of atheists in science and technology. but the word atheism is not mentioned here. ChandlerMinh (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no reliable source on Oppenheimer's religious views, if any. I would recommend his removal from the list. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

one line from Mysticism section says he prayed to no god. ChandlerMinh (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The source says:

The Gita was far from the only work of imaginative literature that influenced Oppenheimer. Shakespeare’s Hamlet and the poems of John Donne, for example, had their effects. The Gita was different, however, in that it presented many of the essential ideas of a great tradition of philosophy from which Oppenheimer could derive an entire code for the conduct of life. There is no such thing as Shakespearism or Donnism, but there is Hinduism. Oppenheimer made the most of it. He never became a Hindu in a devotional sense: he never joined a temple or prayed to gods. His brother reported that although Oppenheimer "was really taken by the charm and the general wisdom of the Bhagavad-Gita," he never got "religiously involved in it." -- Hijiya, p. 126

I don't know if that is enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

That definitely isn't enough :3 F4U (they/it) 12:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe there are RS about this topic from a bunch of reading many years ago, but I don't have a citation for you right now. Maybe I will find something. 2601:644:8584:2010:0:0:0:8672 (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Article beats movie

From New York Review of the Nolan movie,[3] comparing it to the Wikipedia article:

Leaving the theatre after seeing “Oppenheimer,” I was tempted to call it a movie-length Wikipedia article. But, after a look online, I realized I was giving Wikipedia too little credit—or Christopher Nolan, the movie’s writer and director, too much. A simple fact-heavy article about J. Robert Oppenheimer, the physicist whose leadership of the Manhattan Project, during the Second World War, produced the atom bomb, turns out to offer more complexity and more enticing detail than Nolan’s script does. And it has more to say about the movie’s essential themes—the ironies and perils that arise when science, ambition, and political power mix—than the movie itself does.

2601:644:8584:2010:0:0:0:8672 (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I added part of this quote to the article about the movie. 2601:644:8584:2010:0:0:0:8672 (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, time to consider commissioning a docudrama miniseries in *6 episodes (as suggested by Brody)* based on this article alone, then? JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 10:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Just make sure the sound track is not as unnecessarily LOUD as it is in the movie. It was way over the top. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Name claim

I'll start by saying that I personally think David Baddiel is a joke (and not just as a comedian) but is there any truth to the claim in his article that Oppenheimer "liked to pretend he wasn’t Jewish"? In particular that the reason he didn't go by his first name Julius was "because he didn’t want people to think he was Jewish, or that Jewishness mattered much to him"? GhulamIslam (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

When you find some scholarly sources on the subject, let us know. EEng 00:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

This explores the issue a little bit. 2601:644:8584:2010:0:0:0:5FA4 (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

'...only use to date in an armed conflict.'

May I play Devil's Advocate here and just ask: is it plausible that atomic or hydrogen weapons have been used in any armed conflicts other than the two atomic weapons referred to here?' 82.8.243.184 (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

No. See Nuclear detonation detection system. MrOllie (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Well now, you seem very sure of yourself. No nuance or room for doubt then? Is it 'settled science', perhaps, that a nuclear device could be detonated without being detected? Or perhaps without being reported. Are you 100% sure? 82.8.243.184 (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

It is not talking about one being detonated in a secret test, but as part of an actual armed conflict. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

See Russell's teapot for an analogue to the unlikely event that someone used a nuclear bomb on an enemy somewhere on Earth in, say, 2014, but then used thought control beams to erase everyone's memory of the bombing, or that proto-dinosaurs in pre-human times blew themselves up with H-bombs in some manner lost to the fossil record. Off of Earth, it is of course unknown whether alien civilizations in other star systems have had nuclear wars of their own. 2601:644:8584:2010:0:0:0:5FA4 (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• It's conceivable that someone's tested a bomb somewhere without anyone knowing it (or being sure about it -- see Vela incident), but it's not conceivable that someone was on the receiving end of an atom bomb and took it without complaint. EEng 07:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
  • There are theories floating around that some ancient (maybe nonhuman) civilization on Earth had a nuclear war, of which only subtle traces remain.[4] That may have been what OP had in mind. But, it's not something to take seriously. There have on the other been natural nuclear fission reactors, but those didn't explode and weren't used in combat. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:3AB4 (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

    I notice that our article on Machu Picchu makes no mention of telephone wires, so from that I conclude that the Inca civilization had wireless. EEng 22:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Article series

I found the last chapter of this while trying to chase down a quote. It was very good. I haven't read the rest yet but it looks worth reading.

https://3quarksdaily.com/essays-on-the-life-and-times-of-j-robert-oppenheimer-by-ashutosh-jogalekar

2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:3AB4 (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

CPUSA member

This seems to claim that Oppenheimer was an actual CPUSA member rather than just a sympathizer, member of front groups, etc. I will leave evaluation to others here. The question doesn't interest me that much, though that's just me. I would say though that Ray Monk's biography took some pains to present it as a still-open question rather than an ungrounded allegation. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:3AB4 (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes I saw that article. It makes some interesting points and probably should be included. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

NYT book review from 2002 of a book making apparently the same claims. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:F22A (talk) 04:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Charisma

[5] Sociological study of Oppenheimer as an example of charismatic leadership. Interesting in some ways. Could be good to cite. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:F22A (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The article in question appears to be this one. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/030631200030004003 Some of us may prefer to click on that rather than the PDF. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Ruth Tolman

I think the mention of Ruth Tolman should be in the "Relationships" section. Also, perhaps their relationship should be expanded on a little since Oppenheimer had a longer relationship with her than with Jean Tatlock and, by all accounts, they loved each other. Given all that, it's odd that she is mentioned in one throwaway line about him moving back east.

Would like some feedback on this idea. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Her article needs a lot of work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

It does - not well referenced at all - but what about her brief mention this article? I was thinking that perhaps that one line should be moved to "relationships" and slightly expanded on; you know add info like how long it went on, the nature of the relationship, etc., etc. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The sourcing in that article is not very good at all, a couple of websites and a contributor to the Huffington Post. I believe the latter is considered self-published. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

It is odd how bad the sourcing - and lack thereof, as well - is in that article because Tolman's life in fairly well documented.

I will check it out. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

My first reaction was that the subject might not be sufficiently notable, given the lack of good sourcing. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

As far as I've read, Tolman and Oppenheimer had a decade long affair (an emotional affair but an affair nonetheless). However, that part is more well documented than any other part of her life. For example, I can't find much documentation on her career which goes into detail beyond those websites.

So what do you suggest? Personally, I don't think we should nominate the page for deletion. She is notable in her own right as well.

Also, we should probably move this conversation to Talk:Ruth Sherman Tolman. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Not sure what to do except find sourcing. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Where is Oppenheimer's tunneling theory?

It is said that he worked in tunneling? I have not see any important papers of him on this. Could somebody provide more keywords or describe what he really did related to tunneling? ReyHahn (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I added references to Oppenheimer's two papers on the topic. He does not use the word 'tunneling', but his contribution is explained in Merzbacher's article The Early History of Quantum Tunneling which I also added as a reference. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 05:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Got it he was doing some perturbation theory but this is very different from the lead "first prediction of quantum tunneling", it is clear form Merzbacher that it was Fowler and Nordheim. I would either remove it (because it is not that notable) or add something more specific "first prediction of quantum tunneling in atomic transitions" or again something more specific. I think he was mostly describing time-dependent perturbation theory and not necessarily tunneling anyway (except for his calculation on field emission).--ReyHahn (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the statement in the intro was exaggerated. I changed it to a more vague 'early work on quantum tunneling' as I would prefer to go into too much detail within the lede. The statement within the body of the article I elaborated a bit. Citations in both Gamow's (1928) and Gurney's & Condon's (1928) articles on alpha decay do indicate that his work did have an impact on the general theory of tunneling so it should be mentioned in some way. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a scan of some of Oppenheimer's early notes on tunnelling near the beginning of Lawrence and Oppenheimer, if that is of any interest. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 08:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Chess game

I see no mention of the alleged chess match between Einstein and Oppenheimer. Seeing that there is enough activity here I would like to have some feedback. Do you think that it is worth it to write a Wikipedia article on that match Albert Einstein versus Robert Oppenheimer, 1933 (title in accordance with other chess matches articles). We have already a version of it in Portuguese: pt:Partida Albert Einstein vs Robert Oppenheimer. What do you think? ReyHahn (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Truthfully a separate article about the game would probably get deleted on notability grounds. It might be possible to mention it in some other article, particularly if it is mentioned in some biography of either Einstein or Oppenheimer. The game in its own right is not remarkable. I'm no chess expert but it looks to me like Oppenheimer played pretty badly. The discussion on chessgames.com linked from the pt article is interesting though. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Pedantic chess note: in chess terminology, what you linked to is called a chess game, not a match. A match is a series of games. Example: to become world champion, you play a match (say 12 games) against the reigning champion and must finish the match with a higher score. See Glossary of chess#match. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• I, at any rate, am convinced that God does not play chess. EEng 18:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

need for new page on works based on Oppenheimer

This would have info on the several biographies (including but not limited to American Prometheus), at least one TV series (at least one that I know of, starring Sam Waterson), the opera Doctor Atomic, etc. Just saying, he has had a lot of both fiction and nonfiction works based on him. 38.42.193.38 (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I remember reading several Oppenheimer biographies in high school. I don't remember the specific titles unfortunately. My physics teacher particularly recommended Peter Michelmore's "The Swift Years: The Robert Oppenheimer story" but iirc the school library didn't have it. I see it is online now[6] so maybe I will take the opportunity to read it after all these years.

Richard Rhodes' The Making of the Atomic Bomb is very detailed and has lots of info about Oppenheimer and should be in any reading list. Freeman Dyson's Disturbing the Universe spent some time on Oppenheimer's postwar career directing the Institute for Advanced Study. I haven't read American Prometheus but have the impression that is mostly about political machinations, that interest me less than the scientific and leadership aspects of Oppenheimer's career. That explains why so much of the movie is about the Straus hearings. 2601:644:8584:2010:0:0:0:8672 (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Lawrence and Oppenheimer by Nuel Pharr Davis was also good. 2601:644:8584:2010:0:0:0:8672 (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Meh, looking at it again, it has nice writing that made it fun to read, but it is something of a hagiography of Oppenheimer. Web search finds an unfavorable review of it by Frank Oppenheimer (Robert's brother), who was also involved in the Manhattan project.[7] 2601:644:8584:2010:0:0:0:8672 (talk) 06:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• There is a list of other Oppenheimer biographies in the article American Prometheus. Maybe we should transfer and merge it to this article. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Why is EEng downplaying the difficulty of restoring Oppenheimer's reputations?

Please see [8] and [9]. It's as if it's easy and could have happened during any administration. Such oversimplification lacking context is what makes their edits unfortunate and uninformed. I am not going to engage in edit warring, so I am adding this discussion here on the talk page and hopefully new consensus can win, once more editors have a chance to appreciate the New Yorker article. I kinda predicted this kind of removal would happen. Supermann (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Because I'm a terrible person. I'm not downplaying anything. I just don't think all that detail belongs in the lead. Nor, BTW, should a source authored by Kai Bird be used to support the statement biographers Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin and many others spent 17 years advocating for it. I think Granholm's statement already in the article -- about Oppenheimer, his loyalty, etc. -- are just the right thing. Crowing about who championed the rehabilitation doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of Oppenheimer. EEng 07:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@EEng His article was published by the New Yorker, meaning there is a fact check by an editor instead of him just writing it alone on Substack like Seymour Hersh does. Both are Pulitzer Prize winners by the way. Should we trust the judgement of someone anonymous like you over that of an award winning platform and writer? Supermann (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The question at hand is whether or not certain details should be in the article lead, or indeed in the article at all. To my knowledge neither Bird not the editors of The New Yorker have opined on that, so your question is moot. EEng 19:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC) P.S. I'm an award-winning author too, BTW.

@EEng which award did you have? The Secretary acknowledged Kai Bird's efforts at https://twitter.com/SecGranholm/status/1678352196113514496?s=19. I hope you are not being jealous of Kai Bird a fellow award winner. Supermann (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I was designated Smartass of the Year by the principal of Martin Luther King Junior High School for relentlessly campaigning for the school to be renamed "Martin Luther King Junior Junior High School". EEng 07:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The decision fell short of restoring Oppenheimer's reputation, although Granholm had nice things to say about him. It merely vacated the AEC's finding. The DOE did not say that the charges against him were bogus, merely that the AEC did not follow proper procedure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7 why don't you read the full order by the Secretary first? https://www.energy.gov/articles/secretary-granholm-statement-doe-order-vacating-1954-atomic-energy-commission-decision. thanks. Supermann (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

This is what it says:

The question of whether Dr. Oppenheimer, or any other individual of that time, ought to have been eligible for access to restricted data is not one that this Department can or should attempt to answer seventy years later. Security clearance adjudication proceedings necessarily depend on sensitive judgments regarding the credibility of oral testimony and other evidence best evaluated within its own context. Therefore, we will not reconsider the substantive merits of In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer.

Nevertheless, even with the passage of time, we can say with confidence that, in conducting the Oppenheimer proceeding, the AEC failed to follow its own rules. We can also conclude that these failures were material to the fairness of the proceeding.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7 you are too greedy. As she already explained in the background section, "the AEC did not claim that Dr. Oppenheimer had ever divulged or mishandled classified information. Nor did it question his loyalty to the United States. Rather, the AEC based its decision on the conclusion that there were “fundamental defects” in Dr. Oppenheimer’s character." So this is really the best she could do. Maybe you also want Biden to award The Presidential Medal of Freedom posthumously? Or a congressional apology? Supermann (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I for one have no idea what your point is, or how what you're saying relates to the question of what should be in the article. EEng 00:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@EEng my point is Kai Bird and his pal's efforts should be acknowledged somewhere in the article to illustrate how long it takes to vacate the order. if you don't want it to be in the lead, it should be mentioned somewhere else instead of completely gone. thanks Supermann (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It's gone from the article? That isn't good. It should be restored, maybe not in the lede. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:3AB4 (talk) 01:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Kai Bird and his pal's efforts should be acknowledged somewhere in the article – No, they should not. This is an article on Oppenheimer, not "Bird and his pals". The fact that the decision was vacated tells the reader something, I suppose, about Oppenheimer, or the injustice of what was done to him, or maybe a bunch of other things; the names of two particular people (among "many others", we are told -- see the OP's first link) do not, unless there's some secondary source (independent of Bird) to explain what, exactly, that is. We do not stuff people's names in to "acknowledge" them. This probably belongs in Bird's article -- once there's an independent source discussing what they did. EEng 07:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Kai Bird has an article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Right. And like I said, that would be the place to "acknowledge" his efforts on behalf of Oppenheimer's memory. EEng 12:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

And now I've learned (below) that there's a separate article specifically on JRO's security hearing and so on. Given that, then absolutely this article (the JRO article) is not the place to record minutiae about Bird and so on. EEng 16:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• The references to the vacating of the order are perfectly adequate in this version of the article. There is no need to go into more detail than is there at the current time. Also I am displeased by the personal comments made about editors. Nobody here has any axe to grind on Oppenheimer, one way or the other, and I would caution editors to discuss the content of the article only. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
  • If Granholm's action vacating the order was somehow instigated by "Bird and his pals" and that can be documented by good sources, then that should be in the article too. This is the first time I've heard such a claim. Obviously it belongs in Oppenheimer's biography if true, just like General Groves' role in installing Oppenheimer as director of the bomb lab belongs in Oppenheimer's biography. We wouldn't omit mentioning that on the grounds that the info instead belonged in Groves' biography. The article should be comprehensive (include all relevant info), and info is relevant if we have reasonable expectation that readers will find it relevant. This is relevant. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:3AB4 (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
    • I think dwelling on that here would be WP:UNDUE emphasis. We have an article on the security hearing at which Oppenheimer's security clearance was revoked. I haven't reviewed it lately but, if documented by good sources s you say, the campaign to vacate may be worth describing. In that article it may not be undue emphasis. I say "may," as I am not sure and haven't studied the article recently. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
      • I'm not proposing dwelling on it. It should be mentioned, with a cross-link (if possible) to another article that discusses it in more depth. A sentence or two with some footnotes doesn't seem undue. Among other things, American Prometheus is a major Oppenheimer biography and a source for the article. So its co-author's involvement in the later process should be disclosed. And, while we're supposed to be writing a self-contained reference work, a lot of Wikipedia's value in reality is in its citations, that lead to other works that cover their relevant subject matter in more depth than we do. This is an area that should have such a citation. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:3AB4 (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
        • I haven't examined the sources in a comprehensive manner, but I notice that the New York Times coverage of Granholm's decision [10], while quoting Kai Bird, does not make reference to any efforts on his part and says "Historians, who have long lobbied for the reversal of the clearance revocation...." I ran a cursory check of other sources (AP and NPR) and likewise they quote or mention Bird but do not say that he lobbied for the nullification. They also say that this decision was the result of a longtime effort by historians. The New Yorker article cited previously is by Bird himself, but I think third-party sourcing is required before we can say that he was the primary moving force behind nullification. Given that the film was about to appear, the New Yorker article strikes me as publicity for the movie more than anything. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

As a follow-up to this discussion, I have expanded the section at Oppenheimer security hearing#AEC action nullified to include the background of the Granholm decision and some reactions to it, based in part on the Bird account but also using several other sources. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting editors here to that. Afraid I have some problems with that addition. It is far too long and relies on blogs. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand about quality of sources, but if you look at what Bird, Wellerstein, the JRO Memorial Committee, and the LANL are writing, they all pretty much agree on the same narrative. That's why I thought it was reasonable to go forward with this. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I've trimmed and put in chronological order. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you're right about the chronological order, it reads better that way. I disagree about much of what you've removed, but that's life in WP. The only thing I've put back is the mention of Tim Rieser, the congressional aide who played the key role in making it happen. It's supported by two sources and it's important to give credit where it's due, especially given the above discussion about Bird maybe getting too much credit. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I felt it was a bit repetitive, that the quotes were too long, making the same points multiple times, and that also it leaned excessively in the Oppenheimer POV. Also I don't believe we need to get into the weeds on reaction, except that negative reaction needed to be retained for NPOV and tone purposes. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• This discusses long effort by LANL scientists and directors to get the clearance revocation vacated. It supports the claim that the process was difficult. Kai Bird is not mentioned. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. This is the second place I've seen that characterizes the Fred Ribe letter of June 1954, signed by many, as a petition to have Oppenheimer's name cleared. But if you read the letter, that's not what it is. It is a protest against the decision and a warning that says that the way the personnel security system was used to get Oppenheimer will have a chilling effect on the ability to attract scientific talent to defense work. But it doesn't ask that the decision be reversed nor does it seek any kind of public statement about Oppenheimer. That's why I didn't mention the Ribe letter in the Oppenheimer security hearing#AEC action nullified expansion. However I have now used this account to briefly add to that section that later on, LANL scientists did seek some kind of reversal. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The letter raises substantive points so I've expanded a bit on it, and also placed it in chronological order, as it happened right after the hearing. I haven't seen the actual letter but I see that this article describes it as an effort to reverse it. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

You can see a reproduction of the petition/letter at this LANL article that's being used. The article may describe it as an effort to reverse it, but that's not the case. It's true that later, Ribe did try to get the result reversed, per this source, p. 11. Maybe that led to the confusion in the LANL article. In any case, I have modified the section to make this clear. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The letter definitely doesn't ask for reversal. It's an interesting letter, given the timing and climate of the era, and I think that if possible running an image of it may not be a bad idea. The one in the article is not great but readable. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

It sounds worth transcribing for Wikisource. It might be worth checking the index of Dark Sun by Rhodes for more info. My copy is long gone but I think it may have said something. Dyson's Disturbing the Universe (1979) also says some things about the hearing. Dyson claimed that Oppenheimer seemed happier and less burdened after losing his clearance, and did a better job of running IAS once he was no longer in Washington all the time. That's contra a bunch of other people saying that Oppenheimer was broken by the process. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I've found some contemporary newspaper accounts of the Ribe petition. I've expanded the account with them and I've relocated material on a chronological basis, after the personnel security board decision but before the AEC decision. I think it makes more sense there, and yes, including a image of the petition there would be good. The section on the decision being nullified now starts with a reference to Ribe's later actions. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the IP and with the subsection. Not sure about the placement, however, ahead of the Nichols letter. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Re the Ribe petition, I checked Dark Sun but nothing there. Nor is there anything in the Stern book, the Polenberg volume, or the Bird-Sherwin, McMillan, or Monk bios. The petition got a fair amount of attention at the time – besides the newspaper accounts, mentions in Science and The American Mercury – but then seems to disappear from history until LANL articles start appearing over the last year. Kind of strange. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I transcribed the Ribe letter from the LANL site, but it looks like a page of the signatures are missing. I didn't see a scan of the letter here or in the security hearing article. Did I not look in the right place? Here is the text of the letter. I started trying to decipher the signatures but then stopped when I saw the big gap.

Text of Ribe letter

June 7, 1954. We the undersigned scientific personnel of the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory are deeply disturbed by the recommendations of the A.E.C. special security board concerning the fitness of Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer to continue in government service. The board has found Dr. Oppenheimer to be a loyal and discreet citizen who has made unusual contributions to the security of our country. The nature of the argument by which the board nevertheless concludes that he is a security risk is alarming. For example, the new requirement of enthusiastic conformity has no place in an American personnel security system. We feel that a man can give no better proof of his devotion to the security of our country than has Dr. Oppenheimer by his record over the past twelve years. We agree that it is the prerogative of government to choose its own advisors but it is inexcusable to employ the personnel security system merely as a means of dispensing with the services of a loyal but unwanted consultant. As scientists engaged in the national defense effort we are apprehensive that this poorly founded decision in regard to Dr. Oppenheimer will make it increasingly difficult to obtain adequate scientific talent in our defense laboratories. 1. Fred L. Ribe 2. Louis Rosen

It would be great if we could figure out the rest of the signatures before uploading to Wikisource. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Obviously many pages of the signatures are missing, since there are about 30 shown and eventually it gets close to 500. Furthermore, the numbering of the signatures in the image is very strange – it skips numbers, it goes in reverse, goes forward again. Maybe the image was made through the gravitational lens of a distant galaxy ... Wasted Time R (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

First graduate student

"Early career" section says "With his first doctoral student, Melba Phillips,..." but I think that is inaccurate. Phillips was the first student to begin graduate studies under Oppenheimer's supervision. But Oppenheimer had several earlier students who had begun with other professors and then switched to Oppenheimer. From Monk chapter 8:

By that time, Oppenheimer already had three PhD students, but they had begun their research work under another supervisor. They were Harvey Hall and J. Franklin Carlson, both of whom had started under William Howell Williams, and Leo Nedelsky, who had been working with Samuel Allison. All three flourished under Oppenheimer and went on to have successful careers in physics.

Some kind of fix is needed. I believe Nedelsky was Oppenheimer's actual first student, but that is based on piecing the story together from two separate accounts, Monk's and Pharr Davis's. Maybe there is another source that is explicit about this. Pharr Davis's version is colorful, and doesn't mention Nedelsky's name. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 09:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Added to the article. None of these students have articles. (Nor does William Howell Williams.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Nice fix. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppenheimer's name and intial

@EEng: But does the birth certificate REALLY give just a middle initial R, instead of middle name "Robert"? Does the college transcript (Harvard?) have no dot after the J?

New York City records contain a birth certificate for "Julius R. Oppenhiemer [sic], born April 22, 1904; Philip M. Stern with Harold P. Green, The Oppenheimer Case: Security on Trial (New York: Harper & Row, 1969), p. 7n. The heading on Oppenheimer’s Harvard College transcript reads: “J (initial only) Robert Oppenheimer"; Office of the Registrar of Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass. Interview with Frank Oppenheimer by Alice Kimball Smith, April 14, 1976.

— Smith & Weiner, p. 337

There is some disagreement about the "J" in Oppenheimer's name. Official communications by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, as well as a 1968 book, Lawrence & Oppenheimer, by Nuel Pharr Davis, referred to him as "Julius Robert Oppenheimer." In a review of the Davis book, Jeremy Bern- stein, a close friend of Oppenheimer, objected that "the 'J' doesn't stand for anything." This conforms with what Oppenheimer himself is known to have told associates. However, the Bureau of Records and Statistics, Department of Health, City of New York, advises that the city's records "contain a birth certificate for a Julius R. Oppenhiemer [sic] born on April 22, 1904."

— Stern, p. 8

gave birth in the Oppenheimer home on West Ninety-fourth Street in Manhattan to the first of three sons. Birth certificate number 19763 filed with the New York City Department of Health a week later lists the newborn's date of birth, April 22, 1904, and his name, Julius Robert Oppenheimer.[3] But he was always known thereafter to his family and friends by the more American-sounding Robert, or even Bob; to his later colleagues by the familiar Oppie (Oppy or Opje); and to the public as the distinguished. Robert Oppenheimer.

— Cassidy, p. 2

3. Julius Robert Oppenheimer, birth certificate, dated 3 May 1904, birth date 22 Apr 04 (NYMA, 19763).

— Cassidy, p. 365

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• I assume that in the Smith & Weiner bit, there's a quote mark missing right after 1904. It's clear that someone's scholarship is sloppy, since we've got conflicting statements -- sometimes that the birth certificate shows Robert in full, sometimes that it shows only an initial R. Reading between the lines, Cassidy is the only source that implies (from the cite) to have actually consulted the original document, or an official transcript, so being on vacation with no access to the library, I'm happy provisionally to go with that i.e. you've done the right thing here [11]. I hope you'll agree that the note is tighter and clearer than it was at the start. EEng 00:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
• (ec) The Pais-Crease biography includes an image of the birth certificate, see here, #19763, Bureau of Records, Borough of Manhattan, that shows the name as Julius Robert, and to my eye the Oppenheimer does not look misspelled either. Stern seems to have relied on a letter from the NYC Health Department rather than seeing it himself (p. 570n), so maybe the city employee misread it or summarized it incorrectly. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  That's dispositive. We should cite that. EEng 00:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  FTR, article now cites Pais and Crease too. EEng 17:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• [12][LANL article] don't know if this is in wiki article. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Scan of letter to patent office where Oppenheimer certifies that his first name is J, and he writes J Robert Oppenheimer without a period after the J. It was for a patent patent application he filed for the atomic bomb. I think we can use this scan in the article. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Idk if I would call the birth certificate dispositive. I have a family member who tells me that her birth date according to her birth certificate is wrong. She is quite elderly and record-keeping when she was born was less careful than it is now. Anyway it gets philisophical: is someone's legal name (per government documents like their birth certificate) necessarily the same as their actual name, whatever that means? Congress might pass a law tomorrow saying that my legal name is now Donald Trump, and since they are the ones making laws, what they said would be legally true. But I would still say it was factually false: my actual name is quite different. We should cite both documents, the birth cert and the letter to the patent office. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 07:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  The image of the birth certificate is dispositive as to what the birth certificate says, which is what this discussion is about. EEng 07:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  Aha, good point. Meanwhile, I see that someone has edited the lead sentence to remove "Julius". I guess that is a good change. Sometimes people's birth certificates get updated, so there can be multiple conflicting ones, but there's no reason to think this happened with Oppenheimer. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  To be clear, BTW, we would cite neither the birth certificate nor the letter. We cite authoritative secondary sources interpreting such primary documents. Our only use of them would be to quote or display them to illustrate and enliven what the secondary sources say -- only in very unusual circumstances would we cite them directly as fact sources. EEng 18:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  Per WP:PRIMARY, "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." We can cite the birth certificate to document what it says, and the same with Oppenheimer's letter, as both fit that description. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 06:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  All fine, but in practice it's way more complicated than you seem to understand. For example, we wouldn't be looking at a birth certificate image in the first place unless we got it from a highly reliable secondary source (because retrieving public records ourselves is a form of OR), and such a source would undoubtedly interpret that record along with other pertinent material. And those interpretations are where we'd get the facts we'd cite, not the certificate itself. As it happens, in this case we did use the birth certificate in a somewhat unusual (though not unprecedented) way, as follows. As seen in the OP, apparently reliable sources actually contradicted one another as to the name on the certificate: some sources seem to be saying that it reads "Julius R. Oppenheimer", and others seem to be saying that it reads "Julius Robert Oppenheimer". Careful consideration of the way the sources are worded suggests that the "R." sources were working from indirect information ("the Bureau of Records and Statistics, Department of Health, City of New York, advises that the city's records "contain a birth certificate for ..."), and I was preparing to make that argument when, luckily, someone pointed out that Pais-Crease gives an image of the actual certificate, which reads "Julius". That resolves the conflict and lets us just ignore the "R." sources. Unusual, as I say, but we do do stuff like that sometimes. EEng 07:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Autism Spectrum Syndrome (ASS)

I have the impression that Oppenheimer might have suffered from Autism Spectrum Syndrome (ASS), just like for instance Bobby Fischer. His pervasive intelligence, his broad knowledge, his wide-ranging interests and most of all his erratic behavior. This personality development disorder used to be called Asperger Syndrome, intelligent autism. I have no sources, just an intuition. Hansung02 (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• There's a reason there are no sources on this. EEng 15:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
• No idea about Oppenheimer but there is a book The Strangest Man by Graham Farmelo, that makes this argument about Paul Dirac. If you think there is similar evidence about Oppenheimer, now would be a good time for you to write a book. If you do that and it gets reasonable reception, then we can cite it. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Here are a couple of possible sources about Oppenheimer: [13][14] The first is pretty dubious but these quick web search results establish that the idea is out there. The second, by Michael Fitzgerald (psychiatrist), might be usable. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  The first source is completely ridiculous. The second is just plain everyday ridiculous. Under no circumstances. EEng 00:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  The same kinds of speculation have gone on about Alan Turing. Near on worthless. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• I also wouldn't want to use the first sourc*e. The 2nd in the linked form is marginal at best but I'm ok with a brief mention based on it. The author does like to diagnose an awful lot of people that way, though maybe that means the syndrome is more common than many of us think.

  I don't think it's up to us to decide whether it is worthless. The 2nd author appears to be a legit authority on the subject, while the rest of us are just internet dweebs. If there is reasonable sourcing for something like this, we should use it and leave evaluation up to the reader. At minimum some more research is warranted.

  Hansung02, thanks for bringing up the issue. I found it interesting. Regarding Turing, I read Andrew Hodges' biography which is probably the most extensive one around, and don't remember the topic being mentioned there, but maybe it was. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think it's up to us to decide whether it is worthless. – On the contrary, judging source reliability is the most important thing we do as editors. Self-published speculation by someone who goes around claiming Tom, Dick, and Harry are all autistic. EEng 03:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  We should not pretend we are smarter or wiser than our readers, much less our sources. At best we (at least collectively) have seen a wider range of source materials than most readers have, so we can compare them, note discrepancies, and stuff like that. We should filter out garbage like that celebrity site, but if a noted authority on a subject says something, we should use it. It is a matter of empathy with readers. As a reader, if someone reverts an interesting cite to a noted authority on a topic, I don't feel like I've been done a service. It's more like they're trying to prevent me from judging the claim for myself, and I find that annoying.

  FWIW, Simon Monk's biography of Oppenheimer, which our article uses, comes straight out and says Paul Dirac would probably be diagnosed autistic if he were alive today. Our article on Dirac quotes Graham Farmelo saying the same thing. Oppenheimer was less far out than Dirac, but who knows.

  I think what is happening is that you and McPherson has different priors. If McPherson thinks that, say, 25% of physicists are autistic, then it's no surprise that he gets "probably autistic" for most individual physicists in whom he sees behavioral markers correlated with autism. If you start with a much lower prior (say the 2.5% prevalence in the general male population) then the posterior is still pretty low even after conditioning on seeing the markers. Is McPherson's prior too high? Idk, but I don't see either of us as qualified to judge. I would just report what he says without judgment, per NPOV. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  • Look, I get that you've just learned about Bayesian inference somewhere, and are like the man with a hammer who sees the world as a collection of nails, but I've got a degree in statistics from [name of breathtakingly prestigious institution redacted] so please give the posteriors and conditioning and stuff a rest.
  • Tell ya' what... why don't you take this link [15] to WP:RSN and see what kind of laugh you get?
  • I can't resist pointing that in [16], which outlines Fitzgerald's preoccupation with labeling just about every famous person as autistic, we are told, An expert on Beethoven, Dr Barry Cooper, said last night that he barely recognised [Fitzgerald's] description of the composer. "He was unkempt because his mind was on higher things," he said. "And I have never heard him described as emotionally immature." According to this article, it's Fitzgerald's thesis that Genius cannot exist without mental disorder. So now we know what axe this guy is grinding.
  • And who the hell is McPherson?

  I won't be responding further, and I recommend that my esteemed fellow editors take the same attitude. You're wasting everyone's time. EEng 07:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  who the hell is McPherson? Sorry, I meant FitzGerald. No idea why I keep confusing that guy's name. I must not be a genius, but I knew that already. Anyway, we have an article, Michael Fitzgerald (psychiatrist). The idea that genius is connected to mental disorders has been around for centuries and has some current scientific backing,[17], as is the idea that it is related to autism per se.[18][19] Those are viewpoints we have to take into account per NPOV even if we don't believe them ourselves. And I think you are the one wasting people's time. You're engaging in what Scott Aaronson calls "sneer culture" and it is counterproductive and obnoxious. Please stop. Added: regarding Bayesian inference, whatever. Let's just go for Goofus and Gallant. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  Goofus insists that laughable crackpottery be included in articles. Gallant helps fellow editors develop good editorial judgment using gentle but firm discourse at first, but transitioning in stages to outright mockery in obstinate cases. Let me know when you open the discussion at RSN. Toodles! EEng 18:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  Were't you going to quit responding? I haven't insisted on using that link. I've said: 1) per WP:EXPERTSPS, we're IMHO not prohibited from using it, at least on RS grounds. Whether to actually use it would then be a matter of editorial consensus based mostly on DUE. 2) In such a consensus discussion I'd be somewhat in favor of using it. You're the one who is insistent. I'll tag you if and when I post something at RSN. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  Like a moth to the flame, sometimes I just can't help myself. Regardless of who wrote it, we're prohibited from using it because it's an incoherent mess. EEng 21:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• This (also not directly usable) claims that there is an ongoing academic and historical debate about Oppenheimer and autism, but doesn't give any references. Maybe it is spam, who knows. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Hmmm, let's see... Is celebcritics.com reliable? Maybe it is. I mean, look at their other current headlines: "Billie Eilish Claps Back at Style Critics and Labels Them 'Bozos' and 'Women-Hating Ass Weirdos'; "Are Xolo And Bruna Dating In 2023? Relationship Timeline"; "Michael Voltaggio Illness: Does He Have Cancer? Health Update" -- all serious journalism. So it's not like it's a gossip site or anything. EEng 03:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  • I already said it is not suitable (i.e. reliable) for use in the article. For article development purposes though, it is evidence that there is current public discussion on the topic. I came across a few other pages saying similar things. Apparently there is an uptick in interest because of the Oppenheimer movie. Harrison Fitzgerald isn't a total rando--he is an MD and retired professor who has published multiple books on the subject. That pdf of his looks like a draft of an article being prepared for publication. I don't know if it has been formally published, but I'm trying to find out. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

    I don't know if it has been formally published – Are you joking? The opening sentence is Nobody rose so high in scientific achievement as Oppenheimer and fell like Icarus [20], which doesn't even make sense as English. That's followed by five pages of short declarative sentences, almost all starting with the two words "He was".

    I don't know what's with this guy, but he's posted literally hundreds of armchair diagnoses of famous people, most of whom he concludes were autistic, but there's a sprinkling of narcissists and melancholics and so on mixed in for variety [21]. Primo Levi was autistic, Stephen Sondheim was autistic, Queen Christina of Sweden was narcissistic and psychopathic. Dylan Thomas was antisocial. The Wright brothers were autistic. Stanley was autistic and guess what? -- so was Livingston. Hitler was a psychopath (which we already knew) and autistic too. Beatrix Potter too. You get an autism diagnosis! YOU get an autism diagnosis! EVERY-BODY - gets - an - autism - diagnosis! Preposeterous. EEng 07:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

    The interest is tailing off. On 22 and 23 July there were over 1.4 million page views each day and it was the third most highly viewed page on Wikipedia. Readership has since dropped to 100,000 to 150,000 page views per day. It is still twice as high as it was in June though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Here Michael Fitzgerald (same guy as further up) makes similar arguments about Richard Feynman. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Everyone capable of intense focus turns out to be autistic, it seems. EEng 03:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• [22] "You have to keep in mind that lists like this are usually compiled by people who themselves have Aspergers, or parents of people with Aspergers, so they want to claim as many accomplished people as possible, in order to provide inspirational "role models." (It's a little like listening to homosexuals talk about celebrities: they want to claim all the good-looking ones.)" 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 06:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  I found the comments to that post interesting. One of them claims that Marshall Montgomery was autistic because he spent almost all his time soldering. Sounds like he was interested in electronics. EEng 08:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• • • Shrug, that's not for me to decide. It does seem like autism has become fashionable in some circles. There was a similar trope a while back that left-handedness was supposed to confer creativity. James Gleick's book Genius (about Feynman) compared some of Feynman's quirks to hyperactivity but I don't think he mentioned autism per se.

      Anyway, people come to this article for info about Oppenheimer and we're here to give it to them, so I wouldn't be so uptight. Is it the kind of thing I would make a note of if I were researching Oppenheimer for myself and came across it? Probably yes, so I'd also want to put in the article if there's a reasonable source we can cite. I don't think it reflects well or poorly on Oppenheimer one way or the other. It's an interpretation that seems to interest some readers, and that's good enough for me. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

      Sorry, but it's not good enough for WP. We don't repeat interesting nonsense. EEng 07:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  • Added: Simon Baron-Cohen's book The Pattern Seekers (NYT review) may have something to do with the current pop-sci interest in autism. I remember seeing it in a store and thinking I might like to look at it, but never got around to doing so. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 04:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  That Baron-Cohen guy really cracks me up. I especially enjoyed Borat. EEng 12:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  That's his unhyphenated cousin, Sacha Baron Cohen. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 08:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  Good thing you cleared that up, because I actually thought the Borat guy was a clinical psychologist and professor of developmental psychopathology at Cambridge who wrote a book on autism. Color me embarrassed! EEng 12:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  No prob. John Urschel has had dual careers as a research mathematician and as an NFL football player, so strange combinations like that do happen. Also, astrophysicist Brian May was lead guitarist of Queen (band). 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  And Hedy Lamarr invented cellular automata between scenes. I guess my prior post should have been just DOH!. EEng 07:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  • You're thinking of spread-spectrum communication.[23] 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

    You really, really need to take your facetiousness detector in for calibration. EEng 21:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• Paywalled article in French naming Oppenheimer in a list of supposed autistics. Fitzgerald again dispensing autism diagnoses to a bunch of the other A-bomb scientists besides Oppenheimer. He cites some of his own earlier articles using academia/researchgate links, suggesting they weren't formally published after all. As his Oppenheimer article is fairly detailed, I don't mind using it per WP:EXPERTSPS, but I can understand other editors being skeptical. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Fairly detailed? It would get a D as a college freshmen paper. EEng 07:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  lol, it's so easy to diagnose dead people who can't be tested. There is several articles about Newton claiming the same, and Feynman and Turing are mentioned above. That's no science nor medicine, but just bad takes with no evidence. Artem.G (talk) 07:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'd agree that the paper's writing is not very good (that's why I said it looks like a draft), but the guy is a psychiatry professor and not an English professor, so I'm not bothered by that. He goes over a bunch of clinical markers of autism and matches them up with biographical writings about Oppenheimer. He is in fact qualified to do that and I don't have any particular reason to think you're qualified to say he is wrong or call it nonsense. Here on Wikipedia we're all just nobodies trying to do the best we can with published sources. Trying to talk tough instead makes us sound weak and foolish. So your dismissiveness towards McPherson doesn't impress.

  Yes, McPherson does remotely diagnose a lot of dead people (his biography says about 900 total diagnoses, but that may include his actual patients). Again, who am I to judge? It wouldn't surprise me if there have been that many posthumous psychological studies of Napoleon alone. We don't know Mozart's cause of death with any certainty, but there are various informed hypotheses in the literature, and we have a whole article about them (Death of Mozart). We have another whole article Psychopathography of Adolf Hitler imputing various mental conditions to Hitler. One of the most famous works in psychology, Answer to Job, literally psychoanalyzes God. This McPherson guy seems to have done something similar with autism and other historical figures, which seems fine to me. I found McPherson's Oppenheimer article to be an interesting lens through which to view Oppenheimer's other biographical details. Does he establish Oppenheimer's condition with certainty? No, but he gives evidence, i.e. information that (in the Bayesian sense) induces a state of mind that makes a hypothesis more or less subjectively probable. That's all we can hope for. It's a historical article and we can't restrict ourselves to what is certain if we are trying to be comprehensive.

  Anyway, the main marker of notability on Wikipedia is secondary sources, so if McPherson's article received some kind of published academic response that took it seriously, I think we'd be obliged to use it. I'm not aware of such a response so for now it's kind of marginal and I'm ok with leaving it out. Either way though, I'd appreciate if you could tone down the unilateral pronouncements about what the article will or won't use. That makes it sound like you think the article is your property (WP:OWN). It's not supposed to work that way. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm a strict frequentist and after the revolution we're gonna kill all the Bayesians. EEng 12:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC) P.S. Who's McPherson?

  Whoops, I meant Fitzgerald (this is mostly for benefit of anyone else who might be reading). I made the same mistake in several other places :(. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  And that's not counting when you called him "Harrison". EEng 18:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Photos source?

In a 1946 letter to the U.S. Patent Office (pictured), Oppenheimer wrote: "This is to certify that I have no first name other than the letter J, and that my full and correct name is J Robert Oppenheimer."

• https://discover.lanl.gov/publications/national-security-science/2023-summer/the-man-under-the-porkpie-hat/ -- Some great photos, many possibly PD since taken by federal employee. EEng 19:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  "This is to certify that I have no first name other than the letter J, and that my full and correct name is J Robert Oppenheimer." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Great example of a primary source which needs secondary sources to interpret it. EEng 22:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  True, especially since there is a conflict in the primary sources. His birth record, accessed via Ancestry.com, says that his first name was indeed Julius. When he arrived on the SS Homeric from France in 1929 his name is listed as "Jack" Robert Oppenheimer. Yet his passport application, in 1927, is in the name of "J. Robert Oppenheimer." Definitely something for secondary sources to sort out. By the way, the passport application has a photo of a young Oppenheimer, but I don't know if it is usable. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  We would need secondary sources to interpret what the conflict between those documents implies, but we can exhibit the conflict by just showing the documents directly. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  That's just flat-out wrong. We would not "exhibit the conflict" between primary sources without secondary sources discussing those primary sources. That's because, outside very unusual circumstances, we don't exhibit primary sources at all, period (whether they conflict or not) without secondary sources explaining what they are and interpreting them. EEng 07:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  WP:PRIMARY: A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. So the baseball scores are fine. What we cannot do is analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source. However, note WP:Official names: People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, and that if the article is under another title, then it should be moved. In many cases, this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  Baseball scores??? Whose on first???? EEng 13:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Dementia praecox

According to both Lawrence and Oppenheimer and American Prometheus, Oppenheimer was diagnosed with dementia praecox, an old term for schizophrenia, though American Prometheus says at some length that this diagnosis was wrong. This took place after the poison apple incident while Oppenheimer was still studying at Cambridge. I think the article should mention this diagnosis at the spot where it discusses Oppenheimer's psychiatric treatment. Interestingly in relation to another discussion, the dementia praecox article mentions that schizophrenia "initially had a meaning that included what is today considered the autism spectrum". 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Added: I think we should mention (perhaps by just adding or changing a word or two) that the psychiatric treatment Oppenheimer was supposed to undergo was psychoanalysis. American Prometheus again discusses this at length. Apparently the psychiatrist terminated the sessions with the diagnosis of dementia praecox. I'll take a closer look at American Prometheus in the next few days and see if I can come up with a concise summary. American Prometheus also hypothesizes that the psychiatrist may have been Ernest Jones who was in the right place at the time, but that the psychiatrist's actual identity isn't known. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Edsall later said that in June 1926 Oppenheimer told him of the analyst’s diagnosis, but in Edsall’s memory, the psychiatrist in question was in Cambridge. Edsall was astonished that a doctor would say such a cruel thing to a patient. Prominent disciples of Freud such as Dr. Ernest Jones dominated the psychiatric profession in London during the mid1920s; indeed, it is entirely plausible that Jones was the psychiatrist who treated Oppenheimer. Julius Oppenheimer always sought out the best for his son. Dr. Jones was not only the most famous Freudian practicing in England, but he was also one of only four analysts who maintained an office on Harley Street. Furthermore, though he was undoubtedly a devoted disciple of Freud’s—and later became his biographer— Jones was notorious in the profession for misdiagnoses. Jones could easily have misdiagnosed Oppenheimer with dementia praecox. [See International Journal of Psychoanalysis, vol. 8, part 1, courtesy of Dr. Daniel Benveniste, e-mail 4/19/01 to Bird re: Harley Street analysts. Dr. Curtis Bristol is our source for Dr. Jones’ predilection for misdiagnosis

— Bird and Sherwin, American Prometheus, p. 607

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye7 (talk • contribs)

Thanks, yeah, that's the part I remember from American Prometheus. I'm trying to get hold of Michelmore's book and will see if it says anything more about this, but that will take a little while. I think we have enough now to make a small edit though. We don't need to go into it at length, as long as we have pointers into the main sources. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I managed to access Michelmore's book on archive.org. It glosses over the whole psychiatrist incident, but mentions that Oppenheimer went to the psychiatrist for two months. It is generally uncritical of Oppenheimer, but it has some good bits of personal color and is fun to read, and it's not gossipy like Pharr Davis's book. I apparently read it in high school despite what I said above, since I remember some bits from it. I will try to find some reviews of it. It's a nuisance to read online so I'm still trying to borrow a print copy. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:E23B (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Nuel Pharr Davis

I notice the article doesn't mention Nuel Pharr Davis's 1967 book Lawrence and Oppenheimer. I wondered whether it was discarded as unreliable, but is not discussed in the talk archives either. Ray Monk's book Inside The Center seems like a partial rehash of it, and cites or quotes it in places. It got a positive review from the NY Times. It has skilfully styled writing that makes it enjoyable to read. However, Frank Oppenheimer (Robert's brother) wrote a review (I think I linked it further up) saying it had a lot of errors, and criticizing the hit job that it did on Lawrence. (It is near hagiographic about Oppenheimer).

There was a paywalled article about it on wsj.com quite recently.[24] If someone here has a subscription, could they take a look at it and post a summary? Thanks. 2601:644:8584:2010:0:0:0:5FA4 (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The article's job is to give the reader information on Oppenheimer, not discuss works written about him. If any of these sources offer something about Oppenheimer which is worth adding to the article, and not in other sources, then we can worry about whether they're reliable. Otherwise there's nothing to discuss. EEng 07:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I would expect that at least some contributors to the article are familiar with this book, so I'd like to hear what they have to say about it. I'd also still like to know what the WSJ article says. Yes it definitely has material useful to the article. Whether that info is in other sources too, I don't know. If other sources are preferable for some reason, I'd like to know why. I'm familiar enough with the editing process to not need answers based on generalities. Thanks. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:3AB4 (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• • Review by Frank Oppenheimer, not so favorable.
  • WSJ article (2023) "Oppenheimer's forgotten biographer". One of Pharr Davis's former literature students writes favorably about Pharr Davis's journalistic skills.
  • Review "The Atomic Bomb as History: An Essay Review", by Martin Sherwin (1969). Reviews three books including Pharr Davis's and is quite critical of Pharr Davis's, calling it a scientific gossip column and not a serious work of scholarship. Cites Frank Oppenheimer's review above, plus two others that also sound unfavorable (I haven't yet checked):
    • Jeremy Bernstein, The New Yorker, May 10, 1969, p. 141 and continued
    • Jane Wilson, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January 1969, pp. 31-32.
  • National book award finalist (History and biography), 1969
  • book ad with many rapturous pull quotes from newspaper reviews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:E23B (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I still recommend this book to people looking to contribute the article but it should be read with some skepticism. The saying is that journalism is the first draft of history. The author did a lot of interviews for the book, including of JRO himself. I'd be interested to know whether he shared any of his materials with Sherwin and Bird. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 01:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Name in first sentence

It looks like there has been a bunch of reverting back and forth between "Julius Robert Oppenheimer" and "J. Robert Oppenheimer" in the lede sentence, in some cases based on OR-ish sounding legal arguments. It currently says Julius based on a reversion by EEng to a reversion made by Hawkeye7 to an unrelated change someone else made. But the last time Hawkeye7 changed the name by itself, it was from "Julius" to "J.".

I don't see birth certificates as determinative of what someone's true name is, so from my perspective, what to put in the lede sentence is an editorial choice, as long as the different significant alternatives are mentioned and cited, perhaps in footnotes. And I know it has already been discussed a lot, and I have the impression that "J." represents an existing consensus, though we could have a formal RFC if there is serious doubt about that.

For now, I'd support changing it back to "J." and adding some kind of HTML comment saying to discuss on the talk page before changing again. In a hypothetical RFC, unless I see new and persuasive arguments otherwise, my own preference is "J.".

Of possible interest: https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-names/

2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:E23B (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I have to deal with this every day. Oracle has a particular problem with people who have one-character names. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I would support this change. In Australia, what you say would be literally true; the legalities are only about officially registering that your name has changed. The situation may be different in the United States. (Oppenheimer would appreciate our emphasis on shabda.) Pinging @EEng: Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I forget who did what when, but how about this [25]? EEng 00:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I'd just support adding some kind of editing note asking people to quit changing it without further discussion. Re legalities: even then I'm not convinced. Saying someone's legal name is X just means that in the government's opinion their name is X. Just because the government says it doesn't make it true. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:E23B (talk) 00:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Fine with me, except that I have removed the italics. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The thing is that he never changed his name. It was always "Julius Robert" - this is a fact. Oppenheimer was born "Julius Robert" and he died "Julius Robert". Of course, we all know that he went by "J. Robert".

His full name should be in the lead, like every other person who has a Wikipedia article. The name of the article is enough to indicate that he was known as "J. Robert". -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

This isn't about Oppenheimer's preferrence or the law in Australia or the United States. It is about fact. His name was always "Julius Robert" and, like almost every other person who has an article on Wikipedia, his full name should be in the opening line. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

He said his name was J. Robert Oppenheimer and the J was just an initial that stood for nothing. That is a fact. What makes you think that he didn't know his own name? It's usually the first question on a physics exam. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

That was just an expression. Of course, it is clear that he never used the name "Julius" and signed as "J. Robert" and that was his right. However, in Wikipedia, at least for the lead, we use the full name for the lead so that people don't think his name was simply "J. Robert".

If you read his FBI files, the name used is "Julius Robert". When he got his wartime security clearence, it was under the name "Julius Robert". Even when he protested once in 1946 to the U.S. Patent Office that the "J" stood for nothing, they basically told him "Well, legally we have to write the full name." So it was indeed "Julius Robert" no matter what Oppenheimer said.

I'm simply saying it should only be reflected in the lead that his full, legal name was always "Julius Robert". Because now you read it, the article wrongly seems to suggest that he was born "Julius Robert" and changed his name to "J. Robert" at some point. He never did. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• I have no objection to saying in the lead sentence, "J. Robert Oppenheimer, born Julius Robert Oppenheimer" etc etc. as that is consistent with Wikipedia conventions and is supported by his actual birth record and secondary sources. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  The one and only objection I have, and I have mentioned it a few times now, is that he never changed his name. So there is no point is going through with "J. Robert Oppenheimer, born Julius Robert Oppenheimer". It's not like he's the first person to use his middle name.

  I say that the lead says what was the fact: "Julius Robert Oppenheimer was an American..." and so on. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  But beginning the article with "Julius" is just factually wrong. He even said himself that the "J" meant nothing, essentially repudiating the "Julius" part by the 1940s, yet it is historical fact that he was born Julius. So I think saying that he was born Julius is the way to go. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Some of you have quoted a bunch of government sources (birth certificate, FBI records) that probably adequately document what the US government thought Oppie's name was. The US government has thought all kinds of things about Oppie and other people that aween't true, so why should his name be any different, especially since the whole meaning of "real name" is a nebulous concept best debated by philosophers? Re birth certificates: there is a huge legal and political battle in the US right now about this very issue. Some US state governments have legislated that the sex recorded on your birth certificate is your sex, period, so you can get arrested for using the "wrong" bathroom, while others have pushed back and filed lawsuits saying those laws are wrong (I'm not taking sides, just noting that this is a significant and current public controversy). What I get from that is that the info on birth certificates is not necessarily the last word. We also have WP:DEADNAME saying in some cases we're not even supposed to mention the name on the birth certificate. I don't think anyone here wants to redact that info from the Oppenheimer article. There's just some discussion about which name to prioritize. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:6032 (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The added complication in this case is confusion with his father. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Hawkeye, Oppenheimer isn't the first person named after his father. And I don't think that people opening this page and seeing "Julius Robert Oppenheimer" will confuse him with his father. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I suspect that what H means is that in the early life section, references to "Julius" become potentially confusing. EEng 13:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Less confusing than contrived. Julius was his birth name but he is notable as J. Robert and he de facto abandoned Julius by the time he was running the Manhattan Project. Acknowledging that he was born Julius is the solution in the lead imo. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I have done this for the lead line. It seems like a fair compromise. While I can't find proof of a name change, I did find that his NY Times obituary said "The 'J' does not stand for anything." That's good enough for me. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

He also said that himself in a 1946 document replicated above. I don't see the harm of putting in his birth name, which is substantiated by both secondary and primary sources, and explaining in the body of the article his own feelings on the subject. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Security hearing

Hello all,

I have added some detail about the revocation of the security clearance, particularly that there was no finding of disloyalty, and also Strauss's role in writing the majority report of the AEC review of the findings. I have removed the statement: "Inconsistencies in his testimony and his erratic behavior on the stand – at one point saying he had given a "cock and bull story" and that this was because he "was an idiot" – convinced some that he was unstable and a possible security risk." The cited source does not support the statement and contains weasel words: who was convinced that this erratic performance made him a security risk? It's better to simply state the reasons for the board's decision and the reasons for the AEC review panel's decision. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Your edits are good and thank you for them. However, if you wish to add further information about his security hearing, please do so on "Oppenheimer security hearing", not on this page. The info in this page about his security hearing is a summary and should remain so. The page I linked is the main one and should include the details of who said what. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I have also replaced the following statement: "Groves, fearful that the FBI would try to implicate him as part of a cover-up about the Chevalier contact in 1943, also testified against Oppenheimer." Groves actually testified for Oppenheimer but under questioning stated that under current security rules he wouldn't clear Oppenheimer today. One author's speculation about why Groves said this should not be presented as fact and is contradicted by other authors. I have replaced this with a factual statement of Groves' evidence. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Ambiguous wording regarding Fergusson joking about marrying Oppenheimer's girlfriend

Change "Fergusson once tried to distract Oppenheimer from his apparent depression by telling him that he (Fergusson) was to marry his girlfriend; Oppenheimer jumped on Fergusson and tried to strangle him." to "Fergusson once tried to distract Oppenheimer from his apparent depression by telling him that he (Fergusson) was to marry his (Oppenheimer's) girlfriend; Oppenheimer jumped on Fergusson and tried to strangle him." Real goldenlark (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Frances Keeley was Fergusson's girlfriend, not Oppenheimer's. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

About Oppenheimer

Oppenheimer is a great scientist and he can perform experiment buy the basis of theory not belive in experimental work but in the time of atome bomb he started a practical theory 103.176.136.14 (talk) 07:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Dubious claim regarding Oppenheimer's alleged poisoning of Blackett

The page claims that "Oppenheimer once confessed to leaving an apple injected with poison on Blackett's desk... Oppenheimer was placed on probation."

This is in direct contradiction to the cited source [21] of Megan (2023), which plainly states that "There's no record of him trying to kill somebody. That's a really serious accusation and it's historical revision."

Similarly, cited source [19] of Bird and Sherwin (2005) also casts doubt on the veracity of the incident. The page cites page 46 of [19], in which the authors give Fergusson's testimony of the incident. However, reading 4 more pages in (page 50), Fergusson literally states "I always assumed it was probably true. But I don't know."

Finally, it appears Cambridge itself has no record of this incident. Pulling from the following source: https://specialcollections-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=26027 we have the quote

"There’s no paperwork in the graduate file on a near-miss poisoning and the disciplinary repercussions. There are no references in the minutes of the Board of Research Studies or in the Cavendish Laboratory archives. Nor in the papers of J.J. Thomson or Ernest Rutherford. Nor in the archives of Christ’s College."

Given that the passage contradicts its own cited sources, the additional evidence that there is no record of the event, and the sheer implausibility of the claim (a random student attempts to poison an eminent physicist at a world-renowned institution but the event is covered up by his parents who are a painter and a textile importer), I suggest that the passage either be removed or at minimum be tagged as dubious. Aopus (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Added this as an additional source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that the new wording is better, but could still use some revision. In particular, the Cambridge Special Collections source (now source [22]) states that there is no paperwork for Oppenheimer's probation either (which makes sense---if the apple incident didn't happen, Oppenheimer can't be on probation for the incident).

What needs to be made clear is that there is no record of the apple incident, Oppenheimer's parents intervening due to the (possibly non-occurring) incident, or Oppenheimer's placement on probation. So something like this:

"According to Oppenheimer's friend Francis Fergusson, Oppenheimer once confessed to leaving an apple injected with poison on Blackett's desk. Consequently, Oppenheimer's parents convinced the university authorities not to expel him, instead negotiating that Oppenheimer be placed on probation and have regular sessions with a psychiatrist in Harley Street, London. However, there are no records for either the poisoning incident or the subsequent probation."

One possible problem with this proposed wording is that it may needlessly cast doubt on whether or not Oppenheimer attended psychiatrist sessions as well, but the sources do appear to agree that Oppenheimer did attend psychiatrist sessions---just not necessarily as a consequence of the apple incident. Aopus (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2023

J. Robert Oppenheimer also influenced the creation of the modern film, ‘Oppenheimer’ in 2023. This has also changed people’s views on him. 2A02:C7C:DF29:9700:8D22:1815:C1E8:AB0A (talk) 11:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Influenced it from beyond the grave, you mean? EEng 12:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Don't know about the first part, but the film certainly has made Oppenheimer better known to younger generations. At the least, the article should include brief mentions of the film's box-office success and critical reception. I have now added that, although it can be further updated after awards season is over. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that is appropriate here. It belongs in the article on the film. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, obviously the article about the film will cover this. But a big part of the reason the film was so successful, commercially and critically, is the scope and impact of Oppenheimer's life and what it entailed, and that seems to me to be relevant to this biographical article. I will also note that this section already includes mention of prior productions getting BAFTA, Academy, and Peabody nominations and/or awards. For the sake of consistency, either those mentions should be removed or there should be an acknowledgement of the list of accolades received by Oppenheimer (film). But we'll see what others think. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

It says in the politics section that he was never a member of the communist party and then a few paragraphs down that it is unclear/disputed. Can someone make it say one or the other? 174.89.174.92 (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it was confusing. I have tried to straighten it out. See below Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Politics

Hello all

In response to the edit request immediately above, I have tried to consolidate and summarize the information on Oppenheimer's politics which is scattered throughout the article. Specifically I have moved some content from the Security Hearings section which was about whether or not he was a member of the Communist Party. This belongs in the politics section where this issue is also briefly discussed. I have also tried to clarify that the issue is whether Oppenheimer was an "open" member of the Communist party or a member of a "secret cell" of the party, or neither. I have tried to present the information is a more logical order. I have attributed views to particular authors rather than using the wikipedia voice to represent contensted information. I still think the section could be written more concisely because it repeats a lot of information.

I have also moved a paragraph about Oppenheimer's will which has nothing to do with his political views. I also suggest that the sentence about Oppenheimer trying to get Serber a job at Berkeley should be moved or cut. It has little to do with his political views and seems to have only been included to show that Berkeley had at least one antisemite on staff. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I have moved the Serber anecdote to the Teaching section where it more logically belongs. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7 I have rewritten your revert of my edit in order to cut out the editorialising and make the sentence a more accurate reflection of what the cited source actually says. Specifically, the previous verions stated, "Like many young intellectuals in the 1930s, Oppenheimer supported social reforms that were later categorized as communist ideas. He donated to many progressive causes considered left-wing during the McCarthy era. Most of his political work consisted of hosting fundraisers for the Republican cause in the Spanish Civil War and other anti-fascist activity."

However, the cited source does not say anything about "many young intellectuals" or Oppenheimer supporting "social reforms that were later categorized as communist ideas". Nor does it say that he "donated to many progressive causes considered left-wing during the McCarthy era." The cited pages only state that Oppenheimer joined the American Committee for Democracy and Intellectual Freedom in 1939 and that this was later labelled a Communist Front. It also states that Oppenheimer supported the Spanish Republican cause and Spanish relief funds up to December 1941. It does state that most Liberal organisations in the 1930s were later labelled as Communist fronts, so I added this to the paragraph. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

That's fine. I think a footnote may have gone astray... we should be able to source the original, bit it would be much better to state what "social reforms" are being referred to. I was hoping that "anti-fascist" would evoke the right sense as at the time the article was written this had replaced "communist" and "liberal" as a slur. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I agree that it would be better to give a couple of typical examples of the social reforms he supported. When I get the chance I will follow it up, but I don't want to add too much detail to a section which is already longish. The section already makes it abundantly clear that his political activism was pretty tame considering the social context. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The straightforward historical context here is that many young intellectuals in the 1930s found the ideas and goals of Communism attractive and supported it, and the Soviet Union, to various extents. Stating this first will give the appropriate context for the Many of Oppenheimer's closest associates were active in the Communist Party in the 1930s or 1940s, ... text that's there now, which otherwise will seem strange to readers not familiar with the period. So I've added it, using a cite to Rhodes' Dark Sun, though numerous other sources will make the same point. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R I reverted the edit because the cited pages are about Rutherford and nuclear physics. Perhaps you have the wrong book or a different edition? In any event, I don't see why a dubious generalisation about "many young intellectuals" supporting Commuism and the Soviet Union "to various extents" is useful or necessary historical context. These are just very vague weasel words. Exactly what percentage of college educated people in their 20s and 30s were members of the American Communist Party in the 1930s and 40s? Was the cluster of communist party members around Oppenheimer usual or unusual? Let the facts stand for themselves. Readers can follow the link to the US Communist party and fill in any historical context for themselves. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, if you want to add context I would support a statement such as "membership of the Communist party increased from x to y during the 1930s and many cells were established on college campuses." But it would need an authoritative citation from a scholarly history of the communist party. I still think that the link to the article on the Communist party provides sufficient historical background (Spanish civil war, depression, New Deal etc). Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Arrgh, I copy-pasted an {{sfn}} with the wrong year, so it pointed to the Rhodes A-bomb book instead of Dark Sun. It should have been {{sfn|Rhodes|1995|pp=49–50}}, which starts off with a discussion between Oppenheimer and his brother. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

No worries, I have done that plenty of times myself. If you want to add a brief contextual sentence back in that's fine by me. I think the Communist Party of the US article is quite good, so perhaps you can find a short sentence from that. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The article doesn't cover the social problems of the United States, the Great Depression, and the decline of democracy in the 1930s, only Oppenheimer's response to them. These topics are covered in other articles of course but at the time the article was written I was eager to avoid controversial statements and it seemed unlikely that readers would come to the article without such background knowledge.

In that the section already makes it abundantly clear that his political activism was pretty tame considering the social context, it strikes the desired note. What made Oppenheimer's group exceptional was Oppenheimer. They went after everyone associated with him. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Hawkeye. His politics, from what I have seen, were secondary to his obsession with physics, and we need to be careful not to overemphasize them. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Just like today, people were looking for parties and philosophies which would solve their problems. At the time there were really only the nationalists and the communists, so some people joined the communists, not anticipating that this would be a stain in their CV. I have known people who'd joined a party because of an issue of the day (not communist) and never cancelled their membership, but never actively participated. A famous case is Qian Xuesen (a Chinese rocket scientist) who'd become a member in the 1920s or 30s in China which then led to his deportation from the US in the 1950s. Xuesen was a very loyal person to the American system. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:6491:F1F3:6C3A:4A6 (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)