Talk:Richard Feynman/Archive 4

Apparent sanitization of the article
In the matter of less than half an hour, my edit got reverted by Hawkeye7, in this edit here, with the edit summary stating this: "Doesn't belong in the lead". If info legitimately does not belong in a lede, and is better suited to be presented in the body of the article, then the proper edit would be to move that info from the lede and put it down into the body. To delete the info entirely without leaving a trace in the article itself that this info had ever been presented is nothing short of a sanitization.

In the main section above, I had speculated that this was the reason behind why this issue which shows negative aspects of Feynman's character was not being adequately covered. And now I have solid evidence that this is what has been happening here.

The highlighting of this article's NPOV deficiency goes back at least as far as this post from Archive 2:
 * Archive_2#Neutrality????

That is from 11 May 2013, more than SIX years ago. And how this article has apparently upheld this "Featured Article" status leads to a conclusion that the awarding and maintaining of this FA status is a joke.

Again, I will leave this to other editors to arrive at a consensus on how to handle this issue surrounding Feynman's attitudes and actions regarding women. My own opinion is that it is vital to include in the lede, at least in some form. And I'll reiterate that it merits a dedicated section in the body of the article. Perhaps you'd like to do that fix yourself, Hawkeye7. I would be thrilled to see you demonstrate that your revert is motivated by a shared desire to improve this article, and not to hide key info from the public. Feynman published this info about himself for all the world to read. So why Wikipedia has this years-long track record of not adequately covering this ourselves is nothing short of baffling to me. -- Tdadamemd19 (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Good to see someone assuming good faith. I put it all the incidents referred to at the top of the section (and a good deal more, including ex-wife's accusations) into the article, and have defended it against all comers since. If you think the sandwich incident is worth a mention, I will add it with a reference to his book.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I am glad to know that it seems that you and I might be in more agreement than disagreement here. But in these words you've replied with here about how you are defending the article against all comers has raised a new issue.  Perhaps you are familiar with Wikipedia's policy on WP:OWNERSHIP.


 * Here are the stats on your involvement with this article:
 * https://xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Hawkeye7/0/Richard_Feynman


 * Had I seen this earlier, I would not have invited you to re-add the reverted info down into the body of the article. The invitation being extended to you now is to consider whether your level of involvement here has remained on the appropriate side of this Policy against Ownership.  And if you have an ability to gain some measure of objectivity, whether you can see your own words ("[I] have defended it against all comers since") are appropriate for any editor to hold, let alone overtly state.


 * The intent of Wikipedia is that you and I and absolutely everyone else here are working together in a collaborative effort. None of us have been designated as Dictator of Wikipedia.  Nor of any corner of it.


 * I do not own this article. Nor does anyone else.  But I did take the bold step of following up on my own recommendation that the info I had added earlier today, which you promptly reverted, be added back into the article down in the body.  It now resides in a new subsection which helps to highlight this perspective (in the interest of NPOV) that Feynman had severe negative character traits.


 * For all other editors:
 * What I did not do with my latest edit, which I had recommended earlier, is that some indication of this perspective be presented in the lede. Another suggestion for further exploration here in the Talk is where exactly is the best place within the article to include this stuff.  Because this major issue is not really a subset of his book.  My reason for putting it there is because of how Feynman was so open in this writing about sharing all of this with the world.  My suggestion would be that it has the potential to flow more smoothly by adding a new subsection to the discussion on his personal life, and then perhaps having this book as a subsection within that, going back to cover these particular aspects of how he thought about women and how he acted toward women.


 * Hawkeye7, the above is paragraph I am sharing with the community at large. I see no requirement for your input to be part of that discussion, or part of whatever future edits which might be done in the coming months in our collaborative effort as a community toward fixing the things that are broken here in this article.  If you decide that the best course of action is for you to take an extended break from editing, and maybe even from reading, this article, then I would have no objection to that whatsoever.


 * I see my latest edit to be vital. The impression this article was giving prior to adding this new info, supported by a plethora of references, was that the vast majority of negative perspective of his dealings with women was coming from individuals he had been married to.  That is FAR from accurate.  The stories of things he did with women, things he said to them, and things he thought about them were quite strange when they were published back in the mid-80s.  And in the current environment of raised awareness in the issue of respect of powerful men toward women, we could hazard a guess that a publisher, if presented with such stories today, would REFUSE to print those parts.  That's just a guess.  The many references now included speak for themselves.  It is more than James Gleick, and more than an ex or two of his who see him to have had severely deficient character traits.


 * I see the latest edit to go a long way toward balancing the NPOV aspects of this article.


 * One more recommendation I will offer here:
 * IMMEDIATE removal of FA Status.


 * And then, after the dust has settled on this Talk section, FA be looked at with a lense that takes into account current 21st century sensibilities of the treatment of women. It is clear that Feynman fell way short.  And until this article communicates these facts clearly, including within the lede, then there will remain this NPOV barrier to anything that could properly be referred to as "FA" quality. -- Tdadamemd19 (talk) 10:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I respect the effort to add some material that reflects the #MeToo pushback against Feynman. Even for his era, Feynman was an unsavory oddball in his attitude toward women. It will be good if we can quote a newspaper or magazine for some balanced description of the modern pushback to Feynman's behavior.


 * Doing a little more research, the section should not imply that the book's publication caused an immediate revulsion against Feynman's sexism. I found some contemporaneous reviews, they don't even mention it.

 
 * Feynman's boasts about his crude seduction attempts on women who worked in bars did not set off alarm bells in male reviewers in 1985, perhaps because they (like Feynman) did not connect this behavior to any disrespect of "nice" (middle-class) women like their own wives, sisters, and daughters. Anyway, let's be accurate. Update, KC Cole's review in the NYT was unusual in mentioning Feynman's treatment of "pedestrian subjects like picking up girls in bars" and "being rude to women" as flaws of the book but concludes "one winds up not only forgiving him but admiring him." I think it makes sense for the article to convey that times have changed. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Based on this, my sense was that the entire “You Just Ask Them” chapter did not set off alarm bells at the time, so I removed the sentence implying it did, as well as moving the early 1970s protests which have nothing to do with the book. I have summarized the chapter, including quoting in context both the use of “bitches” and “whore” in that book which have generated so much controversy in recent years.  I have also removed some of the poor sources, notably the blog entries.  Trust me, the blogosphere about the controversy is a rabbit hole we really don’t want to fall in to.  Also: Here is a correct link to the NYT 1985 review of this book as well as a Chicago Tribune 1986 review of the book (where they do not mention the contentious “You Just Ask Them?” story at all) Samboy (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Contribution to mathematics
I think Feynman's contributions to mathematics, especially his integration technique, are significant enough to describe him as mathematician in addition to theiretical physicist in the article's opening sentence.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Can the subject of the article dictate its content?
User:Schazjmd and then User:Hawkeye7 Undid [this version] and then again [this version] saying the subject of this article did not want to be classified as Jewish. The facts that both his parents were Jewish are not disputed. I say the subject of an article can't dictate its content and also, I'm not even sure that Feynman indeed denied belonging to the Jewish people (unlike the Jewish religion). I'd like to read more opinions. עמירם פאל (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi עמירם פאל. Have you read all the previous discussion on this question in the archives? Particularly in Archive 2, where the word "Jewish" appears 208 times. Yes, the consensus appears to be that he did not want to be considered Jewish. You might find this video interesting: (Warning: contains one of those nasty H words). I'm not sure that taking account of the views of a subject of an article means that they "dictate its content." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Martinevans123, thx for your comment. I've briefly glanced at Archive 2 just now. Seems to refer to him being agnostic, meaning his reluctance to be part of the Jewish religion, not to the Jewish people, isn't it? And still there's the question of the effect of his views on the content of the article. עמירם פאל (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And you've watched that video of his 1967 letter to Tina Levitan? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Did that as well just now. Seems he vehemently opposed using his Jewishness for racist arguements, but did not deny the fact of him being Jewish per se. Again, isn't it? And again, what is the weight you can attribute to his views in this enciclopedic article about him? Especially if it contradicts the accepted facts? עמירם פאל (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The content of that video is reflected in the article. And I think the article perfectly clear. It also says "Feynman's parents were both from Jewish families but not religious, and by his youth, Feynman described himself as an "avowed atheist"." I think those facts are all that are needed. We don't actually know "how Jewish" his parents were, do we? If we discovered that one of his grandparents was non-Jewish would we want to add a Category:Three-quarter Jewish Nobel laureates? Why are you so keen to "classify him as Jewish", when he spent most of his life trying to show that such a classification was at best utterly pointless, and at worst dangerous? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that as much as you can caracterize him as an American atheist you can describe him as a Jewish atheist as well. And being Jewish myself, it makes me proud. עמירם פאל (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * By all means get the views of other editors. But as far as I can see, Feynman "was Jewish" in much the same way as Caitlyn Jenner "was a man". Maybe I'm "proud to be a man," but I can't see that really comes into it. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not the right comparison. I'd compare it to a British writer who immigrated to the USA. Wouldn't you call him a "British writer" as well as an "American writer"? עמירם פאל (talk) 12:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If he wrote something of note when he considered himself British, certainly. How much of Feynman's Nobel-prize-winning work did he do when he considered himself Jewish? I'd say none. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

His Jewish parents are already in the article; so is an entire section titled "Religion" which contains this: "...declining a request for information for her book on Jewish Nobel Prize winners, he stated, "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", adding, "at thirteen I was not only converted to other religious views, but I also stopped believing that the Jewish people are in any way 'the chosen people'". The article does not ignore his Jewish heritage; what is being disputed is only the latest drive-by effort to slap on a label that Feynman, when living, repeatedly pushed back on. The entire letter Feynman wrote to Levitan is in his collected letters and also online here; reading it in full gives more context to his pushback against being used as a posterboy for his ethnicity. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Since Feynman did not identify as Jewish, and did not practice Judaism, any characterisation of him as such would be ideological, not factual.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * One could say that he is ethnically Jewish. Sounds like a compromise, no? VdSV9• ♫ 15:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Feynman was not ethnically Jewish.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what? Of course he was ethnically Jewish. Why wouldn't he be? Jayjg (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "ethnically Jewish"? That he practised the Jewish religion? He didn't. That he was an active member of the local Jewish community? He wasn't. That he considered himself ethnically Jewish? He didn't. What makes you think that he was ethnically Jewish?  A nonsensical racial theory lacking any objective basis whatsoever?   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Jews are an ethnoreligious group. They have an ethnicity, just like any other ethnic group; they share ancestry, cultural background etc. Those are pretty "objective". What does that have to do with practicing Judaism etc.? And what do his own feelings on the matter have to do with it either? Jayjg (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly which changes to the article are you advocating? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't proposed any yet, until I understand the arguments being made for and against inclusion of material. I'm interested in Hawkeye7's response to my questions above. And yours, for that matter. Jayjg (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's quite a big and complicated question. However, our remit here, in light of WP:FORUM is just to discuss possible improvements to this article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but clearly there's a dispute about including Feynman in various Jewish categories, so the "possible improvements" would be regarding whether or not to restore/add those categories. And that decision would, in turn, be predicated on the outcome of this discussion. To be frank, it appeared to me that Hawkeye7 was arguing against their inclusion based on some very questionable claims; perhaps, after discussing them, Hawkeye7 (or others) will change their mind. We have, for example, a category called Category:Jewish atheists. For that matter, we also have List of Jewish atheists and agnostics. They appear to contain dozens, perhaps hundreds of members. עמירם פאל is certainly arguing that Feynman should be included in the category. VdSV9 appears to agree. On what (policy-based) grounds would Feynman be excluded? Jayjg (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Link to the previous extensive discussion of this question, for anyone interested. Schazjmd   (talk)  23:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think adding Feynman to Jewish categories would be counter to WP:NONDEFINING, a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". I found many sources using "is an American physicist" or "Nobel Prize-winning physicist", but searches on Google Books and Google Scholar on "feynman is a jewish" had no results. So although his parents came from Jewish families, it doesn't appear that reliable sources consider Jewishness to be a defining characteristic of Feynman, so the category would not be appropriate to add. Schazjmd   (talk)  18:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wholly agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, too, that there's no good reason to categorize Feynman as Jewish. If we use the definition of ethnoreligious group, that would argue against an inclusion since it defines membership in the group by a combination of ethnic identity [...] and religious affiliation - but and means that both conditions must be fulfilled, which they weren't in the case of Feynman due to his atheism. --Qcomp (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Qcomp, an ethnoreligious group is one that shares ethnicity and religion, but that doesn't mean each individual must practice the religion; again, please review Category:Jewish atheists and List of Jewish atheists and agnostics. Feynman is just one of hundreds of atheist/agnostic Jews. In any event, your post doesn't really address policy. Jayjg (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Schazjmd, that's the first policy-based argument I've seen so far against including these categories. The problem with it is that, as far as I can tell, Wikipedia BLPs don't actually follow this policy; rather, every biography (and every article in general) includes every category that applies, regardless of whether or not it is a "defining characteristic". For example, Barack Obama is in dozens of categories, including Category:20th-century American male writers, Category:20th-century American non-fiction writers, Category:Activists from Illinois,, Category:African-American academics, Category:African-American educators, Category:American people of French descent, Category:American people of Swiss descent, Category:HuffPost writers and columnists, Category:Occidental College alumni, Category:Punahou School alumni, Category:People from Kalorama (Washington, D.C.), and dozens more. Which of these are characteristic(s) that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having? Jayjg (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. At last we have an article where the policy on Categories is followed properly. Not sure this one is a BLP, though. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not a BLP, but it is a "biography (and every article in general)". More to the point, something that purports to be policy (or guideline), but isn't actually followed in any articles, isn't actually policy (or guideline). Jayjg (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I realize that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I don't think it should. There's a trend to over-categorize biographies on Wikipedia, I don't know what motivates it. Especially in the ethnicity area...French and Swiss descent for Obama are hardly relevant. It's like the WP version of hashtags. It's a form of meta labelling that is out of control. That said, I'm not on a crusade to strip categories from articles. I came across this one because of pending-changes, deferred to the previous consensus that appeared to be reflected by the editing comment in the article, then looked into it more when this conversation was opened. I'm comfortable with WP:NONDEFINING as a solid reason to oppose the category, but if other editors reach policy-based consensus to add it, so be it. (Added to clarify: it was on my watchlist because it had been protected for pending changes in the past) Schazjmd   (talk)  20:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If you look at some of the comments above you will see that one of the motivations here is "I'm proud to be Jewish". I'm not sure that's the kind of motivation that is meant to be among Wikipedia's guiding principles. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That kind of makes WP:ILIKEIT the reason for adding it, doesn't it? And neither that nor WP:OSE are good reasons. If there's a policy or guideline that supports adding it, I'm interested in having it pointed out. Schazjmd   (talk)  21:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The stable state of this article does not categorize Feynman as a Jewish Nobel laureate. There have been repeated drive-by attempts to add this category, which have repeatedly been removed, by consensus of editors, because 1) Feynman opposed such attempts to use his achievements for pro-ethnic boasting and 2) Feynman's "Jewishness" was not a "Defining" category. I think the burden of proof should be on and others who want to undo the stable state of the article to provide a policy argument that requires biographies to labeled with categories that were not "defining" to the biography subject but are emotional hotspots for some group of editors. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Feynman is technically Mormon. This is because he was converted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1990 and is therefore no longer Jewish. Please consider that if Wikipedia policy were that religious claims outweigh an individual's own declaration of group membership it opens up a can of worms from a purely pragmatic sense. Lexlex (talk) 11:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Remove section contribution from Steven Hsu
Removed section about the widely known, Pro-IQ opinion of Steven Hsu, who is formally non-qualified to make psychological assessments. The quote is hardly of parenthetical interest.


 * The quotation isn't really an expert opinion. No does it come across as "Pro-IQ"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Did Feynman use post-nominals?
Is there any evidence that Feynman cared about and used post-nominals? I doubt that he did. Also, his name is unique enough that the post-nominals aren't needed as a disambiguation tool either. I checked that the ForMemRS (as well as any other) post-nominals are missing from the article about Albert Einstein. I think that Richard Feynman deserves the same treatment. Leon.Manukyan (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's rare (and possibly contrary to WP:MOS) to use post-nominals "as a disambiguation tool". Also I'm not sure that use on a biographical article is necessarily driven by whether or not the individual concerned used them;  that would surely vary with context? I suspect there are very many WP:BLP article that show post-nominals which are rarely, if ever, routinely used by that individual. But I have no strong view either way and I'd be pleased to hear the views of other editors. Incidentally, I reverted your removal here as your edit summary said simply "Removed post-nominals" without any reason. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback, Martinevans123. I feel that a person with Feynman's achievements and fame doesn't need postnominals after their name. It is technically correct to add BS & PhD to his postnominals, however it doesn't feel right. ForMemRS looks even uglier. Leon.Manukyan (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's generally expected that a consensus is reached before a disputed edit is reinstated. As I said, I'd be pleased to hear the views of other editors. We don't generally do something just because it "feels right". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not technically correct to add academic postnominals; we don't use them (MOS:CREDENTIAL). As for the ForMemRS, the relevant guideline is MOS:POSTNOM: When the subject of an article has received honours or appointments issued either by the subject's state of citizenship or residence, or by a widely recognized organization that reliable sources regularly associate with the subject, post-nominal letters may be included in the lead section. The UK is not Feynman's country, and while the Royal Society qualifies as a widely recognised organisation, I don't think his membership is regularly associated with him, given that it doesn't rate a mention in Gleick, Mehra or Sykes's biographies. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Glad to see there is policy on this. Feynman's Nobel Prize doesn't show up until the second sentence of the lead, and it is hard to see why a lesser honor, just because it has a "post-nominal" form, be the first information presented about Richard Feynman. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess because "post-nominals" have to go directly after a name. And because there's no post-nom for a Nobel Prize. As Hawkeye7 has explained, it seems that "subject's state of citizenship or residence" is the key factor here? I did know about this. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Copying in some direction
The last three subsections of the bibliography ("Textbooks and lecture notes", "Popular works", and "Audio and video recordings") are substantially identical with the lists at richardfeynman.com, including the material that isn't just reference metadata &mdash; "The work has endured and is useful to this day" and so forth. The text is so old that it's hard to tell who copied from whom. At the very least, we need to verify those random A/V recordings. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Lack of clarity in a certain part
"Surgeons removed a tumor the size of a football that had crushed one kidney ..."

Is this referring to American or the more popular version of international football? Different shapes and sizes. I am not too sure as I have never edited wiki myself 193.190.253.145 (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * "the size of a football" is verbatim from the book of Mehra; since all involved (Feynman, doctors, Mehra) are American, I'd conclude that it's an American football.--Qcomp (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I was thinking that too, but Mehra is Indian-American and probably grew up calling it football not soccer. Also, not knowing much about tumors, I wouldn't think an American football shape would be typical. And if they just meant size, I would imagine they'd pick something round for comparison. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 16:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I admit that it is not clear; I think the WP-article would not lose anything if that comparison was not included or replaced by simply "large tumor". At least ""the size of a football" should be put in quotes to indicate that it's a quotation, not a precise statement of size. --Qcomp (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea to me. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 16:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ok, done (I wrote "very large" which is also a quote from Mehra) --Qcomp (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Vallarta's Reply
"When they next met, Feynman asked gleefully whether Vallarta had seen Heisenberg's book. Vallarta knew why Feynman was grinning. "Yes," he replied. "You're the last word in cosmic rays"

''I'm confused following this account. Does the last quote here belong to Vallarta or to Feynman? We expect Vallarta to say "Yes" to Feynman's query. Or does she remain silent and Feynman says "Yes"?'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taostlt (talk • contribs) 12:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)


 * It is quite clear that "he" refers to Vallarta as it uses "you" to refer to Feynman. The quote is from Gleick, and cannot be changed. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

List of Feynman stuff
I removed this list from the infobox, but I still think it is valuable enough to be kept somewhere.

Manhattan Project

Acoustic wave equation

Bethe–Feynman formula

Feynman checkerboard

Feynman diagrams

Feynman gauge

Feynman–Kac formula

Feynman parametrization

Feynman point

Feynman propagator

Feynman slash notation

Feynman sprinkler

Hellmann–Feynman theorem

Heaviside-Feynman formula

V−A theory

Brownian ratchet

Feynman–Stueckelberg interpretation

Nanotechnology

One-electron universe

Parton

Path integral formulation

Playing the bongos

Quantum cellular automata

Quantum computing

Quantum dissipation

Quantum electrodynamics

Quantum hydrodynamics

Quantum logic gates

Quantum turbulence

Resummation

Rogers Commission

Shaft passer

Sticky bead argument

Synthetic molecular motor

The Feynman Lectures on Physics

Universal quantum simulator

Vortex ring model

Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory

Variational perturbation theory CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

A lot of editors added these items to the infobox. It is disrespectful to remove them. The relevant policy is WP:PRESERVE. You have to justify removal. You need to seek consensus for such a change. They do not clutter the layout as they are behind a collapse. All of them should be mentioned in the body. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  09:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Disagree totally. Not everything belongs in the INFOBOX. It was created as—and is meant as—a quick-view summary, not an all-inclusive listing.  GenQuest  "scribble" 21:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)