Talk:Richard Feynman/Archive 1

message: Whoever wrote about the NYT article about the O-rings from the challenger explosion, could they maybe provide this reference? thx--129.93.146.90 22:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NYT article?

message: There are a few parts of this article that should be cleaned up so that this article doesn't appear on FARC, since I don't know much about the subject I thought I'd make suggestions here:
#Whats up with the references? There are some in text notes and no corresponding reference list. All the works in Works by Feynman have links but are not actaully linked from the text.
#Quotes should be moved to Wikiquote and removed, the second link to Wikiquote should be removed too.
#The personal life section is bitsy, and short sections need to be merged
#The three fair use images shoudl be tagged  and fair use rationales need to be provided.
--nixie 10:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose removing the quotations about understanding. They are fundamental knowledge which will not propagate unless they are associated with this article, which is the most accessible article on the web. --Ancheta Wis 01:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Note that his relatively low IQ score as a youth is particularly counterpoised by his Princeton entrance exams, which would be enough to get him into a high IQ society. --24.253.120.206 21:08, 9 Feb 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The IQ score of 124 is just a single (almost-insignificant) datapoint, based on a test he took once as a child. The "low" score is probably an aberration, especially when put in the context the enormous breadth of his academic achievements. He might not have taken the test seriously, or been sick, or maybe a mistake was made when calculating the score, etc. I'm sure he could have easily scored better, had he wanted to.
Again, it is not a low score, and no dismissive explanation of his IQ is necessary to justify the 'enormous breadth of his academic achievements'. Trying to explain the score away with baseless claims about his state on the day of the test is a ridiculous attempt to make his achievements consonant with what lay-psychologists expect of a person with his IQ. As is often the case, IQ has shown itself to be a rather poor indicator of academic performance. I have never seen such a crude and temporary measure of intelligence defended so irrationally.
Did you ever consider that Feynman's unmatched interest, great creativity and profound dedication to science might have been the reason that he was so successful? His IQ may very well have been 124, but that is only a measurement of a very parochial set of characteristics--characteristics which become rather unimportant beyond a certain threshold. And besides--like I said--an IQ of 124 is considered high (assuming an SD of 15-16) and more than enough to be able to understand highly complex physical principles.
Moreover, it has still not been clarified as to what SD his IQ test used. BCAB 10:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the discussion above completely ignores the fact that IQ tests, in those days, largely focussed on verbal ability, including vocabulary. The fact that his verbal ability was merely above average is concordant with all other accounts of his ability. In mathematical ability he was clearly exceptional, winning the Putnam and numerous high school competitions, and in his later academic work. This remains only a small part of the IQ score, which is one of the reasons IQ is not a very good measure of anything. Danielfong 17:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no direct evidence, and I'm not trying desperately to convince anyone, but AFAIK the only IQ test in use by psychologists for schools at that times was the Stanford LM, which you may obtain from university libraries to verify it's verbal bias. The scale would be a ratio IQ, which is not normed on a gaussian curve. Danielfong 23:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Feynman's IQ

message: The sections states that:
:they did not "do the physics right"
Does anyone know what that means, or what it's referring to? FireWorks 02:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He never told us. But his (un-used) solution involved the inverse half derivative D^{-1/2} \, f(x) where D = \frac{d}{dx} \, . To his classes, it was an aside to an entertaining problem: "What is one-half factorial?", which was part of the question "What are the eigenfunctions for D^{-1/2} \, ?". His entire agenda was to get us to play with things, to conduct research. --Ancheta Wis 10:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, I guess my question is, who is "they", and who said that they didn't "do the physics right", and whose solution was used? If that sentence is staying in the article, then these should be clarified. FireWorks 02:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "They" would have been in the Theoretical divison (T). (Feynman was in the Computation section T-6 of division T; he was the one who said they did not "do the physics right".) The Project had equations to be solved on blackboards. Stan Ulam in his autobiography mentions being terrified by those equations, as he was expected to solve them, being a mathematician (Ulam had a collaborator for his own computations -- C.J. Everett from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who wore out his slide rule doing computations). But to repeat, Feynman's solution was unused in the Project; Feynman was a junior physicist at the time, and was not responsible for formulating the incorrect differential equation. --Ancheta Wis 03:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manhattan Project 

message: "Feynman said he felt just as much respect for Bohr's reputation as anyone else, but that once anyone got him talking about physics, he couldn't help but forget about mere social considerations and just openly try to figure out how the physics worked."
I removed the words "mere" and "just openly" because it seemed kind of obviously POV and there was no citation indicating it was a quote. so the paragraph reads
"Feynman said he felt just as much respect for Bohr's reputation as anyone else, but that once anyone got him talking about physics, he couldn't help but forget about social considerations and try to figure out how the physics worked."
...which I still think should be sourced by author. In fact, a lot of things need to be sourced, but this one, just for starters. --Jentizzle 11:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: The article says that Arlene had tubercolosis.
This is quite an important point, not just a biographical detail. Richard himself describes it in one of his books, but I've forgotten which, and I've also forgotten the details. Perhaps somebody will correct the article?
Arlene was initially misdiagosed (tubercolosis???), or could not be diagnosed. Richard spent time with medical books and worked out correctly what she had (Hodgkins disease?) while the doctors were still floundering. Richard says in his book that that is where he got his lifelong distrust for what the experts say. 213.208.107.91 00:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the note. I see that the article has been corrected to note that she was diagnosed with tuberculosis (not that she actually had it).
Actually you've got it reversed. In fact, the misdiagnosis was Hodgkins disease. The illness was tubercolosis. This is clear from the biographies. 203.76.194.70 21:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arlene's illness 

message: The newest addition attributes quarks to Feynman. I would like to revise the sentence to either say partons or omit quarks altogether. --Ancheta Wis 09:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: omit Trödel 12:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partons versus quarks 

message: Maybe I'm crazy, but this article reads to me like a biography or an obituary, not an encylopedia entry.
For example: at the end of the Biography section: "His habit of direct characterization would sometimes disconcert more conventional thinkers; for example, one of his questions when learning feline anatomy was: "Do you have a map of the cat?" (referring to a zoological chart). When he spoke, it was with clarity."
Or in the Manhattan Project section: "Feynman was also sought out by the famous physicist Niels Bohr for one-on-one discussions. He later found out why. Most physicists were too much in awe of Bohr to argue with him, but Feynman had no such inhibitions, vigorously pointing out anything he considered to be flawed in his thinking."
It reads like a story, not an encylopedia entry.
Maybe it's just me, and Lord knows I couldn't do better. Just had to say something.
: Maybe I’m crazy, but “this article reads to me like a biography,” followed by an example “at the end of the Biography section” is pretty funny. — Daniel Brockman 20:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough, and I thought about that when I wrote it. But I assume you know what I mean. — Antar 15:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this article is one of the better examples of how encyclopedia entries can be encyclopedic yet far more readable and lucid than your average encyclopedia article. enochlau (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I sympathize but do not agree, because that's not how Wikipedia is. This is an encyclopedia after all, not a fan site. Naphra 10:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stylistic Problems with this article 

message: "Interestingly, Feynman once borrowed the car of physicist Klaus Fuchs in order to visit his sick wife, who was later discovered to actually be a spy."
So his wife was later discovered to actually be a spy? News to me. JaWiB 03:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think adding a comma, to make it "Interestingly, Feynman once borrowed the car of physicist Klaus Fuchs, in order to visit his sick wife, who was later discovered to actually be a spy." would've made it correct. Current version is fine, though. -zachol 05:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammatical error? 

message: I notice that there are not many precise dates for parts of his life like "The Caltech years" or "Later years". In fact I don't seem to be able to find out when he was signed up to the Manhattan project, when he started teaching at Caltech etc. Could someone who knows these dates add them, possible in the subheadings: ==The Caltech Years (1900-2020)== etc Stevage 10:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precise dates 

message: "Feynman did much of his best work while at Caltech, including research in:
* Quantum electrodynamics. The theory for which Feynman won his Nobel Prize is known for its extremely accurate predictions[citation needed],[2]. He helped develop a functional integral formulation of quantum mechanics, in which every possible path from one state to the next is considered, the final path being a sum over the possibilities.[3]
"
Feynman QED work was published before he left Cornell for Caltech in 1950. There was one paper in 1951 on
the operator calculus.  Whole story can be found at:
'Feynman and the visualization of space-time processes.' Silvan S. Schweber. Reviews of Modern Physics, v58(2), p449, April 1986.
Could someone write a separate section on his QED work? It shouldn't be in the Caltech section. It's unarguably his most important work, and the story of its development is interesting on its own. The roles of Schwinger, Tomonaga, and Dyson can be referenced. 203.76.194.70 22:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error about Caltech 

message: From the article:
:for example, one of his questions when learning feline anatomy was: "Do you have a map of the cat?" (referring to a zoological chart).
In Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!, part 2, it says that Feynman wanted to look for the map because he didn't know about the positions of the muscles relative to the nerves and the cat. It was the librarian who said "You mean a zoological chart!".
However, searching for zoological chart on search engines gives me taxonomy charts, not anatomy charts, so I'm getting the impression that the librarian was wrong to assume to that a map of the cat was a zoological chart. Maybe the article should be changed to mention "anatomy chart" or some other relevant term instead? --KJ 03:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edited to mention "anatomical chart." --KJ 00:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of the Cat == zoological chart? 

message: I think it may be wise for the quotes on Feynman's page to be taken down since there is a Wikiquote to house all of his man's great quotes. Please decide if we should or not.--Shawn 04:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations 

message: * "Dear Mrs. Chown, Ignore your son's attempts to teach you physics. Physics isn't the most important thing. Love is.  Best wishes, Richard Feynman."
* "Physics is to math what sex is to masturbation."
* "Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it."
* "Mathematics is not real, but it feels real. Where is this place?"
* "The same equations have the same solutions." (Thus when you have solved a mathematical problem, you can re-use the solution in another physical situation. Feynman was skilled in transforming a problem into one that he could solve.)
* "When you are solving a problem, don't worry. Now, after you have solved the problem, then that's the time to worry."
* "The wonderful thing about science is that it's alive."
* "All fundamental processes are reversible."
* "What does it mean, to understand? ... I don't know."
* "What I cannot create, I do not understand." (Taken from his chalkboard after his death.)
* "Know how to solve every problem that has ever been solved." (Taken from his chalkboard after his death.)
* "But I don't have to know an answer.  I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose—which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly.  It doesn't frighten me."
* "To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature ... If you want to learn about nature, to appreciate nature, it is necessary to understand the language that she speaks in."
* "I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there's no real problem, but I'm not sure there's no real problem." (about Quantum Mechanics)
* "I'd hate to die twice. It's so boring" (last words).
--68.107.198.227 00:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall the exact quote on the futility of Biblical religions orthodoxy: "The stage has become so vast to contain the drama". It's somewhere in the preface of his letters, 2005 or 2006, edited by the daughter Michelle and quoted by a colleague. The exact phrasing ? Bardon Dornal 12:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotations

message: Currently, the article is using a copyrighted color photo of Feynman under fair use in the lead. I believe the famous photo of Feynman playing the bongos is actually public domain, and therefore might be more appropriate for wp. A copy of the photo is here: http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/photos/2005/feynman-300.jpg . The BNL page gives a photo credit to Tom Harvey, but I think that's incorrect; the book Feynman's Tips on Physics, Addison-Wesley, 2006, uses it on the cover, and states that the photographer is unknown, and that the photo is from ca 1962. I'm sure AW (which is continuing to make money on Feynman's stuff) would love nothing better than to be able to show the photo was copyrighted, and I'm sure they did a routine copyright search on the photo before using it on the cover. Works published in the US before 1964 had to have their copyrights renewed after 28 years, or they expired, and since I assume AW did a copyright search, it sounds like the photo's copyright was not renewed. (Searching for copyright renewals of photos is pretty difficult.) In any case, the legal aspects of the bongo photo seem much safer than the legal aspects of the color one, so I'm going to go ahead and replace it.--24.52.254.62 22:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that it's discourteous not to ask permission from Leighton. It's the same situation as reproducing a Van Gogh painting without permission from the current owner of the original canvas who has it hanging over his couch. If we knew who the original photographer was, it would be courteous to credit him or her.--24.52.254.62 22:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Side Issue- Does anyone else find it ironic that Feynman's wikipedia entry is headed by a picture of him playing the bongos, while he himself refused to allow Encyclopedia Britannica to use this photo in their article on him? (This is from Gleick) Iluvcapra 23:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See #Drum image. —Keenan Pepper 15:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: public-domain photo

message: I would like to promote this article to Good article status. It's a great and interesting text, even though there is large room for Peer review to do something with this and even make it a featured article. However, before any of that, we have to solve issues with these images:
* :Image:Nobel feynman.jpg -- old fair use tag, need to be updated.
* :Image:Feynman caltech 1974.png -- non-commercial only. This one should be deleted.
❝Sverdrup❞ 23:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I tried to take care of this. Nick Mks 18:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *I was not satisfied with :Image:Nobel feynman.jpg being used here.  It is a copyrighted image to the Nobel Prize Association, it is not a promotional image, and there are free alternatives available.  So that means it doesn't qualify for fair use here.  For some other fair use images I have added fair use rationales on the image pages.  I think those are very valid.--Konstable 13:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article 

message: The link to the "subj based clips" of the Finding thinhgs out video seems to be broken. Are they no longer hosting the video? Can the link be removed? --81.105.251.160 03:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  onegoodmove 

message: :pronounced FINE-man;  in IPA)
Hi, I reverted FINE-min to FINE-man. I think FINE-man is better because "-man" has a schwa in fireman and policeman, akin to Feynman. (Most unstressed syllables in English have a schwa, regardless of the spelling.) --Kjoonlee 02:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Feynman says very clearly in WDYCWOPT that he hated being associated with that picture of him drumming. Does anyone know of another image we could lead with? Perhaps one made on the occasion of the Nobel Prize? Gazpacho
:Come to think of it, that might have been in Gleick's biography instead. Gazpacho 17:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not quite it, as I remember (and my memory is good).  He was contacted by some (Swedish?) encylopedia who wanted to use the picture to (roughly speaking) show that theoretical physicists were actual human beings and  that's what he didn't like -- pandering to some prejudice about scientists as inhuman calculating machines -- and so he refused permission to use the picture, ending his reply letter with "... I am human enough to tell you to go to hell."  It wasn't the picture itself he disliked.  137.82.188.68 01:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  True, nevertheless, there's a point to it, and the same prejudice is being pandered here; Feynman the physicist was human enough, why try to "humanize" him any more, as if that was necessary? Him being a bongo-player wasn't exactly a defining characteristic anyway (Einstein isn't shown playing his violin either). Naphra 10:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Drum image

message: Was he really atheist? I've listened to him speaking about God in some of his lectures about physics.
:Yes, he says in either SYJ or WDYCWOPT that by a certain age he was a committed atheist. Gazpacho 17:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About his religion 

message: Feynman did not say "computer models are a disease" ... this is an untrue statement from one of Michael Crichton's books that has been repeated all over the net ... what Fenyman said was: "There is a computer disease that anybody who works with computers knows about. It's a very serious disease and it interferes completely with the work. The trouble with computers is that you 'play' with them! "
:Javaman, the "computer models" misquotation does not appear in the article. I can vouch for your statement about "play", and how Nick Metropolis had fallen under its spell, as well. So from the pov of the article, we need do nothing. --Ancheta Wis 20:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Quotation 

message: I read in many places that Feynman was a regular pot smoker. Dr Lester Grinspoon comented in his book "Marijuana Reconsidered" that Feynman acknowledged his ongoing user of cannabis. Though, the only true source i've found (Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman) only describes one marijuana experience, at John Lilly's sensory deprivation tanks.
Any ideas, with sources or citations, that confirm that he was a regular pot smoker, as Carl Sagan was?
:I thought Feynman stopped drinking because he noticed he wasn't his former self. (Can't cite sources, though.) I doubt you'll find anything saying he smoked regularly. --Kjoonlee 03:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In Surely You're Joking, he says he stopped drinking because he was afraid of becoming an alcoholic, since he once wanted to drink while there was no social reason to do so. In the 'Altered States' chapter, he says that when he smoked pot, hallucinations came quickly in John Lilly's sensory deprivation tanks. Steiger 23:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regular pot smoker? 

message: I've been struggling through two recently-published books critical of string/superstring theory. Both of them quote comments Feynman made shortly before his death. Apparently, his anti-string comments are well known, an irritant to some and a rallying point for others. Shouldn't they be included here? Or maybe they have been but I missed it? --Christofurio 23:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skepticism About Superstrings 

message: I'm not talking about his scientific merit, but some of his students claimed he was rather bad teacher, he didn't care much preparing the classes and wrote the 'Lectures on Physics' but as a teacher he was not considered to be very 'nice', in the sense he didn't want to explain things to his students is that true ?? --85.85.100.144 15:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was he really so 'nice' 

message: Please, get rid of this hideous thing. Wikipedia has a standard page layout that should not be changed arbitrarily; it is designed the way it is for good reasons. The standard space after a lead section emphasizes how the page is structured and saves the reader from immediately getting overwhelmed by too much text. Some special pages perhaps require a nonstandard layout, but I see no reason here. Fredrik Johansson 13:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOCleft 

message: Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 01:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Elided 'gentle'. So that says perhaps the interviewer caught him in a gentle phase?<wink>.   --Ancheta Wis 22:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: Is there a particular reason these books are not listed in the section Popular works by and about Feynman:
* Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!, Richard Feynman, Ralph Leighton (contributor), Edward Hutchings (editor), W W Norton, 1984, 
* What Do You Care What Other People Think?, Richard Feynman, Ralph Leighton (contributor), W W Norton, 1988, 
* The Meaning of It All: Thoughts of a Citizen Scientist, Richard Feynman, Perseus Publishing, 1999, .
* Perfectly Reasonable Deviations From The Beaten Track: The Letters Of Richard P. Feynman, Richard Feynman, Michelle Feynman, Basic Books, 2005 
* The Pleasure of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works of Richard P. Feynman, edited by Jeffrey Robbins, Perseus Books, 1999, .
* Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman, James Gleick, Pantheon, 1992, 
* QED and the Men Who Made It: Dyson, Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga (Princeton Series in Physics), Silvan S. Schweber, Princeton University Press, 1994, .
* Richard Feynman: A Life in Science, John Gribbin and Mary Gribbin, Dutton Adult, 1997, .
* Feynman’s Rainbow: A Search for Beauty in Physics and in Life, Leonard Mlodinow, Warner Books, 2003, 
I realize that the first two are included in the omnibus Classic Feynman, but IMO it may be better to list them under the original titles. Since I am new to this page, I would like to confirm that there is no logical reason for excluding these titles - before I add them. Abecedare 04:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books by and on Feynman 

message: It is stated in the article that during his last year of high school Feynman won the "New York University Math Championship".  A Google search of “New York University Math Championship” only revealed references to Feynman but did not provide any information about the championship itself.  Similarly, a search of the New York University home page did not reveal any references to this “math championship”.  
And then I came across this reader’s letter to the New York Times:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE1DA1138F932A25753C1A964958260
To quote the letter: "...I was his friend, classmate and teammate on the Far Rockaway High School math team. When we competed in the Pi Mu Epsilon contest held at Columbia University, Richard came out first"
It seems clear that the high school competition in question is actually a Pi Mu Epsilon contest, held at Columbia University (not New York University), and therefore the Wikipedia entry is erroneous. Or are there several different contests? The Pi Mu Epsilon is a Honorary National Mathematics Society (website: http://www.pme-math.org/)
It would be great if more people could do more research to confirm this. Perhaps someone can make a quick call to James Gleick? Thanks.
199.41.197.24 07:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!, he mentions that he entered lots of math competitions, first as a team member, and later on as leader. --Kjoonlee 12:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, maybe not "anywhere on the internet" if you exclude google book search.  This book says it.  But that doesn't necessarily make it correct.  The contest that I was familiar with was national, run by Mu Alpha Theta; I would have won at my school if my little brother hadn't been there. Dicklyon 03:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This proves my point, anywhere there is any mention of "New York University Math Championship", it is always in connection to Richard Feynman.  So basically this is just a circular reference.  If the "New York University Math Championship" is real, it should be mentioned somewhere, independent of Feynman. I think this is just an error, and the actual competition is the aforementioned Columbia University competition.  OK, is there any reader out there who has a connection with New York University and can check their historical records? Winang 15:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it proves your point at all and IMHO it's entirely possible that Feynman competed in both a NYU championship and a CU competition, as well as a national contest. --Kjoonlee 17:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  High School Math Championship: What is this exactly? 

message: I think this article is going really well, it should be featured —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.115.150.159 (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How long till it can be featured? 

message: Richard Feynman was a member of RNA Tie Club. It was not related to physics but I feel it can be interesting to note that he was interested also in genetics. Miraceti 12:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  I've started the RNA Tie Club article (maybe re-started it?).   What were Feynman's contributions during/to the club?  --Ojganesh (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Member of RNA Tie Club 

message: Not much mention about his cancer and death, or how he dealt with it. ~ Rollo44 09:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am confused by that as well. Seems like a gross oversight. Evil Monkey - Hello 23:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancer and Death 

message: Should this book be added to the list of publications? Feynman Lectures on Computation --Rajah 19:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lectures on Computation 

message: Hi, the #Challenger disaster section of the article seems a bit funny to me. I don't have WDYCWOPT with me right now so I can't check, but didn't someone *on* the commission tip him off about the O-rings? Anyway, I think I remember reading that the person mentioned something about cold temperatures off-handedly, saying that he heard it from someone in the air force or something like that. Feynman became very excited and did what the informant had wanted him to do, in retrospect, IIRC.
Also, the book says that Feynman had asked for a glass of ice water, but had to ask for his glass again and again... it turned out the ice water was delayed because the organizers had decided to get *everyone* glasses of ice water and so it took a lot of time; Feynman almost didn't get his chance.
These facts (if my memory is correct) seem to contradict the article. So... what do you say? Is my memory to blame? I've been wrong before (Talk:Gremlin#Publication) but I'm pretty sure this time. --Kjoonlee 23:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay! Things are moving in the right direction. --Kjoonlee 04:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Challenger disaster section 

message: Why is this article tagged with synesthesia? None of his books mention that... AFAICT. Cite?WolfKeeper 16:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The synesthesia article says "Feynman describes in his autobiography, What Do You Care What Other People Think?, that he had the grapheme → color type."  Perhaps we should verify and say something in this article? Dicklyon 18:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synesthesia? 

message: Now I know this sounds like nitpicking, but I find the line "Religion: Atheist" in the infobox somewhat oxymoronic. This has probably been discussed over and over again somewhere, but atheism just isn't a religion; particularly, I'd think, as Feynman understood it. Propose removing, or changing. Naphra 19:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed to Religion: None (atheist) 81.228.195.119 20:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, your opinion probably isn't notable.WolfKeeper 02:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Here he describes God as invented. That's not agnosticism.WolfKeeper 02:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: "In those days, in Far Rockaway, there was a youth center for Jewish kids at the temple... Somebody nominated me for president of the youth center. The elders began getting nervous, because I was an avowed atheist by that time... I thought nature itself was so interesting that I didn't want it distorted like that [by miracle stories]. And so I gradually came to disbelieve the whole religion. (What Do You Care What Other People Think?, 1988, pp25-28.)"  That isn't either.WolfKeeper 02:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: It seems the main picture has been changed, but the caption hasn't - The badge ID pic has been moved further down the page. I'm gonna switch the captions, but it was the last change and I'm not sure there was consensus. Anyway, I'm just trying to keep captions matched properly - revert back to the old pic if you all think it's better. Jodamn 01:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replaced the unfree book cover image by the badge ID as the main image, as it's a free image. --Abu badali (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  main pic 

message: I think the Mental illness misdiagnosis section needs to be rewritten. He did belittle the fact, but he also wrote an honest letter to the authorities on why he shouldn't be drafted. --Kjoonlee 04:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feynman was rejected for the army in 1946 reportly due to mental illness. He got a 4F qualification on the draft. He reportedly heard voices, his grandmother was in asylum and suffered mental breakdown after his wife died. He belittled this fact in his biography Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!''''
Deleted from article. Isn't notable enough to be mentioned in his biography as a separate section. --Kjoonlee 04:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: And is there a source? Sure there is. Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! has all the details. --Kjoonlee 04:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why the recent weasel word "reportedly" instead of saying what the source supports? Dicklyon 04:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll have to read the book for the full answer, but the short answer is that Feynman wasn't happy with the way the interview was going. He provoked the psychiatrist a little (IMHO) and said that people were looking at him (yes, people in the hospital were looking at the ruckus) and he got stamped as an invalid and avoided the draft. He told stories about this at parties, but then someone said that they worked for the government (uh-oh) so Feynman had to write a letter saying that the test was in error. He said that he couldn't afford to get drafted because he had important scientific work for the government that he need to do. The result was that he didn't get drafted anyway. --Kjoonlee 05:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So it wasn't really mental illness IMHO. He was answering truthfully at all times IMHO. (Especially the bit about hearing voices of his diseased wife, IMHO. They were so much in love; he might have imagined her voice.) --Kjoonlee 05:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IRC I think he said he talked *to* her, he never said she talked back. :-) He said he heard voices when he was falling asleep, but I imagine that that is very common.WolfKeeper 02:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: First of all, its not MISdiagnosis, its diagnosis. To call it a misdiagnosis you have to have PROOF that it was wrong, and there is no such thing, whilst there is evidence, even admitted in the guys autobiography, that he was 4f. So, it is biased to say that it was misdiagnosis. His metal illness is important topic and it MUST be discussed. Physikalk 16:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Proof or no proof, have you read the book? Does your link support what was written in the article? The answer to both questions is "No," IMHO. Tell me, why is it important? --Kjoonlee 17:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mental illness misdiagnosis 

message: : The Feynman Lectures on Physics are perhaps his most accessible work for anyone with an interest in physics
Surely this isn't true at all; i.a. QED and Six Easy Pieces are much more accessible, although much more limited in scope as well. I feel this should be reworded. Naphra 21:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but even more people can understand, and thus access, e.g. QED or Six Easy Pieces; they are, if anything, meant for really anyone with an interest in physics, whereas TFLOP, with all the mathematics it contains, just isn't meant for the more general public, no matter how illuminating it can be to an undergrad physics student. I think the above phrase makes it sound as if Feynman never wrote anything for the general public. And "perhaps his most accessible work" is kinda weasel-wordish in any case. Naphra 00:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accessibility of TFLOP 

message: I took out the claim that Feynman was known for this.  I think it's being confused with the story about von Neumann (see here).  Feynman was good at mential calculation and estimation, but not as good as Johnny, and it's not what he was known for. Dicklyon 15:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feynman was slower than a skilled man with an abacus when it came to addition. He was faster with cube roots, though. ;) --Kjoonlee 21:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lightning fast mental calculation

message: The article currently says: "According to Genius, the James Gleick biography, Richard Feynman experimented with LSD during his professorship at Caltech[citation needed]."
I am not sure what counts as a citation -- but I attended the 1974 graduation ceremony at Caltech where Feynman gave his famous address on Cargo Cult Science.  In his talk, Feynman briefly described his personal experience using LSD in isolation tanks with John Lilly (a well known graduate of Caltech).  In nearly every "transcript" of Feynman's talk that I have seen, this reference to LSD has been edited out.  But it is likely that most of the many hundreds of people who personally heard Feynman that afternoon remember it.
131.107.0.73 01:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, drugs do funny things to one's memory, but I don't recall it, and I was in that graduating class, too.  I remember the Cargo Cult Science part quite well, and often bring it up. Dicklyon 23:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feynman talked about using LSD in his famous 1974 address on cargo cult science 

message: Zargulon, it looks like your recent comments border on personal attacks on other editors' judgment. --Kjoonlee 11:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does the phrase "personal attack on other editors' judgement?" mean, if anything? Zargulon 12:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feynman was notable for playing the bongos, perhaps more so than for being a theoretical physicist. ;) --Kjoonlee 11:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinions are fascinating, but do you really think they justify your destructive behavior?. Zargulon 12:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Other editors who have opposed your opinions are all familiar with Feynman's life and his accounts as told in his books. I should point out that most of the information on his personal life is in Feynman's own words, with only a few exceptions. Have you read his books? Please answer yes or no. --Kjoonlee 11:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Do you know what an encyclopedia is? Please answer yes or no. Zargulon 12:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do know what an encyclopedia is, and I also know what loaded questions look like. How am I destructive? --Kjoonlee 17:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I know what begging the question looks like.. if you know what an encylopedia is, you would know that editors are not reliable sources, so did you really have a good reason to ask whether I had read Feynmans' books? Why do you think I believe that you "are" destructive? Zargulon 17:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree about editors, so read my comments below. Hey, you said I had destructive behaviour. --Kjoonlee 17:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Behavior is not the same thing. I don't have any reason to believe that you are destructive. Zargulon 18:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you're just nitpicking. --Kjoonlee 20:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Have you specifically read Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! and What Do You Care What Other People Think?? If so, how did you fail to notice that almost all info on his personal life came from his own words? --Kjoonlee 17:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes you think I failed to notice that? Zargulon 17:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're just being nasty and you know it. Reread your first sentence in the section above and you say his biographical info is just inference.--Kjoonlee 17:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry you feel I'm being nasty.. I feel the same way about your unjustified and destructive reverts. I am also absolutely sure that no-one who has any experience with wikipedia believes that a wikipedia editor can ever be a reliable source. Rather, things must be referenced to external sources to be reliably sourced. This is a long-standing fact of Wikipedia policy and rightly so. As for Feynman's autobiographical work, well.. Jesus said about himself "I am the way, the truth and the light".. why don't you go to the Jesus wikipedia page and write "Jesus was the way,  the truth and the light"? Not. Don't you see the absurd consequences of your viewpoint? Zargulon 18:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any diffs of me being destructive? --Kjoonlee 18:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was counterproductive (apart from the reference): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Feynman&diff=143526953&oldid=143463101 the ones that followed it were also bad. Zargulon 18:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all in the reference. So it's not counterproductive at all. ;) Besides, my following edits were cleanup-related. So cleanup is counterproductive now? --Kjoonlee 20:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My edit which you reverted was a cleanup edit, and my edit was, as you correctly point out very far from counterproductive. You on, the other hand, reverted that cleanup edit.. why on earth did you do this?? Zargulon 21:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cleanup != Deletion of valid content. --Kjoonlee 22:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Valid? Content?? Zargulon 22:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure! Valid content. In case you disagree, say so, instead of being nasty. But tell me, how are my following edits bad? Cite diffs and comment, please. --Kjoonlee 05:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry you still feel I am being nasty.. again maybe you should take a look at your own behavior. Why did you cite links which proved that you were wrong? Zargulon 07:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: To jump in here, there's a bit of a difference between the Jesus quote and material in a Feynman biography originally sourced from the man himself.  In the first place, in the case of Feynman, there's a clear, traceable chain from the information source to Wikipeda.  E.g., Feynman knew what his childhood was like, Feynman told the biography author, the biography author wrote it down and published it, and then someone cited that bio here on WP.  Unless we believe that Feynman just made it up, or that the author just made it up, it's creditable information—and if we start calling published sources into doubt without some good reasons for doing so, we should probably remove a great deal of the content of Wikipedia.  Second, what we're talking about is Feynman relating information about his life, childhood, etc., not making supernatural claims about himself—in that case, I think you'd be right to show some skepticism.  While we're at it, Zargulon, could you follow standard indentation?  It makes following conversations much easier.  Thanks, Ryan McDaniel 19:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure you came in at the best moment.. Kjoonlee was just about to explain his reverts. Anyway I'm happy to follow any reasonable indentation scheme or to have my edits tidied by someone who knows about standard indentation (which I dont). First point.. perhaps you can think of more modern analogies where people have a vested material or psychological interest in creating their persona.. Paris Hilton? Saddam Hussein? Feynman? in any case, Feynman's autobiographical works are works of entertainment, not history. That means the criteria for emphasis and the criteria for objectivity are completely different from what is acceptable in Wikipedia. Zargulon 19:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feynman's autobiographical works are works of entertainment, not history: Point conceded, but I don't think that makes the incidental history listed in them less trustworthy.  Thus, if in a humorous auto-bio Feynman happened to say that he got his interest in physics from his father, I think that's (1) notable, and (2) from a creditable source, regardless of the intent of the book.  I'm willing to debate what might be notable, but I think that's a somewhat separate discussion.  (On a sidenote, I've reformmatted your reply above to give an example of indentation: this should also make it easier for Kjoonlee to put his response in the appropriate place.  Basically, reply with one more ":" than the post you're replying to.  Does that help?) —Ryan McDaniel 19:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are begging the question. By definition, it doesn't make what history is in it less trustworthy, but it sure makes the statements less historical. That source is notable for its entertainment value, which punters have voted with their book-buying dollars. As for its historical value, well there are holocaust denial papers with better peer review, so thank God that stuff isn't entertaining. As far as I know, normal WP practice is to say 'according to <his autobiography> F got his interest in physics from his father', if you think that his claims about where he got his interest in physics is notable. As for his mother and sense of humour, that is way under the radar for me. Zargulon 19:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that it's begging the question, and I'm not sure I follow your reasoning on why it's less historical.  However, to bring this conversation back to the article at hand, can we talk about an example?  Feynman is a notable person (seems obvious).  Notable things about him include his achievements in physics (and other sciences), and his personality (very notable among those who knew him and still a part of the Caltech culture).  Feynman attributes his interest in science (in part) to his father, his personality (in part) to his mother, thus helping to explain some of the notable things about him.  Especially with citations, that sounds to me like something that can (and I would argue, should) be included in the article.  How does that sit with you? —Ryan McDaniel 20:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Notable among those who knew him" does not imply "notable", very far from it.. surely you must see this. I am amenable to his father-interest-in-physics claim being in the article (after all, it is related to his being a physicist, which is what he is notable for) provided it is presented as his claim and not as a fact. As for a lot of the other stuff, I think the problem is that people here are very familiar with his books and using their contents too uncritically on Feynman's WP page. However Feynman is certainly notable as an author and many of his books certainly are notable enough for WP pages in their own right.. my preferred compromise would be that the people on this page who love his books spend relatively more time on the book pages and less time on the Feynman page. Zargulon 20:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's specifically about the books, I agree with moving it to a separate page.  However, I really do think that Feynman's personality was a notable aspect of his life.  It set him apart from his peers and it has continued to shape the culture at Caltech.  Assuming that we can agree that his personality was notable, how would you go about including it in this article?  —Ryan McDaniel 21:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he was notable as an author (that should probably go in the lead on this page); the eccentric/humorous character he created in those books for himself, whether or not it was true to life, is notable within the context of those books and should be discussed on the WP pages for the individual books or a combined WP "Richard Feynman's autobiographies/literary works" page, and get a single-phrase mention in the part of this page that discusses his books. His influence on Caltech culture is fine for this page but must be sourced properly and should be given a paragraph on the page in a location which reflects the non-notability of Caltech culture relative to physics and authorship, i.e. right at the bottom. Zargulon 21:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that it wasn't just an "eccentric/humorous character he created in those books for himself", it was just how he was.  Pranks at Los Alamos (and at Caltech).  Working out of a topless bar.  Being, in general, kind of a wacky guy.  I agree that it shouldn't take any place of prominence in the article, but I think it's notable with respect to more than just his books or his time at Caltech.  I haven't really got time to continue this thread for now, but I think it might be productive for us to carry on later.  Fair?  (And pax?)  — Ryan McDaniel 21:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pax. Zargulon 21:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not peacock problems 

message: Kjoonlee, I'm not sure the bit on teaching should be condensed into one phrase.  What would be the motivation? —Ryan McDaniel 18:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, "inspirational" seems a bit POV. We need something to replace it. --Kjoonlee 20:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or cite it—I'd be willing to bet we can find at least one physicist who's verifiably said they were inspired by Feynman.  I just wasn't sure what you meant by the "one phrase" part.  —Ryan McDaniel 20:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we cite it it should be something like "so-and-so physicist thinks Feynman was inspirational" not "was inspirational (ref: because so-and-so physicist says so)". And I'm not sure if that will fit into the current bit... --Kjoonlee 21:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fair (unless, of course, we can find something that says "90% of physicists cite Feynman as an inspiration", but I'm not holding my breath...).  On the other hand, what are WP's policies on generalizing?  I.e., if "several" "prominent" physicists cite Feynman as an inspiration, for some definition of "several" and "prominent", is it okay to say that he was inspirational?  (Honestly asking here, I don't know.)  —Ryan McDaniel 21:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason you don't know, is the question doesn't have an answer and never will. Suppose you actually (by some miracle) had a published and citable poll (from a "reputable source") that 90% of physicists thought Feynman was the bee's knees. But that's just one poll. It's one guy's claim, essentially. Other polls may show different results. Okay, now you cite 5 polls find that (lo!) 4 out of 5 polls show that physicists chew Feynman gum. Great, but now you're synthesizing a POV. Okay, now you find somebody else who cites those 5 polls, and you cite them. Wow. But now you're back to just one POV article on poll results, so start over. In fact, there are very few historical facts that you cannot get to the bottom of citable material in about 3 steps, and find that you're now stuck with violating NPOV, because somebody has failed to do (and publish in a "reputable place") the data synthesis, at the level of opinion you're at. Just as here. You can talk about majority opinion, but how do you prove it? With a majority of polls? Says who? Wikipedia likes to pretend this doesn't happen, but in fact, it's so in most cases. And if you require NPOV all the way down, you get to the end in EVERY case, just as the child asking "Why?" will find that very shortly, at some level, explanations stop. At some level knowledge summation stops. And the funny thing is that Wikipedia doesn't even encourage citations of such end level knowledge opinion summations. It calls them "tertiary sources", yuk, yuk. Well, when you run out of secondary sources, call me. SBHarris 01:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think in practice if you found 2 or 3 people that said that 'Feynman was an inspiration in teaching' or words to that effect, and they were notable and you referenced them you could get away with saying 'Feynman was an inspiring teacher[1][2][3]'. It's not OR; because they said it, and it's their POV, so that's OK; provided you accurately paraphrase it's all good.WolfKeeper 01:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's their POV indeed. So how do you put it in? If you collect the references yourself in pursuit of synthetically ADVANCING a single POV by enumeration of people who agree with it (which you surely are doing) then YOU violate NPOV policy as written (not that I'm defending Wiki policy here; I merely report it). In truth, it's actually nearly impossible to follow Wiki policy here. But everybody pretends this emperor (and I'm sure you know who the emperor here IS) has clothes. SBHarris 01:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, if they really are all saying essentially the same thing, then you're not enumerating them, you're just including their POVs. That's not against any rules provided theirs is a reasonably common POV.WolfKeeper 02:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to agree with Wolfkeeper.  Perhaps the better way to phrase it (assuming we can find said scientists in the first place) would be to say "Feynman inspired a generation/generations/whatever of scientists...[1][2][3]"  I'd think that would avoid the synthesis problem.  —Ryan McDaniel 02:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually no, that might be marginally OR because you would have to additionally show that the people you quote were from different generations :-) You'd probably get away with it in 99.9% of cases though.WolfKeeper 04:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: First, having (re)read WP:NOR, I disagree that the policy forbids enumeration, but I don't think we even have to go there.  Saying "Feynman inspired several physicists", or "several notable physicists", or something, and providing examples, seems to be entirely within the scope of Wikipedia.   Wales' quote that the point is to avoid "novel narrative or historical interpretation" doesn't apply here: there's nothing new or novel about saying Feynman was a good (dare I say, inspirational) teacher—it's one of the things he was known for!  I agree that we want to avoid "peacock words" (great phrase, by the way), but I would really like to find a way to resolve the current debate that includes giving Feynman his due as far as his impact as a teacher, and it just surprises me to see the discussion the word "inspirational" has drummed up.  —Ryan McDaniel 03:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such arguments are most easily circumvented by simply putting a reference. There's no shortage of books that talk about him and his lectures and teaching as "inspirational". Dicklyon 04:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but that part seems to be where the conversation with Zargulon got off track.  I'm just trying to make sure that relevant information about Feynman gets included in a manner that doesn't prompt people to yank it back out again. —Ryan McDaniel 04:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody can get away with yanking sourced statements.  If it's an opinion, they can provide a balancing sourced opinion on the other side, if any such significant alternatives exist; but I don't think you'll find reliable refs saying Feynman was an uninspiration or mediocre teacher. Dicklyon 21:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, it needs to be read in context, I don't agree that simple collating of some people's POV that are supporting a position constitutes originality. If you enumerate when somebody hadn't already then that probably does theoretically constitute OR; since you would be excluding other possible interpretations of the data and using your own (so if you said that there was 70% majority) then that's OR.WolfKeeper 04:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If you think that the wikipedia is problematic, I strongly recommend you not look into patents. ;-) Compared to patents, wikipedia is sanity and light.WolfKeeper 04:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess his Feynman Lectures on Physics can ultimately be used as a source as well, to describe his way of teaching. --Kjoonlee 10:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Summarizing known facts is fine, but you still need a source, because not everyone knows the same facts you know.  If you don't include a source, your work is much more likely to be hacked by someone who recalls things differently from you.  If you include a source, like an online link to a book such as the ones I pointed about above, then anyone who recalls differently can check your verifiable reliable source and get set straight.  And no, the Feynman lecture on physics do not themselves serve as a source for what a great and inspiration teachere he was, because they don't say that (or maybe they do in a preface by someone; you can check). Dicklyon 21:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the bit on teaching"