Talk:Enrico Fermi/Archive 1

The examination for the admission to the Scuola Normale Superiore
The sentence:

"For his essay on the given theme Characteristics of Sound, 17-year-old Fermi chose to derive and solve the Fourier analysis based partial differential equation for waves on a string."

is not completely true. Fermi solved a much more difficult problem as I tried to show here. Within the article you'll find further references to the original manuscript (in Italian) and a tentative translation. Maybe someone could reword the sentence - I'm not a native English speaker, and I don't dare to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.83.90.186 (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Fermi's Nationality
Ferni have to be considered as an American Italian scientist because as it's indicated he was a citizen of the US from 1944 to 1954. --Arash Eb (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Fermi (not Ferni) was not just "born" in Italy. He was educated in Italy, spent 70% of his life there, and obtained in Italy his biggest scientific achievements, which gained him the Nobel. He was an Italian physicist who emigrated to America and naturalized as a US citizen late in his life. --87.28.141.207 (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Fermi --Davide41 (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed text
I removed:
 * Fermi was an extremely practical physicist. His ability and success stemmed as much from his appraisal of the art of the possible, as from his innate skill and intelligence. He disliked complicated theories, and while he had great mathematical ability, he would never use it when the job could be done much more simply. He was famous for getting quick and accurate answers to problems which would stump other people. The best instance of this was seen during the first atomic bomb test in New Mexico on July 16, 1945. As the first sounds of the blast reached his ears, Fermi got up and threw up bits of paper in the air. By measuring the distance at which they -- landed, he could immediately calculate how many tons of TNT the test was equivalent to. It was -characteristic of him, that when the detailed results from the complicated instruments came in a few days later, they agreed very well with his estimation. It is a measure of the man's concentration that he managed to focus at a moment when even the most hardened men's souls were stirred from the enormity of the spectacle they had witnessed.


 * Fermi's most disarming trait was his great modesty, and his ability to do any kind of work, whether creative or routine. It was this quality that made him popular and liked among people of all strata, from other Nobel Laureates to technicians. Henry DeWolf Smyth, who was Chairman of the Princeton Physics department, had once invited Fermi over to do some experiments with the Princeton cyclotron. Walking into the lab one day, Smyth saw the distinguished scientist helping a graduate student move a table, under another student's directions! Another time, a Du Pont executive made a visit to see him at Columbia. Not finding him either in his lab or his office, the executive was surprised to find the NobelLaureate in the machine shop, cutting sheets of tin with a big pair of shears. Whatever the job was, for Fermi, it had to be done.

It isn't encyclopedic, neutral point of view, and is loaded with ridiculous peacock terms, and a lot of these stories (and their interpretations) sound very apocryphal. If someone wants to put in that he used bits of paper to make a very rough estimate of the blast force during the Trinity Test, and that he often did much physical labor himself, that's fine, but making it a case of Fermi being able to concentrate when "even the most hardened men's souls were stirred" and "whatever the job was, for Fermi, it had to be done" is just lame, I'm afraid. I like Fermi as much as the next guy but the entry should speak for itself. If you want to say that Fermi was smart and modest, find a quote from someone else saying it. The voice of the editor(s) should be detached and neutral. See Avoid peacock terms. --Fastfission 00:36, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Glad you removed that " writing". Painful. (Not that I want to discourage anyone from participating in wikipedia; continue to contribute, we can fix it.) FYI the story with the paper is true, although I thought it was someone else; I'd have to look it up. The idea was when the blast wave (not "sound") hit where he stood, the distance horizontally a scrap would float is related to the energy release of blast.67.118.116.88 05:14, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fermi was regarded as the only physicist of the twentieth century who truly excelled both theorectically and experimentally.

This opinion really needs some sort of attribution to be meaningful; I very much doubt there's enough agreement on something as subjective as "truly excelled both theoretically and experimentally" for this to be presented as a general consensus. In the meantime, I've nerfed back to "one of the few", since that better acknowledges the subjectivity of this judgement. --Calair 22:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's just one of the many exaggerated phrases in this article. I've started to clean up some of this text but I realized that as it was I'd need to get a few book references first, as the current entry has more about Fermi's little brother than it does about his work in Rome on fission, much less the fact that he fled Italy because of the anti-Jewish laws, so a simple cleanup won't really do much. Sigh. --Fastfission 23:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok guys, before you make any more reverts, let me give you a few references. Why don't you take a look at them and then come back? 1. Enrico Fermi- Hummel (Forgot the first name) 2. Atoms in the family- Laura Fermi 3. Enrico Fermi: Physicist- Emilio Segre 4. The Physicists- C. P. Snow 5. Enrico Fermi-Audio biography on the Fermilab webpage, University of Chicago. Since there WERE a few physicists who did both theoretical work and experimental work, that is precisely the reason I used the phrase 'truly excelled'. Find me one example of a twentieth century physicist who did theoretical and experimental work, both of the calibre which Fermi did. An exaggeration ceases to be an exaggeration if it is supported by fact, common consensus, and by the work of scholarship.--Ashujo, 8 Feb 2005
 * There were an entire host of physicists in the 20th century who "truly excelled both theoretically and experimentally." Posting names of Fermi biographies hardly proves that there were none others than Fermi. Why don't you post a page number in any of those books which says that Fermi was the only physicist who did so? Come on, I dare you. Let's see it. Let's see the "common consensus" by historians and scholars. Real scholars know better than to make absolute statements. Let's see a quote. Let's change it on the page to, "According to the well-respected historian X, 'Fermi is etc.'" You get us the quote, and we'll do that, and everybody's purposes will be solved: you'll get your little props for Fermi, we'll get our encyclopedic entry.


 * A proposal: Instead of quibbling over your little POV hagiographic terms, why don't you make yourself useful&mdash;if you're so well-read on Fermi&mdash;by writing a better entry on him? The current one is short, has nothing about his experiments in the late 1930s which lead to fission, has nothing about the scientific and political context in which he worked, barely anything on his pile at Chicago, barely anything about his other work for the Manhattan Project, and has nothing but cheeky anecdotes about his life and work from 1945 until his death. Then work over the sentences until they flow like a nice narrative, the sort of thing you'd see in a professional publication. You'll make yourself a thousand times more useful to this project if you'd contributed half as much text to articles as you've posted in little rants on Talk and User pages about how your favorite "fun fact" was removed from an article by an editor. You claim to know it all but you don't really contribute all that much in terms of substance. --Fastfission 03:08, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sure. You should give me some time for that though, because I wouldn't want to make the article sound trivial. And FYI, there are many things in the article which I have NOT posted. And I definitely will give you a reference. On your part, why don't you give me the names of five twentieth century physicists, among the 'host of physicists' that you know, who excelled in theory and experiment to the same calibre that Fermi did? And by the way, with due respect, reflect back on some of the statements you have made and you will understand that one can make a good case for YOU appearing as the head of the 'know it all' bandwagon. For a start, listen to the Fermi audio biography on the University of Chicago's website at http://www-news.uchicago.edu/fermi/resources.html. It is clearly mentioned that he was the ONLY physicist of the twentieth century to excel in both theory and experiment. Of course, you can argue about the authenticity of the source, but then so can I about yours. That is pointless. I will be back with more references. And I am still not sure you understand that what I am saying is NOT a hagiographical POV. An example; if someone makes the statement, "Einstein was the most famous physicist of the twentieth century", it's hardly a hagiographical biased POV--Ashujo 9 Feb, 2005


 * But "the only" is a much stronger and more subjective claim than "the best". If somebody claimed "Einstein was the only truly famous physicist of the twentieth century", that assuredly would be hagiography.
 * You've claimed Fermi was the only physicist to truly excel in theory and experiment; now, as disproof, you're asking for *five* physicists who were as good, which is an excessive requirement. Disproof only takes one, and that one doesn't have to be as good as Fermi - only good enough for a good number of people to describe them as 'excelling'. And since 'excellence' can't be measured, and the stringency of the word varies greatly from one use to another, that's an easy requirement to meet; most of the physicists who've won Nobel Prizes will qualify in many physicists' eyes.
 * So we have to throw in 'truly', used to mean 'by some unspecified standard that would make the rest of this sentence less subjective if revealed'. The result is as meaningful as saying "Javier Sotomayor is the only man who can truly jump a high-jump bar".
 * If you want to quote the UC's biography, go ahead, but attribute it to them. That way, people can see the context of the quote and judge potential biases for themselves. --Calair 21:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See, I can construct a statement about Einstein using "the only" and it need not necessarily be hagiography. For example, "Einstein was perhaps the only physicist of the twentieth century who attained the highest pinnacle of being a scientist-celebrity".


 * To me, that still seems like hagiography. Einstein was certainly not the only scientist-celebrity - Richard Feynman also achieved that status. Both were successful scientists; both became celebrities even to people who didn't understand the science. Einstein may have been *more* of a celebrity than Feynman, but he wasn't unique in his status as a scientist-celebrity, just the most successful at it. Creating an artificial "highest pinnacle" to make Einstein unique is hagiographic, because it doesn't help to educate the reader; the only thing that does is to make it sound as if this status was unique, which it isn't. "Of all 20th-century physicists, Einstein was the greatest celebrity" imparts just as much information, without creating an imaginary category just to make him sound unique. (Admittedly, anything like "greatest celebrity" is a subjective judgement, but in this particular case I don't think it's likely to provoke argument.) --Calair 00:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, what you have said in the last line is EXACTLY what I have been saying for so long and I totally agree with you on that. Let us attribute specific statements to specific sources. Then let people decide how much to trust those statements. There is nothing wrong in quoting a seemingly superlative statement, provided that its source is more or less authoritative and can be precisely acertained. Then, let the people decide how much to get carried away by it. If they want to convert the scientist into a saint, it's their problem, not ours. And let me ask you to sincerely make a personal judgement. Consider the following discoveries of Fermi: theory of beta decay, Fermi-Dirac statistics, the discovery of slow neutrons, and the first self-sustained nuclear chain reaction (among others). In all honesty, in its scope and importance, I don't think that such a combination has been paralleled by anyone in the twentieth century. I cannot even think of ONE physicist. Anyway, I will definitely attribute the quotes and statements (maybe we can add 'perhaps' to it).--Ashujo, 9 Feb 2005.


 * As a personal judgement, I think it's a very impressive list; while I'm not sure I could rank it above Einstein's work on relativity, I'm not going to tell somebody else they're wrong for doing so. (And if I really had to answer for that judgement, I'd want to read up more on Fermi's work than I have done.) But if I can look at those achievements, and make that personal judgement, so can anybody else who reads this article. The facts speak for themselves. --Calair 00:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Come on, you cited five books as a response to being doubted that you had a real source for it. Give some page numbers! Surely you can do better at convincing me that this isn't an act of hagiography than a press piece audiobook called To Fermi With Love. I have to say, it feels to me like you're just throwing out titles to stifle discussion. I'm fine with a "perhaps." I'd be happier with an attributable quote. But if you're going to insist on "widely regarded" and "the only" then I'm going to have to ask you to come out with the references. After all, if the sentiment is so common, it shouldn't be a problem, right? And I eagerly await your efforts on making this a decent encyclopedia entry. --Fastfission 21:52, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK. You have to give me some time, as I hope you can understand that we are all busy in real life. I WILL give some page numbers, you can bank on it. I trust the UC audio biography by the way. It's not just a press piece audiobook, as it also contains testimonies from scores of well-known scientists. But anyway, I appreciate the fact that solid book references are more authoritative. Looking forward to making this a good entry (and hoping that deletion will not be an excessively delightful pastime for all of us)- Ashujo, 9 Feb 2005.

OK! I got a reference for 'the only'. See C. P. Snow's 'The Physicists', p.79. More to come soon.-Ashujo Feb 14, 2005


 * I think it would be great to add the actual quote from C. P. Snow. To quote his opinion as fact in an encyclopedia, even with a reference, is unwise and completely unnecessary. Andrewa 21:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The First Nuclear Reactor was at The University of Chicago
The article gives the impression that the first nuclear reactor was built at Columbia. This is untrue. It was built in the squash courts under the bleachers of Stagg Field at the University of Chicago. Further, the article gives the impression that most of Fermi's work in the United States was at Columbia. I do not know what proportion of his time was spent at each university, but it is certainly the case that he was deeply involved with the physics department at the University of Chicago. I will defer to somebody who knows more completely the details of Fermi's life, but as it stands now the article is misleading at best. Peter 05:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Fermi designed and built the nuclear pile at Columbia but, before it was integrated with other equipment and tested, the government moved the Manhattan Project to Chicago. The apparatus was assembled and run for the first time under the Stagg Field bleachers.


 * Prof. Fermi was on the Columbia faculty from 1939 to 1945 (he also was a visiting prof. a few years earlier), and then taught at Chicago until shortly before his death in 1954. He thus spent more time at Chicago.  He also must have spent considerable time developing the bomb at Chicago before formally moving there, but I don't know whether he divided his time between the two universities or if he was on leave from Columbia.  I am not qualified to assess the relative importance of the work he did at each university.

Another Misleading Infobox
The present article on Fermi has another misleading infobox. He was Italian; he spent most of his life in Italy; his Nobel Prize was for work done in Italy. But for some inexplicable reason the present infobox features two US flags and only one Italian flag. It's not the first weird infobox I found - the one of Einstein used to be even worse! Is somebody systematically spin-doctoring infoboxes of immigrant scientists? I'll try to correct this. Physicists 20:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed image
Image:EnricoFermistamp.jpg I removed this image and reverted the original. As it was, it was very jarring to have two images in the head of an article and very non-Wikipedia looking. I don't really care which image is used by they are similar enough than having both is just nonsensical. I don't think it's worth an article looking very odd to point out that the chalkboard error is on the postage stamp (they're obviously from the same photo session, so I don't find it that amazing. It is not an error that most people would know or care about.). --Fastfission 17:16, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I switched this one in for the other one. It's bigger, has some color. I don't find the "wrong equation" all that exciting, which was all the other one (Image:Enrico_Fermi.png) really had going for it, and it's a fairly washed out image. --Fastfission 23:47, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Good work man.-- Procrastinating@ talk2me 16:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

John Pasta?
Didn't he do extensive work with John Pasta on the computing of the nuclear reactor? Ulam got a mention, but I can't find anything about John Pasta around here.

Fermi's Nobel prize
I am taking out the latest added paragraph, which makes it sound as if Fermi's prize-winning discoveries were not validated. I think the contributor is mistaking Fermi's production of new radioactive isotopes (a true fact) with his alleged production of a transuranic element, a discovery which he himself denied, but which was unfortunately leaked by Prof. Corbino. Later, the statement about the discovery was retracted (In her book, Fermi's wife recounts how extremely disturbed Fermi was by this false announcement). By bombarding elements with neutrons, Fermi did produce 'new radioactive elements', but not transuranic ones. The link which you have provided also makes it clear that he was in error regarding transuranic elements. We have already said in the article that he missed discovering nuclear fission. The main point is that the prize citation does not say anything about transuranic elements, and so as it stands, is true.--Ashujo, February 11, 2007, 11.36 a.m.

This link no longer works.
The link in "External Links" no longer works: A photographic archive of Fermi and "the Panisperna boys"

Awesome Truck Ramp 00:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Not quite sure how to handle this... the phrase Enrico Fermi is also used (locally at least) as the name for at least three different nuclear installations:


 * Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station in the USA, see List of nuclear reactors for this abbreviated to simply Enrico Fermi.
 * Enrico Fermi NPP (Italy).
 * RA-1 in Argentina, see List of nuclear reactors.

What's the best way to provide navigation for someone who comes to the Enrico Fermi article looking for these, I wonder? Andrewa 18:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Created Enrico Fermi (disambiguation) and incidentally also a stub at RA-1 Enrico Fermi. Andrewa 07:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Fermi has a cenotaph at Basilica di Santa Croce di Firenze
according to this wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_di_Santa_Croce_di_Firenze  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleocon (talk • contribs) 15:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Corrected Content on the report of first chain reaction
I have edited the section on the first chain reaction in Chicago - specifically, the write-up of the famous coded message "The Italian navigator has landed in the new world." The previous version implied a single stament (and without ascribing it to any individual). The actual exchange went as follows:

Arthur Compton, one of the physicists on the project, placed a brief phone call to James Conant, chairman of the National Defense Research Committee. The conversation was in impromptu code, (not a prearranged one):


 * Compton: "The Italian navigator has landed in the New World."
 * Conant: "How were the natives?"
 * Compton: "Very friendly."

source: The Argonne National laboratory site - History pages: http://www.ANL.GOV/SCIENCE_AND_TECHNOLOGY/HISTORY/ANNIVERSARY_FRONTIERS/ITALNAV.HTML

JTGILLICK (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a difference in the quote between this page and the one quoted in Chicago Pile-1. Specifically, Chicago Pile 1 says:
 * Compton: The Italian navigator has landed in the New World.
 * Conant: How were the natives?
 * Compton: Everyone landed safe and happy.
 * Don't know which quote is correct, as both cite sources giving conflicting information. --Mmoople (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Reverted edit
I've reverted this edit as it appears just to make the prose more boring, for no benefit. The edit summary states it makes the article more neutral, but there's nothing controversial or POV about claims that Fermi was a distinguished scientist or a Nobel Laureate, he was both. So whatever the desired neutrality here is, it doesn't seem supported by any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Andrewa (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice
Checking something about fermions and read much of the article. You folks sucked me right in, I especially liked the story-telling of The Manhattan Project section. Wonderful. You can tell a great story in Wiki if you keep it tight. The wiki varies bizarrely in quality, but I think this is going quite well. Wonderful. Thanks you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.132.120 (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Religion
A religion was recently added and then removed. People may like to review a discussion on removing the religion field from the infobox. --Johnuniq (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Monte Carlo
There is nothing on his Monte Carlo works. Though he was probably one of the first (see also Pearson) to use them... Before Ulam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.171.32.248 (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Enrico Fermi "father of atomic bomb"
Enrico Fermi initiated the atomic age. Enrico Fermi constructed the world's first nuclear reactor and developed the first atomic pile and produced the first nuclear chain reaction. The team, headed by Fermi, achieved the first controlled release of nuclear energy. Enrico Fermi is the father of atom bomb. Phases: 01. Enrico Fermi (in 1934) bombarded uranium with slow neutrons. 02. Led to the atomic pile and the first controlled nuclear chain reaction (1942). 03 This success brought the Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer to take charge of the development of the atomic bomb. Enrico Fermi is Architect of Atomic Bomb. --Davide41 (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Other sources say JRO. We had this discussion in the JRO article talk page. A footnote here says that JRO is "more" commonly referred to that way. I took out "more." Figureofnine (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Atomic age yes. Atomic bomb, no. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Is false. Fermi led the construction of the first nuclear pile, which produced the first controlled nuclear chain reaction (1942). The first. --Davide41 (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * He can be credibly referred to as the father of the atomic bomb, because his work immediately preceded the Manhattan Project and were utterly invaluable. On the other hand, so were JRO's contributions. That's why both were called the father of that infernal device, accurately in both instances. Figureofnine (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Is true. --Davide41 (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Point of Order": the deciding factor here is not whether either _deserves_ the "title," but whether there are sources that report he is/was widely known as such.  I'm not arguing either way, but the list of sources above is more pertinent to the decision than enumerating his fatherhood properties.  Deducing he is "father" from such properties would be original research. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 23:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jwy. Look, I admire JRO as much as if not more than anyone here. He has been the focus of my contributions to date. But it is unseemly for us to bicker about "who's the father of the atomic bomb." I mean it when I say that if he were alive today he'd find the whole discussion both unecessary and repulsive. I've carried out some edits to ensure that we acknowledge that JRO is often referred to as the father of the atom bomb, but that we don't take sides one way or the other. A footnote dealing with just this point was added as a "note." It was the only footnote in the "notes" section. I retained the footnote, removed the point that JRO is "usually" the father of the bomb, and moved it to the references section. It should be in the text of the article somewhere, not as a footnote. Figureofnine (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I've asked for a third opinion. Figureofnine (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Correct --Davide41 (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

HeadBomb: Sources which credit Fermi fathering the bomb are very poor

Sources

01) Cambridge Encyclopedia. Enrico Fermi - Biography, Post-War Work, Personal Life, Trivia, Patents.

02) The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. Enrico Fermi Dead at 53; Architect of Atomic Bomb.

03) Fermilab | Home. A proton-antiproton collider in Batavia, Illinois. In Memorium (January, 1978).

04) Robert Lichello. Enrico Fermi: father of the atomic bomb. Outstanding personalities; no. 11, Charlotteville : SamHar Press, 1971. ISBN 978-0871570116.

05) Flash cards, vocabulary memorization, and studying games | Quizlet. Famous Scientists for Physics Final.

06) Buzzle Web Portal: Intelligent Life on the Web. Influential People in History.

07) Research - Articles - Journals | Find research fast at HighBeam Research. Stamp honors father of the atomic bomb Fermilab, U. of C. plan centennial tributes.

08) Mertens, Richard, Beyond the Bomb, The University of Chicago Magazine, v.42 no.2, December 2001.

09) Comando Supremo: Italy in World War Two. Enrico Fermi (Article: Robin Chew).

10) National High Magnetic Field Laboratory. Enrico Fermi (1901-1954). [...] These latter discoveries [Fermi] paved the way for the invention of nuclear reactors and the atomic bomb. [...]

11) Encyclopedia.com – Online dictionary and encyclopedia with pictures, facts, and videos. Enrico Fermi. [...] Enrico Fermi (1901-1954) discovered "Fermi statistics," described beta decay, established the properties of slow neutrons, and constructed the first atomic pile. [...]

12) Sam Epstein and Beryl Williams Epstein, Enrico Fermi, Father of Atomic Power. Champaign: Garrard, 1970.

13) atomicarchive.com The First Pile (Enrico Fermi).

14) World War II Multmedia Database. The Atomic Bomb 1945. [...] In 1942, The first atomic pile, a sustained controllable nuclear chain reaction, came online in Chicago. [...] [...] Actually, most people have no knowledge of that day; they remember the ultimate achievement that began on that date - the atomic bomb. [...]

15) Santa Fe New Mexican. Manhattan Project scientist returns for 90th birthday salute and history lessons for his family.

16) Shenendehowa Central Schools - Clifton Park, NY. Enrico Fermi was a chief architect of the atomic bomb.

17) The Hidden Alpha - AULIS Online – Different Thinking. Enrico Fermi (Introduction).

18) Nobelprize.org, Official web site of the Nobel Foundation. Enrico Fermi. [...] proceeded to work with tremendous enthusiasm, and directed a classical series of experiments which ultimately led to the atomic pile and the first controlled nuclear chain reaction. [...]

19) Lucidcafe - Library. Enrico Fermi. Physicist.

20) Alsos Digital Library for Nuclear Issues. The Development of the First Chain Reacting Pile. --Davide41 (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

He is sometimes referred to as "the father of the atomic bomb".
(Enrico Fermi) He is sometimes referred to as "the father of the atomic bomb". 20 sources --Davide41 (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Facts

He created the first self-sustaining chain reaction (1942 design and assembly of an "atomic pile"), devised new methods for purifying plutonium (1934). The First. ( Note: nuclear fission is the process which forms the basis of nuclear power and atomic bombs. ) --Davide41 (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, my position is that if the sources call him the father of the a-bomb and/or atomic age, that should be in the article. The article should also acknowledge, as it presently does, that JRO also is called frequently or commonly called the father of the a-bomb. Can we agree to that? Figureofnine (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Right and proper. The his work deserve to be appreciated in their own right. --Davide41 (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I wonder if perhaps it would be more accurate, if the sources agree, to call him the father of the atomic age, not the father of the bomb. Figureofnine (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. it would be much more accurate. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Accurate ? mmm --Davide41 (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

20 Sources = Enrico Fermi "father of atomic bomb" (Nobelprize.org, Cambridge, New York Times etc. etc.) Sources are sources. Enrico Fermi is the first. --Davide41 (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That can still be mentioned. What is your objection to calling him the father of the atomic age? That clearly encompasses the bomb. Figureofnine (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion
In response to request (17:24, 7 August 2010) from Figureofnine, suggested wording:

Along with J. Robert Oppenheimer, he is sometimes referred to as "the father of the atomic bomb".

NB: I did not include the current reference linking to the nobelprize.org page Enrico Fermi, because that page does not substantiate the statement that Fermi is sometimes referred to as "the father of the atomic bomb."

'''Improvements. Ok''' --Davide41 (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for stepping in. This is a good solution. There was one other editor involved in this, but hopefully he's satisfied and we can move on. Figureofnine (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If its me you are talking about, I'm fine with it. Unlike in biology, there can be more than one father.  There appear to be a sufficient number of reliable sources that indicate both men are known as "father". --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but actually there was another editor I was thinking about. Doesn't matter, as the consensus supports this. Figureofnine (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Current wording is fine by me. I think he is a lot less frequently referred to as this by Oppenheimer, but it's not a distinction worth arguing about on here. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources?

 * Are anonymous blogspot sites (such as famous-scientist.blogspot.com) considered reliable sources?


 * I don't know anything about Robert Lichello, except that he is the author of Superpower investing: the superpower way to bank and invest your money (featuring the revolutionary new investment discovery SYNCHROVEST) (1974) and How to make $1,000,000 in the stock market--automatically (1977). I presume he's made his million bucks in the 33 years since that was published. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.48.190 (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Correct. (Removed) but ... the rest (see "Robert Lichello") is conversation. --Davide41 (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No, they are not reliable sources, except about themselves. Figureofnine (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Italian American
The article mentions that he had two citizenships. I will mention both in the opening sentence.-- An d Re w 08:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Enrico Fermi was Italian. He lived in Italy for 40 years and 10 years in America. --93.147.196.143 (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * A major part of the work that made him notable (Chicago Pile-1, Manhattan Project) was done after he moved to the U.S. Favonian (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Enrico Fermi isn't American. Enrico Fermi American ? Then George Washington is Italian.

This is false. In 1927, Fermi was elected Professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of Rome (a post which he retained until 1938); he receipt the Nobel Prize. See also the Wikipedia pages in French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Chinese [...]

But... But... --93.147.196.143 (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Favonian. Though he won a Nobel for his work in Italy, his involvement in the A-bomb development as an immigrant to America makes it obligatory that we describe him as an Italian-American. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It always amazes me that American claim as their own everyone who ever lived there. If an British guy moves to France, no one says of him he's a "British French". Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, an Italian-American is someone of Italian descent who was born or grew up in America, and most people would describe Fermi was one of the great Italian physicists, alongside the other Via Panisperna boys. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's article on Italian American includes this in the definition: "The designation may also refer to someone possessing Italian and American dual citizenship." Favonian (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Nobody is trying to remove "Italian" from the lead, but you have to wrap your mind around the fact that he did become an American citizen and did major work while living in that country. (PS: I'm not American.) Favonian (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Headbomb

The Encyclopedias from all over the world agree that Enrico Fermi was an Italian. See: Enrico Fermi, Enrico Fermi, Enrico Fermi, Enrico Fermi, Enrico Fermi [...]

Repeat: Enrico Fermi American ? Then George Washington is Italian. He lived in Italy 40 years (Nobel Prize) and 10 years in America. For me, is POV. --93.147.196.143 (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

American ??????????????????????????????????????????????????? --93.147.196.219 (talk) 11:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Me I have double nationality (italian and british), but I feel myself only italian. Fermi was feeling himself just italian, not american.--93.45.112.112 (talk) 08:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Like a lot of people before me, I'm totally against the "Italian-American" nationality of Enrico Fermi: he was "Italian", born in Italy by Italian parents, raised up in Italy and married an Italian woman. Please do something, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.9.171.215 (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hallo, I changed the definition to Italian-born, naturalized American (as by Emilio Segrè). I hope that you agree with that. Anyway, I would like to remember to the anonymous user that according to his wife (Atoms in the Family), when they landed in New York he said more or less (I am quoting by heart) "We just established the American Branch of the Fermi Family". Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Works for me. Thanks! Favonian (talk) 10:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm the latest anonymous user and I agree with the change you made. Now it can be compared to Albert Einstein's nationality on Wikipedia ("German-born" and not "German-American"). Thank you and good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.19.65.125 (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are both welcome! By the way, Einstein should have been described not as German-American, but rather as German-Swiss-American. He got the Swiss citizenship during the first world war, and the Swiss consider him as a national glory :-) Alex2006 (talk) 11:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Fermi won the nobel prize for what he did in Italy, not in USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio.napoli (talk • contribs) 16:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The Nobel Prize is only a prize given by some people to another people, and has nothing to do with the culture (or nationality) of someone, it does not define the nationality of the winner. Fermi was clearly Italian from his Birth ("Italian born"), then at a certain point of his life he decided that it would have been much better for his life, his family and his studies to emigrate, and he moved to the States ("Abbiamo appena fondato il ramo americano della famiglia Fermi" he told to his wife after landing in NYC). After that, he became ALSO American, participating of the American culture and way of life together with his family. What is wrong with that? Alex2006 (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with many of the things you are writing. Fermi was Italian and later he got also the US passport. That is the end of the story. Moreover, all the most important discoveries he made (not only the one that allowed him to later win the nobel prize), but also the Fermi-Dirac distribution, which actually should be called only Fermi, since he published the paper earlier than Dirac. All these were done when he was in Italy. When he went to US, he was already world-wide famous. Who writes that he became famous for what he did in US, he is not deign to write about Fermi. I really don't like the fact that Wikipedia follows, as many others, the US point of view and the things are set and done only accordingly to them. There are other countries in the world, and there are different opinion and point of views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio.napoli (talk • contribs) 16:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If someone wrote that he became famous for his work in the States, he is crazy. By the way, we are writing about Fermi, not a football player who changed federation :-). Un saluto dalla città natale di Fermi, Alex2006 (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

OK! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio.napoli (talk • contribs) 16:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In Fermi's case, I have to agree with the "pro-Italian" group. He resided in Italy for 37 years, the U.S. for 16; of that 16, he was only a U.S. citizen for the last 10. His notability was well established before he fled Italy to protect his wife, and even his work in Chicago was performed as an Italian ex-pat, not an "American". Drawn to this article by a questionable change made by a "man with a mission", I still felt "an Italian-born, naturalized American physicist" understated his "Italian-ness", and replaced the other editor's "an Italian, and later also naturalized American physicist" with "an Italian physicist, later also a naturalized United States citizen," more for phrasing than disagreement with his meaning. Though I don't claim my phrasing is perfect, I still believe the emphasis on his Italian heritage and nationality is more appropriate, given that for 43 of his 53 years – including years in which much of his most important work was done – he was Italian, and only Italian. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that we should find a general way to denote people (non necessarily scientists, look for example here) who moved during their life from one country to another. For me "Italian-born", means "Italian", and "American" should be understood above all (but not exclusively) as citizenship, but unfortunately I am Italian too :-), so I am not in the best position to argue about the subtleties of the English language. Talking as an expat (I live abroad since 30 years, although I come often back home), I think that crucial is to see where one spent the years of his/her formation / education: from there one can argue whether he/she belongs to nationality A or B. As I wrote yesterday in my comment to Giacconi one thing is notability, another the culture where one was born and raised, which is for sure the most important component in one person's history, and should be cited in the article's introduction. Alex2006 (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't see a general rule as being possible for these cases. There are so many variables that each situation is probably unique.


 * The manual of style for biographies says to specify nationality, but rarely ethnicity, in the opening paragraph, and ties nationality pretty strongly to achievement of notability. If Fermi's parents moved to the U.S. when he was three years old and he grew up in Brooklyn, we would probably not even say "Italian-born" in the opening sentence. This is likely the case for most notable individuals who moved to another country. If I am reading your comment correctly, this seems to be mostly in line with your view. If they instead moved to the U.S. at, say, age 19, my reading of the MoS is that – unless they were a child prodigy of some sort – their birthplace should not be mentioned in the intro paragraph; I believe you would say it should be.


 * With Fermi, we have a contrasting case. He moved to the U.S. approaching middle age, and even then did not assume U.S. citizenship until six years later. He certainly achieved notability while he still lived in Italy; that notability increased further while he was still (solely) an Italian citizen/ex-pat. Had he died in 1943, he would have still merited a detailed Wikipedia article based on his work. His post-war work does not appear to have increased his notability significantly beyond what already existed. Were it possible to phrase it less grotesquely, rather than being identified as "an Italian-born naturalized American physicist", he would more accurately be introduced as "an America-dying Italian physicist". Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, he led the theoreticians in Manhattan Project developing the physics of the Bomb, had the idea of the H-Bomb and led the team which developed the first atomic Reactor: these are for sure notable achievements too, although not mainly in the field of theoretical physics (but he was also an exceptional experimentalist). About his citizenship, I am not sure, but in the biography written by his wife I remember that he was forced to get it in 1941, otherwise as enemy alien he could have not have been allowed to fly from NYC to Chicago. Anyway, leaving aside the Manual of style :-), I think that if we ignore the original culture (I don't like the word ethnicity, it sounds a little bit too balcanic :-) to me), we miss a decisive part of the story of an individual. The problem - as all too often in Wikipedia - is that this kind of info (or missing info) keep always generating edit wars among nationalists of all kind and provenience. That's why I think that sticking to a general rule would be better. Alex2006 (talk) 08:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Guys I think Italian-born naturalize American sound weird and if see when person born in, let say Germany and went to America we say German American or German-born American why ? because is sound simply less complicated and easy to understand. When we say German-born naturalize American it sounds odd and for non-English speaker it could get complicated too. Therefore I would urge you could to reconsider the decision and change to Italian American or Italian-born American.-- ♥ Kkm010 ♥ ♪ Talk ♪  ߷  ♀ Contribs ♀ 09:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Kkm010,

and welcome back! :-) Now, maybe you could deduce the reason of this decision reading the discussion above, but I will make a short summary for you. An "Italian-American" is defined as an American citizen with Italian ancestors. Now, the problem with Fermi, (and with Segrè, and all the other fellows which emigrated to the states), is that they were not Americans, but became Americans at a certain point of their lives. In particular, Fermi was born in Rome, educated in Pisa, got married, became a Professor, made his famous neutron experiments, founded the modern Italian physics, was nominated Accademico d'Italia and won his Nobel prize while he was in Italy. This means, he was - and remained his whole life - Italian by birth, culture and education. In 1938, he decided to emigrate to U.S. because of the racial laws, which would have endangered his wife. A couple of years later (I think in 1943) he got the American citizenship and became a 'naturalised' American citizen, never renouncing to his Italian citizenship, never severing his ties with the motherland, returning there whenever possible. Now, if you jump to the Italian American article, and you look at the nice looking girl smiling one row below Enrico, you can ask to yourself: what does have this girl in common with Fermi? Not much, I think. The only two points in common is that her grandparents were Italian, and that she is American, but - unlike Fermi - American-born. This is - by the way - the situation of the overwhelming majority of the Italian American which - now I speak for my personal experience in the U.S. - keep an emotional tie with the homeland of their ancestors, but culturally are 100% American (and is good so). In order to distinguish these two radically different situations, we decided to use in wikipedia for these cases the expression "Italian-born, naturalized American", which shortly summarize the life path of Fermi. I hope that now the reason behind this decision is clear. If you are more interesting in knowing Fermi as person and scientist, I warmly advise you to read respectively "Atoms in the family" written by his wife Laura, and "Enrico Fermi, Physicist", by his student and close friend Emilio Segrè (another, Italian-born :-)): both are wonderful books.

To finish, two words about your example regarding German-Americans: do a little Gedankenexperiment, go to this article, and write that he - whose personal story is analog to that of Fermi - was a German American scientist. Then let me know what happened :-) Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I do understand and respect your point of view. I think i would go with you. Keep it as it is. Cheers.-- ♥ Kkm010 ♥ ♪ Talk ♪  ߷  ♀ Contribs ♀ 13:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! However, this is what came out from the discussion here, and it does not coincide 100% with my own point of view. But, as said before, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and after a decision is taken, one has to defend it. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I have raised a related issue on Talk:Jennifer Lawrence, more due to other editors refusing to remove speculative or forum-like discussions about someone's ancestry, but also the more fundamental question of whether there is a clear policy about that and if not why. To my mind Fermi was clearly Italian. If both parents were immigrants who had been born in Italy then he would be appropriately labeled Italian-American. Otherwise it's difficult to say. I would prefer the tendency used in articles about Anglo-Irish persons to identify that they are not simply what the nationality might imply, but this presents a further problem that most nations are made up of distinct ethnic groups the labels of which may or may not be readily applied to any given individual. Obotlig ☣ interrogate 22:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with you, unfortunately there is no clear definition (also here in Wikipedia) about what a X-American person - where X is another nationality - is. Moreover, in our case at the best he was not an Italian-American, but he became one during his life. That's why I think that the definition that we use here in the lead describes better his situation. It would be also nice to have a clear Wikipedia guideline which describes how to define someone's nationality in these cases. This would save us a lot of time... Alex2006 (talk) 06:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct. --Aries no Mur (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, now this is irritating. Fermi wasn't an Italian who happened to die in America after getting thrown out (or rather, hounded out) of Italy. After 1945 Fermi had 9 years to go back to Italy, which would have been happy to have him. He didn't. He was intent on founding what he called "the American branch of the Fermi family." Fermi didn't go back to Italy for the same reason Einstein never went back to Switzerland. Both were deeply pissed off at their "home" countries in particular and Europe in general. Fermi had a very romantic vision of America and the idea of starting out anew, even as a famous man. He reminds me more than a little of Tennyson's Ulysses. Just a great soul. I'll leave you with a quote of Fermi's remarks to Heisenburg in 1939, when Fermi was visiting Germany (yes, Fermi briefly visited Nazi Germany in 1939). Fermi: 'Whatever makes you stay on in Germany? You can't possibly prevent the war, and you will have to do, and take the responsibility for, things which you will hate to do or to be responsible for. If so much anguish might produce the least bit of good, then your remaining there might be understandable. But the chances of this happening are extremely remote. Here you could make a completely fresh start. You see, this whole country has been built up by Europeans, by people who fled their homes because they could not stand the petty restrictions, continuous quarrels and recriminations among small nations, the repression, liberation and revolution and all the misery that goes with it. Here, in a larger and freer country, they could live without being weighed down by the heavy ballast of their historical past. In Italy I was a great man; here I am once again a young physicist, and that is incomparably more exciting. Why don't you cast off all that ballast, too, and start anew? In America you can play your part in the great advance of science. Why renounce so much happiness?' Now, are you going to peg such a man a true Italian, who just happened to run out of life and luck in some other place? Not on your life. Fermi was far more than that. S B Harris 02:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand that American consumers want to consider Italian-American but it is wrong. In fact, Fermi, who won the Nobel Prize in 1938, he completed major works in Italy: the discovery of the statistics of the particles, the Thomas-Fermi model of the atom, the "fermions", the Institute of Via Panisperna, the theory of beta decay, the discovery of slow neutrons and Nuclear fission, And the analog computer FERMIAC are research made in Italy! --Civa61 (talk) 10:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Italian-born is also wrong. Per WP:OPENPARA, we do not use either Italian-born or Italian-American. For the purposes of the lead sentence, we use the nationality of the subject at the time they became notable. In this case, Fermi certainly achieved notability well before he became an American citizen ten years before he died. We spell out the details. AFAIK, Fermi did not renounce his Italian citizenship, and therefore remained of Italian nationality until the end of his life, making "Italian-born" an inaccurate turn of phrase, which is why we don't use it. In short, we don't "Americanize" subjects simply because they were naturalized. If they achieved notability before becoming naturalized, appropriating them as "American" will simply lead to endless edit wars, because he was not American: he was an Italian who additionally became an American late in life. Yworo (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hallo Yworo, thanks for citing WP:OPENPARA. Since when does this guideline exist? It solves the problem (at least in the case of Fermi). Alex2006 (talk) 05:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, not sure how long it has existed, though I've helped to improve the wording some years ago. Probably could be improved some more, as editors continue to misconstrue its intent. Basically, most people will be described using their birth nationality, if they became notable before changing or adding a citizenship. People who were moved and repatriated as children are the primary exception, they should be listed using the acquired citizenship in effect when they became notable (for example, Isaac Asimov became notable as an American, not as a Russian: this is citizenship, not ethnicity). An individual who develops a first career for which they do not become notable, then repatriates and goes on to a second career for which they do become notable would be described using their acquired citizenship. But basically, it's just common sense. Just ask, what country was the subject a citizen of when they first achieved notablity? Sometimes they are dual citizens or acquire a second citizenship shortly after becoming notable. Then then should probably be described using 'and': for example, "Canadian and American", not Canadian-American, which for many English speakers means a person of Canadian ancestry born in the US. 'And' should be used in these cases as the hyphenated terms are ambiguous and are frequently interpreted in terms of ethnicity rather than dual nationality. Yworo (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent additions
This is not fully supported by the cited sources. First, I can't find a reference to the date in either of them, so this must stem from another reference. Second, his membership in the fascist party is described in a very different context in the cited biography. While the sentence added to the article can easily be interpreted as him being a convinced fascist, the source says he was finding the political situation in Italy increasingly intolerable and was a party member for reasons of professional necessity. The sentence has also some grammatical and typesetting issues, but let's agree on the contents first, preferably through discussion rather than edit-warring.

This edit should be reconsidered in the light of WP:SEEALSO. The link is already present in the article body and in a figure caption, so there's no need for an additional entry in the See also section. &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  13:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with what you write, thanks for your comment! Alex2006 (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my bad english. A reference to the date: for the Enciclopedia Treccani Fermi " was a member of the Accademia d'Italia since its foundation". See here (March 18, 1929). For the PNF see the historic Paolo Mieli. wrote in the first Italian newspaper, Corriere della Sera: "Fermi enrolled in the Fascist party a few weeks after accession the Accademia d'Italia" see (April 27, 1929).--Civa61 (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links. I'm not very good at reading Italian, so I'll leave it to others to verify them. I'm also not too sure the actual dates are needed in the article, I find more interesting what you write here, that he was appointed founding member of the Accademia d'Italia. For his PNF membership, I find it more important why he became a member than when. There's nothing wrong with including the dates, but I think there are more important details missing. Finally, I still think the third link to Via Panisperna boys is not needed and not encouraged by Wikipedia's manual of style.
 * If you're uncertain about English grammar, typesetting or style conventions, don't worry. We can fix that after we reached consensus about the contents. &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  21:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Very good, the article of Mieli is whatit was needed as reference. Civa61 apparently got confused, adding 2 references which did not confirm fully what he wrote. According to his wife Laura ("Atoms in the family") Fermi was appointed member of the newly established "Accademia d'Italia" (the fascist answer to the glorious "Accademia dei Lincei") because of a recommendation of his mentor, Senator Corbino (with 27 Fermi was by far the youngest member of the Accademia) and the main reason for his acceptance was economical, since the Members got a huge salary. Since the "Accademia d'Italia" was a creation of fascism, it is quite normal that Fermi had to join the fascist party after becoming member of the Academy. The enrollment in the party became mandatory for university professors in 1931, and in that occasion only 12 academicians refused to swear allegiance to fascism, paying this with their chair. Anyway, Fermi was never fascist: he was a man only interested in science who politically could be defined as a moderate conservative (see about that Segrè, "Enrico Fermi, physicist") and, as Mieli rightly points out, he became (passively) hostile to the fascism much later, when the racial laws menaced the condition of his wife (a Jew) and forced the whole family to emigrate in the U.S.. Alex2006 (talk) 06:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Could someone who can read the Italian sources rephrase the paragraph in question such that it captures the essence of this? I'll remove the surplus See also link already, since I didn't see any objections to that. &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  19:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Fermi's cancer related to Los Alamos (etc) radiation exposures?
Is Fermi's early death from stomach cancer thought to be related to his exposures to radioactivity/radiation in his work? I ask because there were a significant number of excess mortalities (often from leukemia) for the early Los Alamos workers. --Pete Tillman (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Nobody knows whose cancer was caused by what. In the case of Oppenheimer, for example, there has been a lot of suspicion that his throat cancer was related to his and his wife's chain smoking, but nobody can be sure.
 * 2) Fermi arrived at Los Alamos in August 1944. Many people he worked with there like Edward Teller lived for a long time. He was never one of the UPPU (You pee plutonium). However, he had significant exposure to radiation in Italy and before he arrived in Los Alamos.
 * 3) When writing the article on Leona Woods, there was some discussion of mortality from cancer among the CP-1 scientists. Her family denied that she had died from cancer.

Accurate, and unambiguous Wording
Will someone please proofread the introductory paragraphs? L. Tischmann — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.236.191 (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Some mistakes corrected
I corrected some errors introduced in the article. Emilio Segrè was a student of Fermi, as the autobiography of Segre states, and the alma Mater of Fermi was the Scuola Normale Superiore in Pisa (and, of course, the University of Pisa), and not the Sapienza university of Rome, where Fermi was professor, not student. Alex2006 (talk) 05:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Alex. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * SO WHY DON'T YOU ADD PISA ON HIS ALMA MATER? How Fermi could be Emilio's teacher? His older than 4 years old. -- 115ash →(☏) 09:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hallo 115ash, and thanks for answering here instead of keeping reverting. :-)
 * Alma Mater denotes the university which one attends, not the university where one is professor, so the Sapienza has nothing to do here. Fermi was admitted to the Scuola Normale in Pisa, which so became his alma mater. Students of the Normale are compelled to attend courses at the State University of Pisa too, so technically he has two alma maters, but only the Normale is cited here, since the attending at the State University in Pisa "derives" from the enrollment at the Normale.
 * About Segrè, he, like Amaldi, was one of the first students of Fermi. In fact, after getting his chair in Theoretical Physics at Rome in 1926, Fermi among others taught Physics to Engineering students in San Pietro in Vincoli, and could convince some among them, particularly promising, to switch to physics, since he needed assistants. These young guys made the core of the Via Panisperna boys. This is a well known fact which is present on each Fermi's biography, and is well cited.


 * I hope that now these two facts are clear to you. In general, consider that this is a featured article, so several people (me too) checked each sentence here, and is very difficult to find a mistake. Alex2006 (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * What about the word "invention"? Even Ernest Lawrence's article mention this word.-- 115ash →(☏) 10:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a matter of semantics. Fermi invented the nuclear reactor, being co-holder of the patent with Leo Szilard. We don't say that he invented CP-1, because that was a specific nuclear reactor. In the Lawrence article I wrote that he invented the cyclotron, not a particular cyclotron. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Therefore another word should be replaced. -- 115ash →(☏) 09:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced content, possibly incorrect
The following statement was inserted on August 4, 2006. “The two worked together on scientific projects such as building gyroscopes and measuring the Earth’s magnetic field”

I can not find the source for measuring the Earth’s magnetic field. The rest of the statement can be sourced here. I suspect it shoud be the measuring of the acceleration of gravity at Rome. This fact can be sourced here. I propose to change it accordingly.--LaoChen 08:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I have not been able to find the reference for Professor Pittarelli’s conclusion about Fermi’s performance in the exam. If no one objects, I would replace the statement with the following comment:

The examiner, Professor Giuseppe Pittarelli from the Sapienza University of Rome, interviewed Fermi and praised that he would become an outstanding physicist.

--LaoChen 05:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have checked the source, and I agree with your proposed change. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You can change the sentence, however the remarks of Pittarelli are correct. I read it on several sources, but now I have not here with me. Alex2006 (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The statement was given by Segre in his book, pg 12: "The entire essay continues on this level, which would have been creditable for a doctoral examination." --LaoChen 23:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * True on both points, but that is Segré's evaluation, not Pittarelli's. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Is the following statement historically correct?

“Fermi was the first to warn military leaders about the potential impact of nuclear energy.”

According to Segre’s book, page 111, Professor Pegram wrote a warning letter to Admiral Hooper two days before Fermi’s warning.--LaoChen 05:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Then we could write "among the first...", or "the first major scientist". Alex2006 (talk) 07:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That was a letter of introduction from Pegram. From Hewlett and Anderson, p. 15:

"On March 16, Dean Pegram wrote Admiral Stanford C. Hooper, technical assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations, to say that Fermi, who was travelling to Washington on another matter, would be glad to tell Hooper of the experiments at Columbia. It was possible, Pegram wrote, that uranium might be used as an explosive that would "liberate a million times as much energy per pound as any known explosive." Pegram thought the probabilities were against this but that even the barest possibility should not be ignored. At the Navy Department the next day, Fermi talked for an hour to a group that included a number of naval officers, two civilian scientists from the Naval Research Laboratory, and several officers from the Army's Bureau of Ordnance. Fermi explained the Columbia efforts to discover whether or not a chain reaction could take place. He was not sure that the experiments would yield an affirmative answer, but if they did, it might be possible to employ uranium as an explosive. After some questioning, a Navy spokesman told Fermi that the Department was anxious to maintain contact with the Columbia experiments and undoubtedly would have representatives call in person."

I think it would be reasonable to describe it thus. It is important to note that this pre-dates the Einstein-Szilard letter. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

father of the atomic bomb
That would be Oppenheimer, as confirmed by google search. I think that honorific (not the others, mind you) should be deleted simply to avoid confusion. --Monochrome _ Monitor  18:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Fermi was certainly instrumental in building the atomic bomb, but its father was Oppenheimer. Alex2006 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you my good wikipedian. --Monochrome _ Monitor  14:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppenheimer is normally the one described as the father of the atomic bomb. I did find sources that described Fermi as such. Then I found one that described Leo Szilard as the father. I gave up at that point. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppenheimer, Fermi, Szilard and others. Oppenheimer was the best known. Wikipedia's voice should not endorse one or the other. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * See this article. Not our role to pick and choose which person was the father of the bomb. I've added in a reference to that description from his New York Times obituary. The previous language a couple of versions back, the wording that he was called that but Oppenheimer was called that most often, was OR. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I reverted the sourced addition that says that Fermi was the father of the bomb, for the simple reason that this NYT obituary is the only source where I read this definition. This is a typical case of fringe definition, and putting it on the article is simply undue weight. I read several books about Fermi and the atomic age (Laura Fermi, the biography of Segrè, the two books of Rhodes, etc.)  and nowhere he has been defined in this way. Weighting the sources according to their reliability and importance is not Original research but our main task here. We need much more than an obituary written by a journalist (!) to put such a strong assertion in the article. Alex2006 (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought it would be uncontroversial to add that, but I'll await further opinions. Times obits are commonly utilized for such descriptions, and the Times is hardly a fringe source. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is controversial, and I don't think the New York Times counts as a WP:FRINGE publication. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There are already 2 editors who spoke clearly against this addition (see above), so apparently the consensus is not here. About the NYT, I repeat that in this context it is a fringe source because a) it is the ONLY source so far (to my knowledge) to define so Fermi, b) is a generalist newspaper, with no in-depth knowledge about the role of Fermi during those years. In 1954, when Fermi died (and the obituary was written), most of the sources about the development of the Bomb had not been published yet (actually, NONE of the source which I read about Fermi had been published): the biography by his wife was published in 1954 too), so I don't see how the NYT could have been able to judge Fermi's work in those years (work that was still classified at that time). Amaldi himself writes that when he met Fermi after the war years he was quite reticent about his role in the Manhattan project. In the Lincei's commemoration of Fermi by Amaldi here is there any mention of his pivotal role in building the Bomb? No. If one of his closest friends and fellows scientists had no clue about his role then, I don't see how a journalist could have possibly known anything more precise about him. Of course, had a RS (like for example Segrè) defined Fermi "the father of the Bomb" I would have no objection to put this in the article, but this has not been the case until now. Alex2006 (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Monochrome Monitor was against a different and more general wording. She hasn't been heard from concerning the Times-specific addition. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * do you know who signed Fermi's obituary? A physicist? Alex2006 (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The editors. It ran on page one without a byline. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the question is particularly pertinent. Calling someone the "father" of something is a public-image and journalistic enterprise, not a scientific issue. We're not elevating or denigrating one scientist over the other. I believe Hawkeye and I both have a great deal of interest in Oppenheimer, if you look at our contributions to related articles. It's not knocking the man or hurting his reputation to say that others were similarly called the "father" of the atomic bomb. Einstein too, and Szilard. Whether it's a precise or justified statement, or whether Times editors were remiss in saying that, is not our judgment to make. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the question is particularly pertinent. Calling someone the "father" of something is a public-image and journalistic enterprise, not a scientific issue. We're not elevating or denigrating one scientist over the other. I believe Hawkeye and I both have a great deal of interest in Oppenheimer, if you look at our contributions to related articles. It's not knocking the man or hurting his reputation to say that others were similarly called the "father" of the atomic bomb. Einstein too, and Szilard. Whether it's a precise or justified statement, or whether Times editors were remiss in saying that, is not our judgment to make. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

C)
 * This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of journalistic trivia. Besides that, the trivia lives and thrives because of the general acknowledgment about it, and this is simply not the case for Fermi. No Italian newspaper ever defined Fermi "padre della bomba atomica", because also in Europe the "father" par excellence is considered Oppenheimer. And here we come to the point: your main aim is not Fermi, but challenging the definition of "father of the bomb" given to Oppenheimer. The fact is that this trivia is almost universal. As consequence, we will have every other week editors reverting your edits in the Oppenheimer article, and removing this definition from Fermi's article. thanks, this is exactly what I meant. In 1954 an editor of NYT had not the necessary competence to understand what the role of Fermi in Manhattan project was. As Figureofnine says, in the case of Fermi this was only a journalistic definition, which basically could not establish itself. In the case of Oppenheimer, behind this trivia there was the role played in the project. About NYT and in general: Fringe is never the publisher or author of something, but what he/she writes and publishes. In this case, NYT wrote something "fringe", since it does not reflect the mainstream.Alex2006 (talk) 05:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Generally, Fermi has been known as the architect of that weapon. Yes, it's true that there wouldn't be any nuclear weapon without the help of Fermi. However the word "father" has been removed, so no issues. Also, why User:Monochrome Monitor, is talking about "google search"? Scientist like Einstein has been named as father of this and that, but the article doesn't mention anything about it, which is excellent.-- <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:gold">115ash <i style="color:red">→(☏)</i> 12:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not really in love with the whole "father" bit, which I think is hackneyed, but we do want to reflect the reliable sourcing with regard to his perception, and currently we're not. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Our task is to give to the reader a faithful image of Fermi and his work, not the perception which some journalist had about Fermi in 1954. Why don't you read "The making of the atomic bomb" by Rhodes, for example? There are a lot of facts about Fermi in relation with the bomb there (facts that in 1954 were mostly unknown), and from these facts one can derive a better perception about him and his work. Alex2006 (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Recommending reading to other editors is probably not the most diplomatic way of discussing this subject. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? I am always eager to find new sources dealing with the subjects which I am interested the most in, and I am thankful if someone suggests a new one. When Hawkeye7 brought this article to FA status, thanks to material unknown to me I learned much about Fermi. Generally speaking, as Socrates said, we are all ignorant, the only difference being between people aware of it (I belong definitely to this category), and those who think they are not. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If Rhodes is relevant, say so, and how. Don't recommend reading matter. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Richard Rhodes: "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" (1987)
 * Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction
 * the National Book Award for Nonfiction
 * National Book Critics Circle Award.
 * Praised both by historians and former Los Alamos weapon scientists, the book is considered a general authority on early nuclear weapons history, as well as the development of modern physics in general, during the first half of the 20th century (from wikipedia :-)).
 * The book has been highly praised, among others, by : Isidor Isaac Rabi; Eugene Wigner; Emilio Segrè; Luis Alvarez Alex2006 (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was not being clear. It is presumptuous, and borders on the insulting, to assume that other editors are ignorant of standard works concerning a particular subject. Especially so when you suggest that the other editor read the book and then conclude from it that your position is correct. What I am going to ask for the last time is where in the book it states that the characterization of Fermi as a "father of the bomb" is incorrect. Without WP:SYN. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Rhodes, among others, describes the work of Fermi at Los Alamos, writing that he arrived in September 1944, and became the head of the "F" division, a group of physicists that did basically troubleshooting in both theoretical and experimental problems. Now, a troubleshooter can hardly be defined the father of something, and in fact, Rhodes never comes to the idea to describe him as "the father of the Bomb" (whatever this sentence means). Now, we have two cases here: a) You did not read the book. b) you read the book, and then YOU should tell me why - according to you - this definition applies. If a) applies, then you should tell me what are your sources about Fermi (for example, do you know this one? Parisi and Bernardini were among my professors in Rome) and then we could continue the discussion. I already wrote above the reason why the obituary of NYT, with its apodictic definition, cannot be considered a RS for such a strong statement. P.S. Reading another obituary, that of "La Stampa" it came to my mind that Fermi could be rightly be defined father of something else: "father of the atomic power".Alex2006 (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying the definition applies; the New York Times did. You've been contending it doesn't. The burden is on you to prove that this reliable source is unreliable in this instance. That's how we proceed. It's not my job to take reading assignments from you, and if you have nothing further to add that's relevant and not argument or insult I'll consider this portion of the discussion concluded. Figureofnine (talk • contribs)  20:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, far from me the idea to insult you: if you had this impression, i am sorry. About what you write, in fact this is what I proved from the beginning, citing a main stream source, highly praised and abundantly referenced, which describes Fermi's work at the Bomb in detail in a way that excludes what the redactors of NYT wrote (Actually, ALL the sources which I know exclude it: here is another one the Article on the DBI of Enciclopedia Italiana, which repeats what less detail what Rhodes wrote). "Father or something", unless is apparent from the work on this something, is pure WP:PEACOCK, and as such is disruptive (and can be sanctioned by an administrator). Incidentally, in the last months I had to fight against a flurry of peacocking applied to many articles dealing with Italian notables. The scheme is always the same: an editor goes on google, finds something fringe of the type "X was Y" (where Y can be "the best" "the greatest", "the father of something") and then edits the article with this reference, assuming that "X was Y" "is referenced". Of course this is not (how to reference articles is very well explained on our service pages) but, as you say, the burden of the proof falls on my shoulders, and so, precious time that could be devoted to more important things here on Wikipedia is being wasted. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, WP:PEACOCK specifically excludes factual statements made by reliable third party sources. Let's see if any other editors have opinions. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct. But "father of the Bomb" is far from being a factual statement. At the best, it is quite fuzzy. Anyway, let's wait what other people say, but consider that this statement has been already removed twice, although with different reasons. Alex2006 (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Totally identical situation. PEACOCK refers to unattributed statements, and the example given of calling Bob Dylan the "defining figure of the 1960s counterculture and a brilliant songwriter" vs. quoting Time magazine making value judgments about him. Thus your invoking PEACOCK is flat-out wrong. Figureofnine (talk • contribs)
 * No. No Peacock means attribution AND Facts. Were it true what you say, it would suffice to find a source who use peacock terms and use it. A referenced peacock is still peacock. In fact, the two sentences about Dylan are radically different, otherwise in the example would have been used the same sentence, but referenced. "Father of something" is an example of loaded language, as is explained there: it is fuzzy, imprecise, does not give any real information about the subject (and in fact I am still trying to understand the reason why Fermi was named so. Let's hope that some other editor will explain it :-)). Proof of it, is that this term in the Bomb's case is applied to people (Einstein, Fermi, Szilard, Oppenheimer) who had radically different roles in the development of the weapon. P.S. BTW, according to our guidelines, the onus to demonstrate the opportunity of including this referenced statement is up to you. Please read here (first and third section). P.P.S. Since you are assuming that also Einstein and Szilard have been known as fathers of the Bomb, have you also edited these two articles accordingly? Alex2006 (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, OK, we can either believe WP:PEACOCK or you. And yes, re the other articles, good point, but at this time I'm just focusing on Fermi. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, this interpretation of peacock at the end led already to a couple of user blocks in the last months, so apparently I am not the only one here to have this kind of understanding. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've made that astonishingly silly point before, but thank you for repeating it. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Repetita iuvant :-) Alex2006 (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In this case I agree with Figureofnine. That was not that peacock.-- <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:gold">115ash <i style="color:red">→(☏)</i> 14:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion, but read all my comments above (I know, they are lengthy, but it is necessary). Peacockry is only one problem, and not the worst...Before we reinsert that sentence, these have to be addressed. The main problem is that the mainstream sources (like Rhodes) describe the work of Fermi during the construction of the Bomb in a way which exclude that he can be defined "father" of the weapon.  Alex2006 (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyway, it is already included that he is considered as the architect. Hence, father would not be needed, although nothing wrong to add it. Let's conclude this BATTLE.-- <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:gold">115ash <i style="color:red">→(☏)</i> 13:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It was not a battle, but only a (civil) exchange of information, in order to establish consensus. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 13:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It appeared as a little battle, especially during the last time.-- <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:gold">115ash <i style="color:red">→(☏)</i> 14:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

In the 1950s there was a tendency to refer to people as the "father" of this and that. It merely is an indication of how people felt at the time. I don't see what's so terrible about attributed quotes saying so. That's my only point on this. Not a major thing, and I don't grasp the passion to exclude. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)