# Talk:Edward Condon

Quote:  Rep. J. Parnell Thomas, would call the physicist "Dr. Condon," the "weakest link" in American security, and even the "missing link."
While it of course would be technically correct for someone to have referred to him as "Dr. Condon", I believe this is a misquote given its context.  The Congressman in fact called him "Dr. Condom" (with an M) on at least one occasion as a means of mocking him.  This incident is noted in Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World," which is listed amongst the references for this article.  (Obviously, this is a very minor point, and a very minor mistake, but it could be confusing for someone reading the article who had no prior knowledge of this and would wonder why the author bothered pointing out that someone called him by his title and last name, especially when presented in a context of supposed derogation.)  I would have fixed it myself, but it probably would have been interpreted as vandalism and reverted.

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

He was very smart  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.137.65.113 (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC) 

how smart , i want to improve this item, must state, not just opinion, was he a triple 9? etc.  Juror1 (talk) 09:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

We need to add a section on his scientific contributions, which could absorb some links from the 'see also' section.  RJFJR (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Edward Condon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 12:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I will review this article. It might have been reviewed earlier if it had been placed in a more appropriate category of article awaiting review. My first impression is of a well written article. More comments to follow. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


### Thoughts after a first reading
The article has a great many short paragraphs. I think some of these should be combined, see here.
This has been resolved. Disavian (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The section "Early life and career" starts with the word "He" and so do several other paragraphs in this section. I think this pronoun should only be used after Edward Condon's name has been given.
I believe this has been fixed as well. Disavian (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
What was his father's name? Where did he spend his childhood? What did he study at University?
I added his parents' names, but the "Early life and education" section could use some expansion. I don't have access to the NYT article that seems to source this section (or at least, I don't think I have access). Disavian (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I found and added a second source for this, which is accessible. Morse, Philip M (1976). "Edward Uhler Condon: 1902 - 1974" (PDF). National Academy of Sciences. Disavian (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikilinks needed for such terms as nuclear physics, solid state physics, mass spectroscopy, microwave radar development, uranium, atomic bomb and many others.
I believe this has been largely taken care of. Disavian (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
More later.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing the article. I'll try to look at some of these later tonight / this weekend. Disavian (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for dealing with those matters. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


### A few more points
"Within six weeks, he resigned as a result of conflicts about security with General Leslie R. Groves, the project's military leader, who had objected when Condon's superior J. Robert Oppenheimer held a discussion with the director of the project's Metallurgical Lab at the University of Chicago." - I find this sentence overly complex, perhaps it could be divided into two sentences. Was Condon just concerned about things Oppenheimer had discussed or was Condon suspected of doing something inappropriate himself?
I believe that I have clarified this, although User:Bmclaughlin9 will have to check the accuracy of my edit. Disavian (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Well done. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Disavian (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
"Thomas shared none of the scientific community's international spirit and had other reasons, including the size of his committee's appropriation, opposition to the McMahon Act, and election year politics, to make a prominent case of Condon." - This sentence has too great a gap between its starting and ending sections. Rearranging it into two sentences might be better.
I took a stab at this one, although I'm not sure I entirely gleaned the intended meaning. diff. Disavian (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I gave this a shot/overhaul. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
"On July 15, 1948, the Atomic Energy Commission gave Condon his security clearance, allowing him to accessed classified information for his work as director of the National Bureau of Standards." - This sentence needs attention.
I rewrote parts of it diff. Disavian (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
" He criticized Thomas and the HUAC for leaking information obtained in closed hearings and then refused to reply to requests to testify in response to those leaks." - This sentence needs clarification. Who refused to reply?
I gave this a shot/overhaul. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
"Two Republican Congressman charged that Condom was being investigated as a security risk and was leaving "under fire,"" - I don't think "charged" is the right word.
Did you have any particular suggestions? Nothing better is coming to mind. Maybe I need to eat breakfast or something. Disavian (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Congressman "said"? The remainder of the sentence says: "a charge the Secretary of Commerce Charles Sawyer denied." I don't see why political back and forth can't be described as charge and counter charge. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
A citation is needed in the second paragraph of the section "Later career".
I think I found a relevant citation. Disavian (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I think the last three paragraphs should be amalgamated. At the moment they include a number of sentences which are short bald statements.
I've combined some shorter paragraphs and managed to create some shorter sections, it's far more readable now. Disavian (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I worked on this entry as part of a series on victims of Joe McCarthy and got distracted cleaning up the entry for the Condon Report. My two cents:

The summary has three terms in single quotes: 'witch hunt', 'follower', and 'new revolutionary movement'. Are these quotations or scare quotes or something else? To the extent that this is an attempt to summarize the section below where the phrase "revolutionary movement" occurs, I don't think it is an accurate summary. Nor does it take into account the fact that this is Condon's account of what was said, as the body of the article makes clear. And rather than witch hunt, why not say what happened: a campaign to identify and purge...
I'm not married to the phrasing there; I was mainly getting my ideas from the lead of de:Edward Condon. If you can think of a more neutral way to say it, be my guest. Disavian (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I removed the words "witch hunt" which I thought could be better expressed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't like to see a take-out quote like "I have lost a good deal of sleep..." unless it is in the body text as well. Also the quote would be less mysterious if the tag on the take-out said "to Robert Oppenheimer".
I like block quotes because they break up the text a bit; it would be preferable to find another picture of him to put in here instead. If you really don't like it, we can put it back in the body. Disavian (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The tag "—Edward Condon, 1943." on the blockquote is unnecessary and distracting IMHO.
We could use something like {{cquote}} that has a smaller tagline. Disavian (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Does that look any better? Disavian (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
This sentence -- Condon was upset that Oppenheimer did not stand up to Groves, but he did not know that Oppenheimer had yet to receive his own security clearance. -- gets in the way of the discussion of Condon's dispute with Groves. Would it work as well in a note?
Yes, I think that would make a pretty good note. Disavian (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
How does that look? Disavian (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I would go to any length to avoid the word "Indeed". Yea verily I would. It's gone now.
Cheers. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Rquote documentation says: "This template should not be used for quotations if they are not repeated elsewhere in the main text." (bold added)
The entry uses rquote in exactly that way for the quote beginning "I have lost a good deal of sleep".
Cquote documentation says: "Cquote (for Centered pull quote) is a template meant for pull quotes, the visually distinctive text that is already present in the same article. (bold added)
Again, it's used for a "pull quote", text that is pulled from the text, therefore already present in the body.
I've changed the entry to use each properly. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Pecondon says on his talk page that he's Edward Condon's son and that Bird and Sherwin got the timing of Condon's Quaker affiliation wrong - he wasn't raised a Quaker but converted before college. Can we find better sources for (or against) that claim? Huon (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Following the advice at WT:WikiProject Physics#Biography of Edward Condon: Religion?, I have removed that statement pending additional confirmation or clarification. Huon (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
If he is verifiably his son, I think he most certainly a reliable source for this specific information, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Then the article is wrong on one more count. It stated until a moment ago that Condon had one son, but I just dug up the obit for Joe Condon (because I actually wanted to write a biography of him) and that obit indeed mentions a brother P. E. Condon. I've changed this in the article, even though it apparently contradicts the NY Times obit for Edward Condon. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 00:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Edward Condon. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130105115850/http://library.wustl.edu/units/spec/exhibits/crow/condonbio.html to http://library.wustl.edu/units/spec/exhibits/crow/condonbio.html
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) 19:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Edward Condon. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120717083947/http://www.ufoskeptic.org/sturrock/1.html to http://www.ufoskeptic.org/sturrock/1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 21:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Edward Condon. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927175050/http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v27/i6/p68_s1?bypassSSO=1 to http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v27/i6/p68_s1?bypassSSO=1
Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6DifHaSvf?url=http://physics.nist.gov/TechAct.2007/Awards/honors.html to http://physics.nist.gov/TechAct.2007/Awards/honors.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 18:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

After reviewing this article, I am concerned that it no longer meets the good article criteria. My main concerns are that the article has large amounts of uncited text. Is anyone willing to address this concern? If not, it might be nominated to WP:GAR. Pinging the GAN nominator @Disavian:. Z1720 (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


### Edward Condon
The caption for a photo of Carl Sagan is "Carl Sagan recounted a Loyalty Review Board encounter with Condon". Reading the text of the article and footnote 54, this seems misleading. It implies that Sagan might have been present at the meeting and interacted with Condon. As far as I can tell, Sagan only described this incident after the fact, presumably after hearing from Condon directly or from some other source. A more accurate caption that retains  much of the current wording might be "Carl Sagan recounted an encounter between Condon and the Loyalty Review Board".
I wonder why Sagan deserves a photo in this article? He seems very peripheral. I would think that the mention of his name in the main text (with a link to his Wikipedia page) and the citation ought to be more than adequate. All of the other individuals who have photos are much more salient. Ksbooth (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I broadly agree with your critique of the photo. The caption also makes it seem as if the photo was taken on the occasion of Sagan's recollection, which is not true. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
The content of the Sagan section is I think a bit of a question. This is Sagan, which we can assume is a reliable source, recounting Condon's own description of some meeting and it places Condon in an especially favorable light. This is not a great source for the actual events and we don't even know what that event was. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Parts of the article employs quite stilted English, such as "In the same month, Congressman J. Parnell Thomas, head of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), furnished information to the Washington Times-Herald that denigrated his loyalty in two articles published." The ending "two article published" is a rather strange description. A minimal correction might be "published in two articles" if indeed the Times-Herald did include Thomas's information in two articles (it appears so given that there are two citations). Ksbooth (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Be bold, you can fix it. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2025 (UTC)