Otto Hahn has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: August 28, 2020. (Reviewed version). |
A fact from Otto Hahn appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 August 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 16 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Megracquelle. Peer reviewers: Amakhlouf1.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignmentbyPrimeBOT (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I question the claim on this page that Hahn worked on the German fission weapon program. For example, this article suggests otherwise: http://www.britannica.com/nobel/micro/254_40.html
So does this one: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERhahn.htm:
If Hahn did participate in some way we should state clearly what he did. Peter Hendrickson — Preceding undated comment added 03:13, 26 June 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by this statement: "Later few American Jewish historians considered [Lise Meitner's] contributions to have been the greater . . . ." This use of "few" means "not many" and has a definite negative connotation (i.e., it really means the same as "most American Jewish historians did not consider Meitner's contributions to have been the greater". Is this true? If the writer meant Meitner's work was considered by some to have been more important than Hahn's, then I would propose changing "few" to "some", or maybe even "many". Richwales 19:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this statement: ". . . and in a controversial survey of Nobel Prize winners conducted forty years later, Lise Meitner was voted the most deserving of those who had not received the award." I see an NPOV problem here. What was "controversial" about the survey? Who thought it was controversial? Perhaps a more exact, detailed identification of the survey would be in order, together with some discussion of who considered it controversial and why. Richwales 19:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the "who gets the Nobel Prize" section should be shortened, and I think it is more a question for the Meitner article. To my knowledge the controversy is more about that Meitner did NOT receive the Nobel Prize (of Physics) but not about that Hahn did not deserve to receive the Nobel Prize (of Chemistry) or that we downplayed Meitner's role. I think that definitly the Germans/Jews and Man/Woman question is strongly superposed over the controversy and difficult to separate from the actual question. By the way, I somehow think the remember that after war Hahn and Meitner hat still good relations with each other. Does somebody know about that? I list three articles I found by searching a scientific database for "meitner l*":
MEITNER L: OTTO HAHN ZUM 85. GEBURTSTAG (Otto Hahn to the 85th birthday), NATURWISSENSCHAFTEN 51, 9 (1964)
MEITNER L: EINIGE ERINNERUNGEN AN DAS KAISER-WILHELM-INSTITUT FUR CHEMIE IN BERLIN-DAHLEM (Some memories on the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Chemistry in Berlin-Dahlem) NATURWISSENSCHAFTEN 41, 97-99 (1954)
MEITNER L: ZUR ENTWICKLUNG DER RADIOCHEMIE - HAHN,OTTO ZUM 50 JAHRIGEN DOKTOR-JUBILAUM (On the evolution of radiochemistry - Hahn, Otto to the 50th PhD jubilee), ANGEWANDTE CHEMIE 64, 1-4 (1952)
--Linksrechts 19:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The latest edit [1], by an anonymous user from 217.225.221.201, has removed the question of the controversy completely. For the record, the cut material read as follows, in case people feel it or something like it should go back in:
Jheald 17:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
why dont i see a passage dealing with the controversy surrounding hahn and meitner? i have read in the book "e-mc^2" by david bodanis and also seen a documentary "einstein's big idea"(PBS Nova)that hahn purposefully tried to underplay the influence meitner had on his work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirthkpatel (talk • contribs) 04:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although Hahn was one of the great contributors to the field, I think that the article as it presently stands is overly laudatory, that it suppresses the Meitner contributions, and that it is far too silent on Hahn's continuing to work under and, in some cases, on behalf of the Nazi regime. I believe the betrayal of Meitner and Hahn's complicity in removing her from the KWI deserves a mention here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danite1 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put the bit quoted above back in with some modifications.--Gloriamarie 04:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
having just read e=mc^2 as well, i thought that the summary at the beginning was a bit of a joke. if you take what's in that book as true, then the line "[he was] Considered by many to be a model for scholarly excellence and personal integrity" doesn't make much sense. --att159 11:18, 7 July 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.49.104 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I took them off of this page and put them in wikiquote, since it seems more appropriate Acornwithwings 06:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes were added back to this article for some reason. I removed them again and added a link to Otto Hahn's wikiquote page. –panda (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do I smell an error here? Then-"Radioactinium" IMHO has nothing to do with actinium, but it's a historical name for the isotope thorium-227! Hence, I don't see why you are linking to the Actinium article here. -andy 77.191.205.168 (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the first paragraph not identify him as a discoverer of nuclear fission? HowardMorland (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is Otto Hahn the inventor of the water-tap (faucet)? In german it translates to Wasserhahn. Just a "theory". User:ScotXWt@lk 10:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the Battle of Caporetto says:
In September three experts from the Imperial General Staff led by the chemist Otto Hahn went to the Isonzo front to find a site suitable for a gas attack.
The article on Hahn has a brief mention of his involvement in chemical warfare, under "discovery of protactinium." I suggest adding a subhead on chemical warfare, to give this aspect of his life a bit more prominence, with a cross-ref. to the Battle of Caporetto. Oaklandguy (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A record for this person has been created in the WeRelate genealogical website. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that Meitner and Frisch were involved in the fission experiment until after the data were collected. Their brilliant 1939 paper explained the results obtained by Hahn and Strassmann a year earlier in Berlin, but at that time the actual experiment was complete. My understanding is that Hahn and Strassmann were the experimental half of the team, and Meitner and Frisch were the theoretical half. The current wording in the article makes it sound like Meitner (but not Frisch) was one of the experimentalists. I believe that when the experiments were performed at the lab in Berlin, Meitner was already a refugee in Sweden because of her race.
Note that the Nobel prize was awarded to Hahn (but not to Strassmann for some reason) for the experiment, and not to Meitner and Frisch for the theory. Rwflammang (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added a citation regarding the diamond ring Hahn gave Meitner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrColeJohnson (talk • contribs) 02:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: - More curious than challenging you: So you are saying the quote is not in a reliable source? How are you certain it didn't happen? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 19:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hahn’s biographer, Klaus Hoffmann wrote that the news of Hiroshima had so upset Hahn the other Farm Hall internees feared he would commit suicide, and some even kept watch over him that night to ensure he could not do so. The Farm Hall transcript, however, does not support the claim that Hahn contemplated suicide, and instead indicates that it was the physicist Walther Gerlach who was quite upset by the news of Hiroshima, so much that when his fellow internees Max von Laue and Paul Harteck tried to comfort him Gerlach threatened to shoot himself. According to Major Ritter, Gerlach “consider[ed] himself in the position of a defeated general, the only alternative to whom is to shoot himself.”440 However, Gerlach had no gun and was ultimately calmed by Laue and Harteck, and later by Hahn as well. There is no evidence at all that any of the other internees, including Hahn, reacted so strongly to Hiroshima. J. Michael Cole, the translator of Hoffmann’s biography agrees that Hoffmann probably had a poor version of the Farm Hall transcript (the transcripts were not officially released or published until 1993, by which time Hoffmann’s biography was in press) and as a result confused Hahn and Gerlach. As Cole wrote: “This direct record [the Farm Hall transcripts]…counters the contention that Hahn was of any suicidal mind, let alone sufficient to cause his colleagues serious concern, and reveals that it was Gerlach who was badly affected with such a mood, here [in Hoffmann] incorrectly imprecated upon Hahn.”
— Yruma, Jeris Stueland (November 2008). How Experiments Are Remembered: The Discovery of Nuclear Fission, 1938–1968 (PhD thesis). Princeton University.
Today I made some 65 edits. Not all are cut and dried improvements, for example see my es's. Other questions I met and could not answer completely:
1. How to note isotopes? And wikilink them? They appear in contemporary names (mesothorium I), modern names (uranium-234), uranium X2 (protactinium-234), plus wrong or dead-end names.
Can we use a convention to: write contemporary name throughout (when describing a contemporal process). At introduction, add modern name in ()-brackets, and wl'ed (the wl to precise article/section as possible; at least the Isotopes of ... page). Repeat this for every section (ie, introduce an isotope in every section where it is used; once/article is not helpful IMO). I would not mind when someone uses the symbolic notation also (234U), to describe a process (like alpha-decay, or beta-decay). This is better than, as a reader, having to make written notes while reading ;-) )
2. Lots of persons are introduced. In some cases I have added qualifications like "physicist" (but not: "American"), to illustrate why that person is of interest. However, there may be too many names to keep this up.
3. General reading: sometimes I added a description (eg for KWS), as a single name may not be clear. Say, at least a section should be understandable without having to click a link. IUPAC, OTOH, may taking up too much space.
4. And this: what an interesting person (=article) to read! A great composition to you editor(s). Hawkeye7
5. (sign OP): -DePiep (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GA toolbox |
---|
|
Reviewing |
|
Reviewer: HĐ (talk · contribs) 07:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I will be reviewing this article. As I am an editor specialized in popular culture and, while a science enthusiast, a non-science editor, I hope my review would be totally unbiased and comprehensive, HĐ (talk) 07:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overall a well written article. I just have finished reading up to "Discovery of mesothorium I", and have a few minor concerns:
Die Oberrealschule ist eine ehemalige Schulform in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz, die oft als Alternative zu den meist als Lateinschulen ausgelegten Gymnasien entstand. Sie ermöglichte in der Regel das Studium naturwissenschaftlicher Fächer. Die Bezeichnung wird heute nicht mehr verwendet.
The Oberrealschule is a former type of school in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, which emerged as an alternative to the gymnasiums, which were mostly designed as Latin schools. As a rule, it made it possible to study natural science subjects. The term is no longer used.
Along the way, Hahn determined that just as he was unable to separate thorium from radiothorium, so he could not separate mesothorium from radium.→ This sounds a bit off, was there a grammatical error?
Physicists were more accepting of Hahn's work, and he began attending a colloquium at the Physics Institute conducted by Heinrich Rubens. It was at one of these where→ Unsure of what the bolded text means
Given that the prose is the longest which I've ever reviewed, this GAN may take quite a while. — HĐ (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The personal history of Otto Hahn should have included an explicit listing of his academic credentials. For example, the article says, "A graduate of the University of Marburg," but does not state what field he graduated from nor the academic level---bachelors? Masters? Doctorate? 38.124.147.11 (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this section we read that all the captive scientists were held at Chateau Facqueval. This is not referenced but after some searching I found the following article [2]https://www.dissident-media.org/infonucleaire/bombe_reich.pdf dated in 1993. It is written in French but does confirm that they were held in Chateau Facqueval. Maybe somebody could create a reference in the page. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello to everyone that has contributed to this specific article.
As per the information I have recently corrected in other articles pertaining to nuclear fission and who did what when, this lede is not correct or accurate in many aspects. It also contradicts other articles quite significantly. Hahn and Strassmann only observed nuclear fission and accidentally when they conducted specific experiments based on Lise Meitner's theoretical suppositions pertaining to research all three had been conducting, but after Mietner had fled Nazi Germany in July. On 19 December 1938 when Hahn and Strassmann conducted a specific bombardment of uranium with neutrons, they misinterpreted their findings regardless of the fact they published them mere days afterwards in a German-only publication. Hahn informed Meitner literally that same evening with their findings, but it took Otto Robert Frisch and Meitner to correctly interpret the theoretical data of Hahn and Strassmann whilst Frisch visited his aunty Lise exiled in Sweden later in December, as he regularly did prior to fleeing Nazi Germany himself in 1933. Frisch and Meitner correctly deduced the observation of Hahn and Strassmann, but it was only Frisch who replicated and confirmed it was replicable in mid-January 1939, as Meitner was still in Sweden.
Frisch published their corrected findings in February. During Frisch's experimentation at Neil Bohr's Institute in Copenhagen, which he'd been exiled to since 1934 as a Jewish-Austrian like his aunt Lise. However, it was Bohr who took this news to the USA with Leon Rosenfeld, and it was Rosenfeld who told John Dunning and Herbert Anderson who had just begun working with Enrico Fermi (exiled from Fascist Italy due to his wife being Jewish-Italian in December 1938) at Columbia University in New York City. CU physics staff also included Leo Szilard, who is the first person to conceive a nuclear chain reaction in 1933 when exiled to London from Nazism as a Jewish-Hungarian.
The experiments of Fermi and Szilard in New York with Bohr, Dunning, Anderson, etc, concurrently occur when Frisch is conducting his experiments to confirm the correct reinterpretation of Hanh and Strassmann's findings, thus it is only Frisch and Meitner who actually discover what had occurred - not Hahn or Strassmann. Frisch is unaware of Bohr letting the cat out of the bag, considering he had asked him not to prior to leaving for the USA in January 1939, and it is Frisch who actually confirmed, and named, nuclear fission through discussions with Bohr in Copenhagen. Hahn did not discover nuclear fission because he misinterpreted his findings, just like Irene Joliot-Curie and Pavle Savic misinterpreted their findings earlier in 1938 conducting similar experiments, which Meitner also corrected and reinterpreted (a fact Irene Curie later acknowledged prior to her death), and from which Hahn and Strassmann could even conduct their experiment to begin with. Irene and Frederic Joliot-Curie only conducted their experiments in Paris due to Enrico Fermi's team in Rome conducting research based on Leo Szilard and Thomas Chalmers in 1934, that discovered the Szilard-Chalmers effect of isotopic separation, which itself was based on Fermi's experiment from earlier in 1934, and again itself relied upon publications by the Joliot-Curie's earlier in 1933. All these publications were predominantly published in Nature and from which each team continued their research.
Hahn and Strassmann did not discover nuclear fission nor name it, they accidentally observed it and got it wrong. Frisch confirms nuclear fission is replicable and Bohr corrected the record that it is indeed Frisch who first confirmed nuclear fission come late-February 1939, but unfortunately after he, Fermi, Szilard, Dunning, Anderson and other physicists in the USA had begun to conduct their own research from Meitner and Frisch's correct reinterpretation. This is because Frisch had not responded to Bohr's telegrams until 20-22 January about were his experiments were at in Copenhagen.
The circumstances are articulated much more accurately and correctly within the other articles lede, but not on Hahn's for some reason, even though Hahn's links to these articles. Obviously, such corrections should be conducted for Hahn. Also, he is not the 'father of nuclear fission or nuclear chemistry' and I've never in all my research ever come across anyone labelling Hahn as such in any fashion. All of Hahn's most important achievements are conducted with Meitner during their decades of joint research prior to July 1938 when Meitner was forced to flee Berlin.
It remains a black mark on the Nobel committee for the fact Hahn was solely awarded the Prize for Chemistry, and it remains a misogynist and bigoted decision considering Meitner became a Swedish citizen in 1949, and everyone who matter within in physics had nominated Meitner for the prize nearly 40 times before Hahn was awarded it, a fact ignored in Hahn's lede but illustrated on Meitner's page. I feel there needs to be some rather extensive corrections to Hahn's lede and to his overall story post haste regarding his true contributions to nuclear chemistry and by default nuclear physics. WolfStonerRocker G'DÄŸ 00:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]