Jump to content

Talk:Richard Feynman/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Purely apocryphal story from my grandfather

My grandfather grew up in Far Rockaway and his parents and Feynman's would often play bridge. My Grandfather was much younger than Feynman, but Feynman liked kids and would keep him entertained when they crossed paths. The story goes that during the war, not knowing better, and being in his early teens, my Grandfather asked Feynman what the army had him off doing (it was supposedly common knowledge at the time that he was doing something important and secret). Feynman said he was "building a better peashooter." I guess technically true if you know how the physics package in Little Boy worked... Can't add this to the article because of Wikipedia's rules about primary sources, but I thought this story deserved to be up on the interwebs somewhere. PS, I'm a physicist, but my Grandfather became a lawyer. Quodfui (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Nice story, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Feynman as Atheist

I was surprised to see no mention of his atheism. That did come up in his book "surely you're joking" at least. If I have time I might add it, but I was wondering if there was a reason it's not there Nerfer (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Oops, never mind. I had misspelled it as athiest and no matches were found... Nerfer (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It it disagrees...

RF has so many amazing quotations, and there are so few of them in this article. My favorite, found at 3:01 in Richard Feynman Biography,

If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement, is the key to science. It doesn't make a difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn't make a difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is—If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. Thats all there is to it.

— Richard Feynman, Cornell University, 1964

I think this quotation deserves inclusion in his article. -Kyle(talk) 04:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It's on WikiQuote. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I seek advice and guidance. I'm involved in the development of a very well visited non-commercial "hobby-site", 'Richard Feynman' at http://www.richard-feynman.net/ (currently, 389,810 page hits). I'm quite proud of this site, and I think that it is at least as deserving of a place in the 'External links' as the only current item (which claims to be an "official site", but clearly isn't). However, I suspect that if I try to add the link, the wrath of Wikipedians will again descend upon me. Can I ask others to look at the site and decide whether it's worthy of inclusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffw1948 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. The Wikipedia:External links guideline explicitly excludes links to "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority", and furthermore, your website appears to be hosting videos etc without permission of the owners - we cannot link to sites violating copyright. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

His IQ was 122 not 125.

Read his book 'What do you care what people think?' and in the beginning of the novel when he discusses his school years he said he had an IQ of 122, not 125. Unless he was re-tested later in life which would need a citation for - excluding the current one since it doesn't discuss a re-testing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pentrazemine (talk • contribs) 20:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Some online sources say 122, others say 125, per my very hasty scan. Is the distinction important? Not really, sez I. I'm not even certain that it's worth mentioning at all, since after all these years, we still don't know precisely what IQ tests measure, if anything. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 21:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Those sources have obfuscated channels of redundant information passed on by other varying sources - but if you read What do you Care? the man himself says when he took it he got a 122. Actually, the entire book can be heard as an audio-text online Youtube and hear it yourself.I'll take the man's word from it himself from his autobiography than another biographer who got a source from another watered down source.

I'll see if I can find the YT video and crunch down the part where he brings it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pentrazemine (talk • contribs) 23:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

My point was simply that the precise number is of questionable relevance to this article specifically, and to the great scheme of things in general. In the real world IQ scores are largely ignored. They're of no practical value for anything except gaining entry to Mensa, which -- trust me -- counts some spectacularly stupid people among its top-two-percentile members. Intelligence is far too nebulous and subjective to be measurable by any single parameter. My own score was 152, and beyond an all-too-brief interlude of bragging rights within the dork brigade at my middle school, it was of zero value to me or anyone else. Nobody in his right mind -- I, least of all -- would use that number to conclude that I was by any measure smarter than Richard Feynman, for example. I guess it would be fun to view that clip, though, if you can find it. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 00:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Cite a specific source with a specific page number, and we can check it. I have the Gleick biography at hand and have already checked that. By the way, I've just been reading a very interesting source that describes the development of Feynman's thinking about mathematics and physics, which will help improve this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Would that be Krauss's book? Quantam Man? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 03:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Casita Barranca

Feynman = Genius?

There is a bit of accuracy disrupte on the Education section, a user, Vsmith insists that the quote on Feynman being a genius does not require specification. It is unknown if it represents a speculative point of view by removing the line "Some praised Richard Feynman as genius:". The quote there is ambiguous if it represents an objective point of view (is he so much a genius that we add a quote there?) or a speculative point of view (does some praised him that it is notable to be quoted?). By removing the line, "he is praised as.." accuracy is disrupted, thanks. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Simply, "some" be weasely. The quote is from a biography and the title kinda says it. Are there ref'd opinions disputing his status. And it seems the article doesn't call him a genius. Vsmith (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Some is weasely? WP:SOFIXIT.

And it seems the article doesn't call him a genius.

I think you just slipped your tongue that what I said about ambiguity is correct. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Feynman would never have called himself a genius. Just some guy who was interested in stuff and just loved solving problems. At most he would admit he had fun doing so an maybe helped discover a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.254.222 (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Not that I really care, by Freeman Dyson did call him a genius in a tv interview.137.111.13.200 (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Why even mention whether he was a genius or not, defined as such either by some dubious "objective" standard (e.g., IQ) or the statements of friends, colleagues, or enemies? Surely his achievements say enough for a reader to decide this. The conclusion almost all will inevitably draw is that he was a genius. Scrawlspacer (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Jewish categories

See Talk:Richard_Feynman/Archive_2#Categories_for_this_article for a discussion of whether we can use reliable sources to call him Jewish even if he himself asked not be called Jewish. Note, that he did not say is not, just he asked not be called so, and also note that he is deceased. Debresser (talk) 11:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

His parents were Jewish - he chose not to be. That should be the end of the discussion. 2604:2000:7130:8000:CCD:522B:72A2:8E1D (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Tannu Tuva

What is the point of mentioning Tannu Tuva in this article? Lots of people want to travel to places they do not have opportunity to, Hawaii, Rome, Paris, whatever. The article does not make it all clear what is the significance of this completely insignificant looking idea that Feynman wanted to travel to Tannu Tuva. I think the article should be cleaned up in this respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.92.49.251 (talk) 07:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Widely covered in some books and in the media, so it seems to be significant. - DVdm (talk) 08:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Concerning his "acting" in Anti-Clock

In the section on his Personal Life it says, "Feynman has a minor acting role in the film Anti-Clock credited as "The Professor"", with a link to the Film's IMDb page as a reference. I think it's worth pointing out, in the event that it may be relevant, that he didn't do any acting for that film. I've seen Anti-Clock, and Feynman's appearance is in the form of stock footage from his 1964 Messenger lectures on "The Character of Physical Law".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 19 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Please put new messages at the bottom and sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
Good point. IMDB is not a really reliable source anyway. I went ahead and chanced it: [1]. - DVdm (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I think your revision is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

IQ again

The point of the entry about IQ is that it shows (a) that a "genius" does not necessary have a high IQ; (b) Feynman's disdain for pretentious organisations like Mensa and (c) the sibling rivalry between Dick and Joan. But let's look at what Carroll wrote:

There has been much speculation and writing on the nature of g [IQ]. Spearman believed that g was involved in cognitive operations whenever the individual was required to (a) apprehend experience and think about it, (b) educe or find relations among stimuli, and (c) educe or find correlates. Currently, the general factor is often interpreted as representing the maximal complexity or general difficulty of the tasks that an individual with a given level of g can perform, and hence the amount of conscious mental manipulation required by those tasks (Jensen, 1980, p. 231; Marshalek, Lohman, & Snow, 1983). This is probably not the whole story, however. For one thing, exceptional persons able to perform highly complex arithmetical tasks, such as finding the 23rd root of a 201-digit number, do not always appear to possess particularly high levels of general ability (e.g., Jensen, 1990, with reference to the case of the calculating prodigy Shakuntala Devi). Perhaps this implies that the "complexity" of a task is only in the eye of the beholder. In addition, people with obvious brilliance of intellect do not always make exceptionally high scores on tests of g or IQ. According to his biographer, in high school the brilliant mathematician Richard Feynman's score on the school's IQ test was "a merely respectable 125" (Gleick, 1992, p. 30). It was probably a paper-and-pencil test that had a ceiling, and an IQ of 125 under these circumstances is hardly to be shrugged off, because it is about 1.6 standard deviations above the mean of 100. The general experience of psychologists in applying tests would lead them to expect that Feynman would have made a much higher IQ if he had been properly tested. It is difficult, however, to draw conclusions about the nature of g from individual cases. The matter can be better considered by analyzing the characteristics of tests that are highly loaded with g. Most such tests involve detailed and complex thinking about similarities, comparisons, the meanings of difficult words and sentences, logical relations and implications, quantitative problems, and the like. Some tests of g also involve background knowledge of a wide variety of relevant principles or facts, as well as the ability to apply those principles or facts to a variety of problems, regardless of their complexity. This could mean that g represents general ability to learn and to apply knowledge. Successful performance of tests of g may also require a large and capable working memory (Carpenter, Just, & Shell, 1990; Kyllonen & Christal, 1989), and ability to choose adequate strategies for solving problems.

I seems to me that this quote from Carroll indicates that the score is accepted as correct. The standard IQ tests are supposed to represent general aptitude, not mathematical aptitude. Given that Feynman was so poor at English, it does not follow that it was an incorrect assessment. I fear that the reader may infer that the score was wrong rather than the underlying concept. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Another caustic comment?

In the fourth paragraph in the section Richard Feynman#Pedagogy, we read the following sentences:

  • The book was published in 1985 as Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! and became a best-seller. Feynman's sexism was on full display.

This last sentence contains a strong judgment about Richard Feynman and the content of his book but does not give any further information. Nowhere else in the article is this discussed. I think if this is a well-known, distinctive characteristic of Feynman, it should be discussed apart from this somewhat of off-hand comment about just one of his many published works, and supported with reliable sources.

Also, the last sentence of this section reads:

  • Many of Feyman's [sic] colleagues were surprised that he took her side; he liked her personally.

(I left in a typo that is there.)

The clause tacked on the end after a semi-colon, "he liked her personally", suggests that the only reason he supported La Belle in her lawsuit against Caltech was that he liked her. I really doubt that that was the only reason he supported her. This clause may be misleading. It also indirectly supports the suggestion in the sentence quoted in my first comment that Feynman was sexist – that he would support a female professor in her bid for tenure merely because he liked her, and not because of her qualifications for the position. If that is the intention of the person who added this to the article, the suggestion should be made more explicit. Otherwise, I think this sentence should either be made clearer or removed.

Also, what is the point of mentioning that Feynman's colleagues were surprised that he took La Belle's side without explaining why they were surprised?

Note that I concentrate on copy-editing articles; I merely point out when things don't make sense. I'll leave it up to other editors to look up sources and/or remove or modify these sentences.  – Corinne (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I fixed the typo. Gleick says:

Feynman, to the surprise and displeasure of some of his humanities colleagues, had taken her side; he had spent many pleasant hours in her office reading aloud such poems as Theodore Roethke's "I knew a Woman"...

According to La Belle:

I met Feynman. I was going to a meeting in Bridge [Laboratory of Physics]—the building that he taught in. I was walking up the stairs, and I heard this voice say, “Come back down the stairs.” And I went back down and said, “Why did you want me to walk down?” and he said, “So I can watch you walk up the stairs again.” I suppose I was wearing a miniskirt, which is what I tended to wear in those days.

The letter that Feynman wrote is reproduced in the interview with La Belle. In part, he wrote:

I have known Jenijoy ever since the very first decisions on her tenure, for she introduced me to literary research and the Huntington Library and the wonders of holding in one’s hand an old book written by Newton. I could appreciate directly how much he knew and how much he didn’t know and what expressions he used that we still use.I will be very sorry to see her leave. Caltech is the loser.

Suggestions for improving the wording are welcome. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

How about, instead of "he liked her personally", "he had gotten to know her and both liked and admired her.  – Corinne (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I made a few changes in wording, but did not change the meaning. Thanks to Hawkeye7 for research that added this interesting material, and to Corinne for suggestions on improving the tone. HouseOfChange (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
That sounds good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit to Caltech years section

I'm not knowledgeable enough to judge the appropriateness of the addition of this material, but if it is deemed appropriate, I thought I'd point out that it seems a bit repetitious. It repeats the information about his doing the work that led to the Nobel prize. I think only one mention is necessary, either the statement or the quote.  – Corinne (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Why not review the whole article? You know you want to. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I removed the repetition. The physics in question is covered in the preceding three paragraphs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Richard Feynman/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 04:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Astoundingly good shape, really.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. No issues noted.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Well cited
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). No issues identified.
2c. it contains no original research. None identified.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Via Earwig's tool, three possible matches were detected; all three were investigated and found to have triggered on longer quotations, properly cited in this article.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Yes, appropriate.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Good.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Adequately deals with controversies and criticism.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No issues noted.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. The initial portrait has a pretty convoluted rationale, but as I parse it it should be fine.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Fine.
7. Overall assessment. A rare "first pass" pass from me, I see no reason for this not to have already been recognized as a good article.

First read through

  • "née" isn't a common way I've seen a mother's maiden name referenced in other biographical articles.

Wow, other than that, the text is in really good shape. The fact that this was a former FA is pretty obvious. Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Simple question

What's that slightly caustic line by Murray Gell-Mann doing in the personal life section of this man?


Murray Gell-Mann remarked, “Feynman was a great scientist, but he spent a great deal of his effort generating anecdotes about himself.”


I can go and ask my granny what she thought about Feynman's life choices, then we can add her opinion too, is my point.

The quote seems more in its place on the page about Murray Gell-Mann.

Or perhaps a section regarding Feynman being a controversial figure could be added, where the quote would be more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.30.85.137 (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
I also don't see the relevance of this remark, not even in an article about Gell-Mann. It's not even controversial—on the contrary, rather obvious actually. - DVdm (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree. The statement does not have a clear connection to any of the topics mentioned in this section, and not even to the sentence that precedes it. (I suppose it might have a connection to the interviews Feynman began granting in the 1980s, but if that is it, the connection needs to be made much clearer.) The discussion before this sentence has been about his book, Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!, the reaction to it, and a side story about a lawsuit. The sentence right before this one is related to the book, though the connection to it could be made more explicit. I suggest that we wait a week or so to see if there is further comment; if there is none, we can remove the sentence.  – Corinne (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Gell-Mann's threatened lawsuit is interesting and relevant to the article, so perhaps this quote is relevant to the lawsuit. The quote is a fairly mild example of Gell-Mann's remarks about Feynman over the years, perhaps because Feynman took many opportunities of provoking and belittling Gell-Mann. See for example http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/07/the-jaguar-and-the-fox/378264/ HouseOfChange (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
HouseOfChange Just to be clear, I was not suggesting removing the sentence about the threatened lawsuit but rather the sentence that follows it, first mentioned at the beginning of this section. Thank you for the link to the Atlantic article. I just finished reading it, and it was very interesting. I read the Feynman article Richard Feynman several months ago, and I'd have to read it through again carefully to be sure, but I don't see much mention of the intense rivalry that developed between Feynman and Gell-Mann that is covered extensively in the Atlantic article. It seems that Gell-Mann was often frustrated and/or annoyed by Feynman. I'm wondering, if a carefully nuanced mention of this rivalry were inserted here, whether it would make the sentence being discussed in this section more relevant, almost an example/illustration of Gell-Mann's frustration with Feynman. Something like:
  • Gell-Mann was upset by Feyman's account in the book of the weak interaction work, and threatened to sue, resulting in a correction being inserted in later editions. This incident was just the latest provocation in a decades-long intense rivalry between the two scientists. Gell-Mann often expressed frustration at the attention Feynman received; he once remarked, "[Feynman] was a great scientist, but he spent a great deal of his effort generating anecdotes about himself."
I put into italics (just so you would see it) a phrase I would add in the first sentence to make it clear that the account was in the book Surely You're Joking.... I added two sentences after that based on what I read in the Atlantic article. Feel free to change them. If these sentences are added, they might need a reference to the Atlantic article, and I don't know how to add the reference.  – Corinne (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Dear Corinne, I like your suggestion. It is late at night here in Sweden, so if I bungle adding your ideas, please correct me. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I think the article is improved by the addition of The Atlantic piece. Anyone in doubt about it can listen to Gell-Mann in the video link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
HouseOfChange I see you added one of the two sentences I suggested, above, but not the other ("Gell-Mann often expressed frustration..."). I think that provides a good introduction to the quote, and I think it is accurate (based on the Atlantic article). I also think "an intense rivalry" is accurate, and "an intense bad feeling" (your wording) is not colloquial. I think their rivalry was both personal and professional. Hawkeye7, I welcome your opinion here. Maybe HouseOfChange was sleepy... ;  – Corinne (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

New TEDxCALTECH section removed

I have removed ([2]) this newly added section with this massive number of red links. I think it is wp:UNDUE. - DVdm (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

All Four Forces section removed

I have removed the recently added section by user Garfield Garfield (talk · contribs) on all four forces, opening with "Feynman was the only physicist to ever do ground breaking work on all four of the forces of nature", as a schoolbook example of wp:unsourced wp:synthesis and wp:original research. And with a section title in title case, where sentence case is needed (MOS:HEADING). Come on, Garfield Garfield, you should know better by now. - DVdm (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Garfield Garfield (talk · contribs) added the section again ([3]), with the Gribbin source mentioned in front. Please specify the exact page and the sentence in the source. And please change the title to sentence case. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Sadly, I had to leave some formal warnings on their user talk page: User_talk:Garfield_Garfield#Edit_warring_with_unsourced_content - DVdm (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I will find the page numbers in Gribbon Gribbon and reinstate. Garfield Garfield (talk)
No, user Garfield Garfield, please find the page numbers in Gribbin, quote the relevant sentence here on the talk page, and propose and discuss here. Wikipedia is about wp:consensus
The best that I can find that comes close to the edit, is what it says on page 189 with this books search. If you have copy of the book, please quote a few surrounding sentences here, so we can check whether we can distill something worth mentioning from it. - DVdm (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
This whole sentence and exaggerated claim by Gribbon should be dropped. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I spent 10 minutes typing in "a few surrounding sentences" as you requested, but due to an edit conflict it got lost. Should I type it in again? Garfield Garfield (talk)
OK. Here goes: "Feynman made his name in the 1940s with his work on QED, providing a theory of one of the four fundamental forces (or interactions) of nature, electromagnetism. In the 1950s, as we have seen, he made a major contribution to developing physicists' understanding of another fundamental force, the weak interaction, and then went on to make a major contribution (only fully appreciated in the 1980s and 1990s) to the understanding of a third force, gravity. His work in the late 1960s and early 1970s provided profound insights into the workings of the fourth force, the strong interaction. Nobody else has made ..." Garfield Garfield (talk)
Please sign all your talk page messages with four (not three) tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
Ok, the current addition (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Feynman&type=revision&diff=756970959&oldid=756920830) looks just acceptable to me. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 09:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

William Harvey was Physician to Lord Bacon

I didn't give a reference, because it is given in William Harvey without a reference. It says there: "Harvey continued to participate in the Lumleian lectures while also taking care of his patients at St Bartholomew's Hospital; he thus soon attained an important and fairly lucrative practice, which climaxed with his appointment as 'Physician Extraordinary' to King James I on 3 February 1618. He seems to have similarly served various aristocrats, including Lord Chancellor Bacon." Should I look for a reference? Garfield Garfield (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, all facts in the article require references, and material without them will, I'm afraid, be removed in order to preserve the article's Good Article rating. But in this case I don't think we need that fact; the part relevant to Feynman is there, elaborating obscures Feynman's point, and readers who want to know more about Harvey or Bacon can click on the blue links. @DVdm: for another opinion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
How about this. We insert the parenthetical (Bacon was the Lord Chancellor of England) but leave out the unsourced and irrelevant "and Harvey was also his physician." We then explain the quote from Harvey, which makes more sense when you know that Francis is the Lord Chancellor, which doesn't need a source. Garfield Garfield (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
This somehow was a subsection of the unrelated previous section #All Four Forces section removed. Repaired. User Garfield Garfield, you say you didn't give a reference because it is given in William Harvey without a reference. This is precisely why we have the policy wp:CIRCULAR, and also please have a look at the essay Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Anyway, I agree with Hawkeye7 on this: I found the part "but that the great experimentalist William Harvey, who discovered the body's circulatory system, said that what Bacon said science was, was the science that a Lord Chancellor would do" is hardly relevant. Let's just remove that. - DVdm (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I found a reference for the fact that William Harvey was Sir Francis Bacon's physician-The Encyclopedia Britannica online:
[4] Garfield Garfield (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I think that when you are defining what science is, discussions about Francis Bacon are very relevant. Garfield Garfield (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
But in this article we are writing about Feynman, not about definitions of science, and not about what we find in wp:tertiary sources about Sir Francis Bacon's physicians. - DVdm (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Taylor series sentence seems odd

The article says "In high school he was developing the mathematical intuition behind his Taylor series of mathematical operators." This doesn't seem to be in the cited source (here) and is oddly phrased in any case -- what does "his Taylor series" mean? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I've removed that sentence for now. The following one really bothers me. I know I read it in a book, but I can't find it. I added the atomicarchive source after a Google search for it, but it's not where I or the author of that piece originally found it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Here's two nice secondary sources for the "half" derivative:
  • Mlodinow, Leonard (2003). Feynman's Rainbow: A Search for Beauty in Physics and in Life. Hachette UK. p. 64-65. ISBN 978-0-7595-2798-0. Extract of page 64
  • Gleick, James (1992). Genius: the life and science of Richard Feynman (illustrated ed.). Pantheon Books. p. 178. ISBN 978-0-679-40836-9.
You can verify the first source online on the extracts of pages 64 and 65. Okay if I replace the atomicarchive with this one?
For Gleick you'll have to take your paper version or your e-book. My copy says:

One day, making his rounds, Feynman found a man struggling with an especially complicated varietal, a nonlinear three-and-a-half-order equation. There was a business of integrating three times and figuring out a one-half derivative—and in the end Feynman invented a shortcut, a numerical method for taking three integrals at once and a half integral besides, all more accurately than had been thought possible. Similarly, working with Bethe, he invented a new and general method of solving third-order differential equations. Second order had been manageable for several centuries. Feynman’s invention was precise and practical. It was also doomed to a quick obsolescence in an age of machine computation, as was, for that matter, the skill of mental arithmetic that did so much to establish Feynman’s legend.

This does not refer to high school though, but perhaps we can elaborate a tiny bit? - DVdm (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
No, we want the high school reference. It's on page 82 of Feynman's Rainbow; but this is not the source I remember. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: be my guest, replacing the source as you think best. And hey... it's a FA now. Congratulations! - DVdm (talk) 07:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Feynman's Psychiatric Draft Deferral

I consulted this article while reading Feynman's autobiography, "Surely Your Are Joking, Mr. Feynman." I was startled because the previous version of this article said he faked mental problems to secure a 4-F deferment and cited two sources, one of which was this autobiography. Now I knew this to be false. I then consulted the other source, James Gleick's biography Genius - the Life and Science of Richard Feynman. Gleick acknowledges that Feynman maintained he was not faking but argues that this was disingenuous and he manipulated the psychiatric interview to secure the 4-F, which he wanted to pursue his scientific career. I will not argue the merits of this, but it is clearly speculative. It is wildly unfair in a Wikipedia biography to state boldly that he was faking when his own first-person narrative denies this. The only support for this is Gleick's conjecture.Gleick, James (1992). Genius: the life and science of Richard Feynman (illustrated ed.). Pantheon Books. p. 225. ISBN 978-0-679-40836-9.

He didn't deny this, he just tried to put a spin on it to make himself look more clever than other people—a theme running through the book. A personal account is not regarded as a reliable as a biographer, who in this case reflects the consensus of opinion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

If you know this is the consensus of opinion, please cite your references. I certainly don't know of any. I feel it is totally dishonest to add Feynman's book as a reference for a position he very clearly disputes. This is clearly contrary to the canons of Wikipedia and a disgrace. I have never found an example as outrageous in my years of posting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polambda (talk • contribs) 00:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Feynman's book is used as a reference for the incident itself, for the benefit of the reader. Gleick writes:

The story never included several plausible points. Feynman never pleaded that, having contributed three years of wartime service in the Manhattan Project, he ought to be exempt from a further contribution. Nor did he mention how destructive it would have been to his career as a theoretical physicist if he had been conscripted now, at the age of twenty-eight. He had to walk a narrow line. There was nothing amusing or stylish in the summer of 1946 about evading the draft. For most people, to be declared mentally deficient by one's draft board was a more frightening possibility than army service-far more damaging to one's civilian prospects. So the Selective Service established few safeguards against fakery in the psychiatric examination. It did not expect to see records of a previous history of mental illness, for example; in any case private psychiatric treatment was far more unusual than it became in the next generation. Examiners felt they could rely on a subject's naive self-description to answer their checklist questions. Feynman repeated his answers to a second psychiatrist. His ability to conjure the voice of Teller was recorded as hypnagogic hallucinations. It was noted that the subject had a peculiar stare. ("I think it was probably when I said, 'And this is medicine?'") He was rejected. It occurred to him that the Selective Service would examine its own files and discover a series of official letters requesting deferment so that Feynman could conduct essential research in physics during the war. More recent letters stated that he was performing an important service educating future physicists at Cornell. Might someone conclude that he was deliberately trying to deceive the examiners? To protect himself, he wrote a letter, carefully phrased, stating for the record that he believed no weight should be given to the finding of psychiatric deficiency. The Selective Service replied with a new draft card: 4-F.

I am happy with the proposed change [5]. I am in agreement with Blurryman that an incident of mental illness does not make someone "abnormal". Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe any reasonable person would have interpreted the citation of Feynman's autobiography as merely "a reference for the incident itself." You would presume that Feynman admitted to "faking" the mental illness, when in fact he strongly objected to this characterization. This was a clear misrepresentation and an attempt to deceive those who consult Wikipedia. I happen to value Wikipedia and I think Feynman was a truly great man. I do not take lightly crude attempts to defame his memory. Since you did not make Blurryman's revision the current revision, am I to take it you are standing behind the version that claims Feynman intentionally faked the psychiatric exam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polambda (talk • contribs) 03:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The principle here is that we don't make significant changes to featured articles without consensus, which is what we are attempting to achieve here. Here is my proposed version:

After Feynman stopped working at the Los Alamos Laboratory, he was no longer exempt from the draft and was called up by the Army in the fall of 1946. Feynman had a low opinion of the psychiatric profession, and was hostile during the mental component of the exam. At the end of the physical he was rated deficient in this component. In his autobiography, Feynman thought this hilarious and loved to recount the story. He included it in his autobiography, telling how during the exam he had peeked at the psychiatric report and had seen that it said he had a "very peculiar stare." Feynman subsequently wrote to his draft board requesting that "no weight whatsoever should be attached to this report because I consider it to be a gross error."[1] The draft board gave him a 4-F exemption on mental grounds. At the time there was a stigma against mental illness, and consequently the Army had few safeguards against someone faking it to avoid military service.[2] However, it may not have been an incorrect diagnosis; Feynman had depressive episodes, including when his first wife died on June 16, 1945, and after his father died suddenly on October 8, 1946, which had considerable impact on his productivity.[3]

References

  1. ^ Feynman 1985, pp. 162–163.
  2. ^ Gleick 1992, p. 225. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFGleick1992 (help)
  3. ^ Mehra 1994, pp. 171–174.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

What we have to be very careful in this article is avoiding casting unsubstantiated suspicion on a dead man. Your second from last sentence clearly suggests that Feynman was faking. Gleick himself is very circumspect in what he says. He sums up his argument with a question, not a declarative judgment. Basically Gleick has an unsubstantiated suspicion that Feynman was faking here. An encyclopedia must relie on facts not innuendo. Remember a person's reputation is at stake. Unless you can come up with more real evidence, I think the most you could do is put in a footnote that his biographer discusses this episode on page 225 of his book. I also think it is too strong to state "it may not have been an incorrect diagnosis." No Army doctor made a diagnosis here. They conducted a screening exam to see if the person could mentally fit in with the military mindset and marked him deficient. You don't have to be insane to be a poor candidate for military life. Feynman admits several times in his autobiography that military brass annoyed him and he loved to show them up. His extraordinary mental gifts and independence may well have rendered him a poor candidate for military life, but there is no basis for discussing insanity here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polambda (talk • contribs) 16:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Rejection by the Army on mental grounds does not mean one is mentally impaired any more than rejection on physical grounds means that one is physically disabled; it just means that for the Army's purposes you are likely to encounter problems. Lots of people are rejected for minor ailments. His reputation is what is written by Gleick, Mehra and the other historians; we can use their opinions, but not Feynman's, due to WP:PRIMARY. How about:

After Feynman stopped working at the Los Alamos Laboratory, he was no longer exempt from the draft and was called up by the Army in the fall of 1946. The draft board gave him a 4-F exemption on mental grounds.[1] However, it may not have been an incorrect decision; Feynman had depressive episodes, including when his first wife died on June 16, 1945, and after his father died suddenly on October 8, 1946, which had considerable impact on his productivity.[2]

I totally don't understand your position on this. If we can't use Feynman's autobiography as a source for this, we would have to get rid of most of this article. Gleick and Meyra both use Feynman and then add their spin. Their opinions have value to the extent they can be substantiated by factual evidence. As I have tried to explain to you multiple times, someone's unsubstantiated opinion has no place in Wikipedia especially if it is disparaging to the subject of the article. Feynman's account, on the other hand, is a primary source; it describes his recollection of what happened. Gleick was not there; he just has an opinion without substantiation. You said at one point, you could live with the edit made byBlurryman. So can I. How about that?Polambda (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC) I read the WP:Primary page you referenced. It does not prohibit use of published primary sources but says they should be used with care. I have no problem with secondary sources but the opinion should be reasonable, verifiable and not defamatory. Please see Wikipedia:Libel. Also refer to: 

Wales, Jimmy (2006-05-16). "[WikiEN-l] Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". Polambda (talk) 01:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Gleick 1992, p. 225. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFGleick1992 (help)
  2. ^ Mehra 1994, pp. 171–174.

Feynman views on women

Worth noting or no? Here are sources: http://tech.mit.edu/V119/N10/col10lipman.10c.html, http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2014/07/11/richard-feynman-sexism-and-changing-perceptions-of-a-scientific-icon/, http://www.livescience.com/20974-feynman-physicist-fbi.html Maranjosie (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

As the Scientific American blog you cites notes, it is probably a mistake to cherry-pick incidents from Feynman's life to 'prove' one thing or another about his character, and there is actually little in his apparent attitude to women that marks him out as in any way atypical for a man of his generation. He was a man of his time, and behaved accordingly - though perhaps he was a little more honest about it than many. If this needs discussing at all, it needs to be done in a way that avoids judging him by standards to which it is entirely inappropriate to expect him to have ascribed to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
You could say the same about Rolf Harris. It's true that many things Feynman said and did in the 1950s and 1960s did not spark outrage at the time, but like John Kennedy, Feynman's attitudes towards women were noted as very bad by contemporaries even then. Of course, when the 1970s rolled around, it came back to really haunt him. This should be noted in the article, which is hardly neutral at the moment without it, and I think I can do so without holding him to anachronistic standards. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think he "held views on women" - these are just examples of the way he behaved towards a few of them. Zambelo; talk 22:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Researching Feynman is like taking a trip down a sewer in a glass-bottomed boat. That's why he's the last of the Manhattan Project scientists to get the Hawkeye7 makeover. I was hoping against hope that someone else would fix up the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The sources don't support the inclusion of such a section, and as has been pointed out the Scientific American article itself describes how anecdotes are often cherry-picked to push a viewpoint. I doubt anyone is really qualified to discuss Feynman's views on women, only the way he behaved in various circumstances. This thing smells like someone has an axe to grind, whether the sewer is real of not.137.111.13.200 (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Feynman's cavalier and dismissive attitude toward others is part of his legend. See for example http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/07/the-jaguar-and-the-fox/378264/ But I don't think adding a moralizing section to his bio here would be appropriate, unless we plan to add similar sections to every other biography in wiki. Feynman was a brilliant man, who made great contributions to science. That's why he has an article, and that is what his article should discuss. Anybody looking for models of moral, humane behavior should look somewhere else. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


I think it's clear that Feynman's attitude towards women and his sexual appetites were not *just* a product of his time. His autobiographies more than make allusions towards it, and there's more than one article on the internet discussing his predatory attitude towards sex. So I would say that omitting any mention of this on the page about him is omitting an important facet of him as a person. Speculatrix (talk) p.s. this is why I added that he had been *accused* of sexual predation. dress it up in any language you want, it's still part of the ugly truth.

I think, report facts and evidence of his life and times, readers can decide their own opinions. Accusations are not facts and evidence. Sexual predation has to be defined, and then supply facts and evidence to meet the definition. CuriousMind01 (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
And the cited source does not qualify as a wp:RS. Read here why. - DVdm (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
without mention of the allegations, then how would people know to go and find out? Speculatrix (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


In the section "Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman". I'm unsure why La Belle's problems with Caltech directly relates to Feynman and allegations of sexism that was put against him. I'd take a look in Gleick's book but I don't have it available. I find it confusing and I don't understand how it relates to the rest of the segment. Kxxvii (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

It covers many points. It places Feynman's attitudes in the context of the time and the institution at which he worked, which was a sexist one. That Feynman came out on La Belle's side surprised many, and demonstrated that his attitudes were more nuanced than some of his critics contend, and that they may indeed have changed over time. Rather than list many incidents, the article presents one; that their relationship began with Feynman unashamedly perving at her, and went on to him gaining an appreciation of her work, and defending her right to be considered an equal, to the surprise of many. Which goes beyond her sex; many physicists are dismissive of the humanities. And too, I found La Belle's comments on his book, the way that Feynman injected deliberate grammatical errors in order to burnish the image he was creating, enlightening. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard Feynman. 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, 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) 07:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

All of physics

The claim that "From his diagrams of a few particles interacting in spacetime, Feynman could model all of physics" appears to have been added, unsourced, with this edit in 2004. The source that has just been added was published in 2007 and looks like it was copied from wikipedia, particularly with its strange use of plurals. TwoTwoHello (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hm, good find. We should get an older source. I do recall having read something along these lines some 3 or 4 decades ago, but it's pretty vague... - DVdm (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I think we are both agreed the current source is no good, so I propose restoring the citation needed in the hope that one can be found before the article returns to the main page as TFA. TwoTwoHello (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The sentence is dubious, and the Feynman diagrams are discussed elsewhere in the article, so I have removed it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Hawkeye7: 'Original preferred' is not a good reason to bulk-revert several constructive edits – that sounds like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Can you please elaborate on what your objections are to having overall more proportionate thumbnails, a comma after the opening of a sentence, and information about the circumstances of Feynman's death grouped more logically? --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The thumbnails are in the default size specified the user's config and best left to that (MOS:IMGSIZE). The order of the information about death is consensus at FAC, which was to have the last words should come last. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Happy 100th

Wonderful to see Feynman on Wikipedia's front page on his 100th birthday, and of course it's such a fantastic article too. :) -- Pingumeister(talk) 10:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Many editors put in a lot of work to get the article to featured status again, and a special fiat was required, as it had already appeared on the front page in 2004. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I was so excited to see Feynman featured today. He's a huge inspiration to me and I hope his love of learning will continue to inspire others. Golden Winged (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Jewish categories

The article is today's featured article, and is attracting a lot of new editors, one of whom re-added the category "Jewish physicist." I thought I remembered there had been consensus not to use that category, after a long talk page discussion. Here is a shorter summary with a link to the longer one: Talk:Richard_Feynman/Archive_3#Jewish_categories. Feynman wrote a letter explaining why he did not want to be included in lists of "Jewish" achievers, which you can read here. I believe that past consensus was that this article should honor Feynman's preference. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for removing it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

We don't want to crop Edward Teller out of the image

Is this the royal we? Is Teller in both pictures? Should he be identified in the captions? I am not sure why another editor wanted to enlarge the images but increasing the focus on Feynman could be the reason, they are a little cluttered.—User-duck (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

There are plenty of other physicist articles that need attention if you want to work on one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Not if my edits get reverted for no reason.—User-duck (talk)
P.S. Questions – 3; Answers – 0—User-duck (talk)
P.P.S. @Hawkeye7:, You added an "inconsistent" citation. I had it fixed. There is a Bot that might tag this article with {{inconsistent citations}} User-duck (talk) 07:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay, so here's a question for you then: if we were to include a mathematical formula in the article, what would be the most appropriate? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Not sure what the questions is, I assume you are talking about citing a source. If the formula was transcribed from a book, it would be a book cite; a journal, a journal cite; etc. Wikipedia is not an appropriate source. If you derived the formula, it would be "original research" (WP:NOR). Applying a formula might be "original research". I and some other editors had a interesting debate about using a website ("HORIZONS Web-Interface". Solar System Dynamics Group. JPL.) to construct a table of velocities of comets at a distance. Another, rather simple calculation was even questioned (a note was used to show details of the arithmetic). Of course, I discovered a simple conversion that was incorrect in a different article. I have gotten some useful info from the Wikipedia:Help desk. I know, more than you wanted. User-duck (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why "we don't want to crop Edward Teller out of the image" or even how either version of that black and white photo of men in grey adds much to this article. Can a better one be found? Jonathunder (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of the image of the super conference is not to show what Feynman looked like at the time, which is illustrated by the id photo, but to show him with other distinguished physicists mentioned in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Personal and political life - unnecessary text

I would like to remove the second half of the following sentence (everything after the "and"): "Feynman spent several weeks in Rio de Janeiro in July 1949 and brought back a woman called Clotilde from Copacabana who lived with him in Ithaca for a time." This is on the basis that a surname for Clotilde isn't specified and so we have no way of knowing who she is. And also because, so what that he brought a woman back from Rio?

I would also like to delete the following sentence: "As well as the cold weather, there was also the Cold War." This is on the basis that the sentence doesn't sound encyclopedic. Also, the reference to the cold weather doesn't sound relevant. Also, so what that there was the cold war?

Any objections? Zin92 (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Fine with me, for the reasons given. - DVdm (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. The first is important because Feynman would later repeat this. As noted below, it was illegal. And it goes to the fact that he did not lead a bachelor life for the whole time, and to a pattern in his treatment of women, which would later affect his career in significant ways. The cold weather was his ostensible reason for the decision to move to Brazil, and later California, and so it is very important. The Cold War is crucial. At this time, physics and politics were not considered separate, and physicists came under suspicion, leading to the Oppenheimer Security hearing. As the article notes, Feynman's wartime friend Fuchs was revealed to be a Soviet spy, and physicists like David Bohm fled to Brazil. This was an important consideration in Feynman's own move to Brazil. Without the sentences you suggest removing, the reader will not know reasons for the move to Brazil (cold weather and Cold War). Let me remind you of the rules: While some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough for something to be deleted. This may be coupled with (or replaced by) the unexplained claim that they feel that the information is "unencyclopedic". Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Hawkeye7. I appreciate you spending the time to provide the above explanation.
Just to respond re the rules first, it's not that I dislike the information; rather, it's that I don't see that it's relevant to include it. Given the above explanation, its inclusion makes more sense. That said...
Was bringing Clotilde to Ithaca illegal? If so, can we add text to this effect to the article? Do we have a surname for her? If not, would it be better to omit her first name?
Re the cold weather, I have now seen the reference in a previous section to Feynman pining for a warmer climate than Ithaca. However just stating "cold weather" in the Personal and Political Life section and nothing else seems to rely on the reader knowing that Brazil will be much hotter and working out that Feyman would therefore have moved there for reasons including the warmer climate. Can we change the article to be more explicit on this point?
Similarly, can we add a more specific reference to the cold war encouraging Feynman's move to Brazil? For example, "A girlfriend told Feynman that he should consider moving to South America" - why?; because of the cold war?
BTW, my use of the word "encyclopedic" was informal; I wasn't aware of any rules relating to this. All I was trying to say was that the language sounded a bit casual and I didn't think that it fitted with the usual tone of a Wikipedia article.
While I'm at it, please let me pick up on another sentence: "That this sort of behavior was illegal was not overlooked; Feynman had a friend, Matthew Sands, act as her sponsor". I'm struggling to understand this sentence. Why was the behaviour illegal? Who didn't overlook it? The use of the semi-colon in the sentence seems to imply that the Matthew Sands acting as a sponsor is somehow related to the illegal behaviour, or the overlooking of the same, but I can't see the connection.
Regards Zin92 (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
This was quaintly called "trafficking of foreign women for immoral purposes", an offense under the Mann Act (which should be linked). I sourced it to two biographies. Sands was quite open about his part, as was Gweneth. I have no objection to leaving Clothide's name out per WP:BLP. The girlfriend advised Feynman that he should consider moving to South America on account of the political climate; physicists were being sacked. As the article relates, Feynman was under suspicion by the FBI, and other physicists had fled to Brazil; as the article notes, he spent time with Bohm there. We know that this was the reason he started thinking about Brazil, but not that it was the reason he went. Feynman claimed that the decision to move to Brazil, and then California, was on account of the actual climate, not the political climate, but the biographers agree that he had become frustrated that at Cornell because Bethe would always be the premier physicist there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Support No objection to "spent several weeks in Rio" but object to trivia that he "brought back a woman named Clotilde" as per WP:BALASP: "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." If it is important to establish RF's treatment of women, then find and cite a WP:RS describing RF's treatment of women; don't just invite readers to speculate based on innuendo. Similarly for Cold War (a major influence on physics in mid-20th-century). "Cold weather .. Cold War" is elegant and poetic but WP:SYNTH without RS to cite for either or both. Hawkeye7 is doing a great job maintaining this article, so I hope it will be rare for me to disagree with him, but in this case I do. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
The entire article is reliably sourced, and, as noted above, was not an isolated incident. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, it was not an isolated incident. But this era of his "treatment of women" is already clear from the article: "By 1949, Feynman was becoming restless at Cornell. He never settled into a particular house or apartment, living in guest houses or student residences, or with married friends "until these arrangements became sexually volatile."[102] He liked to date undergraduates, hire prostitutes, and sleep with the wives of friends.[103]" Nobody reading this would have the false impression that he led "a bachelor life for the whole time." I think there is already plenty of information about his sex life in Cornell. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. I have removed the sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Which Minsk?

The claim that Mel Feynman was born in Minsk, Belarus can be found in several sources, none of them to my knowledge primary. But there is some evidence that he was actually from the smaller Minsk ("Mińsk Mazowiecki") in Poland. In 1921, Lewis Feynman, Mel's father, applied for a passport with the stated purpose of visiting his mother in Poland. Lewis Feynman stated that he was born in "Minsk, Russia" in 1865, which is ambiguous because in 1865 the Russian Empire included both the Polish and Belarusian Minsks. But in 1921, the date of the passport application, Mińsk Mazowiecki was ruled by Poland, while the larger and better-known Belarusian Minsk was ruled by Soviet Russia and had been since 1919. On an earlier passport application, Lewis states he sailed to the US from the port of Stettin (present-day Szczecin), Poland. It could be that Lewis's mother had moved from Belarusian Minsk to Poland, and that Lewis traveled over land from Belarusian Minsk to Stettin before sailing. Or, it could be that the Feynmans were actually from Polish Mińsk Mazowiecki and the information about Belarusian Minsk was an understandable error, as Belarusian Minsk is so much larger and well known that most people then and now would assume any reference to Minsk refers to the Belarusian one. 72.224.17.146 (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

That's very interesting, but in order to change the article, I need a source for this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The 1921 application can be found here: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-L961-M99X-J?i=39&cc=2185145

and the earlier 1906 application can be found here: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-L9DZ-S396?i=512&cc=2185145

On reading it again, he states on the 1906 app that he was born in "[..], Minsk, Russia-Poland". The [..] is a little garbled but looks a whole lot like "Maswick" to me. I think that just about seals it as being Minsk Mazowiecki in Poland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:E787:6F00:612F:5801:BC50:7C51 (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Great primary sources; now it would be even better if we had a secondary sources that takes these passport applications and makes the conclusion that Mel Feynman's family was indeed hailing from the Polish Minsk. Any luck finding such a source? — JFG talk 09:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Interesting detective work, but WP:RS that mention it specify Minsk in Belarus, e.g. [6][7] HouseOfChange (talk) 10:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

He was Jewish. Please do not rewrite history

Richard Feynman never asked not to be mentioned as Jewish.

All he said was that mentioning the fact that many significant scientists are/were Jewish might encourage some antisemitic sentiments.

Not mentioning the fact that he was Jewish, is rewriting the history.

Also, I have a feeling that those who deleted his name from Category:Jewish physicists are not exactly jew-lovers.

טחינה (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

You are mistaken that he never asked not to be mentioned as Jewish. See talk section above Talk:Richard_Feynman#Jewish_categories. The article about him clearly states that his parents were Lithuanian Jews. Please WP:AGF that others besides you are trying to make Wikipedia a good place with accurate information. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Please check the talk page archives, for instance: Talk:Richard Feynman/Archive 2#Categories for this article and Talk:Richard Feynman/Archive 3#Jewish categories. And regarding your last sentence, please assume good faith from the other editors here—see wp:AGF. - DVdm (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
An encyclopedia should reflect the reality. He was Jewish, so this fact must be stated clearly/explicitly. טחינה (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Reading Talk:Richard Feynman/Archive 2#Categories for this article and Talk:Richard Feynman/Archive 3#Jewish categories takes more than 2 minutes. Doing so can help you understand how the consensus about this came about—see wp:CONSENSUS. - DVdm (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Things sometimes "creep in" so would someone look at the "Further reading" and "External links" for possible integration or trimming? With exceptions 3 to 5 (four to five as possible exceptions) seems to be a "reasonable number", and certainly there can be "exceptions" for relevant links, but 23 links in the "Further reading" and "External links" seems overly excessive looking like link farming. Otr500 (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

It is a fairly long article, and there is indeed much further-reading about the subject. I don't think that much crept in since the featured status of the article was re-instated, so I really see no problem in this case. - DVdm (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I just looked at them - with few exceptions, bluelinks are involved, so I don't think it's excessive, and the majority of exlinks seem to be ISBN/OCLC numbers. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
And procedures that apply to most articles don't necessarily apply to all articles. Some topics are bigger. Johnuniq (talk) 00:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Feynman's Work on Gravitation

According to the Preface of Feynman's Lectures on Gravitation, written by John Preskill and Kip Thorne, Feynman actually achieved a little more than deriving Einstein's field equations of general relativity from the appropriate quantum field theory. Some of his views are outdated or naive, while others prescient. Nerd271 (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Darker aspects of Feynman's personality

I don't really share some of the attitude or assessment expressed in this article, but it nevertheless contains some points, that probably should be mentioned here (probably based on additional sourcing though):

https://thebaffler.com/outbursts/surely-youre-a-creep-mr-feynman-mcneill

--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

With regards to his general sexist views, I think that waiting a bit for future reporting around the issue will be illuminating and useful as this is the first time he has come under scrutiny for his sexist views as a whole. On the other hand, I support more specifically referencing the allegations of abuse by his second wife when discussing their marriage/divorce. This could be addressed by adding something along the lines of "She alleged that he became suddenly and physically violent when she unwittingly disturbed him during his calculus or drum playing." either after the sentence on them quarreling or before the sentence on the reason for the divorce. For reference, the most direct references of the abuse allegations appear on page 64 of the FBI's file on Feynman at https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/fbi-files-on-richard-feynman-1165/#file-4617 --CLPond (talk) 05:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)CLPond
I just made the line-edit clarifying "violent temper" CLPond (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)CLPond
We have stringent rules about sourcing for contentious material in BLPs. Per WP:BLPREMOVE, I have removed your addition of a paraphrase of an alleged FBI report published on somebody's blog. Also we rarely use primary sources such as FBI reports. Also, the file clearly states that claims he was violent were made by his first wife, as part of her filing asking for a divorce from him, not by his second wife, as you claimed in your edit, which I removed. If you search the Feynman article you will see it already mentions the claim by his first wife that he had a "violent" temper. 15:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Since Richard Feynman has been dead for 40 years, this no longer qualifies as a Biography of a Living Person (Wikipedia:BDP). This same Freedom Of Information Act documents are the basis for a different citation in this article [118] and the specific allegations of sudden violence also appear in multiple secondary sources, so those can be referenced instead (although, WP:PRIMARY does not have a problem with reputable primary sources). I am not aware of any allegations by Feynman's first wife, who did not divorce him but instead died of tuberculosis, and the "violent temper" allegation referenced in the article is clearly by his second wife (who did divorce him). Is your concern specifically around BLP guidelines? If so, I don't see a reason for the issue with clarifying "violent temper" (given Feynman is not alive) CLPond (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)CLPond
You are correct, the allegations are from his second wife, who divorced him. I was confused between his second wife, who made lots of accusations against him, and his third wife, with whom he raised two children and lived in harmony for many years. Again, the "violent temper" is already in the article and there is no need to add it a second time. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Steven Hsu is not a psychologist

There are multiple lines of indirect evidence suggesting Feynman's IQ was indeed in 120 range, as he tested. I Removed arcane opinion from referenced individual who is not licensed in psychology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1030:2070:5D3C:41ED:E55E:F847 (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Steve Hsu is not a nobody? You seem to be claiming that he "doesn't know what he's talking about"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
The cited source is a blog and deserves to be removed. Attic Salt (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
The word "blog" appears in the URL. But it's an interview with Hsu published by Psychology Today. Is that not an WP:RS source? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
The passage is clearly identified as the opinion of "physicist Steven Hsu." It is not misleading; in fact it clearly explains the reasoning behind his opinion. I think this material is an interesting and relevant addition to the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Seems a lot of IQ-fetishism prevails among editors. Citing a random 'opinion' doesn't mean it's well placed. Steven Hsu is not someone who is qualified to discuss the IQ of individuals. If you find an opinion from a cognitive scientist or licensed psychologist, they will quite likely justify his IQ - citing his difficulty in learning 'abstract' subjects (as Feynman admitted himself - though he, ultimately, produced significant abstract ideas himself), and his poor use of language, in general. A 120-ish IQ is rare, but has been documented among Noble Laureates. Both Francis Crick and James Watson self-reported IQ's under 130 (Crick -115, Watson- 124). Someone who is a relevant expert on IQ and related achievement knows that that level IQ is high enough to solve world-class problems.....Steven Hsu is not regarded as an expert in psychology or cognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1030:2070:9850:8D60:FE54:1144 (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Your opinion has been noted. If there is a consensus among other editors agreeing with you, the material will be removed from the article. For that reason, it would be better to try to convince others of your point of view rather than attacking editors who disagree. If you continue to edit war by removing it yourself, you will be blocked from editing. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Actually I tend to agree with IP in that I see little value in the quote by Steven Hsiu, as it is purely speculative remark (the IQ test might have been verbal) and otherwise just pointing out Feynman's intellecual achievements the article mentions anyway. Moreover other than the anectdotal point/trivia aspect of Feynman presumably not having a MENSA level IQ, his IQ is not really of encyclopedic interest, hence devoting that much text and a quote to it might be considered undue. However imho the whole issue is less a question about the validity of the involved source but rather about editorial discretion. With regard to that and to decide what's due or undue the sources one could look to for guidance would be reputable Feynman biographies. How much content/attention they spend on the IQ issue might provide an orientation to the article. Individual articles or opinions solely dealing with Feynman's IQ won't provide that, no matter whether they are by a physicist, psychologist or cognitive scientist.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
That's a very sensible suggestion. Although I have to say that while one might wish to limit observations to psychologists or cognitive scientists on the design of IQ tests, I don't see why any well-educated person should be precluded from being quoted, simply because they are not regarded as an "IQ expert". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I have no objection to the IQ test being completely removed, as it strikes me as pretty meaningless when discussing adults, but strongly object to the rest of the Hsiu quote being removed. Only the first sentence is about the IQ test, the rest provides a fascinating insight into Feynman's abilities. TwoTwoHello (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
That part about his abilities/achievements as a student could also be seemlessly integrated into the text without quote using Hsiu just as regular source for content rather than a quote.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The quote is not there merely as a comment on IQ tests. It give us an insight into Feynman's undergraduate notebooks, his way of thinking, and his attitudes and abilities according to someone who knew him well. It tells us a bit more about the Putnam and Princeton admission. Feynman's IQ is of encyclopaedic interest. (Although, in typical Feynman fashion, the precise score is less important than its impact.) Many readers, like Feynman, have been given an IQ score and wondered what it meant. Feynman thought it was nonsense, and it may have contributed to his disdain for psychology. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Feynman's IQ (not the score so much, but the implications of the test itself) is of encyclopaedic interest because it generates questions about Feynman's intellectual ability in various areas. This is illustrated well in the quote from Hsu, which is presented in the article clearly as the opinion of a fellow physicist, rather than of a psychologist. I see no problem. -- Pingumeister(talk) 22:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Richard Feynman on the Talmud

There is a part of this article that states that he considered the Talmud to be a wonderful book--probably out of a cursory examination of it. The reference to prove it does not point to the actual quote. https://books.google.com/books?id=7papZR4oVssC&dq=0393019217&q=284#v=onepage&q=284&f=false only has the pages surrounding it, but http://www.mamaland.org/2012/07/richard-feynman-on-talmud-fire.html has the quote. Page 285: "The Talmud is a wonderful book, a great, big potpourri of things: trivial questions, and difficult questions- for example, problems of teachers, and how to teach- and then some trivia again, and so on." I would add that reference but knowing how anal Wikipedians are I will not; it is a blog or something. It is very unlikely that the author of that post had the actual text from the book then made up stuff in the middle. --NoToleranceForIntolerance (talk)

The section has been updated to more faithfully reflect this passage from Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman:

Since I have a Jewish background, I knew of some of the things they told me about the Talmud, but I had never seen the Talmud. It was very interesting. It’s got big pages, and in a little square in the corner of the page is the original Talmud, and then in a sort of L-shaped margin, all around this square, are commentaries written by different people. The Talmud has evolved, and everything has been discussed again and again, all very carefully, in a medieval kind of reasoning. I think the commentaries were shut down around the thirteen– or fourteen– or fifteen-hundreds — there hasn’t been any modern commentary. The Talmud is a wonderful book, a great, big potpourri of things: trivial questions, and difficult questions — for example, problems of teachers, and how to teach — and then some trivia again, and so on.

I only have a digital copy of the book with no page numbering, I'm afraid, but I believe the current reference is still correct. -- Pingumeister(talk) 22:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

There's not a lot on his history of mistreating women (or at least his views on such)

Only a couple of passing mentions: "By 1949, Feynman was becoming restless at Cornell. He never settled into a particular house or apartment, living in guest houses or student residences, or with married friends "until these arrangements became sexually volatile."[102] He liked to date undergraduates, hire prostitutes, and sleep with the wives of friends." Also, "The publication of the book brought a new wave of protest about Feynman's attitude toward women. There had been protests over his alleged sexism in 1968, and again in 1972." Further, "It did not help that Jenijoy La Belle, who had been hired as Caltech's first female professor in 1969, was refused tenure in 1974. She filed suit with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which ruled against Caltech in 1977, adding that she had been paid less than male colleagues. La Belle finally received tenure in 1979. Many of Feynman's colleagues were surprised that he took her side. He had got to know La Belle and both liked and admired her." is written in such a way that it mitigates any reference to his history of abuse and sexual misconduct. There is also no reference to claims of abuse by this ex-wife. Details:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.52.26 (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Please be bold, add content to the article and reference it or make specific suggestions on what you want to add and where. This area is not a general discussion forum to voice your opinion on the subject of the article. Lexlex (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Having just taken a look at the article, I have to agree it seems to downplay Feynman's reported sexism, which judging by contemporary accounts was pretty infamous. I've at least made a start by moving the lines quoted above about Jenijoy Labelle to the section about his academic career; they're not about his book, but seem to have been placed there to counter accusations of misogyny. Robofish (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
What you did was attempt to get the whole accusatory paragraph deleted by moving the lines quoted above without the accompanying footnote so it became unsourced. I have restored the footnote. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm inclined to believe that it was an accident, honestly. Accidentally moving a reference out of a paragraph when restructuring is a mistake I've made a few times. -- Pingumeister(talk) 18:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The issue highlighted in this section is a severe deficiency in the quality of this article, where it appears that there has been reluctance to (or perhaps, sanitization of) negative info about Feynman. Which is particularly curious, considering how Feynman displayed no such inhibition toward discussing these topics himself, devoting more than an entire chapter in his published writings.

Whatever the reason is behind why this article was not covering this topic in a thorough way, this most recent edit here has now included a paragraph in the lede, supported by extensive references, including ones presented by the OP of this Talk section.

This is an issue which merits a dedicated section within the body of this article. One suggestion for the new section title is "Criticism". Or perhaps "Mistreatment of women". I will leave it to other editors here on how best to deal with this major NPOV shortcoming. -- Tdadamemd19 (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation +

Wow! I came avisiting to talk about physics, and about how Dick and Joan said their surname. I guess I'll come back in a few years. ragity (talk) 05:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The “You Just Ask Them” chapter of "Surely You’re Joking”

I have corrected the section on Feynman’s contentious “You Just Ask Them” chapter from his book “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman”. In particular:

  • No where in the chapter does he call a woman a “bitch” to her face. He internally thought of women as being bitches as part of his (as we would call it today) pick-up strategy.
  • The entire “You’re worse than a whore” line has been hideously misquoted here; when using the word whore, he was not attacking a woman for being sexually promiscuous. He was expressing his anger, in a very crude (and, yes, demeaning) way after this lady had deceived Feynman. She had him buy sandwiches with the promise that they would eat them together, but then later saying they couldn’t eat them because she was seeing another man that evening. Just using the “whore” word without summarizing the entire story is rather inaccurate.
  • Some of the references about this chapter and what it says are blog postings, which are not reliable sources as per Wikipedia policy.

Also:

  • The 1960s/1970s protests really belong in the section about his years at Caltech, so I have moved them there, in addition to more accurately quoting that old 1999 Caltech article.

On a personal level, I felt this chapter was out of place and did not belong in the book when I read it back in 1985, but, since it has been brought up and misquoted a lot, we should strive to be accurate in how we represent what Feynman actually said when he told this story.

Samboy (talk) 07:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Feynman/Archive_3&oldid=1137156929"