Talk:Robert Oppenheimer/Archive/0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

With regard to communist affiliation & leters in 2002: (without a specific reference/source this, above statement, is a mean spirited slur and should be taken with some caution)


According to Gregg Herken (Brotherhood of the Bomb, 2002, Holt; footnote page 11) the initial J did not stand for anything (his father's name was Julius)

His security clearance hearing was due to PAST communist ties -- from the 1930s -- NOT on-going ties in the 1950s. As for the original statement about his "lies" -- he did indeed lie to intelligent officers during investigations of him and of Communists at the Radiation Laboratory in the 1940s (his giving a variety of differing answers to simple questions is easy evidence of that -- he MUST have lied in at least one of his responses because they were entirely inconsistent, whichever one of them was correct). However he was on trial not for misleading the FBI or Army security in the 1940s, but for whether or not he wasa security risk in the 1950s. After WWII, Oppenheimer dropped most of his Communist sympathies and certainly his support.

And yes, Oppenheimer himself said that the J "stood for nothing" in his interview with Thomas Kuhn in 1962. Refer to Alice Kimball Smith and Charles Weiner, _Robert Oppenheimer: Letters and Recollections_ (Harvard: Cambridge, 1980), 1, for the most authoratative discussion of this. --Fastfission 04:36, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, as you can see by the goings on at Wernher von Braun Wiki is not hero worship. --GeneralPatton 01:24, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's not hero worship. My problems with the line:
Nuclear weapons, which he developed, caused hundreds of thousands of casualties in Japan, and resulted in a 50-year Cold War arms race between the superpowers, which in turn almost caused the extermination of mankind from the planet.
do not stem from me terribly disagreeing with it. They are: 1) it is a definition of nuclear weapons, which the "nuclear weapons" page does well enough anyway for it not really needing to be said in this article at all, MUCH LESS the first paragraph, which is generally a quick summary about the article subject (who is Oppenheimer). 2) It's a very NPOV and un-nuanced way to talk about nuclear weapons anyway.
NPOV way to talk about nuclear weapons? I really see no NPOV, The sentence is just fact, no judgment.--GeneralPatton 01:43, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If you were to reword something about the escalating arms race, the perils it caused people, and the casaulties of Hiroshima, and work that into the article body: GREAT! That's all perfectly valid, but tacked on top it just looks like the result of woolymindedness.

Well, he did practically invent the Nuclear Weapons, and that has to be one of the greatest inventions of all time. It certainly was ground shattering for the time, I feel it needs to be included in the introduction.--GeneralPatton 01:43, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3) It's all misleading in that it attachs a lot of credit to Oppenheimer himself for the Cold War and arms race -- despite his vigorous lobbying AGAINST such a thing after the weapon was completed and used.
Well, it mentions his lobbying, and i don't see any connection with him to the cold war, besides that he did in fact develop the nukes.--GeneralPatton 01:43, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm not trying to do hero worship, I'm trying to do a good encyclopedic entry. There's a difference there, and if you'd like to work Oppenheimer's flaws or sins or what have you into the article in an intelligent way, I won't stand in your way. But as it stands, this line is crap. --Fastfission 01:33, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Im not interested in his flaws and sins, Wikipedia is not about POV, we just present the facts here.--GeneralPatton 01:43, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As with von Braun, we should not let the scientific admiration whitewash some of the facts, even if they do not sound cozy at first. Really, Wiki is not about Hero worship nor hate for that mater. It's all about just the facts.-GeneralPatton 01:57, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the 'resulted in a 50-year Cold War arms race between the superpowers' part is entirely accurate. The arms race went way beyond nuclear warheads. It would likely have happened similarly without the manhattan project having developed them. This bit 'which in turn almost caused the extermination of mankind from the planet' is also incorrect as it implies mankind is no longer in danger of nuclear extermination...which is very much not the case. -- Audin 03:29, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Suggestions noted, how about now? --GeneralPatton 03:47, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Are you deliberately misinterpretting me? I'm not trying to "whitewash" anything -- it's completely inappropriate to the article to have it in the first sentence. Frankly I think your von Braun edit is crap too to be honest -- von Braun has nothing to do with Oppenheimer. In that situation too, if you want to talk about ethical ambiguity, GREAT, but it's not what the first paragraph should look like. You are not writing "facts," you are putting a one-sided, unnuanced, and poorly written slip-slop of equivocation onto the front of an otherwise good article. If you want to include information about the arms race, about the deaths at Hiroshima, GREAT! Do it! But do it intelligently. Don't crap up the article. I'm not trying to whitewash Oppenheimer -- I know more about his failures and problematic aspects than you or probably anyone else on this site does. I don't give a damn if you want to talk about the consequences of his actions -- but do it IN THE ARTICLE and do it INTELLIGENTLY. --Fastfission 16:41, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Let me remind you that Wiki policy is to avoid profanity, and I feel the word “crap” is one. And personally, I was against that edit on von Braun, but since there were users who insisted on it, I compromised and agreed, and I feel it is fair if we did the same, more NPOV approach on Oppenheimer.--GeneralPatton 17:38, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If I could roll my eyes further skyward, I would. You obviously do not know what NPOV means, much less nuance. --Fastfission 17:41, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I really feel there is no need for this kind of emotions involved; this is merely a scholarly exchange of opinions. I’d appreciate if you’d tone down the rhetoric and arbitrary scorn.--GeneralPatton 18:00, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
And another thing: in the note, that text I keep putting in quotes is A QUOTE. I even cited its source. Please stop removing its quotation marks. --Fastfission 16:42, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I added some more detail about the arms race, deaths at Hiroshima, and Oppenheimer's feelings about it all in the Postwar section. Hopefully this will satisfy you. Putting anything about what a nuclear weapon in on the first paragraph would be like putting the sentence, "Electrons are also responsible for death by electrocution" in the first paragraph for J.J. Thomson -- it's not false, but its not very encyclopedic. --Fastfission 17:10, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fastfission, that is just silly! It's called a nuclear weapon with a reson you know. You want to tell me the Nuclear bomb wasn’t developed primarily as a weapon?--GeneralPatton 17:32, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You're either purposely missing my point or you really have no idea what NPOV means. I'm going to remove the sentence one last time, you will see ALL of the information it concerns has been put into the article already in a nuanced and intelligent way, if you continue to revert it I will have to request for arbitration. This is just nonsense and you are crapping up an otherwise pretty good article with information that you obviously know very little about. --Fastfission 17:41, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Fastfission, I recognize that you have invested a lot of hard work and effort into your vision of the article, and that you feel passionate about it, but this IS an open source project where we try to present a straightforward, NPOV’d, objective and comprehensive view of things. I do agree on arbitration.--GeneralPatton 17:46, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have listed both Robert Oppenheimer under Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Again, I feel that defining (in a very narrow way a "nuclear weapon" in the first paragraph of the article is not necessary and a form of NPOV. Furthermore, all of the two sentences' relevant information is in the body of the article itself. Also, the phrase on nuclear proliferation is misleading and doesn't at all represent Oppenheimer's views on the subject. In the meantime, I'm going to stop playing with this for awhile and hopefully someone else with some sense will come along. --Fastfission 17:58, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I also want to just add that Oppenheimer did not "develop" nuclear weapons -- he headed the lab of the project that developed them. If you are going to add such a ridiculous lead-in to an Oppenheimer article, for the sake of accuracy you'd also have to add it to a whole host of others who had major roles in the [:Category:Manhattan Project|Manhattan Project]]. It's maddening that you won't even engage with what I'm saying about this, which is of course why I put it up for comment. I think what's needed is for you to justify WHY this particular phrasing needs to be put in the first paragraph of the article, which is typically reserved only for a summary. Your added text is a summary for "nuclear weapon," at best, and not a NPOV one either, not a summary for Oppenheimer. Arg. Okay, I'm not playing with this any more, it's frustrating me too much to watch someone add what I consider some really lousy and prominent editing to an entry that was previously one of the better and most accurate Oppenheimer entries on the internet, especially when I am highly suspicious that the editor in question really has any but the most cursory knowledge about this particular subject. --Fastfission 21:52, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Contents

Request for comment

The question is whether or not the intro paragraph should be:

J. Robert Oppenheimer (April 22, 1904 - February 18, 1967) was a Jewish-American physicist and the scientific director of the Manhattan Project, the World War II effort to develop nuclear weapons, at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Known colloquially as "the father of the atomic bomb," Oppenheimer later lobbied for international control of atomic energy before having his security clearance stripped for alleged past Communist sympathies at a public hearing.

or

J. Robert Oppenheimer (April 22, 1904 - February 18, 1967) was a Jewish-American physicist and the scientific director of the Manhattan Project, the World War II effort to develop nuclear weapons, at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Known colloquially as "the father of the atomic bomb," Oppenheimer later lobbied for international control of atomic energy before having his security clearance stripped for alleged past Communist sympathies at a public hearing. Nuclear weapons, which he developed, caused immense civilian casualties in Japan, and soon were a decisive factor in an ever escalating 50-year Cold War arms race between the superpowers, that at times came close to endangering the existence mankind. Nuclear nonproliferation, which Oppenheimer championed, is still a major global issue.

--Fastfission 18:00, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fastfission, I want to thank you for wisely engaging in arbitration and not going into a revert war. Im always for civilized dialogue and I appreciate when the other party agrees on that. I just want add that my primary argument is that Nuclear weapons were a groundbreaking development of civilizational importance, and should be mentioned.--GeneralPatton 18:03, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

They are mentioned in my copy. Twice. ... the scientific director of the Manhattan Project, the World War II effort to develop nuclear weapons, at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and Known colloquially as "the father of the atomic bomb,". Your edits do not highlight anything about them being "groundbreaking," they state that nuclear weapons caused casualties in Japan, that there was a Cold War, and that nuclear proliferation is a global issue. Who doesn't know these things, and more importantly, the ones relating to Robert Oppenheimer, who is the subject of this entry, are already covered in the article itself. Additionally, where they appear in the article, they do so in context and in a manner which relates specifically to the subject of this entry, whereas your additions are overly general and completely out of context. It's maddeningly frustrating to go back and forth with you because you don't seem to realize what's NPOV about this at all when it's so obvious. --Fastfission 21:58, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The last two sentences of the second lead section are clearly POV by giving the impression that the author is condemning Oppenheimer. Thus it is not acceptable per our NPOV policy. Those two sentences are also about nuclear weapons, not Oppenheimer, and are therefore off-topic. That is why we have a separate article for nuclear weapons. --mav 07:28, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with mav favoring the version without the extra bit about the impact of the bomb. -- ke4roh 11:53, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

I'm quite satisfied with mav's revision. I feel it’s a better summary of great man’s life than both mine and Fastfission’s. I think we have a compromise here. --GeneralPatton 13:13, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Compromise

Ok, does everyone agree on this?

J. Robert Oppenheimer (April 22, 1904 - February 18, 1967) was a Jewish-American physicist and the scientific director of the Manhattan Project, the World War II effort to develop nuclear weapons, at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Known colloquially as "the father of the atomic bomb," Oppenheimer lamented their killing power after they were used to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After the war, he was an adviser to the newly-created Atomic Energy Commission and used that position to lobby for international control of atomic energy and to avert the nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union. Following an FBI investigation during the Red Scare, he had his security clearance stripped for alleged past Communist sympathies. After this Oppenheimer continued to lecture, write, and work on physics. A decade later President Lyndon B. Johnson awarded him the Enrico Fermi Award.

I also want to thank mav for his work--GeneralPatton 00:35, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No prob. I like lead sections. :) --mav 04:59, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that's just fine, thank you. I feel much better about this now. --Fastfission 17:22, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oppenheimer & Einstein caption

Oppenheimer eventually took over Einstein's position at the Institute for Advanced Study. -=- OR -=-Oppenheimer reduced Albert Einstein's E=mc² to practice.
Oppenheimer eventually took over Einstein's position at the Institute for Advanced Study.
-=- OR -=-
Oppenheimer reduced Albert Einstein's E=mc² to practice.

I like both of these captions, though the one at top explains one angle of the relationship between Oppenheimer and Einstein, and the bottom one explains another angle of that relationship while highlighting the significance of the image today (at the expense of some accuracy). Do you have suggestions for an accurate caption? Some general-purpose caption tips that might prove inspirational are at Wikipedia:Captions.

-- ke4roh 17:08, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that the bottom one is not very accurate. While E=mc² does apply to the explosion in an atomic bomb, it also applies to the chemical reactions which occur in the burning of a match as well, if I recall correctly. The second caption implies that it was Oppenheimer who first applied the principle, which in reality had very little to do specifically with an atomic weapon, and furthermore implies Einstein's theories had anything much to do with atomic weapons (which they don't). Einstein's entire relevance to the bomb project was that he signed the Szilard note in 1939; neither Special nor General Relativity have anything important to do with nuclear fission, at least as it was known in the 1940s. I don't really care what the caption is, to be honest, as long as it doesn't give the reader the wrong impression (in this case, that Oppenheimer's bomb vindicated or was the first application of Einstein's theories; or that Einstien's theories had much to do with atomic weapons). --Fastfission 21:37, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"War criminal"

A few things:

  • I moved the section about Nagasaki from "Postwar Activites" to "Manhattan Project," where chronologically it belongs.
  • I also tried to tone down its hardcore POV. As such I've actually added more material, trying to flesh out the nuances of the decisions made (for better or worse), and removed the obviously POV emotional appeals when talking about the children who died, etc.
  • Removed the line about the "war criminal" -- I've never seen anybody accuse Oppenheimer of being a war criminal, if someone wants to cite that, then maybe we can put that back in.

--Fastfission 12:30, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Check out Japanese websites, the Japanese increasingly view Nagasaki and Hiroshima as war atrocity. Also see this. [1]

Two days later, Szilard met with J. Robert Oppenheimer, the head scientist in the Manhattan Project. "I told Oppenheimer that I thought it would be a very serious mistake to use the bomb against the cities of Japan. Oppenheimer didn't share my view." "'Well, said Oppenheimer, 'don't you think that if we tell the Russians what we intend to do and then use the bomb in Japan, the Russians will understand it?'. 'They'll understand it only too well,' Szilard replied, no doubt with Byrnes's intentions in mind."

I dare not think what would happen if you tried to whitewash the Holocaust article like this, "emotional appeals", that's not funny, there was nothing untrue about that statemant.

Please don't make this article into some kind of hagiography. Oppenheimer was not that liked even in the scientific community because of his constant self-promotion, that's why Teller and Co. got rid of him. Even Kissinger article mentions that some view him as a "war criminal", and here it also never said he IS a war criminal, just that some view him as a "war criminal". And I didn't even mention the theory that it was him who leaked the Bomb to the Soviets. GeneralPatton 17:05, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • God, enough with the hagiography comments, if you look at my edits you'll see there is nothing hagiographical about it, just not one-sided POV.
I don't understand what the quote you posted (Szilard) has to do with what you changed it to originally at all -- in fact if you actually read the changes I made, you'll see that I put in that Szilard was against the using of the bomb against the Japanese and that Oppenheimer was completely for it, and why (reasons which, frankly, I think are not very rigorous). What does this have to do with him being a war criminal? At best it is a statement about his advocacy for using the bomb on a civilian center, which if you look at what I added is exactly what it says!!
As for your knowledge about Oppenheimer in the scientific community, it's obvious that you aren't very well read on the subject. It was Teller who was de-facto expelled from the scientific community, and the people who did Oppenheimer in (including Teller) were the military and political community (i.e. Strauss), not the scientific community, who with the exception of Teller were almost unanimously behind Oppenheimer. See Edward Teller if you want more details, or better yet, try reading any of the books cited at the end of this article, they're all great resources.
Find me one even partially legitimate claim that Oppenheimer was a war criminal, and I'll let you keep it in there (and by "partially legitimate", I will even include barely-mainstream newspaper or magazine editorials). Otherwise, please don't bother editing a page on a subject you obviously haven't actually done any reading in, it's frustrating to those of us who take Wikipedia seriously.
Do me a favor and either request for comment or remove the NPOV, my patience is really getting tried with your nonsense and your inability to argue a point. I apologize for being so blunt but this is the second time you've tried to replace nuance with uninformed NPOV and this will be the second time I'll likely have to call in someone else to comment on it for another opinion, and a second time that they'll conclude that I was correct. --Fastfission 02:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is now Friday, you put up the NPOV on Monday, you have not bothered to discuss it, you are the only one who thinks it is NPOV, you have not requested the current article for comment, I am removing the NPOV notice. If you'd like to discuss changes you'd like to make along the lines of what you wrote before, we can still do this, but it's silly to have a NPOV notice simply because you can't substantiate the claim that "some people consider him a war criminal." --Fastfission 02:19, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Look, I’ve just been busy in real-life for the past few days, so I hope you understand. GeneralPatton 11:57, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I understand, but let's talk about changes you want to make that you know will rile me before you make them, then maybe we can come to compromises without worrying about NPOV or anything like that. I watch this article like a hawk because I have spent considerable time studying Oppenheimer in both primary and secondary literature, so I get ruffled when I see statements added which I think are without nuance and really don't have much basis in any of the respected historical literature. I'm not interested in hagiography, especially not of him, who I find at best flawed and at worst extraordinarily hypocritical (the first thing he did when they came after him was to name all the names, point fingers at all of his friends as Communists, again and again, trying to save his own butt. If they had not revoked his clearance, he would currently be seen as a traitor to the physics community and not a martyr). --Fastfission 16:20, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Featured article candidate

I’m quite satisfied with the way the article has been taking shape, I suggest nominating it for a featured article status. GeneralPatton 21:24, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reverts, etc.

The reason I think our anonymous IP friend's text is not worth inclusion is partially that it is very poorly written (and I don't feel like editing it up) and loaded with peacock terms and other non-encyclopedic junk. I also think that including all of the stupid little anecdotes about how he left his date (first grad student) up in the hills is more trouble than it is worth: there was considerable argument among JRO's colleagues as to whether it was because of his absentmindness or because of his maliciousness, and I think to take the time to portray it correctly would use more space than it is worth for such an uninspiring incident (the details of which are somewhat foggy). It's an editorial decision, not necessarily a disputation of factual accuracy. I have to admit I also find the debate over whether or not JRO could have gotten a Nobel Prize to be somewhat dull and ahistorical. The only reason anybody wonders such a thing is because so many of his colleagues got them. But JRO never really accomplished anything Nobel-worthy and it takes considerable speculation to think of work he did that might be even marginally worthy (such as his work on black holes, which was really much less triumphant than it has been portrayed here). I make no judgments about his qualities as a thinker or scientist but it seems to me that the only time he took long enough to apply himself to a topic was when the government sat on his head (the Manhattan Project). Anyway, the point is that the information added doesn't, to me, really improve the article. If someone wants to take the time to write it up a bit better than I could probably live with it, it is not something I am taking a hard line on. Also, the "Hamlet of physics" nonsense doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article, and its an inappropriate allusion at best (the only literary figure to compare him to that might make any sense would be Faustus but even that pushes it in my opinion). --Fastfission 18:40, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, first of all, how do you, or anyone else for that matter, decide if certain anecdotes about any scientist are 'stupid' or not? There are many things which endear a scientist to his colleagues, and it's these little things that can also matter to a reader who is reading about him. This actually again brings us to the biased-unbiased entry dichotomy. If things really could be classified as stupid, 'peacock terms' etc., then any biography of any scientist is this way, from someone's perspective. However, they are all given fair representation, aren't they? People like to read anecdotes about Einstein. So why not about Oppenheimer? Also, this particular incident was hardly 'foggy' in its details. It appeared in the local newspaper (I forgot the name) and was described by Jeremy Bernstein in his biography of Oppie. As you may be knowing, Bernstein is quite a well-known physicist, who had also worked under Oppie at the Institute for Advanced Study. Regarding his Nobel Prize, many people do think that he would have gotten it for the work which he did with Snyder and some other students. Now these are opinions. However, people having them also include people such as Nobel Laureate Luis Alvarez. And how do you, or I decide if his work was prize worthy or not? The fact that he was actually nominated three times means that there was definitely some sense to considering his work of that calibre. I don't understand how you can afford to ignore a fact like that. Even if we leave aside the part that he did not actually get the prize, there have been many discussions of why he did not do work that could have got him the prize. These have been discussed in many places, for example in Michelmore's and Cassidy's biographies of him. These reasons have to do a lot with his complex personality, and it is because of this reason that I put in the piece about the prize. The prize is simply an instrument to discuss his personality, which then is exemplified by Isidor rabi's comment. This comment is quite well-known and has appeared in many biographies. Again, you seem to have misunderstood the man's purpose if you are saying that he worked single-mindedly on the Manhattan project because 'the government sat on his head'. Oppenheimer was a man who was deeply interested in the Hindu religion and the Bhagavad Gita. As someone who is acquainted with both of these ( I am a Hindu), I can vouch for his appreciation of these things, and also how they spurred them to pursue his purpose in life without thinking about the fruits of his labours. If you want to know more about this, you can read James Hajiya's article, 'The Gita of Robert Oppenheimer' which is available on the internet as an article published in the journal of the American Philosophical Society. His decision to work on the bomb and his complex feelings about it are intimately connected to his knowledge of the Gita and his general outlook on life which was partly inspired by it. His views also were influenced by his Ethical Culture education, which had its own philosophy, which you did not discuss. Even describing him as the 'Hamlet of the atomic age' (as against 'Hamlet of physics' which you stated) is correct because he was, more than any other person, a man who was tormented by his actions, and whose life had the inevitability of the Greek tragedies.

Fastfission, Wikipedia is a FREE encyclopedia, which also means that it supports freedom of speech. Unless there is something about someone which is particuarly slanderous or glorifying, or factually incorrect, you cannot take it out of a post. Please note that I also felt that there were several things which you wrote which were 'poorly written' (as you described my entry) or incomplete. However, I respected this freedom of speech, and never deleted those pieces. All I did was add a few paragraphs. Since this is a free encyclopedia, it is not a platform where you can showcase your personal style of writing articles. You have to allow others to contribute. And if you are talking about opinions, then all of us, certainly including you, have them. The real question is whether we are willing to tolerate the opinions of others, especially if they are factually correct to a great extent. Like I said, we can play this game of deleting and adding over and over again, but it's not going to make sense. Unless there's something blatantly wrong in my posting, I, or anyone else in my place, will not appreciate unnecessary deletion of comments. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. Let the people have the freedom to decide what they like and what they don't. I think this quality of tolerance would certainly have been appreciated by J. Robert Oppenheimer. --Ashujo 19 Dec, 2004

First of all, this is not really about "freedom of speech," it is about editing. Please read up on Wikipedia's policies before asserting your right to insert anything you want and not have it deleted or edited. As for the individual issues, briefly:

  • Not every anecdote should go into an encyclopedia article: the question is which ones are worthwhile, which ones really add to our understanding. There are many different versions of the anecdote you posted and I don't find it to be enlightening, that's all.
  • Nobel Prize: Nomination is not necessarily noteworthy (hundreds are nominated, few many win!), most scientific and scholarly consensus is that Oppenheimer just never did anything of Nobel quality (like most scientists, even brilliant ones, do not). Anyway if you think this is an important thing to add, we can maybe find a better way to talk about it, and briefly, at that.
  • "Hamlet of the atomic age" is overdramatic and not very useful. I see it to be a poor allusion at best, at worst it ascribes to the "Oppenheimer as martyr" point of view (which I happen to also think is a bit tenuous, but that's neither here nor there). In any event, I don't think it adds anything.

There is a longer response on your user page. Rather than just reinserting the text, why don't you try to re-edit it a bit and see if you can't come up with something that is bit more encyclopedic. If you can weave these things into the narrative in a NPOV way, and make sure that it is clear that each of these things play useful roles in adding to our understanding, then I would be more than happy to let them be in. As it was, they didn't do this, in my opinion, which is one of the reasons I reverted them in the first place (the other reason is that your IP is similar/the same to someone else I had reverted on other articles for similar use of excessive anecdotes and peacock terms; if you are not the same person, I apologize). --Fastfission 21:24, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)