text:
Talk:International System of Units

Term in French
As a matter of background for the Introduction section, I think providing the French translation (Systéme international d'unités) can help explain how the abbreviation "SI" arose, so I added it to the article. My edit was reverted by someone saying "Not required in English Wiki (MOS:FOREIGN)". Because of the abbreviation and the prevalence of this term in international use, I suggest there is more justification for including this term than would ordinarily be the case for a foreign-language translation. I see that Britannica puts the French in boldface in its opening sentence. There is also a very close relationship between France and the SI system, e.g. as explained here. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

 * I agree that the French term is relevant here. If it is the origin of the abbreviation "SI" (is it?), especially so. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's useful to know the origin of the abbreviation, yes. It's already covered in the article though, in its own section - "Birth of the SI". I'm not sure it's important enough to repeat in the lead though. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I somehow had not noticed that existing mention. However, that is buried pretty deeply within the article. I still think it might be worth putting into the Introduction, along with some mention of the origination of the system being led by France. (I had not tried to put it in the lead, although Britannica does.) FWIW, here is a page on Britannica Kids that directly says "SI" came from the French. — BarrelProof (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a huge and unwieldly article here, which is difficult to follow or navigate. As well as a dedicated article, History of the metric system, there are two "History" sections in this article covering the role the French played in the development of the system. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @BarrelProof, @DeFacto: Thank you for the clarifying reference to kids.britannica.com. I will be very specific in response to the opening thrust of this discussion. Any thinking reader will see the SI abbreviation as being disassociated from any logic apparent with regard to the opening text of the article. Every standard and convention has a history. To add a phrase making clear the origin of the SI abbreviation—in the article, rather than in a footnote—is a way to avoid reader confusion and wasted time. That there are other issues with the article's length and complexity: about this there is no quarrel. But a simple change, immediately (adding "SI, deriving historically from its original name in French, Systéme international d'unités...") will avoid continued reader pause. Remember, even following WP markup conventions for notes and footnotes is a learned behaviour, not always brought in to the first reading of an article. And this is the sort of article that might draw young readers. (A retired academic.) 2601:246:C700:F5:18B0:5EF:D03:EBA0 (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * People should be used to it by now. We have ones like NATO OTAN and such. Even more, CERN is the European Center for Nuclear Research, without any confusion. Gah4 (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's easy enough to include a very brief mention of the words Système International; it doesn't require that we expand the body text with digressions into explaining that it's French or what it means; the words are so similar in English and we have a very full footnote too. Indeed, we can save a little padding: "in all languages" is not supported by the source, the SI Brochure, and quite right too, as it would be immensely difficult to prove even if we had confidence that all human languages are now known, and we've already asserted internationally anyway. I'll edit the sentence accordingly. NebY (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The abbreviation is supported by the SI brochure. On page 165: The 11th Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures (CGPM) [...] decides [...] the international abbreviation of the name of the system is: SI. -- Jähmefyysikko (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, and we can and do say that it's internationally known by that abbreviation. We can't make the stronger claim that "SI" is used "in all languages", and the SI brochure doesn't make that claim either. NebY (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I see that this one has been fixed. But then notice, in the very next sentence, no note of CGPM and its naming. Gah4 (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please be specific. There are lots of "next sentences" here. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a note in the #Controlling authority section that explains the CGPM derivation from French. To me that seems less important than explaining SI, so it doesn't need to be in the lead section. — BarrelProof (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My choice would have been to put the official name in the lead, and explain the other later, but either way is fine. Gah4 (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, but it doesn't explain it there. Maybe people are used to French acronyms for English terms by this point, though. As above, should we (and I am not saying one or the other) give the French name, too? Gah4 (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok take a look, I did something different in the intro: use BIPM with explicit call out on the French origin of the acronym. I think this is better aligned with the article, which uses extensive refs to the brochure. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My choice would have been to put the official name in the lead, and explain the other later, but either way is fine. Gah4 (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, but it doesn't explain it there. Maybe people are used to French acronyms for English terms by this point, though. As above, should we (and I am not saying one or the other) give the French name, too? Gah4 (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok take a look, I did something different in the intro: use BIPM with explicit call out on the French origin of the acronym. I think this is better aligned with the article, which uses extensive refs to the brochure. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Internal duplications
There used to be an Introduction section which competed with the rest of the article. First, the lead is supposed to be the intro (MOS:INTRO). Second, two sections titled in the same way (e.g., #History) cannot receive different incoming links. Third, many Intro subsections were very long, some were even longer (in prose) than the corresponding section outside of the Intro section, which contained mostly lists (via templates). If the intent was to create an introductory article, then it should have been split into Introduction to the International System of Units instead. It felt as if someone didn't like the existing article and decided to write a new one, except it was left in a subsection. fgnievinski (talk) 04:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

External duplications
This article is too long and should not duplicate content in subtopics, such as SI base units, SI derived units, SI prefix, etc. Other notable subtopics could be mover into the respective main articles, e.g., SI. fgnievinski (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Gram per cubic centimetre
There is some disagreement about the meaning of "gram per cubic centimetre" and "kilogram per cubic metre". Editors are invited to comment at the g/cm^3 talk page. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

More citations needed?
This article was recently tagged "More citations needed", but it has 97 references and not a single "citation needed". Can you help me understand the reasoning? @AirshipJungleman29 @CactiStaccingCrane Johnjbarton (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your question ; it is not a requirement to have "citation needed" tags in an article when adding a "more citations needed" banner, and the number of references is not really relevant if there is significant uncited material in the article. If it helps, I'll add citation needed tags, so you can see the unsourced material easier. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, please. In a Start class article "More citations needed" is a good hint. In a B class article, it is only frustrating. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed improvements.
This article is one of the top 20 most viewed Physics articles that are assessed a C rating.

 * The intro is way too long. Some good material here could go into Units section.
 * Move Units up, Organizational down.
 * Much of the history duplicates a GA article: reduce to a summary plus SI-specific history.
 * Unpack most of the footnotes. If they aren't important enough to be in the article, delete them.
 * Apply WP:NOTGUIDE to many sections. I think a lot will not survive.

After removing material we don't think contributes to Wikipedia goal for this article, then we need to add citations to the rest. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

 * I finished my History butchery. The new lean mean version ready for review. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok my big bunch of butchery is done. I have removed more than half of the material over all.
 * I don't think the end result is great. The text that is here is mostly the result of slicing and dicing. Every reference I added I checked but I did not check ever existing one. However three things have been accomplished: 1) the article describes SI, not some hybrid pre-post 2019 thing. 2) the outline is IMO much clearer 3) an amazing amount of duplicate material is gone. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Why is the decibel special?
As this article is about the SI system, I don't think any other units are notable here without an important and specific connection to the SI.

In a recent edit @Dondervogel 2 added the decibel. I don't see how it is special and think it should be removed. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

 * The 9th edition of the SI brochure contains a Table 8 which lists non-SI units accepted for use with SI units. The decibel is listed in the table, along with other units that are mentioned in the article, such as the hour, the degree of angle, and the litre. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok but we have an entire article Non-SI units mentioned in the SI devoted to that topic. Just mentioning decibel in that spot in this article is odd. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What makes the decibel special IMO is that it is undefined. It seems notable that the BIPM permits use of (or even mentions) a unit that does not have a definition. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The 9th edition of the SI brochure, page 146, has this paragraph:
 * "Table 8 also includes the units of logarithmic ratio quantities, the neper, bel and decibel. They are used to convey information on the nature of the logarithmic ratio quantity concerned. The neper, Np, is used to express the values of quantities whose numerical values are based on the use of the neperian (or natural) logarithm, ln = loge. The bel and the decibel, B and dB, where 1 dB = (1/10) B, are used to express the values of logarithmic ratio quantities whose numerical values are based on the decadic logarithm, lg = log10. The statement LX = m dB = (m/10) B (where m is a number) is interpreted to mean that m = 10 lg(X/X0). The units neper, bel and decibel have been accepted by the CIPM for use with the International System, but are not SI units."
 * In what way is the decibel undefined? Jc3s5h (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The key bit is "are not SI Units". Defined or undefined is all about the decibel, where the topic gets a whole page. It does not belong in this article. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Just try to remove every mention of hour, minute (time or angle), arcsecond, degree of angle, and litre. I don't think such edits would be accepted by the editing community, and I would not agree with them. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ok I put those back and made decibel not special. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The decibel was defined in ISO 80000-3 but it's being moved to another section; it will be in ISO 80000-15 when that's released but it's already not in the latest ISO 80000-3. It's arguable whether this is noteworthy or a temporary glitch during which the definition is known and not about to change but not documented in a current ISQ standard. NebY (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The ISO is not one of the organizations that defines or controls the International System of Units, although their views may be considered. Like most other ISO standards, ISO 80000-3 is fairly expensive so doesn't get used much outside of large organizations where readers can get their organization to pay for a copy. Why shouldn't we just ignore ISO 80000-3? Jc3s5h (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There may be times we'd want to take note of it, but I agree, not in a way that leads to telling the general reader the decibel's a vague undefined unit. Glad that's gone - thanks @Johnjbarton. NebY (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The price to purchase ISO 80000-3 is completely irrelevant because it is free to browse. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * When do you expect IEC 80000-15 to be published? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Lexicographic conventions
We have a long section called "Lexicographic conventions" much of which reads like a guide contrary to WP:NOTGUIDE.

I propose to reduce the General rules subsection to a sentence and a for-example discussion of the figure. I think that gives the general idea without the detail. Any real use of the detail would need to consult the brochure anywayl. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

 * I cut down the general rules to a paragraph after moving some bits up in the section. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Realisation of units
The section "Realisation of units" has a lot of duplicate material. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * we don't need another list of seven units
 * "Specifying fundamental constants vs. other methods of definition" this subsection is almost entirely historical material.

 * I cut the redundant material from this section. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Defining constants
I think the weakest part of the article now is discussion of the defining constants and how they relate to the base units. This is the heart of the (new) SI. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Error in equation
A bit down in the text on the page is the following equation:

1 kg = (299792458)2/(6.62607015×10−34)(9192631770)h ΔνCs/c2. Not sure if the paste worked as intended but you can find the original equation on the page. The problem is obvious, the units on the fraction is 1/kg rather than kg and it is inverse of the equation that follows The speed of light squared is in the nominator rather than the denominator etc. It appears that nominator and denominator has switched places in the numeric fraction and also there ought to be an equal sign (=) between that fraction and the formula that follows it. Right now they are all placed together making the resulting value 1 without any units.

Please fix. AlfSalte (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

 * The equation in the article
 * is given on page 131 of the authoritative source, the SI Brochure (9th Edn). You can also see it shown with the denominators in a different order on the BIPM's page on the kilogram. NebY (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The equation appears to be copied correctly from the source. This is the official source. If you don't like it, take it up with the government in your country, and beg them to have your country's representative to the General Conference on Weights and Measures complain about it. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The equation appears to be copied correctly from the source. This is the official source. If you don't like it, take it up with the government in your country, and beg them to have your country's representative to the General Conference on Weights and Measures complain about it. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:International System of Units


text:
Sumeria (disambiguation)

Sumeria, or Sumer, is the region of city-states in ancient Mesopotamia.

Sumeria may also refer to:
 * 1970 Sumeria, a minor planet
 * "Donna Sumeria", a song on the 2006 Mission of Burma album The Obliterati
 * "Sumeria", a song on Canadian musician Devin Townsend's 2011 album Deconstruction

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Sumeria (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:Diversity

Politics
Moved from the main page:
 * In the political arena, diversity is a code word for forcing people to tolerate or approve people and practices they find repugnant. Diversity laws or rules forbid any criticism of certain protected groups of people; violations are labeled hate speech.

AxelBoldt
 * "Diversity laws" don't exist.
 * In the West, there are no laws "forbidding any criticsm of certain protected groups".
 * This is scary language. Maybe we should find some links for these people to look at.  Their hatred and anger is evident.
 * "In the West, there are no laws "forbidding any criticsm of certain protected groups"." This is untrue. There is controversy over how far hate speech laws goes in curtailing the free speech rights of individuals as one cen be fined or even jailed for saying things that might be construed as "hate."

Removing: ''In the political arena, diversity is a code word for forcing people to tolerate or approve people and practices they find repugnant. Many US universities have speech codes that forbid certain criticism of protected groups of people; violations are labeled hate speech. Thus diversity masquerades as pluralism, which is the presence in one population of a wide variety of cultures, opinions, ethnic groups, et cetera.''

As AxelBolt says, the facts are incorrect and the presentation is too partisan. Diversity is not solely defined or used as defined above. US universities do not forbid criticisms of "protected groups," only the manner in which certain criticisms can be expressed. -- April

Conversely, just about all institutions have some heavily enforced rules on the restriction of what they deem 'hate speech'. What constitutes hate speech is undefined, and it remains ambigous. With this in mind, any criticism has the possibility to be called hate speech and if it is (correctly or incorrectly) the governing authority will see that it has a duty to investigate, given to how serious the allegations are. This will (and does) lead to self-censorship, even when the criticism would be completely valid. There does not need to be a law banning any criticism for the law to do that. text adder: adding text

Disputed
"These critics claim that pluralism is a more accurate term for the presence of variation, and that, under the banner of "diversity," groups actually forbid criticism of groups that are, in essence, privileged by their minority status."
 * Isn't diversity actually a purely descriptive term which says that there a given society consists of more than one group? What is treated under the label of diversity here has more to do with value judgements of this situation and should, in my opinion, rather go under respect for diversity or perhaps multiculturalism.

 * Moreover, I find this whole section very partisan, representing mainly an anti-diversity POV. --Robin.rueth 07:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Shouldn't the language 'privileged by their minority status' be removed?

Porsche and colby r just love birds............sike

How exactly are white males a "non-minority group"? If 51-52% of the population are women, then men (or any proper subset of that category) technically can't be a non-minority, at least in the mathematical sense of these words. --66.102.74.57 03:29, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A: Men are a "non-minority group" because they are members of the dominant or privileged gender group. I agree that a better term is dominant group than "non-minority." For one the current literature in social justice uses "dominant group" more frequently and widely. (Maybe a page could explain this subtle difference.) I found the tone in the question very aggressive, but it seemed that it may have been implying that males aren't a "minority" or "dominant" group (race is irrelevant in the discussion of gender dominant groups; on a small-picture level...I know Race Matters). Such an assertion is reflected of an individuals inability or refusal to recognize their privilege, for whatever the reason -guilt, anger, ignorance, etc, and has no place here. To address the race comment because it's ignored too much...the same comparison made. Like people of male gender, people of white race -like myself- have privilege simply because they are white. If some needs to come to terms with that they should read 'Race Matters' by Cornel West, not debate a reality backed up by the dominant literature in social sciences, and particularly in social justice.

What has no place here is you telling people that they need to read books like "Race Matters" by notorious authors like Cornel West. You have no right to criticize another's point of view because they disagree with your opinion on "white guilt." Your ideas about race priveleges, racial irrelevance, and your opinion of "dominant literature" are just that, ideas and opinions and should not be treated as fact. There is tremendous evidence against white privelege and I encourage you to read the works of J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen who have degrees related to the subject at hand as opposed to Cornel West who was an admirer of the Black Panther Party, received a degree in Near Eastern languages and literature, and wrote a dissertation praising marxist thought. His bias as clear and his credentials have no academic bearing on the subject; his personal opinions have no more bearing than anyone else's here.Sonnavnorge

A taste of Cornel West's opinion from "Race Matters": "In white America, cultural conservatism takes the form of a chronic racism, sexism, and homophobia. ... for white America, this means primarily scapegoating black people, women, gay men, and lesbians." (Cornel West (Race Matters -- 1993, pg. 27)Sonnavnorge

Every culture in their own land have had "priviledge". Why shouldn't white people in the nations they have build have "priviledge". What the fuck does "priviledge" even mean?

 * These arguments need to be elaborated upon in the article. FYI, quoting a book doesn't prove an argument.  Cornel West is not infallible.  Keep in mind, the pot is calling the kettle white.  So:

I don't know if there's an end to all this. These politically-charged abstract Latinate terms can mean whatever you want them to. That's how you "export democracy." Mikepjones 07:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Explain why "minority" does not refer to the mathmatically fewer group.
 * 2) Explain what a minority is not.  Is it any dominant group?  Or is it a combination of all dominant groups, i.e., those who are Anglo-Saxon, male, mainstream Protestant, heterosexual, middle-to-upper-class, physically and mentally able, etc.?  If the former, is a gay white male not a minority?  If the latter, who are these people?

Business
I added a paragraph on diversity in the business world, where "diversity" is handled differently from the way it is handled in university or public-sector environments. I'm not advocating it as right or wrong. In companies where I've worked, this is how those programs have been presented. user:RjLesch

I added to the paragraph on diversity in a business context by providing a summary of recent findings on diversity in academic research in businesses Arne.de.Vet

Computer Science
On a less divisive note, there is at least one that links here, but intend to refer to the computer science principle of "diversity" (of system architectures, etc) to prevent massive failures- can anyone think of where that link could be redirected to in that entry (Fault-tolerance, or some kind of cross-reference, or something? (Sorry, I'm new) - FZ

Shouldn't that be Shannon-Wiener diversity index? Charles Matthews 19:15, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

diversity (technics)
A paragraph about the understanding of diversity in techniques should be added. See in german wikipedia.de "Diversität (Technik)". May be someone can translate the german article (sorry i am not native english speaker, so it will be better that someone other translates).

TI
That TI section seems a bit offtopic. Maybe cut it into its own article and link it to this one? It also sounds like it was written by a disgruntled employee.
 * it at least needs some dates in it. For instance, is this an ongoing practice? an ongoing lawsuit? is it pretty old? --Amoore 02:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I added a little to the business section.

I agree that it doesn't appear to be NPOV and certainly does sound like it was written by a disgruntled employee. I have heard of similar stories at other companies. Perhaps it should be reworked as a "Criticisms of Corporate Diversity programs" section, and include the anecdote from TI and others, making sure to emphasize that they are "alleged", unless more solid evidence of the practice is available. --Asmolar 14:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

the TI incident is a very (sadly) common and morally/ethically questionable practice which is only becoming more common as the global economy strengthens... but it doesnt belong in this discussion

i suggest moving it to a page concerning Job Outsourcing, Business Ethics, Globalization, Union Busting, Firings, Layoffs, Age Descrimination in the workplace, social security or similar pages

here's a link to a similar (perhaps the) story about Indians taking American jobs: from USA Today

67.190.191.215 19:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)anony.

p.s. could someone please clean up after my untidy post

http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2004-04-06-replace_x.htm 67.190.191.215 19:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I also think the TI section doesn't belong here. I agree with Asmolar and Amoore that it sounds like it was written by a disgruntled employee.67.149.164.182 01:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand a "sentence"
In the book The Nature of Economies author Jane Jacobs the notion of economic diversity in the growth and development of economies.

Can someone please tell me how this is a sentence? --SilverBulletx3 00:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not. That sentence no verb.  -- stubblyh ea d | T/c 21:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"I would not be a slave." (Lincoln)
Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States, was a tall, strong, robust wrestler would have made a mighty fine slave. He announced that he would not be a slave. His image is on Mount Rushmore. Superslum 06:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"Diversity" is a recent thing which became important after 1950. "Diversity" has generated yowls of "reverse discrimination" by men such as Rush Limbaugh and Ward Connerly. "Diversity" is being employed by rich landowners to change perceptions of colored people in the United States, totally. The simultaneous creation of "blacks" (where there were none prior to 1960) is a part of the scheme. The simultaneous creation of "whites" (where there were none prior to 1960) is also a part of the scheme. Superslum 06:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh has raked in more than twenty million dollars in compensation by complaining that he was born with the wrong skin color. Certain people adore him. They believe that "blacks are pampered" and that "whites" are unfortunate people who were born with "the wrong skin color." Even the Chinese Army could not have made a slave out of Rush Limbaugh. Superslum 06:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

In the Economics Section
I'd just like to point out, that the "economics Section" where the cited author concludes that diversity in business is good do to an economy being less dependent on "imported manufactured goods" is extremely subjective. The value of a diverse economy is in the protection it affords in the event that one sector of the economy fails. It has nothing to do with "less reliant on Imported Manufactured Goods" as the United States economy is extremely diverse.. yet relies HEAVILY on imported goods. These sort of blanket, and obviously incorrect conclusions lead me to believe that the author of the citation was incorrect on their interpretation of the book. Do I have proof that the author did not reach the conclusion? No I've not read the book. I can only strongly suggest that it be looked into. There are 2 choices: The wiki author misunderstood the reading... or the author of the book is a strong advocate of "economic diversity" to prove some grand political/social point(and clearly incorrect in her conclusion and assumption of the main value of economic diversity) I laughed out loud when I read that section.

OK... after re-reading it. Not only is it clearly POV of the reader (and wrong), it is poorly written. (poor sentence structure, and flow) At least move it far down the article so folks like me don't laugh after the second paragraph

Jane Jacobs????
here is one reference to her http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Jacobs

Jane Jacobs is not an economist, nor a sociologist, nor an archeologist, nor a business owner. She is an author and THEORIST. How on earth her name could be cited when discussing DIVERSITY in ECONOMICS, is quite puzzling. Jane's theories are unproven, unscientific, un-substantiated... She has no higher educational qualifications, no work history qualifications, no highly regarded books on Economics.. only "URBAN PLANNING" (and theories, to remind you).

At least change the economics section to Urban planning or something. It is a disservice to the entire concept of economics to cite a freelance writer who penned 4-5 books as some sort of "Diversity in Economics" mastermind.

College
Should we have a section in here about the crappy diversity requirments in colleges now? H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 15:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul
This article needs a major overhaul. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qaddosh (talk • contribs) 23:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Diversity the ship
An old old wooden ship used during the civil war era
 * Someone keeps trying to add a link to 'an old ship by the name of Diversity'. The article they are attempting to link to does not exist. If you have any references to verify the existence, please provide them and/or create the article for the USS or CSS (it is unclear from these minimal inclusions which side the ship belonged to) Diversity yourself.

I'm doing some work on diversity and on a light note if i was from outer space i would call my ship diversity!and put diversity on it and send it out there some were ' this is just me. but this world would    take it's finger from up it's ass and get on with life. we are not here that long .just my out look on it .stewart uk. 11:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Stewart1011

Removed from the disambig page: TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Diversity is an old, old wooden ship that was used during the Civil War era", a quip by Will Ferrell's character in Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy

Removed again: "Diversity (Anchorman) - An old, old wooden ship used in the Civil War era." This doesn't belong here. It can be interpreted as a racist rebuke to social diversity. Or it might simply be a cynical remark. The Urban Dictionary lists this definition alongside unkind views of affirmative action. Besides, who cares what Will Ferrel was paid to say? This simply doesn't belong here.

Pgpotvin (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed again. Rklawton (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And again. Rklawton (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just removed it. Note that it also appears on the Diversity Wikiquote page. --George100 (talk) 06:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Darn. I came here to learn if it was an ACTUAL ship. (Like... is there some in-joke there?) Timeoin (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

diverse.
many and different 173.54.206.48 (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Diversity


text:
Talk:Nostra aetate

,

Minor changes
I am leaving the link to the Vatican web site "visible" to better support printed copies of the article -- as is suggested in the Wikipedia Style discussions.

Also restoring bold on the descriptive title of the declaration to be consistent with other articles

don't know where to post this, but "therefore, the changes to be brought about by the declaration on the Church's Relations with non-Christian Religions, Nostra aetate, carried implications not fully appreciated at the time." is neither logically correct nor elucids what the implications were.

Anniversary?
I am somewhat surprised that the fortieth anniversary of NOSTRA AETATE seems to have been ignored by the major press. In Sydney tonight - 20 October 2005 - there is a meeting at which Catholic and Jew speakers will be celebrating this event. A source for this event and for the anniversary is page 14 of the Australian Jewish News, Sydney Nsw dated 20th October 2005. Hynot 06:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree -- this remains one of the major accomplishments of the Council, to the irritation of many, apparently. I just reversed some rather POV language hostile to NA. ClaudeMuncey 02:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC).

Update
I added a short bibliography, and am working on an expansion of the bibliography and new sections dealing with the origins of Nostra Aetate and a history of the drafting of the text. I hope to follow this up later with post-Conciliar implementations of NA post-Conciliar documents and other developments, including events associated with the 40th anniversary of NA User: couchoula 3 September 2006

Grammar between draft 3 and 4
The grammar of the extracts from draft 4 changes pretty obviously from that of the previous three paragraphs, with the loss of speech marks, parenthases around the summary at the beginning and a few others. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the subject to make the changes myself, but I'm sure the draft 4 paragraph could be tidied up somewhat. Sithemadmonkey 11:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What is said vs. What happened
There is a very typical dialectic in reporting on the Second Vatican Council, which is to oppose the events on the floor of the Council (or the spirit of the times) with the actual content of the document. I feel that the content of the document is probably more pertinent than who wrote it and what he was doing when he was writing it. In fact, when you re-read Nostra Aetate, it only mentions Jews in 20 % of the text, with other Non-Jewish - Non-Christian religions occupying perhaps 75-80 % of the script, instead of the rate of 50-50 given by various journalists. This appears to be an important detail that should very much be taken into account. ADM (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I find the 20% estimate misleading. The fourth section is directly about the Jews and the word count there comes to 39.15% of the text in the declaration. One could point out that the Jewish scriptures also have relevance to Christians and Muslims, but that would not leave "75-80% of the script" to Non-Jewish and Non-Christian religions. The first draft seems to have retained its prominence in the final document. Jzsj (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism in Revision as of 13:55, 16 January 2008
It looks to me like several paragraphs from that vandalism in Revision as of 13:55, 16 January 2008 were not restored. Can an editor more involved with this article verify and correct this? Thanks. Tzvee (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There appears to have been a sort of vandalism by either a Sedavacantenist, or a protestant Anti-Catholic who added the section "Errors in Doctrine". Please delete or ammend this section ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepopeami (talk • contribs) 05:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Nostra aetate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090131171417/http://bc.edu:80/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/topics/NA-40.htm to http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/topics/NA-40.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Simplify comparison of drafts
How many people reading this article can perceive the differences between the first 3 drafts? I propose to help in the understanding of the changes to focus on differences rather than including the long excerpts. How would you feel about this? Jzsj (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

As rightly observes in the template message, making the quotes more focused would be synthesis. What is needed is finding appropriate citations for all material in the article. I have access only to internet and so must leave this task to someone with library access. Jzsj (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to source the quotes in this article, I would try googling them; you can probably source them from official sources. However, the article should not be based on primary quotes, but secondary analysis. I would find some journal articles on the subject and hit up WP:RX; they've been very helpful to me in the past. You can also read papers online for free on JSTOR. Good luck. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 03:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For better or for worse, the long quotes from the different versions could not even be shortened; their source is the originals and shortening would be "synthesis". I'll see what the article would look like from all the newspapers (which I have full access to) but I agree that the decree importantly impacted Catholic relations with all non-Christian religions. This will take time, and I'll mention here if I have to give up on it. I can access books through my Jesuit community at Rockhurst University, but I only visit there every four months.Jzsj (talk) 10:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your recent edits. I think you might be confused about WP:SYNTH. It refers to putting sources together to get to a conclusion that is not stated in either. However, trimming quotes to the most relevant parts is accepted and encouraged. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 16:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I may not have expressed the issue well but I wonder whether most editors agree on this. They'd call this original research. I met with opposition (still present in the template at the top of the article Theology of Pope Francis) when I selected passages from Pope Francis' foundational writing Evangelii Gaudium. I went on to find secondary sources that made the same selections. Would some not demand that here? Jzsj (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, what the editor was objecting to was that the article was largely based on primary sources. In that case it can be very difficult to tell whether the content is being cherry-picked. However, that doesn't mean that it's beneficial to include large block quotes (see WP:QUOTEFARM). Ideally, the article would be based on secondary sources; failing that, it would be best to summarize. buidhe 17:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My reading of WP:QUOTEFARM is that all quotes are placed with references to secondary sources. That would rule out most of the quotes in the present article. Jzsj (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I try to avoid quoting primary sources, but that's not actually required by QUOTEFARM. The key part of the guideline is: • a quotation is used without pertinence: it is presented visually on the page, but its relevance is not explained anywhere

• quotes are used to explain a point that can also be paraphrased

• the quotes dominate the article or section Clearly, most of the quotes in this article do not satisfy this standard at present. buidhe 17:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:ORIGINAL does seem to exclude the sort of "analysis or synthesis" that is involved in selecting what parts of a document to prioritize or quote. Again, the Theology of Pope Francis article was my education in this. Jzsj (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Ukrainian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church
Just for WP:NPOV, now it has been reported the comment to Nostra aetate given by Patriarch Elijah, the head of the Ukrainian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church. Significantly, about the Most Holy Trinity he affirms: " Muslims do not worship Him but they worship Allah, the highest (akbar) of the 360 pagan gods of Mecca."Theologian81sp (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

POV language hostile to NA, sedevecantist influence
I've noticed throughout this piece some ways of phrasing things that seem hostile to Nostra Aetate, Vatican II, and to Pope John XXIII. For example, the author consistently refers to Pope John XXIII by his given surname (Roncalli), which, while accurate, is weird. It's inconsistent with how popes are referred to in general in reporting, and within wikipedia (almost always by papal regnal name), and also inconsistent within this article, as Pope Paul VI is never referred to as "Montini", except in historical contexts before he became pope.

In addition, there seems to be some very heavy POV language especially in the section title "Second Session of the Council, 1962–1963", against NA and against AJ Heschel. Separating this out from representation of the opposition that NA received historically is difficult, but I think there is language here that crosses from reportage to POV - for example: -"Heschel had inserted himself into the American civil rights movement" - why "inserted himself"? Why not "was deeply involved with"? -"The main aims of Heschel and the Jewish side had been to encourage the alteration of..." Heschel did enjoy support within the AJC's ad-hoc committee, but his position (that the Vatican should be actively lobbied to change its doctrinal positions) was heavily contested among Jewish leadership at the time (see for example JD Soloveitchik's landmark essay "Confrontation", in which he argues that such lobbying is inappropriate and sets a dangerous precedent). It's very accurate to say that Heschel lobbied heavily - but why "the Jewish side"? it's awkward at best, and creepy at worst. -"And in addition to this, the Jewish side wanted a stop to any efforts; whether peaceful or not; at converting Jews to Christianity." Again, this sounds too favorable of missionary efforts, and is also not exactly accurate. Jews wanted to be recognized as a legitimate religion, and not as a heresy of Christianity. The end to missionary activity would represent that. -"In addition to this, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church traditionally affirmed Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and that the covenant with God, since Jesus Christ was exclusively with the Christians and that the Catholic Church is the New Israel (superseding any ancestry-based Old Covenant; rendering Jewish rites null and void). These teachings had passed down through the Gospels, many Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church and Ecumenical Councils over numerous centuries" What is needed is something less obviously in favor of supersessionism. I suggest: "In addition to this, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church had traditionally affirmed a principle referred to as 'Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus', which states that the covenant with God after the life of Jesus is exclusively with the Christians, and that the Catholic Church is the New Israel (superseding any covenant with Jews, which was understood to be transmitted through ancestry or conversion to Judaism, rather than by affirmation of faith or baptism). This principle, the basis of supersessionism, had been long held as a foundational principle of Catholic faith, and issuing a declaration that contradicted it, reversed it, or revised it, would be a stark change in direction." -"In 1963, a controversial play was released by the German writer Rolf Hochhuth called The Deputy, which popularised a theme of insinuating Pope Pius XII's "indifference" to Nazi Germany's mass killing of Jews during World War II. The play, offensive to the sensibilities of Catholics, led to a rebuff by Pius XII's former advisor Giovanni Montini, Archbishop of Milan." "popularised a theme of insinuating" suggests that it was an unreasonable or bad-faith accusation, and putting "indifference" in scare quotes suggests that Pope Pius XII was indeed not indifferent to Nazi genocide -- regardless of whether the author believes Pope Pius to be wrong or right, the wording should reflect the accusation, not suggest whether it was spurious or not. Also, "offensive to the sensibilities of Catholics" places blame on the play for being offensive, rather than reports that Catholics were upset. I recommend: "In 1963, a play was released by the German writer Rolf Hochhuth called The Deputy, which accused Pope Pius XII of indifference to Nazi Germany's mass killing of Jews during World War II. Many Catholics were upset at the accusations suggested by the play, which led to  a rebuff by Pius XII's former advisor Giovanni Montini, Archbishop of Milan (the future Pope John VI)." 130.44.133.254 (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nostra aetate


text:
Pankisi

Pankisi (პანკისი) or the Pankisi Gorge (პანკისის ხეობა, Pankisis Kheoba) is a valley region in Georgia, in the upper reaches of River Alazani just south of Georgia’s historic region of Tusheti between Mt Borbalo and the ruined 17th-century fortress of Bakhtrioni. Administratively, it is included in the Akhmeta municipality of the Kakheti region. An ethnic group called Kists of Chechen roots form the majority (75%) in the area.

History
17th century geographer and historian prince Vakhushti Bagrationi in his book "Description of Kingdom of Georgia" writes that the inhabitants of Pankisi are Georgian nobility with titles of Aznauri and Tavadi who have buildings near the mountains. He also writes: "The village of Pankisi has vineyards, fruits and gardens, and mountain foods, like the places of mountains. Fish - trout, the forest is full of animals, land fertile for the grain, also for rice and cotton. A lots of cattle and a lot of pigs."

In the legislative acts of Georgian law of the 18th century, the noble (Aznauri) Kobiashvili family of the Kingdom of Kakheti are mentioned as the lords of the Pankisi valley.

According to sources, in 1730s, the Pankisi valley was emptied of Georgian population: part of them were killed as a result of the invasions, and rest of them resettled elsewhere.

Etymology
According to M. Albutashvili (also known as Kisti Chobani) toponym Pankisi is of Georgian origin, according to him, Pankisi derives from Pantisi which means land rich in wild forest pears (P’ant’a-პანტა) (pyrus caucasica) with Georgian suffix -სი(si).

Area conditions
It had allegedly often been used as a base for transit, training and shipments of arms and financing by Chechen rebels and Islamic militants, including foreign fighters, many of whom followed Ruslan Gelayev. Most of these accusations were around 2002, but others allege that it is more peaceful now, although there are still many Chechen refugees living there.

The former senior Islamic State leader Tarkan Batirashvili, otherwise known as "Omar the Chechen", grew up in the area where some of his family still lives. In 2014, Batirashvilii reportedly threatened to return to the area to lead a Muslim attack on Russian Chechnya. However, such a threat never came into fruition as he was killed during a battle in the town of Al-Shirqat in Iraq of 2016.

Cultural references
The situation in the Pankisi Gorge received an extensive fictional treatment factoring into several of the popular John Ringo anti-terrorism military science fiction books in the Paladin of Shadows series.

title: Pankisi


text:
User:Larry Sanger/Final comments archive, maybe

Hi Larry i want to ask a question for you. How to play video on wikipedia. Please send your contact number to me .Me jeniz Larry, this is Andrew Szanton writing you a brief note to thank you for welcoming me to the Wikipedians... I admire your effort, and appreciated you taking the time to welcome me. Best wishes, Andrew (I hope I put this in the right place -- still learning my way around here) (!)

No problem at all. Hope you join us often! --User:LMS

Hi Larry,

I joined this project a couple of days ago, wanting to start Wikipedia in serbocroatian language - and in a way I did it as I typed an invitation for other users to join at homepage, but I could not set up preferences or anything else - getting Invalid UserID 112 ??? Tried same thing on Catalan directory - again it did not work. Any technical issues that I should know about before proceeding ??

As I was testing features that are needed for serbocroatian encyclopaedia, I inadvertently entered page at www.wikipedia.com instead at sh.wikipedia.com with UTF encoding and of course I cannot remove it now - sorry about that, and would appreciate ay help to clean it.

Goran Kulenovic

First, Goran, thank you very much for starting that project up.

I'm going to post this message on Intlwiki-L, which I encourage you to join. I really can't help you here--I'm not a system administrator, though I should try to get the proper know-how to become one.

I'm not sure what you mean about HTF encoding on www.wikipedia.com. The homepage looks OK... --LMS

Wikipedia NEWS appears pretty much defunct, prehaps it should be removed from the homepage.

I must agree. It was a good idea while it lasted. --LMS --- Thanks Larry, for the redirect user:H.J.

Two issues for you Larry. I was editing the Minnesota page which has got quite large. When I go to preview the page I intermitently get a page not found error, or sometimes get bounced to the main page. The second issue is that I thought I should report this as a potential bug (I'm a software tester, so it's kind of a reflex). I went to meta.wikipedia.com and immediately saw a link to bug reporting that I followed. I was about to enter the problem when I noticed I wasn't logged in. I did this (had to create an ID), but was then taken to the wikipedia page at sourceforge. Scanning the page I saw a link for bug reporting, but was taken to a completely different page than the other bug report page. Why two pages, and could it be made clearer on the pages? User:Verloren
 * As Larry is currently rather busy, I will try to answer this. There is a bug report page for the "real" wikipedia (UseModWiki software) and for the meta/sourceforge/test wikipedia (my PHP script). As these are two different scripts, they each have their own bug report page.
 * Sorry, Larry, for turning your page into a talk namespace ;) --Magnus Manske

No problem, Magnus! :-) --LMS

 * Welcome back, professor! Now that the 'pedia is settled in its new software home and your family is settled in its new physical home, we're all rarin' to go!! --User:Ed Poor

Hi Ed, I moved your comment down here to the "changeable comments" section... I'm missing it a bit myself and I'm ready to get going again myself. Despite the server slowdowns, the website is still running more or less, which is good. I will do what I can to make sure we get running more quickly. --User:LMS --- Hi Larry, Somehow my number got changed from 66.47.62 while updating. It changed to 130.94.122, which is another person's, who is still adding articles. What should I do ? user:H.J.

I really have no idea. Funny, that's the number at the top of my screen right now, as I write this. I imagine this is an item for the Wikipedia bugs page. --130.94.122.xxx

Aha, now I logged in using "Larry_Sanger" (with the underscore) rather than "Larry Sanger" and I stayed logged in. So, user:H.J., try logging in [similarly] and see if that solves the problem. -- Larry_Sanger --- Hi Larry, before I saw your answer here it dawned on me to go back to one of my old entries. I did and logged in under that and it worked, (so far. I hope it works next time too). user:H.J.

- It appears that I have deleted something from here. I certainly didn't mean to, don't know how it can have happened. Sorry! :-(

In that case, I'm sorry I accused you! Could have been due to some kind of bug with the new software, I suppose. --LMS -- Could we have an updated 'Most Wanted' page, Larry? Many of the current 50 are now there (or, in the case of [leg], taken care of by having many unnecessary occurrences de-linked!). MichaelTinkler

Hmm, like most things having to do with the new software, it's out of my hands, unfortunately. I can post a request on Wikipedia-L... --LMS

Hi, Larry. I'm working on a project of my own that I've recently wikified (having seen from the Wikipedia example just how effective that can be). I'm interested in soliciting advice and contributions from you and the Wikipedians, but I don't know whether you'd consider that appropriate. I am, of course, including a plug for Wikipedia. :) Would you consider it best for me to drop the subject, or would it be acceptable to (a) tuck it away on my user page here, (b) place an article on the meta page, and/or (c) raise it on the list?  I appreciate your patience with the question.  -- April

Why not do (a), (b), and (c)? It's OK by me. --Larry_Sanger

Larry, I have a style question. What's up with subpages? I'm starting to see them show up again. There's a great start to an entry (it needs heaps of editing, but it's full of interesting material) at Rome/Foundation by a user I don't recognize (151.24.190), and I think the user created the subpage from scratch. My preference is to break the information out to other relevant entries or to rename the whole thing [Rome, foundation]. What do you think? (I know, I know, you're not whatever anymore, but you're still here and I'm going to ask anyway!) MichaelTinkler

I'm still here, but I shouldn't be (I should be looking for a job :-) ). Probably the person saw other examples of subpages, e.g., the WWII subpages, and thought that's how it's done.  Anyway, why emulate a nonfunctioning and inferior technology?  How about the founding of Rome or the foundation of Rome or something similar?  I'd just redirect it myself if I were you (please?).  Thanks... Larry - Now that you are not here; Who do you suggest the contributors complain at?

 * I personally make it a policy of life in general to complain only to the person or persons most likely to have the ability or power to resolve the problem. So if you want to complain about an article, put your complaint in the talk space of that article.  If you want to complain about a user, speak to him directly.  If you want to complain about the software, write a note to the wikitech-l list. If you have a complaint about the community or process as a whole, write a note to the wikipedia-l list. --Lee Daniel Crocker

 * Very well said, Lee. (I read Wikipedia-L, of course.) --Larry

mirwin, could I ask you please to write again, in plainer English, to Wikipedia-L, summarizing what you're up to? I am also confused about this very odd assertion that "corruption is setting in"--does this have something to do with Wikipedia? Are you making the assertion, for example, about me? Please do clarify on Wikipedia-L, not here. --Larry Sanger

Hey Larry, could you join a policy discussion a few users and I have been having on the meta? It is about Upload utility abuse. maveric149

Please forgive me if this is in the wrong place. I saw your comments on meta Wikipedia page "Controversy from unclear or conflicting goals of contributing wikipediasts" and I thought maybe the follwiing would help:

 * Caution, my inline responses below! --Larry

Maybe an FAQ redesign would help by making it more obvious where the answers to trollishness etc are, for example: Another mechanism used elsewhere is to put a message like "PLEASE read the FAQ before asking questions/criticising" displayed prominently on the main page. Might be worth trying.
 * list all the questions on the main page so that readers can see what the questions are and so have a better idea of where to look for answers. Rationale: many other FAQs are structured that way, and they seem to work more efficiently.
 * Might help, but the problem is that the FAQ doesn't have all the answers :-) and the front page is already a bit long as it is.
 * The front page of the FAQ is at present way too short. I was thinking that what many sites do is put just the questions on the main FAQ page, with links to the answers on separate page/pages. That way the main page is short enough to load ok, but readers can more quickly see what questions are being answered.
 * put questions such as "What is crummy/silly/boorish behaviour" right at the front. Rationale: those to whom it is directed might get the message quicker
 * Hmm. I'd say instead that we could have a more prominent link to Wikipetiquette.  From the Home Page, for example.  Not a bad idea.  But y'know, telling people how to be polite doesn't make them much more polite.  It makes a few of them distinctly nastier.
 * I agree, a more prominent link to Wikipetiquette
 * include a question along the lines of "We've heard all these SO many times before" right at the start. Rationale: as above.
 * Well, see Wikipedia/Our Replies to Our Critics. Hmm, so you're saying we need a page like that for people who criticize the way the project is managed?
 * No, I am suggesting putting something near the front phrased to try and get the message across that they are not the first to think of their bright idea. I know you've got masses more experience at this sort of management than I, so probably such a link applies to me as well :-)
 * lock the FAQ like the main page
 * Oy, bad idea! We like the fact that it's editable!  It was built up by people who felt free to add questions!
 * Yes, but maybe you can structure the FAQ to help modify behaviour, in which case you want to filter changes so that Joe Blow's latest bright idea doesn't remove previous careful engineering. In other words, you use your dictatorial powers for the good of mankind, just as you already do to end arguments. In this case you do it by locking the main FAQ page so it is similar to a moderated mailing list.... but again, it's just a suggestion, and it comes of course at a price, as you say.
 * See most common Wikipedia faux pas. I think anything bolder than that, along these lines, would be insulting to most readers.

Graham Chapman

About "'Wikipedia-l' My resignation"

You will return, friend!

1 saludo RatBert

Well, there are two ways of interpreting that: (1) I won't be able to keep away, despite my protests of quitting; (2) I will someday get my job back. As to (1), you could be right. I guess we'll see, but I have successfully managed to stay away from other projects I've started before (there have been several). I hope not in this case, anyway, because golly, I need to use my time to get a job. :-) As to (2), if that's what you mean, your gesture of support is greatly appreciated. --Larry_Sanger

Re a recent user's subpage deletion by yours truly (it was a catalog of quotations by me that were critical of him): ahh, that was enormously satisfying. :-) --Larry_Sanger

I need a little bit of advice and I think you would know :). I want to write the Nupedia article on harps, but I'm in high school and so I don't have any real qualifications besides that I'm a harpist.  Is that enough to write an article based on the Wikipedia one (which I wrote almost completely) or should I wait several more years until I have degrees and things?  Thanks! --Dreamyshade

 * Dreamyshade, Larry has (sadly) left both the Wikipedia and Nupedia projects. Read the announcement on the announcements page, or have a look on the wikipedia-l mail archive for the full story.  The implications for Nupedia are very serious, less so for Wikipedia. --Robert Merkel

 * Thanks, but I knew that already. :( I was hoping that he'd still drop by once in a while, and he still would have a good sense of I should write that article or not.  It's just something I was thinking about, maybe I'll do it anyway and see what happens. --Dreamyshade

I will answer on your page, Dreamyshade! --LMS (back on a relatively lazy Sunday)

April 6 - Hi Larry, I've been off working in India for 3 months and only just read your resignation. I must say that I understand completely. My life is going in a similar way, the time when I could spend eight hours a day editing articles are gone. You're married now, and family (and its contingent repsonsibilities and pleasures) must come first. I do hope you eventually come back in a similar fashion to the one I'm carving out for myself - do what you can, when you can, and let the wild beast that is the 'pedia find its own way. It surely will - the chaos and dissent being displayed presently is actually no different to the chaos and dissent that's been apparent since day one.

But I will personally miss your wit, intelligence and insight terribly, and I hope to see you whenever you have the time to visit. The beauty of the quasi-anarchic nature of the 'pedia is that real respect can only derive from a mandate from the masses, and you will always surely have that mandate. Drop me an email sometime to tell me how things are going. With respect and friendship - Manning

Thanks very much, Manning. That is probably the nicest going-away I received. :-)

As for the current chaos, you might be right. I have a bit of advice for everyone on that score, however:
 * The best way to deal with trolls in a free Internet environment (like Usenet--or wiki) is to ignore them. Please -- do -- not -- respond -- to -- trolls -- just undo his changes, if necessary.  But don't respond.  I apologize for not having kept that in mind myself.  I could have saved myself a lot of grief had I kept that simple advice in mind. --Larry Sanger

 * Still, the controversy has done some good if it's drawn you back just long enough for us to let you know how much your input has meant to us and is missed - Manning said it already and better, but I thought I'd add a "me too." While understanding that your Real Life must come first, I just want to tell you that I feel that your work in founding, editing, adding to and guiding Wikipedia has been wonderful. Good luck in your current endeavors! Come back anytime you can! :) -- April

 * April, it's cool to look for the Good Thing in all of this. Optimism is cool!  --Chuck Smith

 * I do hope you are able to come back!  Best of luck with the job-seeking. -- Vignaux

Good to see you back for your hour-a-day, Larry! When your schedule next permits, could you look over moral relativism and moral absolutism and improve them? They really need a pro philosopher's help. :) -- April

I commented on the issues raised by the articles on Talk:Moral absolutism but I'm not going to try to improve them. Frankly, I don't think the articles are very good as they stand. --Larry Sanger

By the way, I think the articles aren't bad, just not very good. Thought I'd clarify that! --Larry Sanger


text:
Hyman G. Rickover

Hyman G. Rickover (January 27, 1900 – July 8, 1986) was an admiral in the United States Navy. He directed the original development of naval nuclear propulsion and controlled its operations for three decades as director of the U.S. Naval Reactors office. In addition, he oversaw the development of the Shippingport Atomic Power Station, the world's first commercial pressurized water reactor used for generating electricity. Rickover is also one of four people who have been awarded two Congressional Gold Medals.

Rickover is known as the "Father of the Nuclear Navy," and his influence on the Navy and its warships was of such scope that he "may well go down in history as one of the Navy's most important officers." He served in a flag rank for nearly 30 years (1953 to 1982), ending his career as a four-star admiral. His years of service exceeded that of each of the U.S. Navy's five-star fleet admirals—Leahy, King, Nimitz and Halsey—all of whom served on active duty for life after their appointments. Rickover's total of 63 years of active duty service makes him the longest-serving naval officer, as well as the longest-serving member of the U.S armed forces in history.

Having become a Naval engineering duty officer (EDO) in 1937 after serving as both a surface ship and submarine-qualified unrestricted line officer, his substantial legacy of technical achievements includes the United States Navy's continuing record of zero reactor accidents.

Early life and education
Rickover was born Chaim Gdala Rykower to Abraham and Rachel/Ruchla Lea (nee Unger) Rykower, a Polish Jewish family from Maków Mazowiecki in Vistula Land. His parents changed his name to "Hyman" which is derived from Chayyim, meaning "life". He did not use his middle name Godalia (a form of Gedaliah), but he substituted "George" when at the Naval Academy.

Rickover made passage to New York City with his mother and sister in March 1906, fleeing anti-Semitic Russian pogroms during the Revolution of 1905. They joined Abraham, who had made earlier trips there beginning in 1897 to become established. Rickover's family lived initially on the East Side of Manhattan but moved two years later to North Lawndale, Chicago, which was a heavily Jewish neighborhood at the time, where Rickover's father continued work as a tailor. Rickover took his first paid job at age nine, earning three cents an hour for holding a light as his neighbor operated a machine. Later, he delivered groceries. He graduated from grammar school at 14.

Rickover attended John Marshall Metropolitan High School in Chicago and graduated with honors in 1918. He then held a full-time job as a telegraph boy delivering Western Union telegrams, through which he became acquainted with Congressman Adolph J. Sabath, a Czech Jewish immigrant. Sabath nominated Rickover for appointment to the United States Naval Academy. Rickover was only a third alternate for appointment, but he passed the entrance exam and was accepted.

Naval career through World War II
Rickover's naval career began in 1918 at the Naval Academy; at this time, attending military academies was considered active duty service, due in part to World War I. On June 2, 1922, Rickover graduated 107th out of 540 midshipmen and was commissioned as an ensign. He joined the destroyer USS La Vallette (DD-315) on September 5, 1922. Rickover impressed his commanding officer with his hard work and efficiency, and was made engineer officer on June 21, 1923, becoming the youngest such officer in the squadron.

He next served on board the battleship USS Nevada (BB-36) before earning a Master of Science degree in electrical engineering from Columbia University in 1930 by way of a year at the Naval Postgraduate School and further coursework at Columbia. At the latter institution, he met Ruth D. Masters, a graduate student in international law, whom he married in 1931 after she returned from her doctoral studies at the Sorbonne in Paris. Shortly after marrying, Rickover wrote to his parents of his decision to become an Episcopalian, remaining so for the remainder of his life.

Rickover had a high regard for the quality of the education he received at Columbia, as demonstrated in this excerpt from a speech he gave at the university some 52 years after attending:

"Columbia was the first institution that encouraged me to think rather than memorize. My teachers were notable in that many had gained practical engineering experience outside the university and were able to share their experience with their students. I am grateful, among others, to Professors Morecroft, Hehre, and Arendt. Much of what I have subsequently learned and accomplished in engineering is based on the solid foundation of principles I learned from them."

Rickover preferred life on smaller ships, and he also knew that young officers in the submarine service were advancing quickly, so he went to Washington and volunteered for submarine duty. His application was turned down due to his age, at that time 29 years. Fortunately for Rickover, he encountered his former commanding officer from Nevada while leaving the building, who interceded successfully on his behalf. From 1929 to 1933, Rickover qualified for submarine duty and command aboard the submarines USS S-9 (SS-114) and USS S-48 (SS-159). While aboard S-48 he was addressed a letter of commendation from the Secretary of the Navy "for rescuing Augustin Pasis… from drowning at the Submarine Base, Coco, Solo, Canal Zone." While at the Office of the Inspector of Naval Material in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1933, Rickover translated Das Unterseeboot (The Submarine) by World War I German Imperial Navy Admiral Hermann Bauer. Rickover's translation became a basic text for the U.S. submarine service.

On 17 July 1937, he reported aboard the minesweeper USS Finch (AM-9) at Qingdao, China, and assumed what would be his only ship command with additional duty as Commander, Mine Division Three, Asiatic Fleet. The Marco Polo Bridge Incident had occurred ten days earlier. In August, Finch stood out for Shanghai to protect American citizens and interests from the conflict between Chinese and Japanese forces. On September 25, Rickover was promoted to lieutenant commander, retroactive to July 1. In October, his designation as an engineering duty officer became effective, and he was relieved of his three-month command of Finch at Shanghai on October 5, 1937.

Rickover was assigned to the Cavite Navy Yard in the Philippines, and was transferred shortly thereafter to the Bureau of Engineering in Washington, D.C. Once there, he took up his duties as assistant chief of the Electrical section of the Bureau of Engineering on August 15, 1939.

On April 10, 1942, after America's entry into World War II, Rickover flew to Pearl Harbor to organize repairs to the electrical power plant of USS California (BB-44). Rickover had been promoted to the rank of commander on January 1, 1942, and in late June of that year was made a temporary captain. In late 1944 he appealed for a transfer to an active command. He was sent to investigate inefficiencies at the naval supply depot at Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, then was appointed in July 1945 to command of a ship repair facility on Okinawa. Shortly thereafter, his command was destroyed by Typhoon Louise, and he subsequently spent some time helping to teach school to Okinawan children.

Later in the war, his service as head of the Electrical Section in the Bureau of Ships brought him a Legion of Merit and gave him experience in directing large development programs, choosing talented technical people, and working closely with private industry. Time magazine featured him on the cover of its January 11, 1954 issue. The accompanying article described his wartime service:

"Sharp-tongued Hyman Rickover spurred his men to exhaustion, ripped through red tape, drove contractors into rages. He went on making enemies, but by the end of the war he had won the rank of captain. He had also won a reputation as a man who gets things done."

Naval Reactors and the Atomic Energy Commission
In December 1945, Rickover was appointed Inspector General of the 19th Fleet on the west coast, and was assigned to work with General Electric at Schenectady, New York, to develop a nuclear propulsion plant for destroyers. In 1946, an initiative was begun at the Manhattan Project's Clinton Laboratory (now the Oak Ridge National Laboratory) to develop a nuclear electric generating plant. Realizing the potential that nuclear energy held for the Navy, Rickover applied. Rickover was sent to Oak Ridge through the efforts of his wartime boss, Rear Admiral Earle Mills, who became the head of the Navy's Bureau of Ships that same year.

Rickover became an early convert to the idea of nuclear marine propulsion, and was the driving force for shifting the Navy's initial focus from applications on destroyers to submarines. Rickover's vision was not initially shared by his immediate superiors: he was recalled from Oak Ridge and assigned "advisory duties" with an office in an abandoned ladies' room in the Navy Building. He subsequently went around several layers of superior officers, and in 1947 went directly to the Chief of Naval Operations, Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, also a former submariner. Nimitz immediately understood the potential of nuclear propulsion in submarines and recommended the project to the Secretary of the Navy, John L. Sullivan. Sullivan's endorsement to build the world's first nuclear-powered vessel, USS Nautilus (SSN-571), later caused Rickover to state that Sullivan was "the true father of the Nuclear Navy."

Subsequently, Rickover became chief of a new section in the Bureau of Ships, the Nuclear Power Division reporting to Mills. He began work with Alvin M. Weinberg, the Oak Ridge director of research, to initiate and develop the Oak Ridge School of Reactor Technology and to begin the design of the pressurized water reactor for submarine propulsion. In February 1949 he was assigned to the Atomic Energy Commission's Division of Reactor Development, and then assumed control of the Navy's effort within the AEC as Director of the Naval Reactors Branch. This twin role enabled him to lead the effort to develop Nautilus.

The original selection of Rickover as head of development of the nation's nuclear submarine program ultimately rested with Admiral Mills. According to Lieutenant General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project, Mills was anxious to have a very determined man involved. He knew that Rickover was "not too easy to get along with" and "not too popular," but in his judgement Rickover was the man on whom the Navy could depend "no matter what opposition he might encounter".

While his team and industry were completing construction of Nautilus, Rickover was promoted to the rank of rear admiral in 1953. However, this was anything but routine, and occurred only after an extraordinary chain of events:

"[Rickover's] peers in the Navy’s engineer branch thought to get rid of him through failure of promotion above captain. This would entail automatic retirement at the thirty-year mark. But someone made the case to the U.S. Senate, charged by the Constitution with formal confirmation of military promotions. In that year, 1953, two years before Nautilus first went to sea, the Senate failed to give its usual perfunctory approval of the Navy admiral promotion list, and the press was outraged because Rickover's name was not on it. ... Ultimately an enlightened Secretary of the Navy, Robert B. Anderson, ordered a special selection board to sit. With some shuffling of feet it did what it had been ordered to do.... Ninety-five percent of Navy captains must retire regardless of how highly qualified because there are only vacancies for 5 percent of them to become admirals, and although vindictiveness has sometimes played a part in determining who shall fail of selection for promotion (thus also violating the system), never before or since have pressures from outside the Navy overturned this form of career-termination."

Regardless of the challenges faced in developing and operating brand-new technology, Rickover and the team did not disappoint: the result was a highly reliable nuclear reactor in a form-factor that would fit into a submarine hull with no more than a 28 ft beam. This became known as the S1W reactor. Nautilus was launched and commissioned with this reactor in 1954.

Later Rickover oversaw the development of the Shippingport Atomic Power Station, the first commercial pressurized water reactor nuclear power plant. Kenneth Nichols of the AEC decided that the Rickover-Westinghouse pressurized-water reactor was "the best choice for a reactor to demonstrate the production of electricity" with Rickover "having a going organization and a reactor project under way that now had no specific use to justify it." This was a reference to the first core used at Shippingport originating from a cancelled nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. This was accepted by Lewis Strauss and the Commission in January 1954.

Rickover was promoted to vice admiral in 1958, the same year that he was awarded the first of two Congressional Gold Medals. He exercised tight control for the next three decades over the ships, technology, and personnel of the nuclear Navy, interviewing and approving or denying every prospective officer being considered for a nuclear ship. Over the course of Rickover's career, these personal interviews numbered in the tens of thousands; over 14,000 interviews were with recent college-graduates alone. The interviewees ranged from midshipmen and newly commissioned ensigns destined for nuclear-powered submarines and surface combatants, to very senior combat-experienced Naval Aviator captains who sought command of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. The content of most of these interviews has been lost to history, though some were later chronicled in several books on Rickover's career, as well as in a rare personal interview with Diane Sawyer in 1984.

In 1973, though his role and responsibilities remained unchanged, Rickover was promoted to the rank of four-star admiral. This was the second time (after Samuel Murray Robinson) in the history of the U.S. Navy that an officer with a career path other than an operational line officer achieved that rank. Because his responsibilities did not include direct command and control of combatant naval units, technically Rickover was appointed to the grade of admiral on the retired list so as to provide some clarity on this issue. This was also done to avoid affecting the maximum-authorized number of admirals (O-10) on the "active list."

As head of Naval Reactors, Rickover's focus and responsibilities were dedicated to reactor safety rather than tactical or strategic submarine warfare training. However, this extreme focus was well known during Rickover's era as a potential hindrance to balancing operational priorities. One way that this was addressed after Rickover retired was that only the very strongest, former at-sea submarine commanders have held Rickover's now unique eight-year position as NAVSEA-08, the longest chartered tenure in the U.S. military. From Rickover's first replacement, Kinnaird R. McKee, to today's head of Naval Reactors, William J. Houston, all have held command of nuclear submarines, their squadrons and ocean fleets, but none have been a long-term Engineering Duty Officer such as Rickover. In keeping with Rickover's promotion to four-star admiral, those who were subsequently selected for assignment to Director, Naval Reactors are promoted to this same rank, but also on active duty status.

Historian Francis Duncan, who for over eight years was granted generous access to diverse numbers and levels of witnesses—including U.S. presidents—as well as Rickover himself, came to the conclusion that the man was best understood with respect to a guiding principle that Rickover invoked foremost for both himself and those who served in the U.S. Navy's nuclear propulsion program: "exercise of the concept of responsibility." This is further evidenced by Rickover listing responsibility as his first principle in his final-years paper and speech, Thoughts on Man's Purpose in Life.

Safety record
Rickover's stringent standards are largely credited with being responsible for the U.S. Navy's continuing record of zero reactor accidents (defined as the uncontrolled release of fission products to the environment resulting from damage to a reactor core). He made it a point to be aboard during the initial sea trial of almost every nuclear submarine completing its new-construction period. Following the Three Mile Island accident on March 28, 1979, Admiral Rickover was asked to testify before Congress in the general context of answering the question as to why naval nuclear propulsion had succeeded in achieving a record of zero reactor-accidents, as opposed to the dramatic one that had just taken place.

The accident-free record of United States Navy reactor operations stands in some very stark contrast to those of the Soviet Union, which had fourteen known reactor accidents. As stated in a retrospective analysis in October 2007:

"U.S. submarines far outperformed the Soviet ones in the crucial area of stealth, and Rickover's obsessive fixation on safety and quality control gave the U.S. nuclear Navy a vastly superior safety record to the Soviet one."

Views on nuclear power
Given Rickover's single-minded focus on naval nuclear propulsion, design, and operations, it came as a surprise to many in 1982, near the end of his career, when he testified before the U.S. Congress that, were it up to him what to do with nuclear powered ships, he "would sink them all." At a congressional hearing Rickover testified that:

"I do not believe that nuclear power is worth it if it creates radiation. Then you might ask me why do I have nuclear powered ships. That is a necessary evil. I would sink them all. I am not proud of the part I played in it. I did it because it was necessary for the safety of this country. That's why I am such a great exponent of stopping this whole nonsense of war. Unfortunately limits—attempts to limit war have always failed. The lesson of history is when a war starts every nation will ultimately use whatever weapon it has available. ... Every time you produce radiation, you produce something that has a certain half-life, in some cases for billions of years. ... It is important that we control these forces and try to eliminate them."

A few months later, following his retirement, Rickover spoke more specifically regarding the questions "Could you comment on your own responsibility in helping to create a nuclear navy? Do you have any regrets?":

"I do not have regrets. I believe I helped preserve the peace for this country. Why should I regret that? What I accomplished was approved by Congress—which represents our people. All of you live in safety from domestic enemies because of security from the police. Likewise, you live in safety from foreign enemies because our military keeps them from attacking us. Nuclear technology was already under development in other countries. My assigned responsibility was to develop our nuclear navy. I managed to accomplish this."

Focus on education
When he was a child still living in Russian-occupied Poland, Rickover was not allowed to attend public schools because of his Jewish faith. Starting at the age of four, he attended a religious school where the teaching was solely from the Tanakh, i.e., Old Testament, in Hebrew. Following his formal education in the United States, Rickover developed a decades-long and outspoken interest in the educational standards of the US as being a national security issue, particularly as compared during the Cold War era to Soviet Russia.

An example of his passion for education from his 1959 Report on Russia in the context of comparative educational systems:

"There is no room here (in nuclear powerplant development) for lofty theories which do not work out in practice. We would not get anywhere if we had the loose, hazy thinking you encounter when you bring out the obvious failures of the American educational system. ... there are times when it is irresponsible to avoid criticizing something which one knows to be wrong and dangerous for the Nation as a whole. I feel that every one who has a position of responsibility in this country and who can see and understand what is happening not only has the right, he has the obligation and the duty to speak. ... This is why I feel so strongly about education—about our failure to give our children as good an education as they deserve and need. ... It is my considered opinion that there is no problem that faces the Congress or the country that is as important."

Rickover believed that US standards of education were unacceptably low. His first book centered on education was a collection of essays calling for improved standards of education, particularly in math and science, entitled Education and Freedom (1959). In it, he stated that "education is the most important problem facing the United States today" and "only the massive upgrading of the scholastic standards of our schools will guarantee the future prosperity and freedom of the Republic." A second book, Swiss Schools and Ours (1962) was a scathing comparison of the educational systems of Switzerland and America. He argued that the higher standards of Swiss schools, including a longer school day and year, combined with an approach stressing student choice and academic specialization produced superior results.

Recognizing that "nurturing careers of excellence and leadership in science and technology in young scholars is an essential investment in the United States national and global future," Rickover founded the Center for Excellence in Education following his retirement in 1983. Additionally, Rickover founded the Research Science Institute (formerly the Rickover Science Institute) in 1984, a summer science program hosted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for high school seniors from around the world.

General Dynamics scandal
In the early 1980s, structural welding flaws in submarines under construction were covered up by falsified inspection records, and the resulting scandal led to significant delays and expenses in the delivery of several submarines being built at the General Dynamics Electric Boat Division shipyard in Groton, Connecticut. The yard tried to pass on the vast cost overruns to the Navy, while Rickover demanded that the yard make good on its "shoddy" workmanship. The Navy settled with General Dynamics in 1981, paying out $634 million of $843 million in Los Angeles-class submarine cost overrun and reconstruction claims. Secretary of the Navy John Lehman was partly motivated to seek the agreement in order to continue to focus on achieving President Reagan's goal of a 600-ship Navy. But Rickover was extremely bitter over the General Dynamics yard being paid hundreds of millions of dollars, and he lambasted both the settlement and Secretary Lehman. This was not Rickover's first clash with the defense industry; he was historically harsh in exacting high standards from defense contractors. It was later publicly announced by a former General Dynamics employee on 60 Minutes with Mike Wallace that Rickover was right that General Dynamics was lying to the Navy, but by then Rickover's public image was already damaged.

A Navy Ad Hoc Gratuities Board determined that Rickover had received gifts from General Dynamics over a 16-year period valued at $67,628, including jewelry, furniture, exotic knives, and gifts that Rickover had in turn presented to politicians. Charges were investigated that gifts were provided by General Electric and the Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock, both major nuclear ship contractors for the Navy. Secretary Lehman admonished him in a non-punitive letter and stated that Rickover's "fall from grace with these little trinkets should be viewed in the context of his enormous contributions to the Navy." Rickover released a statement through his lawyer saying his "conscience is clear" with respect to the gifts. "No gratuity or favor ever affected any decision I made." Senator William Proxmire of Wisconsin, a longtime supporter of Rickover, later publicly associated a debilitating stroke suffered by the admiral to his having been censured and "dragged through the mud by the very institution to which he rendered his invaluable service."

Forced retirement
By the late 1970s, Rickover's position seemed stronger than it had ever been. Over many years, powerful friends on both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees ensured that he remained on active duty long after most other admirals had retired from their second careers. Jimmy Carter's admiration for Rickover was shown by the fact that the title of Carter's autobiography was based on a question that Rickover had asked Carter when the latter was in the Navy ("Why Not The Best?"). However, Secretary of the Navy John Lehman felt that Rickover was hindering the well-being of the navy. As Lehman stated in his book, Command of the Seas:

One of my first orders of business as Secretary of the Navy would be to solve ... the Rickover problem. Rickover's legendary achievements were in the past. His present viselike grip on much of the navy was doing it much harm. I had sought the job because I believed the navy had deteriorated to the point where its weakness seriously threatened our future security. The navy's grave afflictions included loss of a strategic vision; loss of self-confidence, and morale; a prolonged starvation of resources, leaving vast shortfalls in capability to do the job; and too few ships to cover a sea so great, all resulting in cynicism, exhaustion, and an undercurrent of defeatism. The cult created by Admiral Rickover was itself a major obstacle to recovery, entwining nearly all the issues of culture and policy within the navy.

Secretary Lehman eventually attained enough political clout to enforce his decision to retire Rickover. This was in part assisted by the admiral's nearly insubordinate stance against paying the General Dynamics submarine construction claims, as well as his advanced age and waning political leverage. On July 27, 1981, Lehman was handed the final impetus for ending Rickover's career by way of an operational error on the admiral's part: a "moderate" loss of ship control and depth excursion while performing a submerged "crash back" maneuver during the sea trials of the newly constructed USS La Jolla. Rickover was the actual man-in-charge during this specific performance test, and his actions and inactions were judged to have been the causal factor. On January 31, 1982, five weeks after his 82nd birthday, Rickover was forced to retire from the Navy after 63 years of service under 13 presidents (Woodrow Wilson through Ronald Reagan). According to Rickover, he first learned of his firing when his wife told him what she heard on the radio.

According to former President Jimmy Carter, several weeks following his retirement, Rickover "was invited to the Oval Office and decided to don his full dress uniform. He told me that he refused to take a seat, listened to the president [Reagan] ask him to be his special nuclear advisor, replied 'Mr. President, that is bullshit,' and then walked out." The Navy's official investigation of General Dynamics' Electric Boat division was ended shortly afterward. According to Theodore Rockwell, Rickover's Technical Director for more than 15 years, more than one source at that time stated that General Dynamics officials were bragging around Washington that they had "gotten Rickover."

On February 28, 1983, a post-retirement party honoring Admiral Rickover was attended by all three living former U.S. Presidents at the time: Nixon, Ford, and Carter, all formerly officers in the U.S. Navy. President Reagan was not in attendance.

Public image
Rickover has been called "the most famous and controversial admiral of his era." He was hyperactive, blunt, confrontational, insulting, and a workaholic, always demanding of others without regard for rank or position. Moreover, he had "little tolerance for mediocrity, none for stupidity." Even while a captain, Rickover did not conceal his opinions, and many of the officers whom he regarded as unintelligent eventually rose to be admirals and were assigned to the Pentagon. Rickover frequently found himself in bureaucratic combat with these senior naval officers, to the point that he almost missed becoming an admiral; two selection boards passed him over for promotion, and it took the intervention of the White House, U.S. Congress, and the Secretary of the Navy before he was promoted.

Rickover's military authority and congressional mandate were absolute with regard to the U.S. fleet's reactor operations, but his controlling personality was frequently a subject of internal Navy controversy. He was head of the Naval Reactors branch, and thus responsible for signing off on a crew's competence to operate the reactor safely, giving him the power to effectively remove a warship from active service, which he did on several occasions. The view became established that he sometimes exercised power to settle scores. Author and former submariner Edward L. Beach Jr. referred to him as a "tyrant" with "no account of his gradually failing powers" in his later years.

Later life and death
On July 4, 1985, Admiral Rickover suffered what was described as a "serious" stroke, and was admitted to Bethesda Naval Hospital, thereafter dealing with partial paralysis in his right arm.

Rickover died at his home in Arlington, Virginia, on July 8, 1986, at age 86. He was buried on July 11 in a small, private ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery. On July 14, memorial services were led by Admiral James D. Watkins at the Washington National Cathedral, with President Carter, Secretary of State George Shultz, Secretary Lehman, senior naval officers, and about 1,000 other people in attendance. At the request of the admiral's widow, President Carter read Milton's sonnet When I Consider How My Light is Spent.

Secretary of the Navy Lehman said in a statement:

"With the death of Adm. Rickover, the Navy and this nation have lost a dedicated officer of historic accomplishment. In his 63 years of service, Adm. Rickover took the concept of nuclear power from an idea to the present reality of more than 150 U.S. naval ships under nuclear power, with a record of 3,000 ship-years of accident-free operations."

And the then-Chief of Naval Operations:

"'Most important,' Admiral Watkins said, 'he was a teacher. He set the standards. They were tough. That is the legacy and the challenge he left to all who study his contributions.'"

Rickover is buried in Section 5 at Arlington National Cemetery. His first wife Ruth is buried with him and the name of his second wife Eleonore is inscribed on his gravestone. Eleonore passed away on July 5, 2021, and was buried in Arlington Cemetery. Rickover is survived by Robert Rickover, his sole son by his first wife.

Honors
The Los Angeles-class submarine USS Hyman G. Rickover (SSN-709) was named for him. She was commissioned two years before his death, and was, at that time, one of only two Navy ships to be named after a living person since 1900 (there have been 16 more since). The submarine was launched on August 27, 1983, sponsored by his second wife Eleonore, commissioned on July 21, 1984, and deactivated on December 14, 2006. In 2015, the Navy announced a Virginia-class submarine named USS Hyman G. Rickover (SSN-795) in his honor. The submarine's christening took place on July 31, 2021.

Rickover Hall at the United States Naval Academy houses the departments of Mechanical Engineering, Naval Architecture, Ocean Engineering, and Aeronautical and Aerospace Engineering. Rickover Center at Naval Nuclear Power Training Command is located at Joint Base Charleston, where Navy personnel begin their engineering training. In 2011, the U.S. Navy Museum included Rickover as part of the Technology for the Nuclear Age: Nuclear Propulsion display for its Cold War exhibit, which featured the following quotation:

"Good ideas are not adopted automatically. They must be driven into practice with courageous impatience."

Other things named in his honor include the Admiral Hyman Rickover Fellowship at M.I.T., Hyman G. Rickover Naval Academy, and Rickover Junior High School.

Decorations and medals

 * Congressional Gold Medal – 2 awards (1958, 1982)

Foreign order
In recognition of his wartime service, he was invested as an Honorary Commander of the Military Division of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire in 1946 by King George VI.

Other awards
Admiral Rickover was twice awarded the Congressional Gold Medal for exceptional public service; the first in 1958, and the second 25 years later in 1983, becoming one of only three persons to be awarded more than one. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter presented Admiral Rickover with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the United States' highest non-military honor, for his contributions to world peace.

He also received 61 civilian awards and 15 honorary degrees, including the Enrico Fermi Award "For engineering and demonstrative leadership in the development of safe and reliable nuclear power and its successful application to our national security and economic needs." Some of the most notable other awards include:
 * the Egleston Medal Award of Columbia University Engineering School Alumni Association (1955)
 * the George Westinghouse Gold Medal from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) (1955)
 * the Michael I. Pupin 100th Anniversary Medal (1958)
 * the Golden Omega Award from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) (1959)
 * the Prometheus Award from the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) (1965)
 * the Newcomen Medal (1968)
 * the Washington Award from the Western Society of Engineers (1970)

Some of his honorary degrees included:
 * Sc.D.: Colby College (1954); Stevens Institute of Technology (1958); Columbia University (1960)

Publications
Hyman was a writer who penned several books about education and naval history. His major works are as follows:
 * Education and Freedom. (1959). New York City, NY: Dutton
 * Swiss Schools and Ours: Why Theirs Are Better. (1962). Boston: Little, Brown and Company
 * American Education. (1963). New York City, NY: Dutton
 * Liberty, Science, and Law. (1969). New York City, NY: Newcomen Society
 * Eminent Americans: Namesakes of the Polaris Submarine Fleet. (1972). Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office
 * How the Battleship Maine Was Destroyed. (1976). Washington, DC: Naval History Division
 * No Holds Barred: The Final Congressional Testimony of Admiral Hyman G. Rickover. (1982). Washington, DC: Center for Study of Responsive Law

Documentaries

 * Admiral Rickover – 60 Minutes interview by Diane Sawyer (1984) with an excerpt from a 1957 interview with Edward R. Murrow
 * Rickover: The Birth of Nuclear Power by Michael Pack – documentary screened at the GI Film Festival in the District of Columbia on May 24, 2014, and broadcast on December 9, 2014, on PBS.

title: Hyman G. Rickover