Talk:Hyman G. Rickover/Archive 1

Nuclear Navy
During the 1940's or 1950's, one of America's Diesel submarines got herself trapped underwater by the Soviet Union, and was subsequently forced to surface and run for Japan. This incedent played a major role in the decision to activly pursue nuclear power at sea, and I think it needs to be mentioned in the article. TomStar81 22:35, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The sub incident occured in 1958, 4 years after the USS NAUTILUS was launched. This incident helped Rickover gain momentum in having nuclear subs built.


 * Anyone who has access to a source please go ahead and add a summary for the article. Be bold. Cheers, -Will Beback 00:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Controversy and NR
Two things should be added. ADM Rickover became a rather controversial figure later in life(because of his influence), and something should be added about it. Also, it should be added that NR interviews EVERY nuclear power candidate officer in the Navy. This is mentioned, offhandedly, about Pres. Carter.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtnerd (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2004‎ (UTC)

Forcing Conformance to Approved Submarine Construction Drawings
The Admiral requested and got an emergency meeting of Key Executives/Managers of General Dynamicvs/Electrtic Boat Div. in a hotel in NY City Friday July 2, 1965. Purpose was not announced ahead of the meeting but it became evident it was to rub managements nose in allowing Engineering to request Naval Reactors Code 08 (his operations) for approval to deviate from approved designs when construction mistakes yielded non-compliance. His "scream session" reminded management this kind of performance detracts his time needed to sell submarines to Congress. Therefore, from that point on, all approved nuclear drawings were to be stamped in two inch high letters "ND" meaning non-deviational, period. I remember it clearly because it was my birthday and a party in my honor had to be canceled while the company limosine took us to NY. There is more to this story. The way the hotel suite seating was re-arranged, cold sweet grapes were obtained for the admiral, copies of the latesty newspapers and magazines obtained for his use, and how the meeting content developed as the admiral went around the room asking each person "what do you have to say for yourself?" Marv Curland

--64.252.110.70 19:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Carter, Rickover and TMI
If anyone has a good, referenceable source for this info/section, please provide same. Past searches regarding this claim did not find anything authoritative that could be used. --AustinKnight 23:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The only source that I found is the relative's affadavit. -Willmcw 23:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That looks sufficient. Robert Rickover, the Admiral's son, is a rare name, and does appear on other sites to support his wife, Jane, in her recollections. --AustinKnight 00:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It appears that Carter did not commission a general nuclear power study, but rather one focused on TMI. Jane Rickover's affidavit appears valid, but it is a small extrapolation to assume that she was talking about this study.  It is also reasonably questionable as to whether a presidential commission focused on TMI would go outside of its commission to make general recommendations to shutdown the entire industry, but her affidavit is her affidavit. --AustinKnight 00:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If I read the affadavit correctly it appears that Rickover thought that the commision's evaluation of safety hazards was so negative that publishing it would have had the effect of ending public support for nuclear power. I don't get that they explicitly recommended anything like that. -Willmcw 01:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. We were still working through the original draft/language of this section, which was fairly rough in terms of accuracy. --AustinKnight 01:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Rickover's childhood/Annapolis experience
I think the section over-emphasizes Rickover's European Jewish roots, his connections back to Ryki and his discovery late in life that all the Jews in Ryki had been killed. This material would be interesting as a sort of sidebar in a full length book about Rickover but I don't think any of this played a major part part in making Rickover the man he became. I'm sure it must have influenced him a little bit (if nothing else, it shaped his parents), but not enough to commit space to here. Rickover never seemed very interested in his Jewish roots and even became an Episcopalian at some point. I propose removing most of this stuff.

I think much more relevant was his position as an unpopular outsider at the Naval Academy and the role anti-Semitism played in this. Rickover probably went from a neighborhood (Jewish immigrants in Chicago) where he fit in culturally to a place where he was a total misfit. Rickover's value system (brains and learning), background (Jewish immigrant) and personality (prickly, almost anti-social) were at such odds with those of the Academy, where "manly virtue", genteel values, Protestantism, sociability and military bearing were more esteemed. Rickover never seemed to forget this; years later when he finally wielded real power, Rickover took shots at these traditional aspects of Navy culture whenever he could. Rickover was hard on all Navy officers, but especially those that seem to come from the traditional Annapolis mold of the early 20th century. Rickover appeared to despise the Naval Academy in particular and sometimes publicly called for its abolition.

--A. B. 02:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Feel free to edit, but I'd not be too quick to judge relative weights, and would suggest keeping encyclopedic facts -- particularly those that are foundational to Rickover's psychology since he was clearly a bit of an odd duck. In fact, you yourself refer twice to the fact that Rickover was raised Jewish and the effects that this had on his life.  Having been interviewed by the man, and later stood next to him supervising reactor operations as we took one of the 688 class fast attacks to sea for the first time, I can personally vouch that the man was quite Jewish in his mannerisms, behavior and style of speech.  Yes, his first wife was an Episcopalian and apparently practiced himself, but there's no question that his psychological formative years (0-5 yrs-old) and in Chicago were as a European/immigrant Jew.  I'd also remark that the Naval Academy stuff on the web is largely overblown, and likely only to be of interest to boat schoolers (of which I have a good number of good friends).  Yes, Rickover may have called for the closing of the Naval Academy...but as have any number of others.  *All* of the academies have come under scrutiny for closure from time to time.  It's not like he bore a grudge toward Annapolis...he just didn't much care for it; particularly -- since he was a technologist -- the liberal arts aspects/weighting of the Academy (which he was successful in substantially curbing).  And, to my experience, the guys that got the hardest, wildest Rickover interviews were college grads, not the Academy guys...at least, not unless they were non-nuke Captain-Admiral types who were carrier bound, as they did get put through the wringer (e.g., Annapolis-grad Zumwalt).  Last but not least, if you're just going by web accounts, or non-nuclear naval experience, and do not have direct personal knowledge of Rickover or nuclear propulsion, consider deferring your comments for a while.  The article isn't going anywhere.  There are many, *many* other officers that served under Rickover and who are still alive who can provide an authentic take on the guy in an encyclopedic way.  If by any chance you're getting most of your info from Dr. Schratz' "hit piece" that was written in 1983, I'd definitely postpone any editing; that was a grossly one-sided, highly pejorative, near-irrational rant that does not jive with the predominant literature on Rickover.  *Anyone's* life would look pretty disgusting if the negatives were strictly one's focus.  Biographies on Wikipedia serve best when they take the high road and focus on accomplishments.  In any case, if you do choose to edit, please be sure to cite your sources.  Cheers, --66.69.219.9 05:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust museum link and Paul R. Schratz
I could find no mention of Rickover on the Holocaust museum's web site. If there's something substantive about Rickover himself, then I suggest linking directly to that citation. If I'm missing something here, let me know.--A. B. 14:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, you literally read my mind: I was going to replace the Holocaust Memorial link with that of the U.S. Naval Institute's oral history re. Rickover...but saw that you'd already done so.  A fine edit.  While I don't agree with adding the Schratz link as, in my humble opinion, its clear bias renders it beneath that of an encyclopedic reference, I'm not in any way compelled to remove it.  It speaks for itself:  as a bitter tirade from a WWII diesel boat commander and Academy grad whose era had passed him by. Battles between the disestablished diesel boaters and the nuclear navy are the stuff of legend; at least this captures that in full force. Since all combatant U.S. submarines today are nuclear-powered, it's pretty clear whose arguments carried the day.  --66.69.219.9 23:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reformatting the links I added. For what it's worth, I think you're too harsh on Schratz and his article. Lots of sharp people thought many of the same things about Rickover and his methods. Also, I think the older diesel boat generation was not necessarily anti-nuke and they were impressive in their own right, as any study of the U.S. submarine war in the Pacific will show. Visionaries in the submarine community were pushing for nuclear subs even before the Manhattan Project; the first U.S. enrichment effort was part of a low-key, long-term project to develop nuclear propulsion for submarines before it was taken over for The Bomb's development. When the bombs went off in Japan, submarine force leaders immediately put two and two together and pushed hard for a nuclear submarine. That's when Rickover hit the scene.


 * It's true, however, that many WW2 submariners were bitter, however, since Rickover pointedly made a show of taking as few of these people as he could he could get away with. He also tried to systematically destroy the rejectees' careers if he could. A family friend of my parents fell into this category; he was brilliant. I think Schratz' insights are good, regardless of his personal background--A. B. 01:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I have nothing but respect for WWII submariners, who in many people's opinion -- including mine -- were the only substantial maritime thing that was between us (or the Australians) and the Japanese after Pearl Harbor's destruction of the surface fleet. They led a hard life, and far too many experienced hard deaths, God rest their souls.


 * However, with the development of nuclear power it ultimately was Rickover who was put in the position of leading a wholesale changeout in the mindset of the submarine force. Rigorous discipline in the operation of the propulsion plant was essential, as entirely new risks and sciences were involved.  Rickover knew U.S. politics, and was keenly sensitive to the possibility of the program being shut down if there were ever a single, serious nuclear incident.


 * Old dogs tend to think they know all they need to, and do not handily learn new tricks. Creation always comes with a near equal amount of destruction, especially when it is accompanied by revolutionary change, not incremental.  Far too many diesel boaters insisted on building diesel boats, and Rickover was politically savvy enough to know that the two could not co-habitate in the U.S., as some politician, somewhere, would argue that the diesel boats were cheaper and thus "better." In the Cold War era, such thinking could have been lethal to U.S. national security and simply had to be done away with, regardless of the personal costs.


 * It's ironic, but Schratz' major error in his opinion piece was the same core fault of Rickover: he lacked the heart to be balanced in his judgments.


 * My respects and best wishes to your parents' friend. We all owe him and others our deepest gratitude.  --66.69.219.9 03:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Diesel boats can be just as lethal as nuclear boats and some other fleet operators continue to build and use both. The issue is more one of range, endurance and speed. Even today, if we had a major mission for submarines to just lurk in one area near their base, a conventional submarine would be a much cheaper choice. The Swedes, for instance, will never miss not having nukes. The U.S. Navy, however, had to go to an all nuclear submarine fleet becuase of the distances to its missions.--A. B. 03:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, c'mon...a snorkeling diesel boat is a chip shot target-wise, and today's nukes are as quiet as a diesel running on its battery. From payload, to speed, to survivability, to endurance, to livability there's no comparision between the two platforms today.  Other fleet operators do not have the U.S.'s scope of responsibilities or politics to deal with. Building diesels in the U.S. is a non-starter. --66.69.219.9 03:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"WikiProject Biography" and "Military history WikiProject"
These project tags have been slapped on this article by the Looper5920 and Nobunaga24 "tag team" without consulting with the article's editors in any fashion.

Ever heard of building a consensus? Who TF are you guys, and why are you cluttering this article's Talk page with your self-promoting activity? And why do you think you're the ones who are qualified to speak to the quality of the article? Do you have some specific qualifications in that regard (and don't quote us as to just how many other articles you've glued your project tags to)? Lastly, do you have any direct familiarity with the topic...at all? --66.69.219.9 04:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Assessments are based on many factors other than the rater's specific knowledge of the subject, such as amount of content, format, references, quality of prose, etc. --Nobunaga24 06:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. A re-assessment has been made. Per your "FAQ": "Who can assess articles?  In general, anyone can add or change an article's rating." --66.69.219.9 04:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, within the guidlines. It's not FA. Please read this: Featured articles--Nobunaga24 06:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

And another thing:  "This article is supported by the Maritime warfare task force. This article is supported by the United States military history task force." -- Make that, "This is Bullshit." NO ONE from either of these "task forces" has done ANYTHING to edit this article, except perhaps to clutter its talk page with self-important crap. --66.69.219.9 04:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Inclusion is based on subject matter, not how many people from it have edited the article. As this project is one of the largest on wikipedia, with over 19,000 articles as part of the project, I hardly think it is just "self-important crap."--Nobunaga24 06:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What, precisely, does "this project" accomplish? It certainly hasn't added anything to this article yet. --24.153.209.20 14:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll take the bait just this once. After this, you are talking and crying to yourself. Judging by the edit history and the tone, I think this is still the same editor as 66.69.219.9. If you want to know what it has accomplished, stop complaining for a minute, click the link on the tag and take a look. It's accomplished quite a bit. Why this is such an issue to you, beats me. Instead of screaming about it, you could add something positive to the project, and work to better the articles included in the maritime section. Or you can continue to shout into the wind here. Keep in mind, this is NOT your article. It's everyone's --Nobunaga24 15:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * See Ownership of articles. --A. B. 16:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"WikiProject Biography" and "Military history WikiProject" -- another perspective
As someone with an interest in Rickover, I look at these outside editors' evaluation of this article as a positive thing. These featured article reviews have done much to improve other articles. Their specific feedback (we will get specific feedbak, right?) can only help make this the best article positive.

24.153.209.20/66.69.219.9, if it helps, just think of it as another ORSE. Cheer up -- it's perhaps an unwelcome intrusion, but one that will make us better for it somehow (or so someone says).

You know in your heart Rickover would enjoy this (as well as make a much harder and more sadistic examiner than any Wikipedia editor). --A. B. 16:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert on Rickover by any means, so most of my suggestions will be fairly general; but here are some of the more obvious points where this article could be improved:
 * Inline citations should be added in larger numbers. Any judgements, controversial points, or direct quotes need to be cited, obviously; but, beyond that, a thorough citation of all significant points in the article would not be inappropriate.  I would suggest using thecite.php footnote method.
 * An infobox template (Infobox Military Person) should be added.
 * The references (the sources used for material in the article) need to be listed separately from the works written by Rickover if those works were not actually used.
 * The "Jimmy Carter and Three Mile Island" seems pretty stubby; it might be better to either expand it or merge it into one of the surrounding sections.
 * If you'd like additional input (and input from a somewhat wider audience), you might want to take advantage of the military history peer review process. Kirill Lokshin

Trivia
I've deleted the recent "Trivia" category. Aside from the fact that its two-statement contents were unencyclopedic and only served to clutter the article, the first comment was uncited, and the second was flat out false. One example of Rickover appearing in full uniform includes this photo taken with Presidents Carter, Ford and Nixon. --72.183.125.111 22:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

CONFORM and 688
According to Patrick Tyler (Running Critical), and later quoted and expanded by Norman Polmar in his 2004 book "Cold War Submarines", back when the 688 program started, there was this alternative called CONFORM. To make a long story short, the CONFORM program held promise of a substantially superior and smaller submarine at a lower cost. Rickover not only forced his own idea (688) through, but he destroyed all the records of the competing CONFORM program. I must say I'm curious as to why this incident is not discussed in the main article at all. Even if another source mitigated or rebutted this story (I'd admit not being familiar with any rebuttals, so if I add this part myself it'd be up to someone else to write the other POV), I would think it is worthy of at least a mention. Certainly it does seem to portray a darker side of Rickover. Comments? Kazuaki Shimazaki 14:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There are many, many, many stories about Rickover, the person, which is the subject of this article -- not "submarine development in the U.S." -- that are not included in the article. --72.183.125.111 12:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering that Rickover's primary claim to fame is his hand in US nuclear submarine development, I'm not so sure. His contributions to US submarine safety (the positive) is known and listed, so why not potential negatives? --Kazuaki Shimazaki 03:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A quick look at the article's bibliography gives some sense of the prodigious amount of information written about Rickover. The CONFORM story pales in comparison to many other person-al stories about Rickover that cannot be included in order to make the article of reasonable size. --72.183.125.111 12:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If this article is already huge, I might agree with you, but it is not. However, honestly I must say I find Rickover's heavy handed activity with CONFORM, thus depriving the US of a potential cheaper and superior alternative, to be MUCH more intriguing than say the presents he received from EB. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 03:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * CONFORM might be interesting to an E.B. engineer, but not so much to the general population. --72.183.125.111 12:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How is it not of interest to the general populace that Rickover potentially slowed US submarine development for a generation? It is like saying Lysenko is not of interest to Russians for hindering their genetics and agricultural advances for a generation. Considering the decision was made during a time of fierce competition with the Soviet Union, this might just have threatened national security. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 03:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Moreover, the premise that CONFORM was an acceptable design is a specious one: The most powerful reactor plant at the time was the S6G...the one used in the 688 design; a smaller submarine would have meant a smaller reactor and a slower submarine. A primary design criteria for the 688 was that it had to keep up with the nuclear-powered carrier battle group; this was something that the 688 was and is certainly capable of. --72.183.125.111 12:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Smaller submarines are not necessarily slower. In fact, USS Skipjack had a speed of 33 knots, on 15000HP. Larger subs have more wetted area and require a lot more thrust just to regain the same speed. The CONFORM project seemed to have realized this and was going for efficiency improvements to increase speed rather than just cramming larger and larger plants (which kill off their advantage by requiring larger boats) onto the subs. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 03:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If there was a serious study that found 688 superior, then there would be no problem. However, no such study was apparently made. Rickover apparently just ramroaded the thing through Congress. Once he got it, he quickly scrapped everything, so no analyst can go over them in retrospect and sidelined all those that supported CONFORM. That last part was the most petty and intriguing to me and I suspect more Americans than some think. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 03:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Shimazaki-san, I'm really & truly not interested in a point-by-point debate. And I mean, literally, it's just not interesting to me.  But...carrier protection and thus speed were the critical elements that drove the 688's success.  My sense is that Rickover also didn't want to pay for a full-up new reactor design; S6G borrowed heavily from the surface ship D1G design, and thus dramatically lessened overall reactor design & development for the 688.  Moreover, if CONFORM couldn't keep up with the carrier battle group, then...in that day and age...it was a non-starter of an idea.  Rickover was nothing if not politically savvy, and he had to know that the carrier admirals would sink any new submarine design that didn't play to their interests, which had substantial merit as a result of growing Soviet submarine ASUW capabilities.  Last, and least, NAVSEA didn't...and doesn't...have a talent pool waiting in hot-standby to create a full-up design for a new submarine.  E.B. does...and did. If the CONFORM design had a "NAVSEA" branding label on it at the end of the day, it was just and only that. That's really all I have to say about all of this.  Good luck with the re-write.  --72.183.125.111 14:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Moreover, CONFORM is highly akin or identical to "Fat Albert," an E.B. 688-alternative design that was shorter but wider than a 688. This design effectively exists in the fleet today as the Seawolf class, but its reactor development took decades to achieve. --72.183.125.111 12:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Fat Albert as I understood it was much lighter, and it was NEVER meant to match the speed of the 688 (the proposal already said it would only do 27 knots), so I won't say it is the same as CONFORM. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 03:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Notably, but not surprisingly, the Seawolf class was cancelled after only three were constructed due to excessive costs. You have to consider the source (especially when there is an inherent conflict of interest) when it comes to ostensibly "superior" submarine designs that in fact have an enormous cost tail in terms of overall system design, construction and maintenance. Not surprisingly, the military-industrial complex loves expensive programs that appear "low cost" to the run-of-the-mill U.S. Congressional 'consumer.'


 * Since the Seawolf was so much larger than the others, the cost increase is more likely related to that. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 03:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * CONFORM was designed from the US Naval Systems Command, with some help from EB. That means NSC has a grudge against Rickover, but the "Rickoverists" also have an interest here too to defend their design. Building a smaller submarine is of dubious advantage to EB anyway, since smaller ships tend to be cheaper. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 03:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Status of the article and future development
(Relocated discussion from Will_Beback & 24.28.6.209 talk pages)

Thank you for your contributions this evening to the Rickover article. I think that the retirement section is getting a little heavy as compared to his substantial contributions, but then I guess elephant fights are always dramatic & amusing. --24.28.6.209 05:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If the section seems too long we might trim some of the Veliotis material. There's some coverage of the retirement and related circumstances in newspaper archives if we need more sources. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Rickover's public & private combat with General Dynamics/Veliotis was substantially the reason that he was successfully forced to retire, so I wouldn't short change related comments in that dimension. Since Lehman has publicly bragged that he deliberately set out to "solve the Rickover problem," (i.e., that he premeditated Rickover's retirement) prior to becoming Secretary of the Navy, this point needs to be mentioned.


 * To me, it's not that the retirement section is too long, rather that the NR/AEC section -- Rickover's salad days, if you will -- should be the most profound...and right now it isn't. Part of the problem is that Rickover's service was so long, and his irascibility so world-class, that there are any number of stories that could be added to convey just how he accomplished what he did. Tough to pick one or two stories out of a hundred or so.


 * My overall take is that the article is fine for now...though Lehman's premeditation bears mentioning. --24.28.6.209 02:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you're right about what you say. It'd be better to discuss the article on its talk page though. Overall, I think the article looks great. It may be the best online biography in existence. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Lehman
I think we should leave this debate to historians. This text appears polemical. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How much of Lehman's intention was well-founded toward removing a clinging senescent tyrant, and how much was motivated by malevolent intra-service rivalry or a desire to sweep fraudulent contractor claims under the rug, can be argued but not quantified by historians.

Agreed. I don't think that it is in any way inaccurate, but at the same time these words do come across as having a bone to pick. I don't have the words or interest right now to convey this matter. Maybe later. --24.28.6.209 22:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Engineering excellence vs. tactical focus
As per the point that Tom Clancy made when he wrote Submarine, what do the ex USN officers here think of the contention that Rickover's overwhelming focus on nuclear safety diminished the relative importance, for US submarine officers, of tactical skill and training in anti-submarine operations, compared to the Royal Navy's selection programme for submarine captains? Buckshot06 16:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The only opinions of ex USN officers that matter are those published in relaible sources, not those offered on Wikipedia talk pages. If this is a controversy then we should cover it. While Clancy isn't a submariner, he is a well-known author on the topic and his viewpoint on the subject should be mentioned in the article, along with any noteworthy disagreeing or concurring opinions. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Will is correct. Moreover, for several reasons, it will also likely be difficult to find USN officer opinions on the matter in print. Security, for certain, is one of the reasons, but not least of which is how to actually measure the degree of tactical vs. engineering focus.


 * As operators of the world's finest nuclear submarines (certainly in their opinion), internally the US submariners don't compare themselves much to other navies in regard to tactical vs. engineer skills. That's not to say they don't know who internationally has skills and who doesn't -- the Brits, in particular, are admired for their aggressiveness in tactical situations...likely attributable to the Perisher approach in screening officers for command. The actual career path for U.S. submariners includes quite a bit of tactical proficiency requirements; you don't hear much in the press about this, as the nuclear end of things captures the imagination fairly quickly...but there is definitely a balance.


 * Some navies split the career options for officers between bridge-skills and engineering paths, including U.S. submariners (Rickover himself was an EDO), but the hard-core engineering types by and large do not have command-at-sea tours. If someone is an over-the-top "nuke", they'll almost certainly go EDO, and no one disrespects this choice...you need people like that.


 * Having said all this, the extreme focus on nuclear propulsion plant operation & maintenance was well known during Rickover's era, and one way by which this was addressed after he left was that only very strong former at-sea submarine commanders have held Rickover's now uniquely 8-year position as NAVSEA-08. From Rickover's first replacement, Kinnaird R. McKee, to today's head of NR, Kirkland Donald, all have been exceptional operators; not one has been an EDO. --24.28.6.209 15:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. I spent some time this evening looking through Google books to see if this topic is addressed there, but no joy – as expected, it's not something you'd find in the open press. But there was a good comment from William Lowell Putnam in Arctic Superstars that is apropos: "...but no amount of strategic, or even tactical skill is of much value without the means to implement either."  In my opinion, that, in a very short statement, is the sum legacy of Rickover:  he delivered the means. Last but not least, as Rickover himself points out, and with great accuracy in terms of results during the Cold War: "A fast noisy submarine is of no tactical value."  --24.28.6.209 02:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Perisher is referred to in this online article by the first active-duty U.S. naval officer who actually attended it as "one of the premier training programs for submariners in the world." The high degree of U.S. respect for British tactical training is definitely real. --71.42.142.238 17:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Adding to that from the British perspective: here an exchange officer at the U.S. Submarine Development Squadron Twelve states without dispute that "...“Perisher”...has produced submarine CO’s revered across the world." --71.42.142.238 17:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Clancy's opinions are those of an armchair general with no real experience, other than in writing fiction. I don't think he's a very good source for this article.  If you want a book reflecting the usefulness of U.S. nuclear submarines, I'd recommend "Blind Man's Bluff".  It should disabuse anyone of the idea that U.S. submarine commanders were unduly cautious or engineering oriented. Warren Dew (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thresher
(Relocated the following off-topic comment to further the tangential discussion.)

On the other hand, when Thresher went down, he's also known to say to the committee that the Thresher's not his business because it is a "follow-on" ship and the only difference is that a bit of silencing was tacked on (find quote tonight). So, by his statement, silencing in US subs have little to do with him. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 04:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is likely a more profound comment under this heading than the last one, where it originated. I think that the Thresher disaster deserves more treatment in the article, as it led to so many changes, and appears to have been exacerbated by blind adherence to strict (and over-conservative) procedures.  Let's discuss this here first, then edit as appropriate.


 * As noted here, in a book by the often hostile-to-Rickover Norman Polmar, "Significantly, the day after the disaster, Rickover called the first of several meetings to determine means of a faster reactor startup, as it became evident that the initial "minor difficulty" was an emergency reactor scram, or shutdown." The literature on the Thresher disaster by and large converges on the theory that a silver-brazed joint let to a reactor scram which led to a loss of propulsion, and also points toward the freezing up of high-pressure air lines as the boat attempted to blow ballast tanks and surface.


 * I'll look to see if there's more in the public domain that can be brought to this, as I have no doubt that Thresher was a ::traumatic and very humbling event in Rickover's life, and may have led to more pragmatic yet safe approaches to reactor operations. --71.42.142.238 16:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing enraged Rickover more than the suggestion that his operators were so slavishly devoted to reactor safety that they would protect the plant at the cost of the ship. It was suggested that the operators in the maneuvering space delayed reopening the main steam stop valves, valves which would have shut automatically following a reactor scram and deprived the propulsion and electrical turbines of steam, even though this placed the ship at great peril. Rickover argued vehemently that this idea flew in the face of common sense, and that a commanding officer would take any action necessary to save his ship, even one that wrecked the reactor plant. However, Raymond McCoole, who was Thresher's reactor controls officer (and who was not on the ship during her last dive)  theorized that his replacement  Jim Henry, fresh from nuclear power school, might have followed "the book" a bit too closely and delayed reopening the valves, thus depriving the submarine of propulsion for too long. it's noteworthy that the switch to control the main steam stop valves (valves so large that they could not be reopened quickly once closed due to the pressure differential) had three positions - Open, Shut, and Auto. In an article published before his death, McCoole suggested that on a deep dive he would have left the switch in "Open" instead of "Auto", and/or given the order to reopen the valves immediately due to the depth of the submarine and the assumed flooding condition. Doing so would have provided steam to the propulsion train, perhaps allowing Thresher to "drive" herself to the surface.

Following the Thresher disaster, Rickover indeed met with his technical staff and reduced the time to restart the reactor to about six minutes. Procedures were also changed to "allow" the limited withdrawl of steam for propulsion.


 * Response to "Follow-on" ship comment Perhaps Shimazaki was unable to find the quote he referred to. I checked Rickover's entire testimony before the Joint Committee. It was in response to a question by Representative Bates about who had authority for which parts of the Thresher construction. Rickover explained that because the reactor plant on Thresher was the S5W plant, which is the same as the reactor plants of the Skipjack class, Thresher was considered as a "follow-on" ship; therefore the agreement within the Bureau of Ships was that his responsibility was limited to the reactor plant and not to the rest of the propulsion plant. I could not find use of the "not my business" expression in this testimony. To the contrary, elsewhere in that same testimony, he pointed out his continual delema of being blamed for medling in Bureau of Ships activities outside the reactor plant, but that when he saw an activity (or in-activity) that might have adverse impact to the reactor plant, he considered it to be his responsibility to do something about it.
 * I agree that the loss of Thresher deserves more treatment in the article. I'll try to draft a couple of paragraphs for review here.Tvbanfield (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Loss of the Thresher
(Proposed new section to be inserted just before Three Mile Island in the main article)

On April 10, 1963 the USS Thresher (SSN-593) was lost at sea with 112 naval personnel and 17 technical civilians. This was the first major setback for the naval reactors program, and although there were no indications that the loss was attributed to reactor problems, it presented serious concerns for Admiral Rickover. Thresher was first in a class of a new submarine design that would be much quieter and go faster and deeper than previous submarines. To achieve quietness, all machinery would be placed on resilient mountings and piping would be connected to machinery with flexible couplings. To achieve greater depths, a new type of steel, called HY-80 (high yield, 80,000 pounds per square inch), would be required for the hull. Thresher's reactor plant, however, was to be the S5W reactor, the same plant that had been installed and fully tested on the Skipjack class submarine. Therefore the innovations in the engine room and in hull construction were outside of the area of Rickover's responsibility.

Rickover's concerns included:
 * The scheduling of several subs of the new class to be built before the first would be tested at sea
 * Problems with quality control of the welding of HY-80 steel
 * The assignment of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard to build a first of a class submarine
 * The integrity of seawater piping, specifically the widespread Navy practice of brazing seawater pipe joints rather than welding because it is faster and less expensive.

--Note: Brazing is in fact faster and less expensive, but more to the point, it is the only way to join dissimilar metals. 72.8.26.82 (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Rickover was often criticised for medling in Navy issues that were outside of his areas of responsibility. It was his view however, that if he saw actions or in-actions in the Navy that would have serious negative impact on the effectiveness of nuclear submarines, it would be his responsibility to bring these problems to light. He did so as a witness before the Navy court of inquiry and in his testamony to the Congressional Joint Committee on Atomic Energy.

The Joint Committee held its hearings in June of 1963 after the Navy court of inquiry made its report. At these hearings Admiral Rickover informed Congress of his views of what may have led to the loss of Thresher. While the findings of the Navy court of inquiry were of a very specific and technical nature, Rickover pointed more to generic and wide-spread management practices that set the stage for loose adherence to existing specifications and poor quality control. He pointed to the frequent reassignment of technical managers in the Navy and in the shipyards, and to the lack of individual responsibility as the key management shortcomings.

During testimony before the Joint Committee on June 15, 1961 concerning the pinpointing of responsibility in the event of nuclear accidents, Rickover said: ''Responsibility is a unique concept: it can only reside and inhere in a single individual. You may share it with others, but your portion is not diminished. You may delegate it but it is still with you. You may disclaim it, but you cannot divest yourself of it. Even if you do not recognize it or admit its presence, you cannot escape it. If responsibility is rightfully yours, no evasion, or ignorance or passing the blame can shift the burden to someone else. Unless you can point your finger at the man who is responsible when something goes wrong, then you have never had anyone really responsible.''

Also Rickover emphasized to Congress that he did not create newer and tougher standards in the Reactor Program, he simply insisted that already existing standards be adhered to strictly. In his efforts to enforce these standards, he found that manufacturers and shipyards too often waived descrepencies, especially if it would be difficult or expensive to remedy the problem.

With regard to the use of silver-brazed joints in sea-water piping, he pointed out that, since there were no reliable procedures at that time to determine if a brazed joint was properly brazed, and because there had been numerous failures of brazed joints during full-ship shock tests of submarines, he ordered all silver-brazed joints in Thresher piping that passed through the reactor compartment, i.e., through his area of responsibility, to be replaced with welded joints. None of the brazed joints elsewhere in Thresher were replaced, of which approximately 3000 joints are subject to submerged sea pressure.

Rickover's testimony to Congress and his recommendations contributed significantly to the establishment of the Navy SUBSAFE program, which has been very successful in preventing flooding casualties in its deep diving submarines.Tvbanfield (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Rickover and NR were also concerned over the amount of auxiliary seawater piping in Thresher's engineering spaces. While NR had jurisdiction over the reactor compartment (and subsequently required that all piping passing through the compartment be welded instead of braized,) their opinion that the steam plant and piping layout was awkward and even dangerous was discounted. Since Thresher utilized the S5W plant already in use in the Skipjack class, Thresher was indeed considered a "follow on" design, despite the fact that the engine room used a "floating" deck to isolate the vibrations of rotating machinery from the hull. This was significant since it required the use of flexible piping, a concept tested in surface ships but not in submarines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.8.26.82 (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Non-punitive letter of censure
I've reverted a one-time editor's change to the related JAGMAN .pdf in-line link from the incredibly irrelevant Wikipedia censure article as it was distinctly dis-informing the article. Editors are encouraged to add information, not remove it. --24.28.6.209 (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Restored yet again. See above comments. The Wikipedia 'censure' article adds nothing to this article, nor does it do anything to explain to the encyclopedic audience what a "non-punitive letter of censure" is. The JAGMAN is the authoritative document. --24.28.6.209 (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How about citing page, chapter ect. and actualy put in the effort to explain what a "non-punitive letter of censure", instead of slapping a link to a 6.53 mb, 381 page manual.??--Hu12 (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Glad to honor a constructive criticism. I'll do that when I get "a round tuit".  It's certainly vastly preferable to destroying information while pretending to add value via a completely irrelevant link. --24.28.6.209 (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Until you do get "a round tuit", We'll omit the link per consensus. A 6.53 mb, 381 page manual, without citing the specifics is excessively inappropriate, and inaccessable to most.--Hu12 (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No. We won't. Please dilettante elsewhere. --24.28.6.209 (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why don't we just copy the relevant text from the PDF into the citation, and then keep the link in the citation for those who want the entire context? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Even easier: I've reformatted it to a referenced citation. See how easy that was? And it didn't even require referencing a completely irrelevant article such as censure.--24.28.6.209 (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's better than before. We should never include external links in the text that way, especially when they go to huge PDFs that take (in my case) well over half an hour to download. If we actually want readers to know what we're talking about, we should still include the text we're referencing. Since it's PD, fair use isn't an issue. The problem with the way it's set up now is that it appears to tbe a source for the censure, not a description of what a censure is. When the PDF finishes downloading I'll copy the relevant text into the reference. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Good effort, and thank you. It's always nice to see an administrator adding value. --24.28.6.209 (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Will, thoughts on this?
 * --simulated refence section--
 * --simulated refence section--


 * --Hu12 (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That looks good. BTW, two hours later and I still have only half of the PDF downloaded. My conneciton is fairly speedy, so the site itself must have a very slow connection. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

NONPUNITIVE CENSURE
This is from http://www.jag.navy.mil/documents/JAGMAN2004.pdf. Warning, it is a large file on a slow server. As a product of the U.S. Government it is in the public domain. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * MANUAL
 * OF THE
 * JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL
 * (JAGMAN)
 * Office of the Judge Advocate General
 * Department of the Navy
 * 1322 Patterson Avenue, Southeast
 * Suite 3000
 * Washington Navy Yard
 * Washington, DC
 * CHAPTER I
 * REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING AND
 * SUPPLEMENTING THE MANUAL
 * FOR COURTS-MARTIAL
 * PART A -- NONPUNITIVE MEASURES
 * 0105 NONPUNITIVE CENSURE
 * a. General. "Censure" is a statement of adverse
 * opinion or criticism of an individual's conduct or
 * performance of duty expressed by a superior in the
 * member's chain of command. Censure may be
 * punitive or nonpunitive. See section 0114 regarding
 * punitive censure. Censure does not include adverse
 * comments in reports of fitness or performance
 * evaluations, letters of instruction, or administrative
 * remarks entries documenting factual matters such as
 * counseling. Proper use of adverse matter that is not
 * censure is governed by Department of the Navy
 * regulations and applicable service directives, such as
 * the Naval Military Personnel Command Manual and
 * the Marine Corps Individual Records Administration
 * Manual.
 * b. Nonpunitive censure. Nonpunitive censure is
 * provided for in R.C.M. 306(c)(2), MCM. Nonpunitive
 * censure may be issued by any superior in the member's
 * chain of command, and may be either oral or in
 * writing. A sample nonpunitive letter is at Appendix
 * A-1-a.
 * censure may be issued by any superior in the member's
 * chain of command, and may be either oral or in
 * writing. A sample nonpunitive letter is at Appendix
 * A-1-a.


 * (1) A nonpunitive letter is not considered
 * punishment; rather, the letter is issued to remedy a
 * noted deficiency in conduct or performance of duty.
 * The contents of a nonpunitive letter are not limited to,
 * but may include the following : identification of
 * conduct or performance of duty deficiencies, direction
 * for improvement, language of admonishment, identification
 * of sources of assistance, outline of corrective
 * action, and the consequences of failing to correct the
 * deficiencies.
 * (2) A nonpunitive letter will be kept a
 * personal matter between the member and the superior
 * issuing the nonpunitive letter. Other than Secretarial
 * letters of censure (see section 0114b), the letter may
 * not be forwarded to the Chief of Naval Personnel or
 * the Commandant of the Marine Corps, quoted in or
 * appended to fitness reports, included as enclosures to
 * investigations pursuant to the Manual of the Judge
 * Advocate General or to other investigations, or
 * otherwise included in official departmental records of
 * the recipient.
 * (3) The commanding officer of a member may
 * use the underlying facts to support a detachment for
 * cause proceeding, for relief of command, or to support
 * a negative endorsement. If the member submits a
 * rebuttal to those facts alleging inadequate counseling
 * or a failure to warn of deficiencies, a copy of the
 * nonpunitiveletter may be included in the
 * correspondence forwarding the member's rebuttal.
 * Under such circumstances, a nonpunitive letter may
 * properly be included in the official service record of
 * the member upon filing of the complete
 * correspondence under the provisions of applicable
 * service regulations. The fact of issuance of a
 * nonpunitive letter may not be mentioned in a fitness
 * report but the underlying facts may be included.


 * I think all of this may have been futile. I was able to get a 1.65 mb Congressional brief that is verifying quite a bit of the Forced retirement section including the censure. Ive added a change. --Hu12 (talk) 10:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not only does that load faster (48 seconds versus 4 hours) but, even better, it's a much more relevant reference. Thanks for finding it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, as the "one-time editor" (with 8000+ edits to WP, over 50% in the Main article space, but who is WP:COUNTing?) I am glad to see that my original edit to remove that totally useless, gigantic PDF link has been converted into a well sourced, informative citation. And so the content of WP was improved and all rejoiced.  Which is the point of having multiple editors, after all.  Even trolling, disruptive, IP editors can help out in their own way. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 20:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thresher & Scorpion
There should be mention of the 2 nuke subs lost. Thresher and Scorpion. If there is anything public about the HR's invovement with these losses, it should be included. I would assume that HR had a lot to do with looking into to fixes. 32.175.91.218 (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Article re-write
Whilst grazing over this article, I couldn't help but notice many areas which seem to be almost POV. This type of wriing seems to be prevalent throughout the article. For example the second paragraph starts with "With his unique personality..." There are many examples of this sort of writing, for instance the last sentence of the Childhood section (referring to "the future four star admiral") and under the Full Accountability sub-heading of the Controversy section: "In a distinct contrast to numerous examples of admirals and senior naval officers...". These are but a few of the many others throughout the article. It would a seem a massive re-write is needed. 124.190.113.128 (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Admiral Rickover
I recently watched the PBS documentary about this incredible man and his idea for our first United States nuclear naval submarine. As a veteran of The United States Navy, I found it quite interesting! Cheriekimmoore (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

"Invented"?
I think the lead sentence claiming that Rickover "invented" nuclear propulsion, sourced to this page, is a bit much. I can't find any discussion of it on this [unarchived] talk page, and I find the source to be thin. The text of the article states: This twin role enabled him to both lead the effort to develop the world's first nuclear-powered submarine, USS Nautilus (SSN-571), which was launched and commissioned in 1954, as well as oversee the development of the Shippingport Atomic Power Station, the first commercial pressurized water reactor nuclear power plant. Leader? Visionary? Proponent? Sure. "Inventor?" I think it's a stretch. Thoughts? Frank |  talk  19:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * So absurd I changed it.Mwinog2777 (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Childhood
I changed the "Childhood" section title to "Early Life" since the section covers his life through to young adulthood. Santamoly (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The Rickover Incident

 * A high ranking Admiral drives up to the gate of a naval base. This base has a policy of 100% check of ID cards and there is a new Marine on guard duty at the gate.
 * Marine: I need to see your ID.
 * Admiral: I don't have time for this nonsense. (to the driver) Go ahead.
 * Marine: Don't do that.
 * Admiral to driver: You heard me, Drive on.
 * Marine draws his sidearm and says: Sir, this is my first time on post. Do I shoot you or your driver?

Apparently this incident is Rickover, as mentioned in a book about NR-1. Is it true? If so, I think we should include it because it gives us insight into Rickover's personality. -Joseph 15:22, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)


 * The stories regarding junior enlisted challenging Rickover, presenting ID such as a picture of a monkey, are myriad. Good luck verifying one.50.147.26.108 (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Early bio
The article cites Francis Duncan (Rickover The Struggle for excellence) and makes it look like the Rickovers were fleeing pogroms. The exact quote is: "His father was Abraham Rickover, a deserter from the Russian army who had become a tailor. [...] Because of virulent anti-Semitism, many Jews were fleeing Russia. Abraham Rickover, leaving his family behind him, made his way to New York, arriving in November 1897."

The question is: if Hyman's dad was _fleeing_ the pogroms, why did he leave the family behind for nine years? 46.138.81.114 (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The short answer is that while he was in the U.S. when the rest of the family joined him, Abraham returned to Poland/Russia at least once in the interim, and for stay(s) of unknown duration. See multiple references to this bit of history via Google books (merely search for "Rickover" and "pogroms"...both fairly targeted words).  Rickover the elder, Abraham, likely didn't have the resources he needed to immediately move the family to America.  Other reasons for the family separation(s) may be left to conjecture, however the rest of his family ultimately followed Abraham to America during the same time as a major pogrom in their area of the world.  Cheers,  --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Added cites referring to pogroms as a principal motivating force for Rickover's move to the U.S. with his family as a small boy. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Hyman G. Rickover. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120715043807/http://johnflehman.com:80/books/books_commandseas.html to http://www.johnflehman.com/books/books_commandseas.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"sink them all"
The first paragraph of the Willingness to "sink them all" section is essay-like and does not reflect what is in the cited source. That source is unreliable, as it is a blog post that contains personal reflections and synthesis of information. It would be ideal to remove the citation entirely and instead cite an official published version of the testimony. I have that would remove this unencyclopedic text, but this was reverted. Please advise. Ibadibam (talk) 01:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ I, after no response to this comment. Ibadibam (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Work style
Why is his concern with a successful nuclear program in opposition to his use of his position to settle scores with his opponents? It seems like the two could just as easily go together – settling scores with those who would undermine the nuclear program. Also, what is the source for this in the first place? Ibadibam (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Alleged La Jolla Incident
Propose revising the following text on Adm. Rickover's forced retirement:

"The capstone event occurred on July 27, 1981, whereby Lehman was handed the final impetus for ending Rickover's career by way of an operational error on the Admiral's part: a "moderate" loss of ship control and depth excursion while performing a submerged "crash back" maneuver during the sea trials of the newly constructed USS La Jolla (SSN-701). Rickover was the actual man-in-charge during this specific performance test, and his actions and inactions were judged to have been the causal factor.[80] According to Rickover, he first learned of his firing when his wife told him what she heard on the radio.[72]"

Citation 72 is broken and Citation 80 is to a brief newspaper article, which (1) does not appear to investigate both sides of the story as good journalism demands; and (2) appears principally premised in the accusations of P.T. Veliotis, who was at odds with Rickover over a controversy during Veliotis' tenure at General Dynamics as discussed in Rickover's Wiki article.

The controversy and adversarial relationship between Veliotis and Rickover makes Veliotis a biased declarant and impugns his veracity. The cited newspaper article's lack of investigative reporting into Rickover's side of the story further undercuts the article's merit as a historically reliable source.

The current text of the Wikipedia article as quoted above is not objective in that it states conclusively as fact, questionable allegations that have not been fully investigated, or at least not by the works cited.

The Wikipedia article should be revised to more objectively characterize the nature of the accusations, the potential bias of the accuser, and, unless further facts are forthcoming, the lack of actual factual knowledge of the events at sea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.152.99 (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've repaired the broken citation. Please review the source and see if it addresses your concerns. Ibadibam (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Ibadibam, thank you so much for repairing that citation. It was the one to the Diane Sawyer interview, correct? The citation numbers have changed since my initial post but I believe we are referring to the same one. That interview is a wonderful insight into Rickover's personality, convictions, and conscience that belongs in Wikipedia's collection of knowledge for sure.

However the main concern I had was not with the broken citation, but with the Wikipedia text having "imported" or followed an underlying source's failure to investigate both sides of a story amid evidence calling into question the honesty and motivations of an accuser.

As I described above, at a minimum Veliotis was adversarial to Rickover because of the controversy between Rickover and General Dynamics over possible fraud. At worst, it is possible that Veliotis is a liar, a fraud, and a thief.

In the main cited source on the La Jolla incident, a 1981 August 24 article from some publication "The Free Lance-Star", titled "Old admiral too 'reckless,' they're trying to beach him", includes only the naked accusations of Veliotis and some unnamed "source" at General Dynamics, and does not even include so much as a statement that Rickover or the Navy declined to comment. Reading the text of the article I can find no indication of any attempt whatsoever to investigate the other side of the story, despite the controversial circumstances clearly presenting a journalistic need to do so. "Audi Alteram Partem", "hear the other side".

Worse yet, by referring to the alleged incident as "the capstone event" in Rickover's forced retirement, the Wikipedia text makes a statement wholly unsupported by the cited authority. The cited article in no way whatsoever discusses what weight, if any at all, Reagan or Lehman gave to the alleged incident in axing Rickover. Even if the alleged incident occurred, the cited authority does not discuss what role, if any at all, it played in Lehman or Reagan's thinking. There is simply no support in that article for the Wikipedia text "The capstone event ... whereby Lehman was handed the final impetus for ending Rickover's career by way of an operational error on the Admiral's part".

If a more experienced Wikipedia contributor than me, wants to improve the Wikipedia text to more fairly and objectively reflect the state of our knowledge - or more like it, lack of knowledge - of the alleged incident, and/or provide citations to additional authorities that might shed further light on the matter, then I will defer to them first for right now. But if no one does anything, or can explain why the Wiki text should not be reformed in the manner I propose, then I will do it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael redman (talk • contribs) 21:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

"You guys" need to do better research. Having direct knowledge of what one is editing is always helpful. Please see the additional cites, which were not at all difficult to find...likely because this is what actually happened. Cheers, --107.194.72.223 (talk) 04:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hyman G. Rickover. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120715043807/http://www.johnflehman.com/books/books_commandseas.html to http://www.johnflehman.com/books/books_commandseas.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hyman G. Rickover. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.ornl.net/info/ornlreview/rev25-34/chapter3sb8.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090212155513/http://www.wsechicago.org/washington_award.asp to http://www.wsechicago.org/washington_award.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Article Cleanup
This article is grotesquely overstuffed with detail, very much missing the point of aiming for an encyclopedia article, rather than a full-out biography. We don't need to know every last breakfast the man had. It's also rather worshipful in tone. I'm restoring the edits I made to trim it down to size and create a more neutral POV throughout that were reverted without cause or explanation by an anonymous user. Palindromedairy (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

That's certainly your opinion, but clearly not a very informed one. Rickover's demise in combat with EB is historic, and is just one example of your having greatly oversimplified this bio. There are no stories of breakfast. I'm reverting until you get your act together, as your tone is clearly emotional and lacking in proper respect for fellow editors. You might want to stick to editing things you know and understand -- as a true domain expert, not merely an academic -- for the time-being. If that seems harsh, that's regrettable, but the truth only hurts when it's supposed to. --104.15.130.191 (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

(Continuing) As the article states -- per citation -- Rickover was one of the most accomplished and influential U.S. admirals in history. As I'm guessing all of this is well before your time, thus depriving you of a strong reference, it's helpful in gauging Rickover's true, simply honest impact by observing the books that continue to be written about him, and year-after-year at that. Rickover died in 1986...31 years ago and at 86 years of age...and yet books -- not merely papers or articles -- continue to be written that largely focus on what he accomplished and how he did that.

Now, having said all that, a virtually ideal view into Rickover's 'dark side' -- his utterly poor social skills -- may be provided best by way of someone that worked closely with him and stood up to him with capability and aplomb: Vice Admiral Eugene P. Wilkinson, arguably a mathematical genius, who served as the first commanding officer of Nautilus (after correcting Navy lab reactor core geometry equations), the first C.O. of the first nuclear-powered surface ship (USS Long Beach), and later the first CEO of INPO. Wilkinson was both extremely competent technically and a true leader of men. He was clearly admired by Rickover to the point that it doesn't take much insight to realize that Rickover saw Wilkinson as someone 'acceptably' capable of being Rickover's replacement -- but Wilkinson was an operator extraordinaire, and did not care for the top job at NR. If you sincerely want to gauge Rickover -- warts and all -- my sincere suggestion would be that you read the recent bio on Wilkinson, "Underway on Nuclear Power." --104.15.130.191 (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a bad article. I trimmed it because it was overlong, and in particular over-detailed and at times non-encyclopedic.  This remains true whether there is one book a year written about him, or a hundred.  The idea that every last bit of that 30K I cut was needed is not tenable.  Specifically, you are correct that there is no literal mention of breakfast; I would have thought the metaphor clear, but there is a large amount of information here a reader does not need to know to understand Rickover's importance.  That he's "historic" is why he has an article here; it does not mean we need to know every last thing that he did or that is connected to him, especially when coupled with the at-times poor tone.  If you are concerned that we need more detail on EB in particular than what is already there (why I can't tell, since you haven't given any specifics; regardless, I think it would be better served by a more extensive subpage instead of playing out the entire history here), then why not re-add what you think is essential back in rather than re-adding every last bit of cruft along with it?  My edits cover EB, Rickover's role in it, and its link to his eventual dismissal.  What more needs to be there?


 * Despite your obvious emotional connection to the man making you see me as the devil, I don't mind if we have good information about Rickover here (which is why there's still a full 65K in wordage even after my edits). Try to look past your biases and focus on delivering good, summational encyclopedic content. Palindromedairy (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * And I've heard from otherwise very demanding Wikipedia editors who've called it the best bio on the Internet -- so you need to own up to the fact that you're simply experiencing it through the lense of your own opinion.  Calling it a bad article is just a clear indication that for whatever bias you're coming to this article with (surface Navy, perhaps?), you're clearly biased and overreaching in your statements...many of which are clearly hyperbole and intended to incite, not edit with intelligence.  Your "smack talk" approach toward Wikipedia does no one any good...least of all you...and as you are clearly not a subject matter expert on this topic, you'd do well to withdraw and reconsider your approach.  Be well.  --104.15.130.191 (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Please break up the changes into small pieces that do not span multiple sections so it's easier to review and comment upon. At a glance, there looks to be OR/SYN, and WP:NPOV problems. --Ronz (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, and Palindromedairy taking huge sections out is not helpful. Agree with Ronz - small surgeries are better than mass amputation.  Toddst1 (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies for not looking over the recent history of the article. You are correct that the dispute is over Palindromedairy removing huge portions of the article in a single edit.
 * I do agree with all the changes made in the previous, small edit by Palindromedairy, and have reinstated it piecemeal . --Ronz (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to make the changes piecemeal and with further annotations if that's what's felt to be necessary: I've already expressed above my willingness to compromise. I'd just like to clean this up without having every last bit of work down to hyphen and italics corrections thrown out because someone thinks I have a secret allegiance to the US surface navy, of all the absurd things. Palindromedairy (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the breakdown. --Ronz (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

All right, I've gone through and remade the edits, but instead broken up into many separate portions, each with an explanation. I've also cut somewhat less than previously. I believe the result is a lot less rambling and more neutral in tone. If anyone has any specific complaints about a specific change, I'd be happy to discuss them. Palindromedairy (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Forced retirement section
How can Rickover have spoken with Jimmy Carter in the Oval Office several weeks after his retirement on January 31, 1982? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C5:8300:B060:7CCA:F6DA:B540:9A67 (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The wording is ambiguous. I added "[Reagan]" after "the president", to clarify that Carter was apparently reporting a story that Rickover had told him.
 * It would help if someone could check Carter's biography, as cited. I don't have easy access to it.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Rickover 60 minutes interview with Edward R. Murrow
As of 2019-03-26 the "Documentaries" section includes the following:


 * Admiral Rickover — 60 Minutes interview by Diane Sawyer and Edward R. Murrow (1984)

Edward R. Murrow died in 1965, and 60 Minutes debuted in 1968. I found a couple of references to fix this, which I will add. DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Meh. Murrow's being deceased didn't even mildly impact his being included in the Rickover-Sawyer interview. At an apparently appropriate moment (Rickover chastising Sawyer and others for being "dumb"), a videotape from an earlier Rickover-Murrow interview (where Murrow was similarly schooled) was spliced into Sawyer's interview for the 60 Minutes piece. See YouTube's Admiral Rickover 60 Minutes Interview. Rickover certainly knew how to get his audience's full attention...if not politely. --67.48.200.162 (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Resources section
What's the point of this section? It looks like a dumping ground for someone's research project listing a boat-load of articles either written by Rickover or about Rickover and not very useful or conventional. Toddst1 (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * It's unique, but so was Rickover, who continues to have articles and papers and books written about him in 2019...119 years after his birth. It's a comprehensive, encyclopedic list of resources for current and future students of Rickover and nuclear power, both military and civilian.  Assume good faith, please.  --67.48.200.162 (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Toddst1 (talk) that the article shouldn't function as a "dumping ground" for a big long list of articles that aren't directly relevant to the article in question. Andrew Englehart (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I don't see any reason to deviate from WP:NOTREPOSITORY, so I'm removing the section.  Toddst1 (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I performed extensive cleans to this page a few years ago, as it had become riddled with hagiographical and rambling material, and faced opposition from a user in a very similar fashion to what is occurring now. I support continued attempts at cleans here, removing absurd sections like "Words of wisdom", or else this is going to just turn into a giant overly-detailed puff piece again. Palindromedairy (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Restored & expanded per citation. Two people do not form a "consensus" to delete this very encyclopedic section. Moreover, using pejoratives like "dumping ground" does not indicate clear & unbiased thinking. --104.15.130.191 (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's consensus and I have an opinion - hence I am biased. You did not have any support for its restoration and has been removed.
 * I'll assert that my thinking is clear and we can do without the ad-hominem attacks.
 * Note that 104.15.130.191 and 67.48.200.162 appear to be the same IP hopper from Austin Texas. Toddst1 (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Culled the "Resources" section for its apparently offending material (Rickover-referencing PhD dissertations, presidential library references, etc.), and limited this content to Rickover's authored, published works and notable, published biographics. As a sidebar, I do not control my IP address (does anyone?). --104.15.130.191 (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I see three editors (myself now included) specifically objecting to this inclusion, and a fourth editor opining that the article regularly attracts such editing. WP:ONUS requires achieving consensus for the inclusion of disputed material; repeatedly adding it back in over objections is textbook edit warring. Grandpallama (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You're mischaracterizing the circumstances, Grandpallama. I've edited the section to make it acceptable. HOW can we *possibly* otherwise reach consensus unless people see what's being proposed? In a vacuum...consensus...on what? --104.15.130.191 (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Your additions were discussed and rejected as recently as June. Instead of reinserting them repeatedly, make a case for their inclusion on the talkpage. That's how consensus works. Right now, consensus is against their inclusion, which is in no way a mischaracterization. Change folks' minds, or build a new consensus, but you cannot simply edit war them back in. Grandpallama (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're again mischaracterizing the situation. The information posted has been culled for miscellaneous info such as PhD dissertations and presidential library contents regarding the subject of the article.  The information NOW posted is the bonafide, authored and published works by the subject of this biographic article.  Tell me:  What is your line of reasoning against including this?  Moreover, why is it that I'm even having to spend one minute of my time justifying the inclusion of bonafide, authored, published works in a biographic article...?  Is this anything close to common practice regarding biographies...? Deleting all of the well-formed citations for Rickover's publications is okay...on "consensus??"  Where's the justice in that...? --104.15.130.191 (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The information posted has been culled for miscellaneous info such as PhD dissertations and presidential library contents regarding the subject of the article. Please point to the part of the discussion where you achieved consensus to re-include information that other editors previously objected to, or where there was a call for a select "culling". You've simply restored repeatedly deleted information, in violation of consensus, and you are continuing to misrepresent the previous discussion instead of using this as an opportunity to make the case for why the material should be included.
 * What is your line of reasoning against including this? My line of reasoning for its removal is very clear: consensus was established against its inclusion, and you have not engaged in a discussion to persuade editors to change that consensus.
 * Moreover, why is it that I'm even having to spend one minute of my time justifying the inclusion of bonafide, authored, published works in a biographic article...? WP:ONUS. Grandpallama (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging Toddst1, Andrew Englehart, and Palindromedairy in case they have thoughts about whether or not this "culling" is in line with the established consensus from last summer. Grandpallama (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. Looking at what is proposed to be kept, I think a lot of it is hopelessly redundant.  The idea of an encyclopedia is not that it has every possible linkable reference to the subject that one can find, and items like most of the magazine articles should simply have their relevant parts cited directly in the article and otherwise tossed.  The Authorship section seems mostly fine since writing professionally published books goes towards notability, except for the interviews, which a subject does not "author".  Rather than attempting to go into everything in detail here while referencing the various article edits, I'm going to make a "compromise edit" of the article, understanding that it does not have consensus but attempting to give a concrete example of middle ground. Palindromedairy (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

By all means, let's please focus on the content...and the rationale for not including it, if any. Rather than easily fancied notion of "consensus" (of two people), it'll be far more insightful to hear why we're all wasting our time here discussing the deep, deep thinking behind not allowing for a list of a notable individual's published material, and related biographics for the same. Perhaps we'll all learn something. --104.15.130.191 (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Jeez. Really IP?? You've got 3 people (me,  and  saying that content is inappropriate. Nobody believes your edit should be included. Drop the damn WP:STICK, move on and stop wasting folks' time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddst1 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Make that 4. I don't see a need for this content either. - wolf  00:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * (1) Wolf is only here because we've picked at an issue before. He has zero subject expertise.  (2)  Grandpallama hasn't said that the content is inappropriate.  He's only here because I reverted his reversion of my added content.  He saw that there'd been an issue and jumped in feet first before even reading the changes/content.  (3)  Actually no one is saying the content I'm proposing -- i.e., and specifically, a list of Rickover's published words -- is "inappropriate" because that would be silly, given that this article is a biographic of him.  What people are saying is that they can abuse the "consensus" structure of Wikipedia, a flaw which no doubt causes it to lose its individual members with true domain expertise daily. (4) That said, I'm done here...too.  I have no time for this nonsense.  Adios.  --104.15.130.191 (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2021
For his birth name, His last name should be changed to "Rikower". It should also change in the first sentence of the Early Life section. 2601:14D:8600:5690:D4BE:CF0C:18EE:F021 (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  ritenerek ⋆:) 22:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2021
The word Indiana is in the middle of the word rescuing. Search for Indiana to find it.

So change indiana to in 208.38.228.20 (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)