Talk:Jean Tatlock

message: Studying psychology she's a physicist? --Alien4 04:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, she's not a physicist, though I suppose in terms of her biography content she's more of interest to physicists than psychologists. --Fastfission 16:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physicist? 

message: I am reproducing in full the initial article Jean Tatlock, submitted by  19:23, 6 December 2004.    (There are no deleted revisions in the edit history; while i have checked only one other article's history for similar text suggesting that this text was cut and pasted from another article, i suggest that the 
: misspellings of 2 proper names, "commited", and "involvent", 
: the typo "staudent", and 
: two syntactic errors, 
are hallmarks of a first draft and evidence against an earlier WP version.   Altho editing on J. Robert Oppenheimer was steady in the weeks preceding, mention of JT in it was limited to 
: In 1936 he became involved with Jean Tatlock, who sparked his interest in politics.
That sentence was added in February of that year, and appears to have been the only mention there for the entire period until the JT article was created.)   
# Here's the intial text:
#: Jean Tatlock briefly dated Manhatten Project leader J Robert Oppenhiemer while she was a graduate staudent at The University of California, Berkley. Tatlock's interest in radical politics haunted Oppenhiemer throughout his life, and his involvent with her was seen by many as evidence that Oppenhiemer might was spying for the Russians. Some historians believe that Oppenhiemer had an extramarital affair with Tatlock while Oppenhiemer was working The Manhatten Project. Tatlock commited suicide in July of 1945.
# User:Fastfission changed the date  from "July of 1945" to "July 1944" in an edit that also quoted JRO as saying "Between  1939 and her death in 1944..."
# I worked on the sentence containing "July 1944", and miscopied the date into the lead sent as "July 1943".
#   User:Jonxwood corrected my mistranscription.
# In response to the concerns of the  i dialed back the precision of the mention that by now held my attention, to simply "1944".
#  (who insinuates elsewhere being the same person as 4.240.165.183) did a major and no doubt valuable expansion, changing the first mention of the date to "January 5, 1944" and the second to "January 1944".
Now, here's an example of what i was talking about when i referred to OR, something we sometime have to do, even tho it can't end up in the article:
: Fat Man and Little Boy is a 1989 film featuring JRO & mentioning JT's suicide. (BTW, our article discusses, w/o being specific, dates consistent with the January death in the film's article's "Basis" section.) At Goofs for Fat Man and Little Boy on IMDb we find (supposedly having been reviewed by the IMDb editors) 
:: Factual errors: The telegram to Oppenheimer states that Dr. Jean Tatlock committed suicide 5 January 1945. She actually committed suicide a year earlier, in January 1944.
: That "error" would have substantial value by bringing the romance tragedy later in the rising tension of the main plot. Especially if that was exploited, but even if not intentional, it is understandable if some viewers vividly recall RJO reading the telegram in the month of Trinity, July 1945. This would explain our early use of that date, and an editor who knew the correct year but not the specific date would probably make the shift i've cited, to July 1944.   I suppose that Schweber may have relied on our article for his footnoted book. But we may have something to learn in general about how hard it is to get these things right.  I found in Herken 
:: ... Groves tentatively scheduled a test of the implosion bomb for Independence Day, in the New Mexican desert near Alamogordo, 200 miles south of Los Alamos.
:: For reasons that Oppenheimer decided to keep obscure, he had named the test site Trinity — a secret tribute to Jean Tatlock, who had committed suicide at her San Francisco apartment the previous January.
: and said, wait a minute, that's another curveball: am i just being an asshole, isn't the January previous to a given July the one in the same year, not the January in the previous year? He's saying January 1945!
: That's from the GBks page for the
:: Edition: illustrated
:: Published by Macmillan, 2002
: I was still playing Is This Anything? with myself when i stumbled on (emphasis added by me) the fact that Herken chose to reword, to
:: For reasons that Oppenheimer decided to keep obscure, he had named the test site Trinity — a secret tribute to Jean Tatlock, who had committed suicide at her San Francisco apartment in January 1944.
: for the 
:: Edition: reprint, illustrated
:: Published by Macmillan, 2003
: (The changed sentence is footnoted in both editions, but the corresponding page of footnotes is suppressed on GBks for the first edition; for the 2nd (paperback, i assume), the note reads
:: 54. Teller (2001), 149; Blumberg and Ownes (1976), 100-101; Rhodes (1986), 335-37.
: I haven't explored whether those sources document Herken's date.)
I think my asshole-ism ration doesn't extend so far as to cover further editing on this aspect of the article, but i intend to stretch it close to exhaustion by stating my continued belief that 
: January 1944 is a good date (which i'd express January 4/5 1944, FWIW), which is useful, and
: what the IP has done is to put OR into the article, which is not our job.
Some may respond that the evidence is clear enuf that it's not useful to reflect the bad dates that are out there. My view is that it's not more useful than having the consensus date in the lead sent, but it is useful to others doing their own OR for purposes other than editing WP -- including satisfying themselves that we're aware of the fact that there is evidence against the consensus, and they probably haven't just found the hidden truth. Thus the footnote's contents should be expanded to enumerate, at its end, the influential (presumable) errors: 
: Herken's miswording (paired with his tacit self-correction), 
: Schweber's July date, and 
: the fact-based film's 1945 date (without comment on whether intentional or inadvertent). 
--Jerzy•t 07:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology of WP's account of death date 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jean Tatlock. 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/20110613210000/http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/8607 to http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/8607
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The current version of the article mentions this, but does not provide an actual citation or even mention the title. Wouldn't it be better to source a claim about the memoir from the memoir itself? Jenkins is mentioned nowhere else in the article, so it would also be good to say who she was and hence why her memoir contained relevant information. 208.59.185.238 (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The article writer misunderstood. I have rewritten that passage. The fact is indeed from Bird and Sherwin, which quotes interviews. I have added a reference to Edith Arnstein Jenkins's book though, with a link so it can be viewed by the reader, but it is far more coy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edith Arnstein Jenkins' memoir 

message: User  changed "Suicide" to "Ruled suicide. Suspected assassination by U.S. Government." as the cause of death in the infobox in this edit: . I went ahead and reverted this edit. I did, however, add "(disputed)" after "Suicide" as there is discussion in the "Death" section about possible foul play. Because this article has "GA" status and my edit could be controversial, I want to state ahead of time that I will not object to anyone removing this edit I made regarding "(disputed)" status to her cause of death from the infobox and returning it to just "Suicide". Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding "(disputed)" after suicide as cause of death in infobox