Talk:Lewis Strauss/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Lewis Strauss. 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.

Archive 1

Untitled

A recent edit has said that his name was pronounced "Straws". I've always heard it as "Strauws", but it could be that the people I've heard are just wrong. Any way to confirm this externally? --Fastfission 00:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It is pronounced "Straws" - that's just how the family pronounces it.

Good to know!--24.147.86.187 18:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the “The Trials of J. Robert Oppenheimer” documentary (an "American Experience" documentary) on PBS, it is pronounced "Straws".

Anyone interested in Lewis Strauss might also find the following interesting: http://www.ecommcode2.com/hoover/research/historicalmaterials/other/strauss/stramain.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.228.51 (talk) 06:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In the book by Oishi Matashichi about the 第五福竜丸 (Daifukuryūmaru) fishing vessel, his name is written as ストローズ (sutorōzu) which would be pronounced "Straws".

Strauss and Oppenheimer

This section is excessively hostile to Strauss. I think that it needs to be sourced and balanced. I don't happen to disagree with much of what's in here, but it reads too much like an anti-Strauss polemic. I've tried to tone it down but it needs work, and footnotes. Figureofnine (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

hostile? today this man could be in prison for violating the law! Im not allowed to say what he really was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.147.50 (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Why is this man referred to as a "Jewish businessman"? If he were a Lutheran would you call him a "Lutheran business man"? a Jewish reader —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.185.228.236 (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears someone added "Jewish" in front of "businesman" some time in January. You are correct, it is not germane. Consider it fixed. Blubbaloo (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It is now excessively too pro-Strauss. It does not indicate the breadth and nastiness of Strauss' anti-Oppenheimer campaign, which is quite well documented. The Pfau book is a fawning biography and should not be relied on so heavily, especially when there is so much better, and more recent, work on the Oppenheimer affair. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Well Strauss was a small man with petty hatreds for small things about people -He was a. he was arrogant to the extreme. He worked with Hoover to discredit others by using bugging devices, lies and planting judges on Oppenhiemer's kafka like trial. It was a good day when he lost the vote and I hope died like he lived bitter and twisted. yes he was the worst extreme of jewness (don't start as I am Jewish guess what jews have evil people in their midst) along with Teller. This man brought us along the anxiety path of decades cold war and actively pursued a path of building over 70,000 nuclear bombs. He was a weak, snide, twisted political misanthrope. He was of age of loud mouthed idiots that believed their opinion was more important than anyone. Hope Struass, Hoover, Robb (lawyer at the trial), and Teller rot in a some small forgotten planet where they are stay for eternity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.218.81 (talk) 11:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The article also ignores Strauss's lack of qualifications to serve on the AEC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6AE5:2510:0:0:0:46 (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Lewis Strauss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Major figure in the development of atomic weapons?

Nothing in this article really supports the introductory paragraph stating that he was a major figure in the development of atomic weapons. It is not supported in the referenced source. Also, as an aside the source itself seems unreliable per policy WP:NOTRELIABLE. To be clear, I'm not disputing the assertion that he was a major figure in atomic weapon development, it just isn't reflected in the article's body or the source material. Klaun (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

"Major figure" is a vague subjective term. It would be more descriptive to say Strauss was an ernest proponent of atomic weapons technology. He clashed mightily with Oppenheimer over the development of hydrogen bombs (Oppenheimer was opposed to the production of anything stronger than conventional fission bombs). Blubbaloo (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lewis Strauss. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 02:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppenheimer Security Hearing

Hello I have created a new sub-section for this topic and expanded the content, largely based on the WP article on the Oppenheimer security hearing. The security hearing was a major turning point in Strauss's career and deserves a fuller, and more balanced, treament than in the previous version. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

It's reasonable to expand the hearings material and to make it its own section. However what's here needs to stress what Strauss did rather than recap what happened in the hearing, which has its own article that can be mentioned in the xref at the beginning of the section. In particular, there is no need to get into the Chevalier interactions here. So I have revised the material in this section along these lines. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that your rewrite presents the opinions of selected writers as facts. This is contrary to policy on NPOV. Specifically, policy states: "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice." Also: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." And: "Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject"

For example your version states: "Strauss initially hoped that Oppenheimer would quietly resign, but when Oppenheimer chose to contest the charges, Strauss became determined to prevail, and to do it before Oppenheimer's security clearance was due to expire anyway." This is an interpretation of Strauss' behaviour and it therefore a matter of opinion. The people who wrote it can't read minds. I certainly agree that it is a plausible explanation (probably the most plausible), but it should be written as an opinion attributed to particular authors. It probably belongs in the Legacy section where the pros and cons can be discussed. In a brief factual section on the Security hearing it's best to stick to the known facts.

"Strauss used his position as head of the AEC to render corrupt aspects of the AEC's procedural and legal systems." Once again, just the opinion of particular authors. It's better to just describe the aspects which were unfair to Oppenheimer. I've added a sentence from the later review which found that the hearings violated the AEC's own rules for procedural fairness. This is objective information.

"There was enough behavior in Oppenheimer's past to make some of the charges against him possibly believable, and Oppenheimer sometimes struggled in his own testimony." Once again just the opinion of a couple of authors. It's best to briefly present the key evidence which damaged Oppenheimer.

"In the end, despite the support of numerous leading scientists and other prominent figures, Oppenheimer was stripped of his clearance, one day before it would have expired anyway, as Strauss had wanted." If you are going to say that numerous scientists and other prominent figures supported Oppenheimer, you need to say who didn't support him and why the panel found that he was a security risk.

The bit in the end about how Oppenheimer was a broken man is obviously meant to pull the heart strings and violates policy: "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject." It's best to briefly state the immediate consequences for both Oppenheimer and Strauss.

I understand that there is room for disagreement on what is relevant to add or remove and am happy to discuss this. My aim is to present the relevant information about the hearings from a more NPOV. There's room to thrash out the hero vs villain stuff in the legacy section. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)