Talk:Lewis Strauss

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleLewis Strauss has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 5, 2020Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 23, 2020.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that despite being awarded the military Legion of Merit four times, as well as the civilian Medal of Freedom, Lewis Strauss is often viewed as a villain of American history?

Untitled[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 16:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Major figure in the development of atomic weapons?[edit]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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)[reply]

Oppenheimer Security Hearing[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Neutral Point of View[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Length and inappropriate editorial detail[edit]

Just referring to this article to get a general idea of Strauss’s biography, this article strikes me as both painfully long and peppered with inferences and statements regarding Strauss’s personal beliefs and motivations that aren’t particularly relevant or useful. 150 some odd citations seems quite a bit for marginal historical figure.

A lengthy seeming discussion of his relationship with Oppenheimer that delves into comparing and contrasting their feelings about their Jewish identity is excessive, for example.

im not going to make any edits, but I do think someone could exercise some restraint in the editing 86.49.248.141 (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, 275 citations (!). I understand he was an important guy, but this article rivals that of presidents legendary historical figures. 86.49.248.141 (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to your view that Strauss is a "marginal historical figure", but others would disagree. As you can see from the Bibliography section, there has been one full-length biography and several journal articles written about him and he appears as a major figure in a number of other books about the early Cold War period. The number of citations is largely due to the article having been put up and getting approved for Good Article status (the green mark on the upper right), which generally requires sentence-by-sentence citing.
The article is 9,500 words long, which is within the general Wikipedia guidelines for article length. As to whether it's too many words for this particular subject compared to other subjects, that's generally a losing game to play in Wikipedia. Symphony No. 6 (Beethoven), the Pastoral, gets only 850 words, while "Hotter than Hell (Dua Lipa song)", a modest pop hit at best, gets 2,250 words. Is that reasonable? Of course not. The explanation? Some editor was interested in the Dua Lipa song and drove it to GA status, while no editors have ever done the same for the Pastoral. Is that fair? Of course not. But that's how it works here. Finally, if all you want is "to get a general idea of Strauss's biography", all you need to read is the lead section at the top, which is a self-contained summary of the rest of the article and is only 400 words.
As for the relationship with Oppenheimer, that may be the section that readers are most interested in. But that's the point: no one need read the whole article. The idea is that you read the lead, and then you can expand out any of the detail sections as you wish. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Info from someone researching Strauss[edit]

https://twitter.com/ddiamond/status/1769422631801905503 VickiMeagher (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lewis_Strauss&oldid=1217022789"