Talk:J. Robert Oppenheimer

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)

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)

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)

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on J. Robert Oppenheimer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726000000/http://www.peabody.uga.edu/winners/PeabodyWinnersBook.pdf to http://www.peabody.uga.edu/winners/PeabodyWinnersBook.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on J. Robert Oppenheimer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013000816/http://stjohnbeachguide.com/Gibney%20Beach.htm to http://www.stjohnbeachguide.com/Gibney%20Beach.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on J. Robert Oppenheimer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131204154206/http://cstms.berkeley.edu/archive/oppenheimer/exhibit/ to http://cstms.berkeley.edu/archive/oppenheimer/exhibit/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080827191808/http://h-bombbook.com/research/primarysource.html to http://www.h-bombbook.com/research/primarysource.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on J. Robert Oppenheimer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080612140401/http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1977/6/1977_6_70.shtml to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1977/6/1977_6_70.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on J. Robert Oppenheimer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131126020921/http://www.amphilsoc.org/sites/default/files/proceedings/Hijiya.pdf to http://www.amphilsoc.org/sites/default/files/proceedings/Hijiya.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:01, 7 November 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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)