Talk:Lewis Strauss

message: Hello all,
I have made some changes to the wording in the "Legacy" and "Strauss and Oppenheimer" sections as the previous wording included a few editorial comments which were not in the sources cited, or expressed opinions about Strauss as if they were fact. I have attributed the relevant statements to their authors. I have tried to reword things with a NPOV which, "neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject." See: NPOV
Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding what you say in this section and the one above it, when it comes to WP:WIKIVOICE there is a range of practice among experienced editors when it comes to what constitutes guidelines such as "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts".  If just about every quality history/biography states that person A did something for a given reason, even if that reason is not a "fact" but something the writers have inferred from their study of events and evidence and personalities, many editors will put it in wikivoice.  But others will prefer to attribute it in-text to those writers, and still others will prefer to leave it out entirely.  I tend towards the wikivoice side of things and you clearly do not.  But at least one advantage of your approach is that it will leave readers puzzled as to why certain things happened and they will go off and read some of the books used as references, and that is all to the good.  Wasted Time R (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You can select facts in a way that leads readers to a certain conclusion, even if you don't intend to do so, and stating these facts in the WP voice compounds the problems. For example, those trying to push a sympathetic view of Oppenheimer often point out that the revocation of his security clearance was finalised the day before it was due to expire "anyway". That would leave readers puzzled until they read less biased books and understand that Stauss was acting on the president's executive order that a wall be put between Oppenheimer and nuclear secrets; that Oppenheimer's security clearance was suspended on December 10; that it was Oppenheimer who insisted on a hearing (as was his right); and that a hearing would obviously take time. The article already makes it clear that Strauss was vindictive, but the fact that the whole process took seven months to complete wasn't entirely his fault. Perhaps the article should state that Strauss also wanted Oppenheimer fired from the Institute of Advanced Study but didn't have the numbers to push it through. That tells more about Strauss than the fortuitous timing of the final revocation of Opp's clearance. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral Point of View 

message: https://twitter.com/ddiamond/status/1769422631801905503 VickiMeagher (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for posting this.  As the tweet indicates, this article was indeed incorrect.  The American Presidency Project document already being used as a source indicates that "Mr. Strauss served under a recess appointment as Secretary of Commerce from November 13, 1958, through June 30, 1959. His letter of resignation, dated June 23, was released with the President's reply."  I have corrected the article to indicate June 30 as his final day as secretary.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info from someone researching Strauss 

message: The paragraph copied below reads misleading to me. I've read the Bernstein article and the one Bernstein quoted and it's not really clear to me what "recent" means here. Bernstein's whole argument is that Oppenheimer was a CP member. His article and the 2012 one he cited take that position, and they both take a lot of time arguing against the Bird/Sherwin take. I don't really see "recent" evidence that hasn't already been hotly debated. The matter of whether O was a CP member is obviously a debated issue, and I don't think the below paragraph takes this reality into account; therefore, I think it misleading and think it should be revised unless someone who understands why it was drafted this way disagrees. 
"In 2023, Bernstein stated that recent evidence that Oppenheimer had been a secret member of the Communist Party partially vindicated Strauss. "Strauss was devious, thin-skinned, mean-spirited, and even vicious in helping to do in Robert Oppenheimer. But on some important matters—in even somewhat suspecting Oppenheimer’s political past—Strauss was not unreasonable."" Mmash16 (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem misleading to me. Bernstein's footnotes make it clear that when he is referring to recent evidence he means the Vassiliev notebooks, Barbara Chevalier's unpublished notes and Griffith's unpublished memoir. But the point isn't whether these sources have been hotly debated. The point is that it is significant that a notable critic of Strauss believes that this evidence indicates that Strauss's suspicion that Oppenheimer had been a secret communist was not unreasonable. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading