Talk:John von Neumann/Archive 1

message: does anyone else find "Hungarian-American-German-Jewish" a little excessive ?
haha, I noticed that too, I was just about to post the same thing. Although I think we should keep it as he was infact Hungarian, Jewish, German and American.
:I have to question the description of how von Neumann died (of cancer).  As a mathematician, I have many, many times heard that he died in, or as a result of, an automobile accident.  I have even heard details of the supposed accident.  At this instant I don't have a reference.  But can someone point me to a reference that says he died of cancer?  (Perhaps he *had* cancer, but still died in an accident?) Daqu 22:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the notes at the top of this page for starters.  Other presumably-reputable sources are easy to find on the net, like [his bio at the National Academy of Science] which says "In 1955 he was named a Commissioner of the Atomic Energy Commission, a position he held up to his death from cancer in 1957.".  RossPatterson 22:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  background 

message: An extraordinary man... if you scratch somewhat deeper in any natural (and not only natural) science, his name will pop up. We should note though that von Neumann advocated nuclear attack against USSR - at least I've heard something like that on TV! -- Obradović Goran  (talk 22:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This too, that von Neumann advocated pre-emptive attack on the USSR, is reported in the Macrae biography.  William R. Buckley 07:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but so did Bertrand Russell at one point!!--Lacatosias 16:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear weapons 

message: I'm not sure what "collaborationism" is, but it's use seems to be less a fact and more an unattributed opinion.  Any idea what it means or why its there? Coleca 21:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Politics and social affairs (Collaborationism)

message: Some of you asked about , what is a neumann mashine is really like. I'll tell you, since i learned it :) It will be hard to understand, if you dont know nothing at all about computers. So.
Neumann said these "rules":
1) Stored program:
The commands has to be stored in the memory in numeric code, the same way, as the data.
Ill describe this one :) So, this means, the program has to be stored in the memory in a code, that the processor can undestand, so it will know what to do, if he get that command. (Sry, but ill try the best :) )
2)Binaric system: 
We have to use binaric system for the data and programs.
this means, they use binaric system, because, its the most easyest. for example, if we would use decimal system, for the computer, a single power-spike could cause the computer to crash. The binaric system is the most stabile for the computer.
3) Processing unit:
We need a processing unit, that can make difference between a command, and data, and can do the commands, by itself.
i think i dont have to write what is this :)
4)Arithmetic-logic unit (ALU):
We need a unit, that can do the basic logic operation, and the arithmetic operation(summation, and so on).
5)Peripherys:
We need in and output units, which contact the computer with the user.
(keyboard)
if you have more questions, feel free to ask :)
Voodo
:::What about serial and parallel processing? Does the von Neumann machine perform one processing operation at a time or does it perform more than one at a time?Lestrade 12:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the contemporary vernacular, a von Neumann machine is known as an SISD processor, for Single-Instruction, Single-Data.  The Cray is by comparison an SIMD processor, for Single-Instruction, Multiple-Data.  These are thus also known as, respectively, serial and parallel processors.  SISD is most properly known as the von Neumann architecture.  SIMD is most properly known as the Harvard architecture.  The term von Neumann machine is a bit vague, as some have taken it to refer to the Universal Constructor.  However, I believe that a thorough historical review will show that the von Neumann machine is the processor, not the self-replicator.  This is perhaps a task that ought be performed, with reported results, so that future editors of the relevant von Neumann articles can get the nit-picky details accurately reflected in article text.  William R. Buckley 18:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As far as I know SISD and SIMD concepts are orthogonal to the Neumann architecture and to the Harvard architecture: the Neumann machine handles data and algorith the same way, while in the Harvard arhitecture data and algorithm are stored in different memory units. So you cannot write a self modifying program on Harvard arhitecture (or you have to be tricky and swap the memories), while the Harvard arhitecture is more suitable for signal processing, because it can read the data and the program instruction concurrently. --Zslevi (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Neumann elv (Neumann mashine) 

message: A lot of the information about Von Neumann's work on the bomb was just incorrect. The most important error was the identification of the Fuchs-Von Neumann patent as being about the fission weapon -- it was clearly about the fusion bomb, as the Herken reference given clearly says. How someone can go to the trouble of a citing a specific page number but getting the actual information completely wrong is beyond me... sigh... ---Fastfission 05:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bomb stuff

message: I'm not too familiar with von Neumann's life, but this article appears to be fairly complete to me, and it includes at least some references (though more would be better).  As such I have given it an assessment of "A-Class".  Could someone familiar with the subject please check that this is reasonable, and if not please adjust it in the Version 0.5 template (e.g., change A to B).  Many thanks, Walkerma 03:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, congratulations to all to all who have collaborated on this one!! Good work. I can't make any assesment becasue I contributed a fairly subtantial amount myself. I will seek out more sources, refernces and we should try to make this an FA at some point if possible through peer-review, etc..--Lacatosias 08:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia 0.5 assessment

message: It's a very interesting and nice article about Von Neumann. I think it has a promise to pass GA qualification. However, there are some technical issues here, mostly related to the Manual of Style:
# The lead section is full of specialized terms, unfamiliar to common readers. Having too many specific terms does not create interests in reading the whole article. Per WP:LS: in general, specialized terminology should be avoided in an introduction. The lead section should introducing and explaining the subject and its significance clearly and accurately, without going into excessive detail.
# I think the lead section can be expanded further into 2-3 paragraphs. The first one explained about Von Neumann himself, his most notable contributions to the world, but not too much detail. Paragraph two summarizes his scientific career, the last paragraph can explain about his non-scientific career that gives some controversies about him, e.g. his political affairs, CIA consultant, etc. That will create some interest feeling about Von Neumann both for scientists and non-scientists readers.
# Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links), do not overlink to unnecessary articles, unrelated to the subject. I see some of this. For example, wikilink to bank, to years, etc.
# I see references of this article in the References section, but I don't see their usage in the article. I don't see any inline citation refer to the References section. I think the editor should point out which statement was taken from which reference. This is required to ensure the verifiability of this article. Please read WP:CITE, how to make an inline citation.
# To make reading this article easier, could the editor consider to make more structure of this article, rather than one level headline? For example, put Achievements as a section and as its subsections are: Logic, Economic, Quantum Mechanics and Computer Science.
# In the Logic section, the introduction of it somehow too specific for common readers. It is hard to discern what it is all about, because all of sudden there are names never mentioned before and terms never introduced before. Perhaps you can put  tag to point to Logic or History of Logic article, so that reader who want to read more about logic can refer to that articles. It is better to point directly what von Neumann has contributed in the field of Logic.
# It is also the case in the Quantum Mechanic section. Perhaps changing prose of the articles can make it easier to understand and go directly to what the subject of this article, i.e. about von Neumann and his contributions. Do not go too deep into specialized terms in other field. Just point to a certain Wikipedia article about that field with appropriate template, so that curious readers can go to that article.
# Mathematical formulations are also placed inappropriately. Please consider whether mathematical equations are really necessary and can make the article about von Neumann biography stronger, rather than confusing the reader.
# I think the best example is the Economics section, where the editor points directly to what von Neumann has contributed to this field.
# My last comment is about picture. If editor can find more pictures related to von Neumann's contributions in different fields: logic, quantum mechanics, etc., rather than just his pictures, then it would make this article more interesting to read.
This is part of GA process and I hope this article will pass GA qualifications. — Indon (reply) — 09:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Indon about the introduction. It is not that there are too many wikilinks, only that they are too dense. It may help to think of the lead as summarizing the content of the article rather than the career of von Neumann (a subtle distinction). Concerning images, I think it would be better to add images related to his work, rather than more pictures of him. I also think it is a strength of the article that it does touch upon the mathematics and other technical aspects of his contributions. Geometry guy 16:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article Reviews 

message: A user removed the JvN infobox, calling it "silly".  For my own edification, what was the problem with the infobox, and why was it removed?  For my part, I thought it brought needed structure to the article front.
: It is redundant. An encyclopedia article is written in prose. --Pjacobi 13:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It may be redundant, but it assists in the useful organization of a large amount of information in a small space, providing easier comparisons.  Is the infobox for Tyrannosaurus also silly?  As for encyclopedias needing to limit themselves to prose--what is this, 1910?  Hyperlinks, pictures, graphs, sparklines, interactive applets, and yes, infoboxes are all part of the information age experience that is Wikipedia. Robert K S 13:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Scientic classification at species-articles is structured enough to make presentation in a box sort of reasonable. This doesn't hold for biographies. --Pjacobi 13:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it such a momentous matter, one way or the other? How about trying to help address some of the more serious concerns listed above and stop arguing about infoboxes?--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 16:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which more serious concern did you have in mind? Robert K S 16:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What's wrong with the infobox

message: Based on GA reviews and responses given, I failed this article of GA for the following reasons:
# Well written? — need major improvements
#*As I have mentioned in the previous thread, that the prose is not clear for common readers. This article requires pre-requisite of certain knowledge for a reader to understand. For example in the logic section, where readers have to know a priori about set theory.
#*Prose for specialist readers is also found in the Quantum Mechanics and Computer Science sections. Necessary technical jargons should only be briefly explained and wikilinked.
#*Mathematical equations are not properly and briefly explained. Although one of the editor have answered that "The only equations that stand out are in the quantum mechanics, and they do occur without much explanation as to their relevance.", but this is not about quantum mechanics. It's about Von Neumann.
#*Also that the mathematical equations do not make this article stronger, but rather confusing.
#*Lead section should be reshaped to give a summary about von Neumanns, including his political involvement in nuclear missiles and the cold war. Also specialized terms should be minimized in the lead section, per WP:LS.
# Factually accurate and verifiable? — need improvements
#*Again, based on the previous reviews, inline citations are needed for a biography article, to satisfy the verifiability.
#*Some sections do not cite any sources. 
#*One of the editors simply said that inline citations can be given for a skeptical wikipedians. This is totally wrong, as an article is read not only by a wikipedian. 
# Broad in coverage? — need improvements
#*Please focus on the subject, i.e. about Von Neumann. I see in the Logic and Quantum Mechanics sections, editors give too many unnecessary theory about logic and quantum mechanics. Just point with  to a more detailed explanation for curious readers.
# Neutral point of view? — need improvements
#*In the Politic and Social Affairs section, his controversy of being involved as the scientific mind behind the cold war is not presented.
#*There is a statement that he was violently anti-communist, but no further explanations about this.
#*I see some POV tones, such as the velocity of his own intellect.
# Article stability? — passes
# Image? — need more illustrations about von Neumann's major inventions
When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. — Indon (reply) — 13:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: :In 1903 Hungary was a sovereign kingdom (monarchy) within the Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy alongside the Austrian monarchy. There was no such thing as an Austro-Hungarian nationality, subjects were either Austrian or Hungarian. Having been born in Budapest, the capital of Hungary, John Neumann was unquestionably Hungarian at the time of his birth. I have corrected the lead article. Bardwell 21:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality at birth 

message: In the first paragraph in the Biography section, it says he was an expert on the "Civil War." Could someone specify which civil war this was? Picaroon9288 18:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no event in Hungarian history which is known as a "civil war". The author probably means the USA civil war. This should promptly be precised by someone who is able to check the fact. 84.1.197.74 05:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  First, civil war it is not, Civil War it is, as it is a title, and this title is the name by which the American civil war is known by the general public in the US.  Von Neumann's memory is a well annecdoted fact, including a thorough knowledge of the American Civil War.  I'll correct the hotlink.  William R. Buckley 19:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Second, if you remove US and American from a google search on "civil war", you get a variety of otherwise named civil wars: English, Spanish, Chinese, Finnish, etc.  Though the search could be more thorough, there does not appear to be many other wars known as the civil war for any other people.  This designation, the use of a general term for a specific case, of the civil war being the American Civil War does seem to be represented within the pages of the web.  William R. Buckley 19:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Civil War 

message: I don't think Cantor invented set theory.  If anybody did, wasn't it Boole?
: Set theory does not equal to the combinatorial concept of sets. It is, roughly speaking, a discipline to approach infinite magnitudes in a mathematically sound way. Georg Cantor clearly made the breakthrough in this area, after millennia of disinterest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.1.197.74 (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cantor "invented" set theory?

message: What is the source for that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.49.151.75 (talk • contribs).
: I've removed John F. Nash from the list of von Neumann's students. Nash was supervised by Albert Tucker. According to Nasar's biography A Beautiful Mind, Nash's only discussion with von Neumann about his equilibria work was disappointing (von Neumann dismissed his result as trivial). Of course, Nash was influenced strongly by von Neumann's ideas and work (like countless other mathematicians).
:: An early draft of the script for the Beautiful Mind film featured von Neumann as a character (I believe von Neumann's name was misspelled), but was cut prior to filming.  I've never been able to unearth this draft and so cannot offer more details about the portrayal; I would appreciate being contacted if anyone can point me in the direction of a copy. Robert K S 13:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nash studied with Von Neumann?

message: According to the Wolfram source :
:"It is now fifty years since John von Neumann's death ... and his daughter tells me that in fact "The Big Box opening turned out to be a Big Bust". Apparently she and her children and their grandchildren had assembled ... only to discover that it was all a big mistake: the box was actually not John von Neumann's at all! So I suppose we will have to work a little harder to plumb more of John von Neumann's final character..."
Since the box wasn't his, I've removed the section.  It would just clutter up the article with no payoff or significance. Robert K S 17:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  50-year von Neumann box 

message: The ability of anyone to alter Wikipedia does not extend to justification for so doing.  The fact of von Neumann's religious association is explicated elsewhere, and the game playing that I see (over when he converted to catholocism) is misguided at best.  This articles biography provides some detail on the issue.  Perhaps review of the various book biographies of von Neumann would help to settle this debate.  More to the point, why not ask his daughter.  It is not as if she is incommunicado - I've received email from her - quite nice of Dr. Whitman to respond, actually.  If anyone is to give the facts, it is likely she.  William R. Buckley 18:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Affiliation 

message: Péter Pázmány (Pázmány being the family name, Hungarian order: Pázmány Péter) was actually a person, whose name the university bore the time Neumann attended it. Therefore 'University of Pázmány Péter' looks quite funny for a native Hungarian, and may be somewhat misleading. 'Pázmány Péter University' or 'Péter Pázmány University' would probably look better. 84.0.216.194 22:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  University of Pázmány Péter? 

message: Greetings!
We are from Hungary and we have never heard John's name like this with the "von" tag in it... So we wonder if it would possible to rename the page to John Neumann(physicist). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chympy (talk • contribs) 17:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi!  You might be interested, instead, in editing the Magyar version of this page.  In English contexts, John von Neumann is the most familiar name for this individual. Robert K S 18:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, with one reservation.  The difference in popular name usage between cultures is likely to be a valuable item of interest to article readers.  So, while we would not want to alter article title, the point should find mention within article text.  William R. Buckley 19:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PAGE RENAME IS NEEDED! 

message: Frankly, I do not like the wording which I added respecting this concept - universal constructor.  Perhaps it should be - universal construction.  This however conflicts with a mathematical notion of the same name - universal construction - which then acts as a redirection to the page - universal property.  William R. Buckley 20:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universal constructor. 

message: I changed the notable student to the one that has a Wiki article. Maybe if that other fellow gets an article we can add him back? I also removed the bit about the ritual circumcision. Born to non-practicing Jewish family seems to sufice. Can't wait to discuss this one :) Cheers, --Tom 13:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Info Box tweek

message: I object to the claim that John von Neumann's father "purchased" a title in 1913. Titles of nobility in the Austro-Hungarian empire were conferred by the head of state ONLY. In the case of a Hungarian citizen in 1913, this would have been the Habsburg monarch Francis Joseph I. in his role as Apostolic King of Hungary. 
While considerable fees were involved for anyone petitioning for a title of nobility (e.g. for processing the application, issueing the diploma, drawing up of heraldic devices, etc.), it was never formally possible to obtain a title simply by "buying" it from anyone as the article suggests. Saying that John von Neumann's father was granted a title of nobility in 1913 and that the family was thereafter entitled to the style of "von" would undoubtledly describe the situation better.
193.170.52.70, 20:26, May 20, 2007 (UTC)
:First, identify yourself.  It is quite difficult to communicate with anonymous persons.  William R. Buckley 01:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Second, cite your source.  You make assertions but, you do not demonstrate that your assertion is correct.  William R. Buckley 01:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Third, do review the available literature.  The book by Macrae clearly states that John von Neumann's father purchased a title.  William R. Buckley 01:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK.  I have obtained the copy of Macrae's book.  On pages 57 and 58 of the 1992 first edition as published in the United States by Pantheon Books is described the ennoblement.  Macrae reports that Max Neumann was "rewarded with hereditary nobility" and that "Ennoblement was not an unusual reward for prominent bankers and industrialists during those last years of the Austro-Hungarian empire."  So, purchase was not made with cash.  Instead, it was with loyal service.  William R. Buckley 20:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  We will correct the article.  William R. Buckley 20:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no complaint with your objection, per se; your justification for this objection is clearly lacking.  William R. Buckley 01:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Others will appreciate that the MacTutor references, and their supporting content found at St. Andrews University, specifically states that the ennoblement was purchased.  This point should perhaps be researched further, to clarify the disparity of sources.  I prefer the Macrae biography as it is reported to be well appreciated by von Neumann's family.  William R. Buckley 18:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "his father purchased a title"? 

message: I trimmed the early prodigy stuff a bit unless we can find sources for it. --Tom 20:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all in the Macrae bio. Robert K S 23:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Just because you say there is no source does not mean that others have not earlier given a source.  Don't remove material simply due to your ignorance of the topic.  Rather, question first; act later.  William R. Buckley 00:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but thats how I work since I am just plain ignorant. Whats your excuse??--Tom 12:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Nothing wrong with fair disclosure.  The point is that you assume the lack of a source, and act.  What is best is to question the issue in the talk pages, get a reply, and move forward.  There are two ways that Wikipedia can work; by consensus, and by discontent.  Simply removing material without knowledge of the issue is likely to get article content wrong.  Moreover, why spend time undoing error which is repeatedly introduced by editors new to a topic?  Discussion on the talk pages first is, in contemporary parlance, an issue of best practices.  Also, you are not assuming good faith, and take too personally the word *ignorance*, a term which is not necessarily derogatory.  William R. Buckley 14:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. --Tom 17:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prodigy stuff

message: It occurs to me that editors might be well served with a checklist against which statements in an article are linked to a correspondingly authoritative reference.  Is this something that other editors find appealing?  William R. Buckley 18:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference Checklist 

message: I believe the economics section should be expanded to discuss von Neumann-Morgenstern utility a little more given its massive importance in that field Canking 00:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economics 

message: "But if the third filter is added in between the other two, the photons will indeed pass through." Not necessarily: if the middle filter has its polarization axis parallel to those of either the first or the third then the photon will not pass through. Is this correct?  Xxanthippe (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to my comment above, the effect discussed does not need quantum mechanics for its explanation. It is explained entirely on the basis of elementary classical optics. A double application of Malus' Law (see Polarizer) shows that the transmitted light intensity is proportional to (Sin(theta) times Cosine(theta)) all-squared, where theta is the angle between the polarization axes of the first and middle polarizers. The transmission is zero when theta is an integer multiple of Pi/2. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I placed a note about this matter on the user page of the person who apparently posted the material but have had no response. I intend to delete the misleading paragraph in the article. Any comments? Xxanthippe (talk) 10:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Photon transmission

message: Did von Neumann witness more than one atomic bomb test?  Where were the others?  The assertion that his cancer was "possibly" from witnessing such tests (or whyever) should be attributed, else it is unencyclopedic speculation. Robert K S (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "witnessing of atomic explosions, an activity for which he had a penchant" 

message: Please read some of the books (there are many listed) on this subject before making uninformed deletions.24.148.1.17 (talk) 18:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you make a contested claim about a topic, it is your responsibility as an editor to provide the reference which supports the claim. Making a blanket statement "read some of the books" is a pretty silly way of evading this editorial responsibility.--CSTAR (talk) 19:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor who made the deletion without first reading those listed references is the person who has the burden of proof.  If you can't be bothered to read the listed references, then you shouldn't be editing.  William R. Buckley (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  JvN Personality (exchange copied from my user [[User talk:CSTAR|talk page]])

message: For those of you who are not in the know, read the Macrae biography.  Therein, you will find the statement that von Neumann asked for and received the last rites.  To the person who called for a citation, I suggest you read all of those already listed in the John von Neumann article before claiming that citations have not been given.  William R. Buckley (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, whatever the details of the request, the point is that in Macrae it is listed.  This goes to the point made one item up, regarding the obligation of editors to know the material before editing.  I do not know exactly the details of the Macrae text, having read it some number of years ago.  It is in my library, so upon necessity, I might review; until I do, I will not edit discussion of von Neumann's request for a priest.  I would argue that those who have made recent edits on the topic should review the mentioned text, and correct any excess they imposed upon article content.  The article has had from time to time employed various expressions to describe the case of request, and any obtained benefit.  William R. Buckley (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I just reviewed the Macrae book yesterday (I too read it a few years back) in order to correct some nonsense editing which was going on yesterday. The term "Eucharist" was inserted into this article for the first time yesterday. This, as I am sure you know, is different from last rites. I only deleted "Eucharist" and left the reference to last rites in place since I could find no reference to the Eucharist either in Macrae or in any other book I have.RandomTool2 (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is good reading, and though some find other biographical works on von Neumann to be better than Macrae, I do not recall coming to know of any strong complaints, particularly regarding the factuality of content.  Indeed, I have had some correspondence with Macrae family members, who report that the von Neumann family are happy with the Macrae biography of von Neumann.  And, actually, I am not knowledgeable of the details of Catholic tradition.  William R. Buckley (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I found Macrae's biography to be absolutely awful.  Macrae's not a mathematician, and this comes across clearly in his poor exposition of Von Neumann's mathematical and other technical work.  Furthermore, his depiction of JVN came across as an uncritical glorification (perhaps one reason why certain members of the Von Neumann family might allegedly have been happy with it -- or maybe they were just being nice), and he exhibits what I would contend is below average scholarship.  Nearly all of the anecdotes are derived from other literature that I've read (journal articles, book excerpts, magazine obit articles from 1957) . . . which he fails to footnote, so it's unclear to most readers when he's just spinning yarn.  The only area where Macrae may have added to my biographical knowledge of JVN was certain portions of his early childhood (and this info may have been pulled this from "John von Neumann - As Seen by his Brother", which I have not read). He also copied the game theory example from Bronowski's "Ascent of Man" without modification, which is one area where you'd think he could have contributed some insight (being an economist).  I also found his distortions of Bertrand Russell and Norbert Wiener to be offensive.  Please do not recommend this remarkably poor work. Go to the original sources instead. — Myasuda (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While your contribution is welcome, it is a bit thin.  You remark of complaints with the content of Macrae, and suggest other sources are better but, you do not give these sources.  This leaves us in no better position than to use Macrae.  I am familiar with some content from other sources, online and otherwise, like Goldstine's The Computer from Pascal to von Neumann, and Burks work.  Perhaps is would be good for a group of us to construct such a complete publications list for references to von Neumann's personality.  Of course, his daughter is available by email, and one might ask her about the assertions one gives on this page.  Is it not Numsgil who reported news of correspondence with Marina von Neumann Whitman over some *time capsule* recently opened?  William R. Buckley (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the list under "Further Reading" is fairly good in terms of source material, but I can add to it if you wish.  However, when you say "This leaves us in no better position than to use Macrae" I'm not clear on whether you're referring to the last rites topic in isolation or more generally.  With respect to Von Neumann's last days in the hospital, what Macrae reports may be accurate, but since he doesn't footnote his text it's impossible to tell whether it's from a text source or an interview unless you've seen the quote before.  That makes using Macrae as a source problematic and largely unnecessary (he certainly didn't know JVN personally and he doesn't understand JVN's work, so nothing in the biography wrt JVN is original with him).  I do know that Heims' somewhat controversial book "John von Neumann and Norbert Wiener: From mathematics to the technologies of life and death" discusses Von Neumann's last days, and his biography is well-footnoted.  So, you might look there for more information (it's been decades since I read it, so I can't be more precise than this).  Heims may have been using Wigner as a source, since Wigner characterizes Von Neumann's last days in much the same way in the MAA video on Von Neumann.  — Myasuda (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Note: I think I was mistaken above -- upon reflection, I think it was Teller rather than Wigner who commented on JVN's last days, so Teller might have been the person whom Heims quoted. Per the time capsule comment above, there's an addendum at the bottom of the page at  that may be pertinent.  — Myasuda (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, adding to the list would be a good idea, I think.  A well gathered collection of sources for biographical details, popular or not (e.g. Macrae is one which is perhaps not popular), would certainly help those who are serious about the content of this article.  We could include also the works of Poundstone, The Recursive Universe and The Prisoner's Dilemma.  I have once crossed a set of interviews with period scientists, like Bethe, Wigner, Veblen, and so forth.  I might have a name or two confused but, the website was a well-spring of data respecting the personalities of a great many scientists.  I'll try to find this source again.  William R. Buckley (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A reasonable starting point for references would be the union of the current Further reading section with the list of references at .  To this, I would add the high level but still informative Life Magazine article "Passing of a great Mind" from February 25, 1957 (I have not seen its RAND anecdote given elsewhere) and (just for kicks -- not for this article's content), the quaint Good Housekeeping article "Married to a Man Who Believes the Mind Can Move the World" from September 1956, which has a nice interview with Klara Dan.  Actually, since I mentioned the Life Magazine article above, I re-read it just now (I have a copy), and it states that "After his arrival in the U.S. he had been baptized a Roman Catholic.  But his divorce from Mariette had put him beyond the sacraments of the Catholic Church for almost 19 years.  Now he felt an urge to return.  One morning he said to Klara, "I want to see a priest." He added, "But he will have to be a special kind of priest, one that will be intellectually compatible . . . After a few weeks Von Neumann began once again to receive the sacraments." This would have been in 1956.  — Myasuda (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the pointers.  Paul Halmos gives some commentary too, in the book Operator Algebras, Quantization, and Noncommutative Geometry: A Centennial Celebration Honoring John Von Neumann and Marshall H. Stone; see the first article - The Legend of John von Neumann.  It is in this book, previewed on Google, that the phrase "received the sacraments" is used.  William R. Buckley (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

text: "In this period Johnny returned to the Catholic faith that had also been significant to his mother after the family's conversion in 1929-1930.  There are those who say he took instruction from the Catholic priest at the hospital mainly because the priest was an educated man, to whom Johnny could talk of classical Rome and Greece better than he could to the soldiers on guard.  But Johnny had earlier said to his mother, 'There probably is a God.  Many things are easier to explain if there is than if there isn't.'  He also admitted jovially to Pascal's point: so long as there is the possibility of eternal damnation for nonbelievers, it is more logical to be a believer at the end."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by William R. Buckley (talk • contribs) 23:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know whether I care to enter the above discussion of "Macrae vs Not Macrae", but has anyone noticed that Macrae contains at least one "urban legend" which is given as an actual incident. This is the story he relates about von Neumann interviewing someone in his home, and there being a dog present - a dog which it turns out belongs to neither man.RandomTool2 (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are so many reasons to avoid Macrae as a reference (your example being one more), I'd recommend replacing any footnotes in the article that refer to Macrae's book with an alternative source.  By his own admission (page 138 of his book), Macrae last took a course in high school mathematics around the age of 15.  This, plus his choice to avoid any in-text citations (something that should give all Wikipedia editors pause per WP:CITE), make him singularly unqualified to write a biography on a prominent mathematician. — Myasuda (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I am not that committed to the Macrae text.  The point is, it is generally available, and other sources are obscure.  The magazine references above are a welcome addition to the list.  William R. Buckley (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Rites. 

message: Why is the "margittai" title capitalized in the article? The Hungarian article mostly omits the title altogether, but at the one place in section 1 where it does not, it is spelled as "margittai Neumann János". — EJ (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be written like in the Hungarian article as you can see in the first line of that Hungarian source. Squash Racket (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  capitalization 

message: A change  made earlier today was  reverted by RandomTool2 with the explanation that the change was "nationalistic garbage".  I don't understand how it was either nationalistic or garbage.  The actual change was from "Budapest University" to "Eötvös Loránd University" in the displayed part of a link, with the target of the link being "Eötvös Loránd University" (unchanged).  Roger Hui (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think RandomTool2 was wrong, Eötvös Loránd University is the name of the university in question. It is sometimes referred to as Budapest University or University of Budapest which is not very correct, as there are many universities in Budapest, although only the Eötvös is scientific. Kope (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at article about University in question. When JvN entered its name was U of B. It was not renamed "Eötvös Loránd University" until 1950. If Wikipedia article is in error well then, "never mind".RandomTool2 (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are right. So it was, after all, nationalistic garbage. Kope (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The ominous sentence is this:He received his Ph.D. in mathematics (with minors in experimental physics and chemistry) from the University of Budapest at the age of 22. By then the university was named Péter Pázmány University, not University of Budapest. Kope (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eötvös Loránd University 

message: The text says: "He then collaborated with spy Klaus Fuchs on further development of the bomb". I don't think there should be a suggestion that he knew Fuchs was a spy - which is the way I originally read this. I think you should remove the word 'spy', and then maybe follow it with a sentence saying that Fuchs was eventually found out to be a spy. Myrvin (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the von Neumann article, not the Fuchs article.  Unless Fuchs's being a spy was relevant to the Fuch-von Neumann collaboration, the detail is best excised. Readers can presumably learn the details proper to Fuchs's biography at his own article. Robert K S (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuchs the spy 

message: Given the relentless vandalism of this page by the IP user in Hungary, would it be a good idea to request that a lock be placed on the article for a certain period of time so that only registered, good-faith editors who have previously made edits to it would be allowed to continue making edits?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomTool2 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur on this request.  William R. Buckley (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Further, the behavior of the anonymous editor at IP address 91.120.171.155, were it to be consistent, would have the name of John von Neumann changed to Johnny.  Or, perhaps better, to Jancsi, or even to János.  The quality of Wikipedia is adversely affected by these anonymous edits.  William R. Buckley (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.RandomTool2 (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Repeated reversions of so minor a detail as the naming of an individual, naming which is in a fashion consistent with those cultural norms that apply to Wikipedia articles assigned to cultural classes (like the English version of Wikipedia, as opposed to other-language versions, like that for the Magyar) make impossible all other forms of article improvement.  There are consensus mechanisms to avoid these kinds of editorial wars.  Also, I would argue that it was European bigotry which brought such notable scientists as von Neumann to the United States, as opposed to the asserted theft of same.  William R. Buckley (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I do offer this olive branch.  Find me a publication of Dr. Teller, as published within the English speaking world, where the by-line gives the name Ede Teller, and I will change my position on the proper naming of this individual within the English version of Wikipedia.  William R. Buckley (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?  One anomalous data point does not a standard make. Robert K S (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the likelihood of a contrary datapoint?  Frankly, I think that no such example exists.  Further, such a challenge, stated so provocatively, is very likely to exhaust all possible examples, and those who devote time to identification of such a counter-example; i.e., the effort will be a very good waste of their time.  William R. Buckley (talk) 01:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but our interest is in writing the best possible encyclopedia articles, not posing provocative challenges with the intent of wasting editors' time. Best leave well enough alone: your opinion should stay where it is because it was right to begin with, not because an "opponent" hasn't chanced upon a lonely counterexample, something that should not be convincing withal. Robert K S (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I should think that the occasional provocation might jog those ill disposed into proper comportment, which is clearly to the benefit of Wikipedia, and those editors who tire of reversion wars.  William R. Buckley (talk) 05:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Put a lock on it? 

message: Actually "margittai etc etc" is the birth name of von Neumann. The Hungarian name of his, i.e., the name he is and has been called in Hungary is always Neumann János. Kope (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the clarification regarding JvN's proper name in Hungarian.  William R. Buckley (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ??? Kope (talk) 05:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hungarian 

message: Since this section is largely redundant with the bibliography, and seems to be a relic of early versions of the page, would it be a good idea to merge it into the bibliography? RandomTool2 (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both sections have common material, and all is clearly reference of bibliographic nature.  So, it is probably to the betterment of the article if these two sections were merged.  William R. Buckley (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Reference" section 

message: Substituted at 20:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment