Talk:Richard Feynman/Archive 2

Cargo Cult Science
Before this goes any farther, should Feynman's coinage of "cargo cult science" be in the lead? I say no: it's already in the main article and isn't important enough for a mention in the lead. Anon 84 says yes: I honestly don't understand hir reasoning at all. What say the good editors of Wikipedia, yay or nay? --Gimme danger 22:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's just one thing he did, 33 years ago. I was there.  But it doesn't need to be in the lead. Dicklyon 22:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You were there!!? Truly I lived too late. Would you mind reverting? I'm leaning on the 3RR right now.--Gimme danger 22:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the talk was memorable, even with all the other things on our minds, but I had no idea it would become famous and historic. Dicklyon 22:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

RNA Tie Club
Feynman was part of Gamow's RNA Tie Club. Does anyone know what Feynman's contributions to/with the club were? What was Feynman's purpose in the club? --159.178.247.101 (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * See "DNA" in the index of "genius". While on sabbatical in 1960, he acted as a molecular biologist at Caltech in Delbruck's lab and discovered "intragenic suppression" which friends in the lab called Feyntrons. They encouraged him to publish, but publishing was not his thing (for example, The Feynman Lectures, "Surely", "QED: the strange theory", and "Character of Physical Law" are all transcribed by someone else from sketchy notes and/or audio or video recordings).  Feyntrons were independently discovered elsewhere. It was the "touchstone" for figuring out the major goal of how DNA was being read (answer: in a sequence), which was the goal in forming the club.   Delbruck is the only other theoretical physicist in the "club", so getting Feynman in it was maybe a way of trying to get him to actually work on it, or maybe he was already talking to Delbruck in the 1950's and that's how he got in it. The book also mentions one of the reasons he stayed at Caltech in 1954 (same year the club was formed) was because of biology research being done by Pauling and Delbruck. In 1967, he got a pre-print manuscript of the "Double Helix" from Watson and read it that evening when he was supposed to be at a cocktail party in his (Feynman's) honor, and was so excited he made Goodstein stay up all night reading it. The importance to him was remembering to disregard the work of others. Ywaz (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Name Pronunciation
The main article states pronunciation as fɑɪnmən, but the IPA page does not list ɑɪ as a vowel combination. I believe it should be faɪnmən instead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chris Purves (talk • contribs).
 * Good catch! --Kjoonlee 14:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC) I am not good with grammar, but I think your right:)Bazookafox1 (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Many people would say Richard Feynman was a fine man. And that is the way his name is pronounced: fine-man. While some may say Richard was a vain man, he was never a fain-man. Listen to the audio CD included with the book titled "Classic Feynman--All the Adventures of a Curious Character" edited by Richard Leighton (ISBN 0-393-06132-9). The CD is a talk Feynman gave on February 6, 1975 at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The moderator introduces him and pronounces his last name as Fine-man. During his talk, Feynman says his own name 2 or 3 times as Fine-man. Good enough to convince me.Cdamondan (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Superconductivity
I changed the phrases "forever eluded" to "eluded" and "later solved" to "solved"; Feynman was actually on the track to the solution but BCS got there first, *while* he was still working on superconductivity (so not "later"). 137.82.188.68 03:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The source for the above comments is the article "Richard Feynman and Condensed Matter Physics" by David Pines, in the 1989 Physics Today Feynman memorial issue; I think the Gleick biography also mentions that Feynman wrote a note to himself before going on a trip that indicated he was focussing in on the phonon interaction that is at the heart of the BCS theory. 137.82.188.68 20:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Arista Honor Society link
I checked this link - it leads to an unrelated article on a record label with a similar name. Is it a candidate for changing back to ordinary text, or is the society significant enough to have an article of its' own? Autarch 19:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Diagram
I have heard that Feynman himself referred to the Feynman diagram as "the diagram", with emphasis on "the", implying that it's the most (or even the only) important diagram. Indeed this article says that you can model "all of physics" with the Feynman diagram. Does anyone know if this is true, and can find a citation? — PhilHibbs | talk 21:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is untrue.  You cannot model "all of physics" with any known theory or diagram.  --159.178.247.101 (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My thought on the matter is that people knew about the Diagram already, they knew it was Feynman's, and finally Feynman knew that his reputation preceded him. Thus the joke. But that's just me; I wasn't there.202.123.56.201 (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Parallel Processing
The fragment of this Richard Feynman article:


 * In the late 1970s, according to "Richard Feynman and the Connection Machine", Feynman played a critical role in developing the first parallel processing computer and finding innovative uses for it in numerical computing and building neural networks, as well as physical simulation with cellular automata (such as turbulent fluid flow), working with Stephen Wolfram at Caltech.[24]

is misleading, unclear, and dubious. It makes a false impression on a layman that the Connection Machine was build in the 1970s, and that it was the very first parallel processing computer, which is totally false on both accounts. If this statement is more or less left in the article then the name of that first par. proc. comp. should be explicitly given, plus respective proper sources. -- Wlod (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is all garbled. I was tempted to delete it entirely but perhaps the person responsible wants to fix it themself.  Feynman didn't work with Wolfram at Caltech on the Connection Machine -- this occurred later, in the mid-1980s (when Wolfram was at the Institute for Advanced Study), when both were consulting for Thinking Machines Corp.  There may be some confusion here with the Caltech Cosmic Cube parallel-computer project in which Wolfram's Ph.D. supervisor Geoffrey C. Fox played a leading role.  137.82.188.68 (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Challenger disaster
This fragment:


 * Feynman discovered that the 1 in 105 figure was reached by the highly dubious method of attempting to calculate the probability of failure of every individual part of the shuttle, and then adding these estimates together. This method is erroneous by standard probability theory: the correct way to calculate such risk is to subtract each individual factor's failure risk from unity and then multiply all differences. The product will be the net safety factor and the difference between it and unity, the net risk factor.

is messed up and should be fixed or simplified by removing the not so necessary technical details. -- Wlod (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, in fact this kind of calculation overvalues the probability of failure. The true risk is never higher than sum of probabilities of failure of each part. The engineers of NASA overvalued the risk in this way, so their failure is somewhere else. 83.5.211.142 (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The statement that Feynman thought that the 1 in 10-to-the-5 meant that NASA should therefore expect to have daily launches for 274 years without failure is probably incorrect. That many days is certainly around 274 years, but if half of those days go by without a failure, the later days will be marked by increasing likelyhood of failure above 1 to 1. Similarly, I shouldn't expect to roll a six-sided die six times before I would roll a 1! Even so, no failure on daily flights for only 137 years is a tall order as well. I think he meant that NASA thought they could go 274 years with the probability of 1 failure therein. Fred Canavan, Glen Rock, New Jersey


 * As of this writing, the section 'challenger disaster' is identical to the section 'Role of Richard Feynman' in the article Rogers Commission. Suggest removal of content and linking instead. The following (as it appears with the image) seems sufficient:


 * "Feynman served on the presidential commission investigating the 1986 Challenger disaster. He concluded that NASA management's space shuttle reliability estimate was fantastically unrealistic. He warned in his appendix to the commission's report: "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." HonoluluMan (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This statement is misleading:


 * Feynman devoted the latter half of his book 'What Do You Care What Other People Think?' to his experience on the Rogers Commission, straying from his usual convention of brief, light-hearted anecdotes to deliver an extended and sober narrative.

In fact, that book and the previous book, 'Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman', were not written by Feynman himself, even though they're written in the first person. They were written by Ralph Leighton (edited by Edward Hutchings), from stories Feynman told in his drum circle. Therefore, it is disingenuous to call it Feynman's book, or to imply that devoting half the book to the Rogers Commission was entirely his idea. 76.171.4.148 (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Kagedtiger

Food-fight?

 * It was at Cornell, that the famous food-fight incident occurred (as highlighted in Feynman's book "Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman").

I don't think I remember this food-fight. Could someone check, please? --Kjoonlee 10:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I reverted it. I think I read something about a dish thrown into the air, not about food being thrown at people. --Kjoonlee 12:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

His Death
Why is there nothing in this article about his death? It's certainly relevant. -Kingoomieiii (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but I suspect it is because his biography isn't as widespread or popular as his own writing. I do know he had abdominal cancer, but not much else. --Kjoonlee 12:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The part where his cancer is mentioned has been clearly copied from somewhere else. It reads: "The day after he died, a letter arrived for him from the Soviet government giving him authorization to travel to Tuva. During this period he discovered that he had a form of cancer, but, thanks to surgery, he managed to hold it off."
 * That quote is from the book Tuva or Bust!. K8 fan (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Which period are they talking about? The period after his death? Can anyone correct this and indicate when did Feynmann discover he had cancer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dukeofalba (talk • contribs) 17:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, really change this, I read that sentence over and over again before realizing that it was the sentence, not me, that was wrong! Specifically: Does the "During this period, he discovered that he had a form of cancer, but, with surgery, managed to forestall it." sentence belong there at all? I think not, and i therefore remove it now, and hopefully someone can make a "end of life" or "Cancer" portion of this article later! //Niffe —Preceding undated comment added 10:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

Use of irregular and archaic Romanisation spelling for Japanese names
Not sure why or who did this but spelling "Sin-Itiro Tomonaga" in this way is out of whack. I lived there for 16 years and rarely encountered this way of spelling--usually used in the early part of the 20th and the later part of the 19th centuries. It is not used by public or private agencies or individuals and this has been the case for generations. The proper spelling is "Shinichiro Tomonaga" and to be accurate it should be spelled Tomonaga Shinichiro. So, who ever did this, you have not provided an accurate edit. --Malangthon (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's how Tomonaga-san himself spells it, most probably. --Kjoonlee 17:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the reason, probably. I've seen that name spelt in Kunrei that way even in sources which normally use Hepburn romanization. (Also, the spelling Shinichiro is misleading, suggesting that the "ni" is one mora, normally I would spell that "Shin'ichirō". But let's spell it the way he spells it, and his article uses in the title.) -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! !  12:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (Note that Sin-Itiro isn't standard Kunrei either — that would be Sin'itirô.) -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! 23:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Kjonlee has been reading too many old textbooks - Tomonaga Shinichiro is just fine - write it Tomonaga Shin-ichiro if you absolutely have to - nobody who knows Japanese would think it's Shini-chiro. Stop it with macron business - who does that anymore? The "h" add-on is better, but that isn't "official" romanization either. For the record, writing it "Sin-Itiro" is total rubbish - hasn't officially been written like that in the past 50 years.
 * Hasn't it? A. di M. (talk) (same person as Army1987 above) 12:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

xkcd reference?
Is this really necessary? I like the xkcd series a great deal but his appearance in one of their comics seems trivial to his legacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.145.63.2 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter
This book is not on the list of books? even though it has a wikipedia page of its own. Holy bazooka 04:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Tone
Doesn't anyone else think this article sounds more like a fan page than an encyclopedia entry? I noticed sentences like "It is not surprising that both these engaging people [Feynman and Lederberg] should be friends," and the entire paragraph on his interaction with Niels Bohr is just written poorly; it sounds apocryphal and there's no evidence for it. I adore the guy too, but shouldn't this article be more professional? Disagree without berating me plz. Seijihyouronka (talk) 05:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Undergraduate Thesis
I was hoping to find something about his undergraduate thesis. His 1939 paper, written when he was an undergraduate, is a cornerstone of the quantum mechanics of molecules. There is a link to the Hellmann–Feynman theorem, but some biographical background would be interesting. And maybe add it to the list of selected scientific works Tono-bungay (talk) 03:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Did he play on "Fool in the Rain"?
See the discussion at Talk:Fool in the Rain. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 20:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

LSD
The article stated that Feynman sidestepped the issue of LSD in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman but, having just read mention of it last night, I decided to look it up. It's in the "O Americano, Outra Vez" part, on p. 205 of the ISBN 0393316041 version, and the full paragraph reads "I never drank ever again, since then. I suppose I really wasn't in any danger, because I found it very easy to stop.  But that strong feeling that I didn't understand frightened me.  You see, I get such fun out of thinking that I don't want to destroy this most pleasant machine that makes life such a big kick.  It's the same reason that, later on, I was reluctant to try experiments with LSD in spite of my curiosity about hallucinations." Johnofjack (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Notes and references
Hi, the notes and references should be split, now that we can use tags for both. Gapless playback has some examples you could use. (That was just the first example that came to mind.) --Kjoonlee 23:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't find footnote #1 in the article. Its listed at the bottom but the first note I see in the article is #2. --76.31.242.174 (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * footnote #1 is in the infobox, which I see on the upper right side of the page; look for 'religious stance'. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The complaint at the Manhattan Project heading - most of this info is in Surely You're Joking. I'm too lazy to go through and ref everything, since I didn't put in any of this info. There should be some easier way to do refs, I always have to copy my old ones and edit them, etc. Trudyjh (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

ID photo not representative of the man the public knows
I think it should be replaced. 74.64.121.56 (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The article has photos of a younger and an older Feynmann. That seems good enough to me. CosineKitty (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 74.64.121.56. A more representative photo should be at the top. Trudyjh (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with those above, one of him as an older man that more people recognise would be better. I cannot find any thing of this nature on the Wikimedia Commons though unfortunately. --86.148.75.151 (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Out of context quotation and religious stance
Feynman was not an atheist, he was more likely agonist. The reference that was provided to support his being athesit is realy peculiar-I can't even call it a source and the interpretation was made by the one who provide it.--Gilisa (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In Genius, p221 of the hard cover, James Gleick said he did not believe in God, when talking about his anger at his fathers funeral. He refused to repeat the Kaddish and "exploded in anger" at the hypocrisy because both his parents were atheists (p219). Ywaz (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You can see for yourself here:

Javaweb (talk) 12:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Javaweb

But James Glieck is not a reliable source. He's a pop science writer. In the passage he does nothing but interpret a young man's obviously strong response to the death of a parent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.14.189.78 (talk) 02:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He is the type of reliable secondary source that Wikipedia is supposed to be built upon. Additionally, if you reference

and go to the part where he talks about the RNA tie club that includes Richard Feynman, Watson also leaves no doubt about Feynman's atheism. --Javaweb (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

UPDATE: There is no mention of Feynman's atheism or agnostism in this book.

However, the Richard Feynman article itself cites What Do You Care What Other People Think by Richard Feynman (p. 25)

--Javaweb (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

As strong an atheist
On page 350 of the book Perfectly Reasonable Deviations From the Beaten Track: The Letters of Richard P. Feynman (a collection of Feynman's letters published by his daughter Michelle) he states, in a letter to his wife and daughter that "I told him that I was as strong an atheist as he was likely to find". Another source if you have any remaining doubts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.175.0.122 (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for info. The page may be viewable here. Johnuniq (talk) 04:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the online link. I had to do 2 more steps after following the link:
 * 1)"search in this book" for "atheist" and press the "Go" button. You will see one snippet.
 * 2) click on the "page>>" hyperlink to see the entire page.

--Javaweb (talk)Javaweb

Education
"By 15, he had learned differential and integral calculus."

As does every schoolchild. Why is this even mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.240.64 (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Fortunately for you this is Wikipedia, so truth simply doesn't matter.

Every schoolchild learns first year calculus? Your comment sucks and is wrong, which is why it sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.15 (talk) 08:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I am doing a report for school on Richard FeynmanBazookafox1 (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In the 1930's, every schoolchild did not, see the following article: What Is Happening to Mathematics Education? James R. Smart Peabody Journal of Education, Vol. 35, No. 6 (May, 1958), pp. 328-334 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwassman (talk • contribs) 17:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Most people don't learn calculus, and those that do usually do it a few years later. 67.191.9.59 (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Is what a joke? Do you mean the fact, or 78.16.240.64's comment, or 69.171.176.15's comment, or Bazookafox1's comment, or Smart's book? Anyway, whatever. The fact that Feynman had learned calculus by the age of 15 is no joke. It is a notable and sourced fact, so it is mentioned in the article. DVdm (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be notable if Feynman had taught calculus to himself at this age, which might be what actually happened, or it might not. But if he merely went to an academically selective school where basic calculus is taught at that age (of which there were many), or if his teacher decided to push him (which happens frequently) then I think it is not notable, more just a weasel way of exaggerating his precocity. Zargulon (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well in this interview he says that he learned calculus at 13 by reading a book he borrowed from his local library. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZED4gITL28. I assume this is referenced somewhere. 137.111.13.167 (talk) 06:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Lol - I assume it isn't. But I am happy to be proved wrong. Zargulon (talk) 09:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It was outlined in Schweber's "Qed and the Men Who Made It: Dyson, Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga", as well as in Feynman's own book "Surely you're joking Mr Feynman". Your assumption is incorrect, and your "lol" worthy of a guffaw. 137.111.13.167 (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you had a laugh.. but what exactly did Schweber's book say? Feynman's book, of course, being a work of enterntainment rather than history, is neither here nor there.. Zargulon (talk) 09:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have added (with a pointer to the source) a few fields of mathematics to show what Schweber says. - DVdm (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for chasing up the source. I think you did not read it carefully enough, however. The source says that sometime in 1933, Feynman taught himself calculus. Feynman turned 15 in May 1933, so the source does not attest that "by 15, Feynman had taught himself calculus". At minimum this should be changed to "by 16". Zargulon (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * On 11-May-1933 he turned 15, so If he had managed to teach himself the stuff before 11-May, he would still have been 14. So let's keep the 15. - DVdm (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not what the source says.. that is called making stuff up. Let's not do that. If you have any reliable sources that say categorically that he managed to teach himself calculus before 11 May 1933, feel free to share them. Absent such sources, the only thing we are told is that he taught himself calculus by 31 December 1933. You could say this in the article, or you could use "by 16" which implies it. Notice that I am being generous to you here - an alternative reading of the source is that he became a sophomore in fall 1933, and taught himself calculus sometime in his sophomore year, which could have been after May 11 1934. Zargulon (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 1933-1918=15 wp:CALC. - DVdm (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You forgot to subtract 1 for his zeroth year. Zargulon (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In the year 1933, in which he was first 14 and then turned 15, he taught himself such and such. So in the context of 1933 there is nothing to subtract. But I agree that there is indeed a problem with the phrase (either X=15 or X=16), since that leaves the possibility open that he needed many years to learn the stuff, whereas the source says that he learned it all in that single year. We cannot use the "by" and the "had". I propose we stick as close to the source as possible and say that "In the year 1933, in which he turned 15, he taught himself such and such." It is what the source says, and I think that we can all agree on the fact that he turned 15 in 1933, so we can add that per wp:CALC. - DVdm (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yup - fine. Zargulon (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't we just love these little policy snippets? :-)
 * Cheers - DVdm (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Since he did teach himself I suppose it wasn't a "weasel way of exaggerating his precocity" afterall. 137.111.13.167 (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Since he didn't "teach himself by age 13", I suppose it was exactly a "weasel way of exaggerating his precocity". Zargulon (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZED4gITL28 starting at around 1:45: " ... this was when I was older now. I was perhaps 13 or so ... " - DVdm (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Dvdm, I watched that video before, and aside from not being a reliable source, it isn't categorical about what he actually achieved when he was "perhaps 13 or so". But anyway I can tolerate the current version of the page. Zargulon (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Tolerance is a useful virtue :-) - DVdm (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Teaching duties as a motivation?
I just saw this edit, which dramatically changes the meaning of the parenthetical remark. Which is correct, if either? Does anybody have a specific quote from a book to back this up? I know Feynman was fondly remembered by many of his students, so I doubt he hated teaching. I do seem to recall reading in one of his books that he felt like he wasn't as good a teacher as his students thought he was. CosineKitty (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The later edit is correct. He goes on at length in Surely You're Joking about the importance of teaching, to make himself feel useful when he isn't making any progress in Physics itself. Trudyjh (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This source "(QED and the men who made it: Dyson, Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga", page 405) says that "... he would spend half of every academic year in the Department of Physics at the university and the other half as a member of the Institute, free of any teaching duty.". I propose we take this version on board. DVdm (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Bacteriophage lambda
There is a contradiction between this article and Bacteriophage lambda. This one claims that Richard Feynman was the one who discovered bacteriophage lambda whereas the article Bacteriophage lambda claims that it was Esther Lederberg. Which is correct? Frotz (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No contradiction. This article mere says Feynman was a friend of Lederberg. Materialscientist (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops. I don't know how I managed to miss that.  Frotz (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

BBC Radio 4 programme on Feynman
Details here. Available to 'listen again' in some territories for five days. 86.134.91.184 (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Bit of "free spirit" in lead
I think that this recently removed sentence accurately reflects the general view of Feynman. I propose we keep it, perhaps with a different cite? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Feynman&action=historysubmit&diff=386317226&oldid=386316464 A13ean (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Jewish Nobel laureates
Feynman is included in the List of Jewish Nobel laureates, which list is defined by reference to ethnicity, not religion. A link from this article to this list (under the "See also" section) was recently deleted, but has now been restored. Would any discussion as to the inclusion/exclusion of Feynman in the list or the inclusion/exclusion of the link to the article containing the list please be carried on here or here, on the Discussion page for the List. Davshul (talk) 07:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above is not a reason for why this biography would benefit from adding List of Jewish Nobel laureates to "See also". A discussion on some other (non policy) page cannot establish what should happen on this page. Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Legacy- quote from 1969...
The quote from Feyerabend (the last quote on the page) is from 1969, so it doesn't exactly relate to Feynman's legacy. I don't see how the quote really has anything to do with Feynman's legacy anyway, even if it had been written within the last twenty years.137.111.13.200 (talk) 05:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Quotes
There seems to be no place for quotes, which may be just as well, since there are probably so many. But one I thought profound was (and would vote to place here), "The rules that describe nature seem to be mathematical. This is not result of the fact that observation is the judge, and it is not a characteristic necessity of science that it be mathematical. It just turns out that you can state mathematical laws, in physics at least, which work to make powerful predictions. Why nature is mathematical is, again, a mystery." - The Meaning of It All Student7 (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph
The relevance of Lederberg is limited and does not belong in the article's first paragraphs. -98.210.150.163 (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Painter/artist
Nowhere in the article is his painting mentioned. He used the pseudonym "Ofey". Check out this page: http://www.museumsyndicate.com/artist.php?artist=380 He also describes his painting career in detail in the book "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman!": http://www.utwente.nl/mb/iscm/staff/academic/Rothengatter/readings/richard_feynman_surely_youre_j.pdf 84.209.121.30 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC).
 * His career as Ofey is noted already, though it only mentions drawing, not painting. Judging by his output here, it appears he did more of the former than the latter. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Lack of photographs
I understand the limitations imposed by the need to prune out non-free images for the CD version and upstream sites, but surely we're joking (pun intended) having a main article for Richard Feynman with only one photograph (cropped in the side-bar and uncropped in the first section) of the man. There are dozens of images of the man that appear on his book covers and have appeared in the press such as on alternate language versions of this page and pages for his books. Using at least one photograph of the man as he is best known (from photos that appeared on his educational and mass market books) would seem to be a requisite for comprehensive coverage, even if it's included later in the article only. -Miskaton (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It used to be much worse when even the current front image wasn't there. Its hard to justify using non-free image for Feynman. There must be his photos made by US government employee (at NASA, hearings, etc.) which would be public domain on WP. Help finding/uploading those photos would be appreciated. Materialscientist (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is it hard to justify using iconic images when they're non-free? This was not the policy on Wikipedia just a few years ago, and it certainly leads to some strange and skewed coverage of highly notable persons whose least notable and least recognizable photographs are free.
 * Also, a side note. It seems there was a second photo of him included until very recently, and the removal was made with essentially no explanation of what kind of discussion or rational lead to it (only that the editor felt fair use wasn't defensible, not why) -Miskaton (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Per wikipedia policies we may not use one non-free image in more than one article. That image was "reserved" for lectures. To the first point - see my question above. I've done internet search on this earlier and it seems like most his images are specifically made copyrighted (I can only speculate why), but there must be free images in print. Materialscientist (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, the image used on the Azərbaycanca Wikipedia is actually of interest in its own right, and could be included along with a new section discussing his use in Apple's "Think Different" campaign as noted in David Kaiser's book. -Miskaton (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Reference for xkcd comic referencing Feynman
Thanks to the editor for mentioning it. I'm not offering an opinion about including it or not in the article. I bet if we contacted cartoonist Munroe he would give wikipedia rights to reprint the actual cartoon: press@xkcd.com. xkcd is a notable site. --Javaweb (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Javaweb
 * I don't think it should be included in the article, but it could be linked with explanation. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Off topic
The paragraph in the introduction:
 * "Feynman also had a deep interest in biology, and was a friend of the geneticist and microbiologist Esther Lederberg, who developed replica plating and discovered bacteriophage lambda.[4] They had several mutual physicist friends who, after beginning their careers in nuclear research, moved for moral reasons into genetics, among them Max Delbruck, Leó Szilárd, Guido Pontecorvo, and Aaron Novick."

seems to be off-topic and not relevant for the introduction. Perhaps it can be moved to another section. -SC (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Reasons for rejecting IAS offer
The previous version of the article stated that Feynman turned down an offer from IAS because it *included* teaching duties (with no citations). That is contradictory to his reasons given in "Surely you're joking" and elsewhere, which is that he rejected the IAS offer because it did *not* have teaching duties e.g. from "Surely you're joking"--

"When I was at Princeton in the 1940s I could see what happened to those great minds at the Institute for Advanced Study, who had been specially selected for their tremendous brains and were now given this opportunity to sit in this lovely house by the woods there, with no classes to teach, with no obligations whatsoever. These poor bastards could now sit and think clearly all by themselves, OK? So they don't get any ideas for a while: They have every opportunity to do something, and they are not getting any ideas. I believe that in a situation like this a kind of guilt or depression worms inside of you, and you begin to worry about not getting any ideas. And nothing happens. Still no ideas come....So I find that teaching and the students keep life going, and I would never accept any position in which somebody has invented a happy situation for me where I don't have to teach. Never." I have changed the text accordingly. Brianbjparker (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Columbia rejection
I am looking for a source of information relevant to the statement widely made on the web as well as in some biographical books regarding Columbia's rejection of Feynman "because of the Jewish Quota." I understand this could have been the case but have been unable to find anything factually backing up such a statement. Is this an actual(proven) reason for him not being accepted, or is this simply an assumption that went viral?

The sources cited on wikipedia do not actually claim he was rejected because of the quota. They state that he was not the best student in subjects other than science and math, and he was Jewish, and that he was not accepted. Can anyone provide a better source? B87lar (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Feynman's own memoir (SYJMF) says this. I don't know where he got it from though.

Comments
The controversy over this individual's inclusion in the list of Jewish Nobel Laureates has drawn my attention to the article. Although the article only mentions his Jewish heritage with respect to his parents and his rejection of being categorized as Jewish the article includes several categories that do just that. Two of them, Category:Jewish atheists and Category:Jewish physicists, are clearly only there to include him in a specific category for people of Jewish descent as other categories note that he is an atheist and physicist, the latter already covered by six separate categories. I don't think the other category Category:Jewish American scientists is really necessary since his status as a scientist is well-established by all the other categories and one of the categories does explicitly use the term scientist. Were he still alive WP:BLP would clearly demand that we remove such categories, but I don't think his strong conviction against being described as Jewish should be discounted any more just because he isn't around to object now.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As etnicity and religion (or lack thereoff) have nothing to do with his work as a scientist, afaiac all these categories can be removed as irrelevant. - DVdm (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So far as I can tell, ethnicity/religion is rarely, if ever, notable in terms of atheism and physicists, but those categories seem to exist anyway. I suppose the root question would be whether Feynman is ever identified as "Jewish" in a significant way in independent sources. I read the first two volumes of his biography years ago, so my memory is vague, but I don't specifically remember it being mentioned there. It could, however, be prominent elsewhere, I don't know. If he is so identified, then I think the categories could stand, although at least one of them might be at least somewhat redundant. John Carter (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem I have is that he explicitly resisted being labeled this way.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have located a quote from Feynman where he describes himself as being "brought up in a Jewish family" as opposed to being Jewish.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can understand that, but, as per the below, other independent reliable sources have described him as Jewish. Also, as he is no longer living, and I don't think the issue of his Jewishness is likely to be controversial for any surviving relatives, I don't think that WP:BLP would reasonably be applied in this case. John Carter (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

James Gleick, in his Pulitzer Prize and National Book Award finalist biography Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman, described Feynman as "a New York Jew distinctly uninterested in either the faith or sociology of Judaism", which seems right. Jayjg (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree that "ethnicity/religion is rarely, if ever, notable in terms of atheism and physicists". In historical or biographic works there is often an emphasis on how a person's background and culture influenced their intellectual development - or on how groups of contemporary thinkers tended to have common backgrounds. Scholars who talk about 19th and early 20th century German mathematics, for instance, frequently discuss the fact that many of them came from secular Jewish backgrounds. Feynman was part of a similar group - many of the leading physicists in the US during his era had Jewish backgrounds and many of those who weren't had ties to Judaism (Fermi's wife was Jewish for instance. Clearly, Feynman's Jewish heritage was significant in his life - the context of the above quote from "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman" is that the anti-semitism he experienced led to Feynman not feeling like he fit in at Cornell. He talks about Judaism in a few places in his autobiography - in the context of joining a Jewish fraternity in college (even though he was not religious) and in the context of feeling that rabbinical students weren't interested in science for its own sake but only to better understand religious tradition. He also discusses some of the reasons why Jewish people were prevalent in academia. I think it would be very difficult to say that Feynman's background was irrelevant to understanding his life or his intellectual development. GabrielF (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I think everyone would agree he was ethnically Jewish but not religiously Jewish; but wouldn't it make more sense to discuss at Category talk:Jewish physicists which of the two meanings is intended (and if such a category should exist at all), rather than deciding on an article-by-article basis which could lead to inconsistencies? (As for Category:Jewish atheists, it's obviously what we mean because the other possible meaning would yield a logical contradiction, but I'm not convinced the category should exist in the first place.) ― A. di M.​  15:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * On reading the discussion less hastily, I realize that maybe a better definition of Jew would be ‘someone who self-identifies as Jewish’, which wouldn't include Feynman though it might be troublesome for other people – I guess if you asked Eliezer Yudkowsky whether he's Jewish he'd ask you what you mean by Jewish . (And then I also somehow remembered about the ‘traditional’ definition, i.e. a Jew is someone who has converted to Judaism or whose mother is Jewish – FWIW, I'm pretty sure Feynman didn't convert to Judaism, but I guess that some direct matrilineal ancestor of his did.) I still stand by the non-struck-through parts of my comment above, though. BTW, how dare my spell checker flag Feynman? :-) ― A. di M.​  16:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All of Feynman's ancestors for many generations were Jews. Jayjg (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I note that he disputes Jewish hereditary elements and that "the Jewish people are in any way 'the chosen people.'", but can you direct me to a source where he explicitly repudiates his Jewish appellation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnkhMorpork (talk • contribs) 18:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can imagine why someone would deny this lest they be seen as a racist, whether they intimately believed that or not. (I won't go any further because I know such topics are extremely stinky.) ― A. di M.​  19:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * When refusing a Nazi sympathizer asking him to join their group he responds that he "grew up" in a Jewish family and in a letter where he rejects being included in a list of Jewish Nobel Prize winners he says "he converted to other religious beliefs" on top of rejecting the idea of Jewish heredity. So logically he did not like being described as Jewish just because his parents were Jewish and saw it as a matter of religion and not ethnicity. The link I gave above actually mentions a lot of things relevant to this.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if he rejected being included in that list, I guess we shouldn't include it in the categories either (unless we decide that Jewish in their titles refers strictly to ethnicity, which would be stinky – could you imagine a Category:Caucasian physicists?). ― A. di M.​  21:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Since Feynman does not identify himself as Jewish and he does not practice Judaism so he is therefore not a Jewish scientist or a Jewish atheist. He should therefore not be in Jewish categories unless there is a Category:People of Jewish ancestry (which is not an approp category). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) That he is Jewish is a clear presumptive and needs to be expressly rebutted to assert otherwise.
 * 2) His objection to the intersection of Jewish Nobel prize winners because, "It is the lesson of the last war not to think of people as having special inherited attributes simply because they are born from particular parents, but to try to teach these "valuable" elements to all men because all men can learn, no matter what their race" does not qualify as repudiation of his Jewish identity. He was contesting the linkage, and can be interpreted as sagacious cautionary advice, which we are not obliged to adhere to. You appear to be contending that Feynman's reluctance at being labelled a Jewish Nobel Prize winner is tantamount to a formal renunciation of his Jewish status, which is a logical fallacy.
 * 3) Note that he does not summarily dismiss the possibility of Jewish heredity elements but rather states that in "these days of little knowledge of these matters", it is "evil and dangerous" to countenance such thought.
 * 4) In fact, Feynman expressly states, "I feel it to be bad taste and an insult to other peoples to call attention in any direct way to that one element in my composition", thereby clearly confirming the Jewish aspect of his identity.

Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I read him saying that he does not like drawing attention to his Jewish ancestry, which is not the same as him identifying himself as Jewish. My reading is that he saw himself as having been Jewish the same way other atheists see themselves as having been Christian.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, I think that we should first decide what Jewish is supposed to mean in Category:Jewish physicists (and if it should exist in the first place), and then decide whether Feynman was Jewish in that sense. (Right now Category:Jewish physicists says nothing but “See: Jewish physics”, which article FWIW doesn't mention Feynman, and Category talk:Jewish physicists is blank except for Wikiproject banners.) ― A. di M.​  09:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Jewish" means the same thing it always means on Wikipedia: something or someone that reliable sources have identified as "Jewish". We don't get to make up special inclusion or exclusion rules, we have to stick to Wikipedia's rules. Jayjg (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * When different sources can mean different things by Jewish in different contexts, that's way to likely to result in WP:SYNTH problems. (Taking the example to an extreme: if a source calls John a Georgian because he's from the US state of Georgia, and another source calls James a Georgian because he's from the former Soviet country of Georgia, we still shouldn't have a Category:Georgian balalaika players including both John and James. Of course, no-one would even consider doing that because the overlap between the two meanings of Georgian is negligible whereas the overlap between the several meanings of Jewish is substantial, but still.) ― A. di M.​  17:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, demonstrate where the sources regarding Feynman are specifying contradictory interpretations of Jewish. Secondly, your analogy assumes that "Jewish", like Georgian, can only be interpreted in a mutually exclusive fashion. Would John and James both be eligible to feature in a list of people from any place called Georgia? The list of Jewish people can apply to all people considered Jewish by reliable sources. Would you similarly contend that a Reform Jew and an Orthodox Jew should not be subsumed in a Jewish category, due to individual interpretations of 'Jewish'. Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A. di M., being a member of an ethnoreligious group by definition means that the ethnic and religious components of the identity overlap and/or are often mixed. "Jewish by ethnicity" and "Jewish by religion" are not mutually exclusive - on the contrary. Jayjg (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that they largely overlap doesn't mean they are the same concept. (As for “demonstrate where the sources regarding Feynman are specifying contradictory interpretations of Jewish”, if they don't, and if I find one source stating he was Jewish and one stating he wasn't Jewish, then I can combine them to show that Santa exists?) ― A. di M.​   10:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that the words are combined indicates that they are not merely overlapping, but inter-related parts of a single concept. Do you actually have a reliable source stating he wasn't Jewish? Jayjg (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm with A. di M. on this one, what Jewish mean should be specific to the list of "Jewish physicists". It seems rather ambiguous. I would recommend this rfc being brought to that topic instead of being discussed under Feynmann.Gsonnenf (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How interesting that after disagreeing with me for weeks on one article Talk: page, you suddenly show up here on this completely unrelated article to disagree with me here too. Please review WP:STALK WP:HOUND. Jayjg (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, first, I respect your edits I have seen. However, WP:STALK redirects to WP:HA, which says editing the same articles is not harassment. I have not seen harassment. Am I missing something? --Javaweb (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Javaweb
 * Specifically following me to an article he's never edited before, nor expressed any interest in (or in anything related), specifically to contradict me, is WP:HOUND, which is the link I should have used before. Jayjg (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, I was reviewing RFCs and this came up. You edit enough controversial articles that there is going to be a bit of overlap. Please remove your comments accusing me of hounding. If you genuinely believe I am hounding you, please take it to the appropriate message board.Gsonnenf (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't take us for idiots. And now you've hounded me to Talk:List of Jewish Nobel laureates. Jayjg (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ― A. di M.​  "The fact that they largely overlap doesn't mean they are the same concept". This does not preclude the various interpretations all being included in the word Jewish. Applying reductio ad absurdum to your logic: since everyone has an individualised interpretation of religion, it should never be possible to describe someone as 'Jewish'. Obviously, the term incorporates many distinct versions of this faith, without denoting a specific one, thereby obviating your WP:SYNTH concerns. Thus all that is necessary is a WP:RS that states someone is Jewish. Have you actually read the responses on the Talk page, as you appear to be reasserting the identical claims without addressing the points raised? Both myself and Jayjg have mentioned that 'Jewish' is not a mutually exclusive description, contrary to your fallacious analogy. Apropos your reasoning, I would focus less on the existence of Santa  and more on the existence of your critical faculties.
 * You mean that the grounds to classify (say) practitioners of Reform Judaism and Orthodox Judaism together are no stronger than those to also classify with them someone who doesn't give a crap about any form of Judaism (and who objects to being classified as Jewish) but happened to be born to Jewish parents? <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​   16:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello all. I was asked to comment on the issue here which I perceive to be Dr. Feynman's inclusion in the list for Jewish NLs.


 * My first inclination is to leave him on the list. It is of historical interest.  I don't see any issues with affirming him as being Jewish in the generally perceived concept although he was a non-practicing one and apparently an atheist.  If he were living then I would not put him on the list to be sensitive to his desires.  It is not offensive to include this as historical fact now.  I would assume he's on the list of NLs as well.


 * I certainly understand the sensitivity shown here about his living wishes. Discuss please. Cheers.Jobberone (talk) 12:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Feynman was Jewish but not in terms that correspond on a one-to-one basis to those applicable under Christianity. There is a little bit of a problem of Systemic bias here I think. I'm reading references to the "several meanings of Jewish". I think the English Wikipedia is expected to endeavor to maintain a global perspective. Every word has "several meanings" and we do not expect one-to-one correspondences to exist between related terms. "Christian" has its meaning and "Jewish" has its meaning and we do not expect aspects of one to precisely correspond to aspects of the other. Bus stop (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you perceive the issue to be his not being Jewish by faith or should we include him in the Jewish list because he is Jewish by heritage?


 * Do you want to sidestep the issue of his Jewish faith and accept his Jewish heritage? My next question to all is there a truly compelling reason to leave him off the list?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobberone (talk • contribs) 13:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Jobberone—there is no such thing as "Jewish by faith" and "Jewish by heritage". This would seem to be an outgrowth of the thinking of Judaism in terms of Christianity that I refer to above. It is a systemic bias problem. English-speaking Wikipedia should maintain a global perspective. Links to terms such as "Jewish" and "Christian" have to be clicked on by a hypothetical reader to access further applicable information. Bus stop (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * A. di M.—you refer to those who do not "give a crap about any form of Judaism". These would represent a sizable portion of world Jewry. When a reliable source refers to someone as being Jewish they are fully aware of this. Bus stop (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not here to comment based on my personal views. My only bias is for Wikipedia. To reach a consensus all must decide what is a Jew. If you use our own source then you must decide if Dr Feynman meets the criteria based either on his ethnicity, religious views, or his nationality. Is it the consensus Dr Feynman is reasonably considered Jewish based on his ethnicity or as I put it earlier his heritage?Jobberone (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Jobberone—I believe that all reliable sources that address the question at all say that Feynman was Jewish. I don't know that your focus on ethnicity, religion, nationality, and heritage are all that relevant because those concerns may be original research. Bus stop (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not certain how else to decide if he's Jewish or not, which I perceived from reading the comments was in question by some, other than using his ethnicity, religious views or being a citizen of Israel. Then if the consensus is he's clearly Jewish, the next question is whether to include him on the list. The issue then appears to be some want to leave him off the list because of his desires when alive. My question to all is do you leave him off the list because of those wishes? Does that tip the balance of Wikipedia's goals?Jobberone (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If he were alive, that would definitely be a good reason to leave him off the list. His death shouldn't be that relevant, unless we admit that the sole point of WP:BLP is not have people sue us, which would be quite hard for me to swallow. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  10:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The criteria are the same for Jewish as for physicist: reliable sources. Tom Harrison Talk 15:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking over the source I provided towards the top of the page, I think maybe the thing to do would be to just have the one category for Jewish atheists.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Then we should decide is there a continuing need for sensitivity towards Dr Feynman's wishes while alive and if so does that bring up the issue of censorship within the community and in particular the list in question.Jobberone (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If most relevant reliable sources describe Feynman as a Jewish atheist or Jewish physicist, it is not legitimate to remove him from those categories, given that the categories exist. His expressed wishes are irrelevant; even executing someone's formal legal testament is an obligation on the executors and not a right of the deceased. None of us is under any legal or wikipedia-policy obligation to suppress reliably sourced information on Feynman, and pretending otherwise is just a disingenuous way of POV-pushing. If you think you are under a moral obligation to suppress this information, then you have a conflict of interest with Wikipedia and you should recuse yourself. Editors' personal interpretations of the phrases "Jewish Atheist" and "Jewish Physicist" are also irrelevant: whatever they mean, most relevant reliable sources state that they apply to Feynman, and suppressing this is improper. If you think these categories should not even exist, start at "Categories for deletion", not here. Zargulon (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe Zargulon has singled out the core of the issue. While I will not bring my personal opinions into the subject of the morality of the issue, I will say I believe attempts to delete the lists have no chance of success.  Of course if one feels strongly then they may move to have any article deleted.   I think the sensitivity shown is refreshing.  However, whatever feelings you may have are not relevant when viewed with the objectives of Wikipedia in mind.  WP:CENS, Articles for deletion, Biographies of living persons may prove helpful to some.  I believe with the amount of civility and cooperation shown here you will reach a consensus amongst yourselves.Regards.Jobberone (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Brilliant statement, Zargulon! Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's nice to see that Bus stop is still using the exact same arguments from his discussions over Ed Miliband's ethnicity... I still take issue with his views (and those that share it) that all meanings of the word Jew are directly equivalent. Given that some people, whilst proud of their ethnicity, may be strongly atheist (or a member of any other faith than Judaism) to the extent of being insulted to be linked with Judaism with such carelessness, it makes me wonder why we don't take more care to make the distinction. This is why we have the 'Jewish descent' categories to compliment the 'plain' 'Jewish' categories, or at least that was my assumption of their purpose.--Topperfalkon (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Topperfalkon—consider the following:


 * "Great Jewish scientists of the twentieth century—Jacques Loeb, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, and so forth—"


 * The above is but one of many sources supporting that Feynman was Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Should not be including per Alan Liefting Nobody Ent 10:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The only problem here is that "Jewish" in the sense of a practising religious person and "Jewish" in the sense of someone's being a member of a slightly fuzzy but real and identifiable genetic/ancestral group (that formed due to long-term endogamy over generations of religious Jews) are two separate concepts which are often but not always coincidental. Feynman is Jewish in the latter sense but not in the former, and since the category "Jewish physicists" lumps to together both of these possibly-but-not-necessarily-coincidental categories of Jewishness, some people appear to be upset by the fact that to categorise Richard Feynman as a "Jewish physicist" doesn't emphasise the fact that Feynman was a strident atheist and Jewish strictly in the ethnic genetic sense alone.

It seems to me that there is little possibility for readers to be misled into thinking that Feynman was actually a religious Jew because of the article's content, the fact that he is also in the Wikipedia category "Jewish atheists" and because of readers' likely prior beliefs about him. Therefore this is mostly a matter of sensitivity to the presumed wishes of a deceased person who strongly dissociated himself from religion, sensitivity to the wishes of living people who would prefer to see someone like Feynman strongly dissociated from religion, and the objective of making the most accurate distinctions possible through the use of categories.

It seems to me that the best way to resolve this issue would be for the concerned parties to look into having Wikipedia change the way it categorises Jewish people. For example we could have the (non-mutually-exclusive) categories "Physicists of Jewish ethnicity" and "Jewish physicists", and Feynman would belong in the former category but not in the latter. On the other hand I think that the existing way in which these categories are used is preferable to the state of affairs in which categories like "Jewish physicists" are inconsistently applied on the basis of ad hoc objections. In other words I think that the thread starter should seek to resolve this problem by starting (in an appropriate venue) a discussion about the use of categories for Jewish people, and only if the general site policy on the use of categories for people described as "Jewish" by reliable sources is successfully changed or clarified should Richard Feynman be removed from the relevant categories that he occupies at the moment. Phlebas55 (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think if you complicate matters then you will have more not less confusion. I understand where some are coming from but I'm not sure trying to be PC will work very well in an open source forum like Wikipedia.  The more conventional, factual and encyclopedic we can be is probably the better way to go.Jobberone (talk) 03:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would agree that the way the categories for Jewish people work at the moment is OK. However, that is a discussion to be had elsewhere: in an appropriate venue for discussing the use of categories for people described by reliable sources as "Jewish". I meant to suggest a more reasonable way in which the people who object to this use of categories could attempt to change the policy, instead of having them voice their complaints about what is really a quite general issue here on a single Jewish person's article. Phlebas55 (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, could we borrow an idea from the people who call themselves recovering Catholics? AvocadosTheorem (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, because "Catholic" is a religious designation, whereas "Jewish" is ethnoreligious. We're probably just going to have to stick to the standard Wikipedia rules here, and go by whatever reliable sources say. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the 'Wikipedia rules' say that when there is more than one (non-fringe) opinion on an issue, we should present both to the reader. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Actually"? As if your comment in any way contradicts mine? Rest assured, it doesn't. Several reliable sources have been presented stating Feynman was Jewish. I've asked this before without a response, so I'll ask again; are there any reliable sources that state Feynman was not Jewish? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Jewish according to who's definition? Given that you have stated that '"Jewish" is ethnoreligious', you have already conceded that it is a social construct (look up 'ethnoreligious' in any reputable academic text, and see how the term is used), there is no 'is/isn't' involved - it is a contested categorisation, and as such there are no abstract 'reliable sources' that can give definitive answers. Still, if you want a 'reliable source' for Feynman 'not being Jewish', I'd say that for example, in the context of being 'a Jewish Nobel laureate', Feynman himself would do - and if his opinion on the matter isn't valid, who's is? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Pretty much everything relating to human societies is a "social construct". Did Feynman say "I'm not Jewish"? Not as far as I can tell - I certainly haven't read anything from him that stated this outright and plainly. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Did he ever describe himself as a 'Jewish academic'? Or as a 'Jewish Nobel Laureate'? I've seen no sources. On the other hand, we have a source (cited in the article) where Feynman makes perfectly clear that he saw his Jewish background as being of no relevance to his scientific achievements - and yes, in this context, the link between his background and his achievements are a social construct - but he isn't the one doing the constructing. Instead, this particular synthesis is left to those who don't give a shit about his opinions, but instead wish to claim him as one of theirs... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is an interesting question whether sources would have to describe him as a "Jewish academic" or if it would be sufficient for sources to describe him as Jewish and an academic separately, for WP to put him in the "Jewish academic" category. Maybe WP has a guideline on this, I don't know. However, it is clearly not necessary for Feynman himself to have made these statements - they can be sourced to anything provided it is relevant and reliable. Talking about "claiming" Feynman is unhelpful, calm down Andy.. Zargulon (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Andy, "Jewish academic" is merely the intersection of two sets, "Jewish" and "academic". As with all category intersections like this, one need not find reliable sources specifically describing the intersection of these two characteristics, but merely need to find reliable sources supporting each characteristic. Your argument would be more relevant in the context of a CFD for the category itself; that is, a claim of WP:OCAT or something similar. Regarding your argument specifically related to Feynman, I agree that "he saw his Jewish background as being of no relevance to his scientific achievements", but his opinion is just that, and I don't see any evidence that he claimed not to be Jewish. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump says that makes perfectly clear that he saw his Jewish background as being of no relevance to his scientific achievements".


 * Feynman expresses that "To select, for approbation the peculiar elements that come from some supposedly Jewish heredity is to open the door to all kinds of nonsense on racial theory." Feynman's emphasis in his dialogue with Tina Levitan is in tamping down one side of an equation in order to tamp down the other side of that equation. Feynman's primary concern in his dialogue with Tina Levitan is not with denying the validity of Judaism but rather with defusing the logical mechanism with which Nazi ideology works and which is facilitated in that purpose by for instance such concepts as the Jews as a "chosen" people. Feynman is taking issue with Tina Levitan's inbuilt assumption that Jews are somehow different from other people. Feynman is making a logical argument that when you characterize Jews as being special or exemplary in some way, you also open yourself up to the "disapprobation" that can lead to Nazi antisemitism. Feynman is not arguing that Jewish identity is in any way invalid. Feynman is (was) a nonobservant Jew. Rejecting the notion of the Jews as a "chosen" people is consonant with nonobservance. Bus stop (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * While I'm impressed by your ability to communicate with the dead, I'm not sure it qualifies as a reliable source: perhaps you should raise this at RS/N? ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump—you are misplacing emphasis. Feynman's dialogue with Tina Levitan does not take place in a vacuum. There are many references to the antisemitism in mid-twentieth-century Europe. Feynman mentions Judaism in order to counter implications made by Tina Levitan. Feynman is not a religious Jew. There is nothing particularly remarkable in Feynman's rejection of concepts of Jews as special people. Feynman mentions the Jews as a "chosen people". He rejects this notion. This is unsurprising coming from a secular Jew. In rejecting such notions Feynman is not rejecting Jewish identity. Feynman is not religious. There is context in which Feynman is speaking—Feynman references "Hitler" and "'Aryan' inheritance" and "anti-Semitism". Leaving out the context misplaces the emphasis. Bus stop (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest that rather than taking your word or mine for what Feynman was saying, people should look at what he actually said, and decide for themselves... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Feynman was not religious, and nor need Jews be religious. He can feel free to reject notions of Jews being "chosen people" without rejecting his identity as a Jew. He is in fact an atheist. "Chosen people" implies that God holds the referred-to group of people in favor. Obviously an atheist would have no part of such a concept. But the context in which Feynman articulates his rejection of any notion of favoritism that God may bestow on Jews is what matters considerably. That context is the (then-recent) destruction of normal Jewish life in Europe in mid-twentieth century. Feynman is not even primarily making a comment on Judaism or his own perception of himself as a Jew but rather the perniciousness of positing that a group of people can possibly be construed as "God's people". Feynman is not a religious person. Feynman's rejection of a religious position is perfectly consistent with his being a nonobservant Jew. The context matters here. You can't take articulations out of context or you run the risk of misconstruing what the person said. Bus stop (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest that rather than taking your word or mine for what Feynman was saying, people should look at what he actually said, and decide for themselves... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have looked, and decided. I agree with Bus stop, that Feynman's words are consistent with being a Jewish academic and a Jewish atheist, which is what reliable sources say he is. Zargulon (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * One is Jewish by being of Jewish ethnicity, practicing Judaism, and/or being a citizen of Israel. Since Feynman's ethnicity is Jewish then he is a Jew.  I don't see any wiggle room.  No person's personal feelings are relevant to his being on the list although their opinions and feelings are valued.Jobberone (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Richard Feynman explicitly wanted to be identified as "human race." It's disrespect to pigeonhole him any other way.  "Recovering Catholics" will understand his point. AvocadosTheorem (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yo homie, seeing as the Wikipedia editors are adherents of Wiki policy and not members of a ghetto gang, your fears of "disrespect" are unlikely to be heeded as it is not a constituent of Wikipedia rubric.


 * I disagree. There is neither intent to disrespect nor actual disrespect. Dr Feynman did not explicitly wish to be identified as "human race" either.  Go back and read his quote.  Wikipedia is very sensitive in regards content about living persons and not insensitive to anyone.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such reports facts supported by evidence.  Wikipedia does not seek to have opinions and disallows them.  It is by its very nature not political nor 'politically correct'.  It is not insensitive to report Dr Feynman is Jewish and a physicist nor include him on a list of Jewish physicists.  It is not Wikipedia's intent to be insensitive nor really can it be as long as its mission and guidelines are built to avoid all opinions including those which could be considered offensive by some.  It is merely factual.Jobberone (talk) 02:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The only fact of significance here is that 'Jewishness' is a complex and contested social construct, and not something one can give simple yes-or-no answers to. That Feynman was (and recognised himself as) a member of the species Homo Sapiens is probably (!) capable of being sourced. That he 'was Jewish' can only ever be a matter of opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm using the definition as it is generally accepted. You should probably start with your disagreement at the Jew/talk page if you wish the community to use another definition.  Regards. Unless called upon I will withdraw from the discussion.  Thank you all for allowing me to participate and I really appreciate the civility and comments here very much.Jobberone (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Some arguments in favor of classifying either Feynman or other people by ancestry tend to recur. Of these, at least two are apparently "formal" in nature. Neither stands very well upon examination.

(a) That the matter should be handled only in toto, and not on a case by case basis. An individual is relevant to his own classification. Here, in particular, [a letter by Feynman on why he did not want to be in lists of Jews] is obviously relevant, besides being a very fine piece of argumentation against such lists and categories.


 * You do not even understand the argument that you purportedly refute. No-one actually said your quote 'That the matter.. basis', you just invented it.. please see Straw man argument which describes the logical fallacy you made. What people have said is that arguments over whether Feynman should be in the category belong here, and arguments over whether the category should exist belong somewhere else. Zargulon (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It is obvious that this was a paraphrase. Feketekave (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

(b) That we should reproduce the classification used by some printed sources, as this is in line with standard Wikipedia policy. First of all, Wikipedia policies can override any such practice; see, in particular, policies on categorizing individuals by religion. That matter clearly intersects this one. Yes, it may not cover it in everybody's opinion, and yes, that may be a reason to establish a specific policy controlling also the use of the label under discussion.

Let us get, however, to the main fallacy underlying (b). It has already been singled out nicely by User:AndyTheGrump above: we are not dealing with a fact here. Rather: ever since the beginnings of modernity, there have been, among people in general and among people who write in particular, two positions on this and similar issues, with some ground in between. One can see binary categories defining individuals by ancestry as uninformative, unscientific, and often unethical and self-serving, at best. At the other end, one can believe in such categories fully, and, what is relevant here, be very eager to impose them onto others - in particular, in print.


 * Another phantom quote, another straw man. Zargulon (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't suppress rebuttals to your arguments. Zargulon (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a jibe breaking up text, not a "rebuttal". I have not seen anybody dispute that (b) is a fair summary of one of the main arguments given here. Feketekave (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Once upon a time - and to some extent still now - the main grouping in side two were partisans of racism in general and antisemitism in particular. Nowadays, at least in some contexts (parts of North America, parts of Wikipedia), a significant grouping in side two consists of people for whom it is very important to see themselves as Jews, and whose view of the world and of others is shaped by this fact.


 * This is improper speculation about editors' motivations and it doesn't even make sense. It relies on the absurd premise that editors wishing to see Feynman in this category are both Jewish identity obsessives and Feynman admirers, which for a fact I know is untrue. Zargulon (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, you seem to have missed my main point. Nobody is speculating about Wikipedia editors' motivations here; we are talking about how the practices (and hence, I suppose, the motivations) of authors outside Wikipedia get translated here - namely, in a way that makes labelling by descent win automatically, since at least one person in the world does it at any given point. Feketekave (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You throw around words like 'nobody'.. please familiarize yourself with argumentum ad populum, note that it is a logical fallacy, and refrain from using it in future. Do you have evidence that any of the sources brought to this article to show that Feynman is Jewish, have suspect motivations? When/if you reply, please make sure you refer specifically to those sources' attitude regarding Feynman's jewishness, and not merely to general sources' attitude categorizing people in general as Jewish; the latter would continue to belong on the category page discussion, not here. Zargulon (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Calling motivations "suspect" is none of our business here, or at least none of mine. It is you who has used the label "Jewish identity obsessives". My point is clear: a policy meant for facts reproduces a practice. Feketekave (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What does "A policy meant for facts reproduces a practice" mean, if anything? Zargulon (talk) 13:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It means: we have a policy that states that discussions on matters of fact are to be settled by what can be sourced ("verifiability"). Now, "Richard Feynman is a Jew/Polish-American/Aryan/Semite/Armenian" is arguably not a statement of fact in the sense that "Richard Feynman was a physicist" is. Rather, we have that, in the real world, some people define others by their ancestry, and others don't. This is a "practice". Now, following verifiability, if one source states that "Richard Feynman was a physicist" and no sources state the contrary, then Feynman is listed as a physicist. Fair enough. However, if the same policy is applied to a case where the issue is not truth or falsehood, but classification or non-classification, then it yields, inevitably, that the pro-classification side wins; the sources that do not care to classify Feynman as a "Jew" (as opposed to a descendant of Jews, or any one of many things besides) automatically lose. In other words, a practice is being reproduced. Feketekave (talk) 11:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But anti-categorization readers are not damaged in their understanding of Feynman by what they may see as superfluous categorizations, since they can just ignore them, whereas pro-categorization readers are damaged in their understanding of Feynman by the suppression of categorizations that they would see as important, since they don't get to find out about them. The WP burden is therefore rightfully on an anti-categorization editor to demonstrate that a well-sourced categorization is objectively harmful to the article, as opposed to merely offending their sensibilities. Zargulon (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, Feynman's ancestry is already treated in the body of the article, so no information would be lost. In this case, at least, it is not a matter of data lost to "pro-categorization readers"; if anything, it is a matter about their sensibilities. (Quite besides this - as I believe other editors have pointed out - the word "Jew" has several meanings, many of them primarily religious; even if no religion is involved, ethnic loyalties (arguably doubtful in this case) may be. Thus, a categorization can be objectively misleading. Stating, if clearly relevant, that a person's ancestors happened to be Jews (in all or most senses of the term) is a different matter.) Feketekave (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the information that would be lost would be that the reliable sources which categorize Feynman categorize him as a Jewish physicist. A categorization can indeed be objectively misleading, but a categorizationscannot be presumed to be objectively misleading just because you don't like it. Zargulon (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Using any mention of any individual as a "Jew" or "Jewish" as a sufficient reason to categorize him or her as such decides the matter automatically for side two. (Given any well-known individual with an ancestor of the Jewish religion, the odds are that, by now, there will be somebody who will have called him a Jew in print.) This is a way of settling a matter that rests on a fallacy: evidently, calling a man a Jew or an Arab because somebody else does so is not the same as stating that a tree grows on a courtyard, citing a source that states so. We are dealing with the reproduction of a practice rather than the referral of an objective fact. Feketekave (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If an individual is believed to have substantial Jewish ancestry, i.e. his ancestors in recent centuries have included if not exclusively then a significant proportion of people who were members of the Jewish ethnic group (as they could be identified both by cultural attributes and behaviour, self-identification and - were they around today - modern genome testing) then that is an "objective fact" about this person, as I understand the notion of a fact. Whether one then wishes to call him a "Jew" or merely say that he is "of Jewish descent but not a Jew" is just an argument about words - if you have a problem with the wording of the categories in use, you should resolve that problem on a discussion page about categories, not here on an arbitrary Jewish-descended person's page. The problem with trying to change policy this way is firstly that it is likely to lead to inconsistency in how the relevant categories are applied across Wikipedia, and secondly (if we suppose that this is intended to be the start of an incremental change in the policy on categorising Jewish people) that it isn't an ideal way of establishing the true balance of informed opinion on Wikipedia regarding this matter (whatever that might be) because it seems to me that an arbitrary talk page isn't the kind of place in which one would expect to find people attempting to enact a broad policy change regarding the use of categories.


 * Although this isn't the right place to have this discussion, my opinion on the matter is that the categories for people of Jewish descent and other ethnic categories are interesting and encyclopedic, so they oughtn't be abolished; however, although I don't perceive the existing state of affairs to be problematic myself it seems as though it would be quite harmless to change the policy on categorising Jewish people such that atheists or adherents of different religions who are of Jewish descent and religious Jews are adequately distinguished. Phlebas55 (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The question here is whether a category a fact about a person's ancestors (such as, say, their religion, or - since you mentioned it, and somehow believe it would settle the matter - their genome) can be used to define a person. Interesting (to some, for whatever reason) does not equal encyclopaedic. If users started debating this issue here long before me, it is presumably at least in part because the biographical subject made a very strong statement against being included in certain lists, and gave arguments on the matter. Feketekave (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't perceive that fact that Feynman has been placed in categories such as "Jewish physicists" to be tantamount to defining him as a Jewish physicist. I don't believe that people are generally considered to be suitable objects to be defined - I wouldn't expect to find a Richard Feynman entry in a dictionary. He was a Jewish (ethnic) physicist; he was also a physicist who played the bongos, a person with synesthesia, an MIT alumnus and so on, and I don't believe that any of these categories would be taken by most people to be an attempt at defining him to the exclusion of any other traits that he possessed.


 * As for Feynman's feelings about being classified as a Jew, it's evident that he didn't want to be included in the book The Laureates: Jewish Winners of the Nobel Prize. However, I'm not sure to what extent his letter to the author Ms. Levitan as recorded in Perfectly Reasonable Deviations supports the idea that "He routinely refused to be included in lists or books that classified people by race", or at any rate the connotation that this is of relevance to something as obscure to Feynman's purview as Wikipedia (there being two references provided for the paragraph in which this claim is made in his Wikipedia article, one of which is that book and the other of which is a newspaper article which also refers to his problem with Ms. Levitan).


 * I may have missed another relevant section in Perfectly Reasonable Deviations. However, the quotes in the Wikipedia article are taken from this one letter of February 7, 1967. He begins by saying, "In your letter you express the theory that people of Jewish origin have inherited their valuable hereditary elements from their people". He goes on to say that, "I appreciate the valuable (and the negative) elements of my background but I feel it to be bad taste and an insult to other peoples to call attention in any direct way to that one element in my composition" and, "The error of anti-Semitism is not that the Jews are not really bad after all, but that evil, stupidity and grossness is not a monopoly of the Jewish people but a universal characteristic of mankind in general [...] The error of pro-Semitism is not that the Jewish people or Jewish heritage is not really good, but rather the error is that intelligence, good will, and kindness is not, thank God, a monopoly of the Jewish people but a universal characteristic of mankind in general".


 * So in context, what he was objecting to was his being included in a book dedicated purely to celebrating Jewish accomplishment, the author of which seems to have been a Jewish supremacist. One of the two excerpts from the letter that are included in the Wikipedia article says, "To select, for approbation the peculiar elements that come from some supposedly Jewish heredity is to open the door to all kinds of nonsense on racial theory", and given the context of the letter I think that "approbation" is the key word here. It seems rather a stretch to suppose that, judging according to this evidence, Feynman would have been mortified to be discreetly categorised as (among many other things) a Jewish physicist, on an online encyclopedia that is not devoted to highlighting Jewish achievement or run by Jewish supremacists and which routinely places individuals into very large numbers of categories (including ethnic categories other than "Jewish") - and at the bottom of an article that prominently displays his views on the issue of ethnic supremacism!


 * I conclude that, even if we were to go along with the rather dubious idea that Wikipedia articles should be amended according to wishes of their subject beyond the stipulations of the "Biographies of Living Persons" and NPOV policies, there is insufficient support for the idea that Feynman, had he imagined the existence of such a thing as Wikipedia, would have strongly objected to being categorised as he is at the moment. Phlebas55 (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I did not understand this paragraph, your inarticulate verbosity got the better of me. Why did you have to write such an overweight, pompous essay? It's not like you added anything to the arguments that Andy and others already made. Next time could you please just say "I agree with Andy"? Zargulon (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:CIVIL, please. Feketekave (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the incivility. I think you need to realize that when you put such a large, wide-ranging edit in the middle of an ongoing conversation, it has a very disruptive effect.. you should respect the established tenor and rhythm of the conversation (to say nothing of its content) if you expect to be taken seriously. Zargulon (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We all have different reading comprehension levels and attention spans, but calling that edit an "overweight, pompous essay" goes a bit far.
 * What part of "sorry for the incivility" didn't you understand? Zargulon (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read the next sentence before commenting. Most importantly, please do not insert your commentaries in such a way as to make unclear who is saying what when! Feketekave (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If anything makes it hard to read now, it is the fact that it has broken up by what are mostly unsubstantial and admittedly uncivil comments. Feketekave (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Zargulon (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Feketekave—all sources say that Feynman is Jewish.


 * Example: "Jews seem to have played at least similar or even more preeminent roles in the later development of quantum theory; two of the four founding fathers of quantum electronics in the late 1940s, Richard Feynman and Julian Schwinger, were Jewish; the other two were Freeman Dyson and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga."


 * In the interests of avoiding original research it would be my feeling that we should adhere to what reliable sources say. Bus stop (talk) 11:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No, some sources do. Others don't bother. See my post from yesterday above ("It means..."). Feketekave (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop - with all due respect - it seems you have managed to miss with great precision the point Andy and I were making. Feketekave (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Best Wishes <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  10:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he was gently encouraging you to see that your 'point' was not specifically related to Feynman and was therefore an abuse of this talk page. Zargulon (talk) 09:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Feketekave - "The question here is whether a category a fact about a person's ancestors can be used to define a person." This is patently incorrect, the Talk page on Richard Feynman is not the soapbox for such general discussions about a category system that is widely used across Wikipedia. Moreover, Wiki does not "define", it presents sources per WP:V which in turn may do so, but Wiki makes no editorial decisions as to the suitability of such content.
 * I agree that these points would be better argued elsewhere in Wikipedia. Feynman simply happens to be a striking case due to his own statements on the matter. Feketekave (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Since this discussion has been referred to recently, and since another user (who broke civility) cut up the opinion I posted to the point of making it unreadable, I am placing it here in its original form.

"Some arguments in favor of classifying either Feynman or other people by ancestry tend to recur. Of these, at least two are apparently "formal" in nature. Neither stands very well upon examination.

(a) That the matter should be handled only in toto, and not on a case by case basis. An individual is relevant to his own classification. Here, in particular, [a letter by Feynman on why he did not want to be in lists of Jews] is obviously relevant, besides being a very fine piece of argumentation against such lists and categories.

(b) That we should reproduce the classification used by some printed sources, as this is in line with standard Wikipedia policy. First of all, Wikipedia policies can override any such practice; see, in particular, policies on categorizing individuals by religion. That matter clearly intersects this one. Yes, it may not cover it in everybody's opinion, and yes, that may be a reason to establish a specific policy controlling also the use of the label under discussion.

Let us get, however, to the main fallacy underlying (b). It has already been singled out nicely by User:AndyTheGrump above: we are not dealing with a fact here. Rather: ever since the beginnings of modernity, there have been, among people in general and among people who write in particular, two positions on this and similar issues, with some ground in between. One can see binary categories defining individuals by ancestry as uninformative, unscientific, and often unethical and self-serving, at best. At the other end, one can believe in such categories fully, and, what is relevant here, be very eager to impose them onto others - in particular, in print.

Once upon a time - and to some extent still now - the main grouping in side two were partisans of racism in general and antisemitism in particular. Nowadays, at least in some contexts (parts of North America, parts of Wikipedia), a significant grouping in side two consists of people for whom it is very important to see themselves as Jews, and whose view of the world and of others is shaped by this fact.

Using any mention of any individual as a "Jew" or "Jewish" as a sufficient reason to categorize him or her as such decides the matter automatically for side two. (Given any well-known individual with an ancestor of the Jewish religion, the odds are that, by now, there will be somebody who will have called him a Jew in print.) This is a way of settling a matter that rests on a fallacy: evidently, calling a man a Jew or an Arab because somebody else does so is not the same as stating that a tree grows on a courtyard, citing a source that states so. We are dealing with the reproduction of a practice rather than the referral of an objective fact. Feketekave (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)"

I hope this makes the above easier to follow. I suggest further discussion gets carried over to the current talk page. Feketekave (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

First wife - listed year of marriage
The wiki page lists 1941 as the year of marriage for Feynman's forst wife Arline, but the actual date is June 29th 1942. From the letters of Richard Feynman (Perfectly Reasonable Deviations, edited by Michelle Feynman, published by Basic Books 2005) there is an undated letter from June to his mother in which he argues against her disapproval of the marriage. There is also a letter dated June 24th 1942, addressed to a Danny Robbins, in which Feynman states: "I am being married in a few days to Arline Greenbaum." There is also a photograph from the wedding day dated June 29th 1942.

Why does this page list "m. 1941"?

68.24.131.146 (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Postage stamp
There should be no usage issues regarding an image of the USA 37¢ Feynman postage stamp, such as this one: - and an image would allow reduction of the description in the 'Popular legacy' section. That section could use some dressing-up anyway. It is also informational in that it shows Feynman diagrams, which are not shown elsewhere on the page. I would upload this myself, but do not currently have that privilege. ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC) - Better images of the stamp are not hard to find. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Feynman's "friendship" with Esther Lederberg?
This entire paragraph in the lead is dubious:
 * He also had a deep interest in biology, and was a friend[dubious - discuss] of the geneticist and microbiologist, Esther Lederberg, who developed replica plating and discovered bacteriophage lambda.[7] They had several mutual physicist friends who, after beginning their careers in nuclear research, moved into genetics, among them Max Delbrück and Aaron Novick.

The cited website has a photo of the two together. Merely having a photograph taken together does not constitute friendship. This appears to be original research. Even if they were friends, the friendship is not notable enough to be in the lead. The rest of the paragraph doesn't seem relevant and should be deleted.

Another reason why I'm suspicious about the paragraph is that it was inserted by an editor who had been entering distorted information about Esther Lederberg and her husband in a number of wiki articles, apparently to Right a Great Wrong about her scientific contributions being ignored. The editor has a potential coi and often cites a website of questionable reliability, as explained here and here (under "2012 credit etc changes"). CatPath (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If the only 'evidence' for this is a photograph, it is entirely unwarranted - though even if there were a source stating that Feynman and Lederberg were friends, it wouldn't belong in the lede, and we would need evidence from secondary reliable sources to indicate this was of any significance at all. I have removed the paragraph, and ask that firstly, proper sources be found, and secondly that any material relating to this is discussed here on the article talk page first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Known for...
Why is QED not in the list? 193.202.33.19 (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * A very good question. It is now - thanks for pointing this out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to also put in the Feynman Lectures on Physics. But the list is getting a bit long. What are the guidelines? 192.33.238.14 (talk) 12:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The list is now way too long. Some things seem barely worth mentioning (like shaft passer). Again: Guidelines??? 193.202.33.19 (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality????
If ever an article shrieked for editing to comply with the neutrality standard, it would be this fawning, almost sickening piece. I hope that someone does so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.233.153 (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Start and end years for "caltech years"?
That's the kind of info that it would be nice to have in an encyclopedia. Homunq (࿓) 14:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Bongos are important, too
Feynman was not only a physicist, but someone who really enjoyed life and enjoyed each person he met. It is a shame the article does not mention his great expertise with the bongo drums. here he is playing bongos (note: he did not have dementia, falsely claimed in a comment to this video). David Spector (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, Bongos were a really important part of Feynman - I dare say he may not even have won the Nobel prize without his Bongo ability which testified to his life-enjoying, person-enjoying nature. It is a shame that Wikipedia doesn't have a dedicated article on The Bongo-Playing of Richard Feynman or some such. I suspect it is because of a conspiracy of editors belonging to the Feynman-hating elite. Zargulon (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This article had bongo and non-bongo states, but then you had to go and ruin it by making your observation. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

can you actually force someone to be Jewish?
The article is aware that Feynman repeatedly and explicitly refused to be categorized as Jewish (not because he disliked Jews in particular, but because he disliked racial classification, and since he was not a "cultural" Jew, the only way to still classify him as such would be racial). And yet Wikipedia shrugs this off and puts him in three "Jewish" categories without so much as a comment or explanation? This is a little bit disconcerting I believe. Whoever put these categories there clearly is convince that you can be "a Jew" on purely racial grounds, and even if you refuse any religious or cultural assoction you will still not be able to help being "a Jew". I do not think we should let this stand. Because it would also follow, I suppose, that you cannot be "a Jew" even if you want to be, on equally racial grounds.

I am aware that who is a Jew is a complicated ethno-religious-cultural question, but here is a guy who refuses all ethnic, religous or cultural association, and Wikipedians still think they now better and can decide for him that he is a "Jewish American scientists", a "Jewish physicist" and a "Jewish atheist". I am sorry, but this just doesn't sit right with me. --46.245.145.186 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Mr anonymous speech maker, it seems that you haven't read the previous discussion on this talk page. Zargulon (talk) 09:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Can we keep this civil? Thank you. Feketekave (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Early life
In the second paragraph in this section we read the following sentence:


 * Their mother thought that women did not have the cranial capacity to comprehend such things.

There are two problems with this sentence:


 * 1) There is no reference, so the source of this comment is unclear; and
 * 2) the antecedent for "such things" is unclear.  To what, exactly, does "such things" refer?  The previous sentence merely mentions "the world".  Any thoughts?CorinneSD (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Early academic career
In the middle of the second paragraph in this section, we read:


 * "...he focused on complex physics problems, not for utility, but for self-satisfaction."

I think I know what was meant by "not for utility" -- something like "not for practical purposes" -- but I think for most readers the phrase "not for utility" is a bit vague, or obscure. I suggest something akin to "not for practical purposes" or, if I am wrong about the meaning of the phrase, a different way of expressing it. I am seeking others' opinions on this.CorinneSD (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No "not for..", problem solved :)
 * If you want it even easier to read (or less vague..) consider "he focused on complex physics problems for fun." --14.198.220.253 (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Early academic career
There is something about the second paragraph that is not clear. At the end of the paragraph we read:


 * "he was surprised by the offers of professorships from other renowned universities".

It is not clear whether "the offers of professorships from other renowned universities" refers to the offers mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph or to other, later, offers.

If it refers to the offers of professorships mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph, things are a bit out of order in the paragraph, which mentions first the offers, then his work at Cornell (going up to 1950), and then back to just after the war (1945) when he received the offers. One solution would be to rearrange the sentences. Alternatively, the order of the sentences can be kept as it is, but time words or phrases need to be added to indicate that this last sentence refers to the immediate post-war period and the offers are the ones mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph.

If it refers to other, later offers of professorships, that needs to be made clear. I'd be happy to work on the sentences if someone can tell me to which offers the last sentence refers. Any thoughts are welcome. CorinneSD (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)