Changes

::: Suggestion that JRO was a Soviet spy? There was a book by a Russian named Sudoplatov in the 1990s that claimed JRO was a spy. The Venona papers describe a high-level Manhattan Project atomic spy (besides Fuchs and Hall) who has never been identified. Some people suggest JRO. JRO has been shown to have Communist connection over and above what was revealed in his security clearance hearings. A collaborator of his published a book a few years ago saying that JRO was secretly a member of the Communist Party while at Berkeley, and even ghost-wrote some articles for the Party. JRO's anti-American behavior and politics were also very suspicious. I am basing this on memory, so some details may not be right. Maybe the article should just give both views -- that JRO was a genius and hero to the Left, and he was an overrated physicist wannabe and no-good Commie fellow traveler. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:34, 5 March 2007 (EST)

::: Suggestion that JRO was a Soviet spy? There was a book by a Russian named Sudoplatov in the 1990s that claimed JRO was a spy. The Venona papers describe a high-level Manhattan Project atomic spy (besides Fuchs and Hall) who has never been identified. Some people suggest JRO. JRO has been shown to have Communist connection over and above what was revealed in his security clearance hearings. A collaborator of his published a book a few years ago saying that JRO was secretly a member of the Communist Party while at Berkeley, and even ghost-wrote some articles for the Party. JRO's anti-American behavior and politics were also very suspicious. I am basing this on memory, so some details may not be right. Maybe the article should just give both views -- that JRO was a genius and hero to the Left, and he was an overrated physicist wannabe and no-good Commie fellow traveler. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:34, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:::: This is precisely the sort of dichotmous thinking that Conservapedia has been criticized for, it is possible to see Oppenheimer as something other than a "genius and hero" and "an overrated physicist wannabe and no-good Commie fellow traveler" there exists views in between. Furthermore, the level of accomplishment is orthogonal to the matter of how  much he sympathized with the communists. He could have been a communist and a genius or could have been a management hack who was falsely accused of communist sympathies. Incidentally, there are many sources against the view that he was just a manager with little in the way of actual physics contributions. For example, quoting from [http://books.nap.edu/readingroom/books/biomems/joppenheimer.html]"He did not direct from the head office. He was intellectually and even physically present at each decisive step. He was present in the laboratory or in the seminar rooms, when a new effect was measured, when a new idea was conceived. It was not that he contributed so many ideas or suggestions; he did so sometimes, but his main influence came from something else. It was his continuous and intense presence, which produced a sense of direct participation in all of us; it created that unique atmosphere of enthusiasm and challenge that pervaded the place throughout its time" at minimum thus a citation claiming his lack of influence is sorely needed. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:49, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:::: This is precisely the sort of dichotmous thinking that Conservapedia has been criticized for, it is possible to see Oppenheimer as something other than a "genius and hero" and "an overrated physicist wannabe and no-good Commie fellow traveler" there exists views in between. Furthermore, the level of accomplishment is orthogonal to the matter of how  much he sympathized with the communists. He could have been a communist and a genius or could have been a management hack who was falsely accused of communist sympathies. Incidentally, there are many sources against the view that he was just a manager with little in the way of actual physics contributions. For example, quoting from [http://books.nap.edu/readingroom/books/biomems/joppenheimer.html]"He did not direct from the head office. He was intellectually and even physically present at each decisive step. He was present in the laboratory or in the seminar rooms, when a new effect was measured, when a new idea was conceived. It was not that he contributed so many ideas or suggestions; he did so sometimes, but his main influence came from something else. It was his continuous and intense presence, which produced a sense of direct participation in all of us; it created that unique atmosphere of enthusiasm and challenge that pervaded the place throughout its time" at minimum thus a citation claiming his lack of influence is sorely needed. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:49, 5 March 2007 (EST)