Talk:J. Robert Oppenheimer

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)

Oscar wins

Hello all

An editor has repeatedly tried to add a list of the Oscars won by the Oppenhemier film and actors in that film. My view is that this information belongs in the article about the film. This article already notes that there is a film about Oppenheimer and that is enough. This article is about the man, not the film. Also see WP:NOTNEWS.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I should add that the film and actors in it won numerous other awards, so why highlight the Academy Awards? Should we be implying that Oppenheimer is a more important historical figure because a film about him won an award? Should we be listing awards won by any books and films about Oppenheimer? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Some historical figures have become famous due to a film, but I don't think that Oppenheimer has. The article on the film should cover it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The paragraph gives the awards for a BBC production and the awards and nominations for an American documentary PBS production. So public tv awards are okay to show but commercial movie awards are not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.79.40 (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Not even a reply? 24.191.79.40 (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The Oppenheimer movie Oscars are in the article. I see no harm with having a small separate section on Oppenheimer in popular culture. In that context there is no problem with noting the awards they have received. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I played around with some possible restructuring, but the material on dramatizations and so on is too well integrated into the "Legacy" section, so the best thing to do is to leave as is. If it's not broke, don't fix it. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2024

Little Boy was a uranium, gun-type weapon, whereas Fat Man was a plutonium, implosion-style weapon. https://discover.lanl.gov/publications/the-vault/the-vault-2023/a-tale-of-two-bomb-designs/#:~:text=Little%20Boy%20was%20a%20uranium,plutonium%2C%20implosion%2Dstyle%20weapon. Little boy is stated as a imposion-style weapon in the article. But it was a gun type weapon. Alpbyren (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done The article clearly states that Little Boy was a gun-type weapon. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 16:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)