Talk:Richard Feynman/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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? --

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)

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)

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) 15:32:46, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

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 (

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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).

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 Kunreithat 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)

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)

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)

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)

This discussion is

This article is undergoing a review as part of the Good Article sweeps performed by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I am in the process of reviewing the article and should have a complete review posted within a day or two. A quick glance reveals a few concerns that will need to be addressed:

1. The lead section is too long. It should be a maximum of four paragraphs. This could be fixed by joining the fourth and fifth paragraphs.
2. Much of the article is unreferenced, including quotations and entire paragraphs. It will need to be thoroughly referenced in order to remain listed as a Good Article.
3. The picture of the stamp doesn't have an adequate fair use rationale. Neither does the book picture (FeynmanLecturesOnPhysics.jpg). I don't believe that a fair use claim could be made for the book, because it doesn't provide commentary on any aspect of the surrounding text.
4. The description page for the infobox image should have a link to the original source.
5. The Further reading section is far too long. There is no need to list that many sources, so it should be trimmed quite a bit.
6. Some of the book references are missing page numbers.
7. Some of the web references are missing information (eg. access dates).

These will all need to be addressed, and editors can begin addressing them now. There is no need to wait for the full review. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm now delisting this article as a GA, as it does not meet the criteria, and there are no signs that it will in the near future. I've attempted to clean up the article a bit, and have also left tags where further clean-up is needed.

• The lead is now four paragraphs, but still does not summarize the article, and contains unhelpful digressions and statements of opinion. It needs to be rewritten.
• The article fails to meet
  WP:RS
  by a mile. There are very few reliable secondary sources and the reader might wonder whether much of the text was sourced from Feynman's own anecdotes and interviews.
• Undue weight is given to the (almost entirely unsourced) section on the Challenger disaster.
• I have moved most of the further reading to a "bibliography" section per
  WP:LAYOUT
  , but it still needs to be cleaned up.

Good luck to anyone interested in improving the article. Geometry guy 20:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think for doctoral students the policy is we only include those with a WP article, but I am subject to correction here. A notable person normally has many students, some of whom turn out much less notable than he. The documentation for Curtwright is reliable enough, though, if we do usually add them all. [1]

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)

See the discussion at Talk:Fool in the Rain#Surely you're joking!. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 20:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Hi, the notes and references should be split, now that we can use <ref> 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.

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.

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)

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: James Gleick (1993). Genius. Random House.

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

Watson, J. D. (2002). Genes, Girls, and Gamow: After the Double Helix. New York: Random House. 
OCLC 47716375
.

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

"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

"By X he had taught himself"

(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)

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.

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)

There is a contradiction between this article and

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)

Details here [2]. Available to 'listen again' in some territories for five days. 86.134.91.184 (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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) [3] -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)

""Nash"". 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: [email protected]. 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)

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)

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)

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

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'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'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

 

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

 

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

 

19:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)