Talk:Irving Lerner

Lerner and Espionage

In its present form, the article seems to consider Lerner notable because of the (unproven) espionage suspicions against him, and not as a major contributor to cinema and other activities. I'm considering rewriting the lead of the article to place less emphasis on the espionage suspicions, which seem like a footnote to his notable career to me.Easchiff 00:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Spies who were also blacklisted

The article as I found it failed to convey that Arthur Adams was GRU officer who had entered the United States through Canada and who was allowed to return to the Soviet Union in 1946.

In 1945 Adams was still a spymaster and in 1944 Irving Lerner was one of his spies. What Irving had to offer was not much better than what Julius Rosenberg had to offer - but espionage is often the art of compiling the accumullted bits of data to form valuable information and to support inferences and eliminate hypotheses.

The section should not open with "blacklist" as it appears to suggest "guilt by association" which was the case for many victims of blacklisting. There is no reason to think that Lerner was any such victim.

G. Robert Shiplett 16:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

importance as a film director

The English wikipedia lists Studs Lonigan as a "B" movie.

G. Robert Shiplett 17:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's be fair, and neutral, about the allegations Lerner was an "atomic spy"...

Several wikipedia articles state or imply that Lerner was an "atom spy", since he tried to film the Berkeley cyclotron, without authorization.

I googled "manhattan project" cyclotron plutonium. The top hit does not support the Berkeley cyclotron playing a meaningful role in developing the atomic bomb. It seems to me that, while it supports that key figures from the Manhattan Project did use this experimental equipment, that work predated the Manhattan Project. Richard Feynman's memoirs describe how he visited the cyclotrons at half a dozen universities, wile he was still an undergrad.

There was zero meaningful security at these facilities. At no point could a genuine atom spy have learned any secrets about atomic energy by filming at any of them.

Now, post-war, someone who wrote a book about the Manhattan Project, or Atom Spies, who had no meaningful understanding of nuclear physics, or the Manhattan Project, may have genuinely believed this attempt to film the facility was part of Soviet efforts to figure out how to build a bomb. But it disturbs me to think we stated such dubious conclusions as if they were facts. NPOV should have required us to attribute these claims, or even to leave them out entirely as per FRINGE. Geo Swan (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Recent edit

I have checked the source and it is reliable; it is non-controversial; it is not related in any way to Lerner. I believe it follows Wiki guidelines for use of a blog.Mwinog2777 (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)