This article is about Robert Oppenheimer's 1954 security hearing, which resulted in his Q clearance being revoked. This marked the end of his formal relationship with the government of the United States, and generated controversy as to whether his treatment was fair, or an expression of McCarthyist anti-Communist hysteria. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Quotes should be cited in the lead even if cited again later
References need to be alphabetized
Notes and References should use the same date format
Be consistent in whether you use "DC" or "D.C."
Be consistent in whether References entries include locations, and if so when state is included (eg. for University Park) and whether locations are linked (eg. New York). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"blank pad rule": A gsearch and a WP search don't produce anything; what's a blank pad rule?
The blank pad rule is a legal concept that the court and jury in a criminal case know nothing about the dispute between the two parties involved, and the only way they come to know about it is through evidence that is properly introduced. @Newyorkbrad: Do we have an article on this? Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a criminal practitioner, but that's not a phrase I'm familiar with, and although a search confirms that it exists, I don't think it's that commonly used, at least in the US. To answer your specific question, a search indicates that the only place the phrase currently appears on Wikipedia is this article. So I think explaining or rephrasing makes sense. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided an explanation, also correcting along the way my own earlier misconception that it applies only to criminal matters. (How do I know all this stuff?) Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
" In five "security findings", Nichols said that Oppenheimer was "a Communist in every sense except that he did not carry a party card," and that the Chevalier incident indicated that Oppenheimer "is not reliable or trustworthy, and that his misstatements might have represented criminal conduct. He said that Oppenheimer's "obstruction and disregard for security" showed "a consistent disregard of a reasonable security system."": There are missing quote marks somewhere.
" A 2002 book by Gregg Herken, a senior historian at the Smithsonian Institution, based on newly discovered documentation, contended that Oppenheimer was a member of the Communist Party.": I need to think about this one. Back later. - Dank (push to talk) 23:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say awkward, more like a hard call ... that stuff probably all belongs in one paragraph, but it's hard to fit it in. I'll leave it alone. - Dank (push to talk) 02:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I have only passing knowledge of the topic at hand but will read it and copyedit as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning). Queries below: Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
can we find a link for anti-Communist hysteria - there must be something relevant somewhere....
The hearing was a product of longstanding doubts about Oppenheimer's loyalty, and suspicions that he was a member of the Communist Party and might even have spied for the Soviet Union. - this sentence flows funnily as we have "noun", "noun" "verb" as relating to "doubts". In fact I do wonder whether the sentence is necessary at all - it could be removed and the next sentence be "Doubts about Oppenheimer's loyalty dated back to the 1930s,..."
These included Lewis Strauss, an AEC commissioner who resented Oppenheimer for his humiliation of Strauss before Congress regarding Strauss's opposition to the export of radioactive isotopes to other nations, which he believed had military applications. - tricky sentence with three "Strauss"s in it. I think we can reword as "These included Lewis Strauss, an AEC commissioner who had been humiliated by Oppenheimer before Congress for opposing the export of radioactive isotopes to other nations, which he believed had military applications." (we already know he's an opponent of Oppenheimer from the previous sentence...
I presume the Eric Goldman you mean to link to is this one and not this one.
Tentative support (as am not familiar enough to know the content well enough to conclude everything is there) Otherwise an engaging read, which I can't see any glaring omissions or other prose issue outstanding. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for a fascinating, well written account. There are a couple of prose choices I would have avoided (such as "found himself" and "in the middle of" - embroiled?). I am not expecting any serious issues with the images, but I will recuse on this. I can't understand why this excellent article is not receiving more attention. Graham Beards (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- Somewhat unusually for a Hawkeye nom/co-nom, this didn't go through MilHist A-Class Review, so I think I'd like someone from there to have a look over this primarily from a content perspective before we consider for promotion, perhaps Nick-D? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This article is in very good shape, but I think that it currently leaves a few questions unanswered:
The material in the final section isn't noted in the lead
How unusual was it for an academic scientist with an interest in politics working in the US prior to the war to have Communist friends? This would have been unremarkable in the UK and Europe.
I don't have any sources for this. I added a quote that those in those hauled before the HUAC were mostly associated with Oppenheimer. Many senators and judges felt that nuclear physics required a communist mind set. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Oppenheimer chose not to resign, and requested a hearing instead" - why did he do this? (I imagine it was to preserve his reputation and professional career, but in the hysterical environment at the time it would have involved making an at least somewhat difficult decision)
Was this an isolated case, or were other nuclear scientists put through the ringer over long-past relationships?
The article mentions David Bohm, Ross Lomanitz, Bernard Peters and Frank Oppenheimer, and points out that all of them had a worse time than Robert Oppenheimer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(also, regarding the von Braun quote, the British government did something broadly comparable to its leading scientist-hero, Alan Turing, at this time)
But Turing was not yet a hero; that would only come much later. Asked in 1954, a Brit would probably think of Barnes Wallis, Frank Whittler and John Cockroft. I personally thought of Mark Oliphant, who was prohibited from travelling to the US. (He did eventually get a knighthood, but only much later. I didn't insert the quote; but it has to be considered in the light of von Braun's Nazi past. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Enrico Fermi 1943-49.jpg - OK. seems like the NARA catalogue had some outage problems recently; I wasn't able to verify that source. But there's no reason to doubt that established image source's authencity - OK (please double-check or update the link, when the site is functional again).GermanJoe (talk) 06:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
