This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
J. Robert Oppenheimer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
J. Robert Oppenheimer is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 22, 2005. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2023, when it received 28,681,943 views. |
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report 15 times. The weeks in which this happened:
|
This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Hello all
In response to the edit request immediately above, I have tried to consolidate and summarize the information on Oppenheimer's politics which is scattered throughout the article. Specifically I have moved some content from the Security Hearings section which was about whether or not he was a member of the Communist Party. This belongs in the politics section where this issue is also briefly discussed. I have also tried to clarify that the issue is whether Oppenheimer was an "open" member of the Communist party or a member of a "secret cell" of the party, or neither. I have tried to present the information is a more logical order. I have attributed views to particular authors rather than using the wikipedia voice to represent contensted information. I still think the section could be written more concisely because it repeats a lot of information.
I have also moved a paragraph about Oppenheimer's will which has nothing to do with his political views. I also suggest that the sentence about Oppenheimer trying to get Serber a job at Berkeley should be moved or cut. It has little to do with his political views and seems to have only been included to show that Berkeley had at least one antisemite on staff. Aemilius Adolphin ( talk) 10:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
the section already makes it abundantly clear that his political activism was pretty tame considering the social context, it strikes the desired note. What made Oppenheimer's group exceptional was Oppenheimer. They went after everyone associated with him. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello all
An editor has repeatedly tried to add a list of the Oscars won by the Oppenhemier film and actors in that film. My view is that this information belongs in the article about the film. This article already notes that there is a film about Oppenheimer and that is enough. This article is about the man, not the film. Also see WP:NOTNEWS.
Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin ( talk) 22:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
The paragraph gives the awards for a BBC production and the awards and nominations for an American documentary PBS production. So public tv awards are okay to show but commercial movie awards are not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.79.40 ( talk) 01:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Not even a reply? 24.191.79.40 ( talk) 17:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Little Boy was a uranium, gun-type weapon, whereas Fat Man was a plutonium, implosion-style weapon. https://discover.lanl.gov/publications/the-vault/the-vault-2023/a-tale-of-two-bomb-designs/#:~:text=Little%20Boy%20was%20a%20uranium,plutonium%2C%20implosion%2Dstyle%20weapon. Little boy is stated as a imposion-style weapon in the article. But it was a gun type weapon. Alpbyren ( talk) 16:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
J. Robert Oppenheimer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
J. Robert Oppenheimer is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 22, 2005. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2023, when it received 28,681,943 views. |
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report 15 times. The weeks in which this happened:
|
This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Hello all
In response to the edit request immediately above, I have tried to consolidate and summarize the information on Oppenheimer's politics which is scattered throughout the article. Specifically I have moved some content from the Security Hearings section which was about whether or not he was a member of the Communist Party. This belongs in the politics section where this issue is also briefly discussed. I have also tried to clarify that the issue is whether Oppenheimer was an "open" member of the Communist party or a member of a "secret cell" of the party, or neither. I have tried to present the information is a more logical order. I have attributed views to particular authors rather than using the wikipedia voice to represent contensted information. I still think the section could be written more concisely because it repeats a lot of information.
I have also moved a paragraph about Oppenheimer's will which has nothing to do with his political views. I also suggest that the sentence about Oppenheimer trying to get Serber a job at Berkeley should be moved or cut. It has little to do with his political views and seems to have only been included to show that Berkeley had at least one antisemite on staff. Aemilius Adolphin ( talk) 10:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
the section already makes it abundantly clear that his political activism was pretty tame considering the social context, it strikes the desired note. What made Oppenheimer's group exceptional was Oppenheimer. They went after everyone associated with him. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello all
An editor has repeatedly tried to add a list of the Oscars won by the Oppenhemier film and actors in that film. My view is that this information belongs in the article about the film. This article already notes that there is a film about Oppenheimer and that is enough. This article is about the man, not the film. Also see WP:NOTNEWS.
Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin ( talk) 22:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
The paragraph gives the awards for a BBC production and the awards and nominations for an American documentary PBS production. So public tv awards are okay to show but commercial movie awards are not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.79.40 ( talk) 01:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Not even a reply? 24.191.79.40 ( talk) 17:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Little Boy was a uranium, gun-type weapon, whereas Fat Man was a plutonium, implosion-style weapon. https://discover.lanl.gov/publications/the-vault/the-vault-2023/a-tale-of-two-bomb-designs/#:~:text=Little%20Boy%20was%20a%20uranium,plutonium%2C%20implosion%2Dstyle%20weapon. Little boy is stated as a imposion-style weapon in the article. But it was a gun type weapon. Alpbyren ( talk) 16:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)