Should "he was" be removed?

Yes.

If "he was" were to be removed, then ". . . virtually unknown as the important historical figure . . . " should be changed to ". . . virtually unknown as an[/i] important historical figure . . . "

The point is that there is a context in which the "he was" in that sentence serves a useful purpose.

Well, i screwed up the code. You can write:

". . . virtually unknown as the important historical figure that he was in . . . "

Or you can write:

". . . virtually unknown as an important historical figure in . . . "

If you remove the last "he was," then you need to change the definite article to the indefinite article. If you use the definite article, then you need the last "he was."

Science in yankland???
Whatever....

It would change the meaning, Ori. It would de-emphasize what the writer is trying to emphasize.

This 'he was' says,

'that he actually was'


He (Charlse D. Walcott) was an excellent scientist in his own chosen field of geology and paleontology and yet curiusly, in spite of all his accomplishments, he is virtually unknown as the important historical figure he was in the development of science in America.

Thank you JTT.

As I understood:

1) He (Charlse D. Walcott) was an excellent scientist in his own chosen field of geology and paleontology and yet curiusly, in spite of all his accomplishments, he is virtually unknown as the important historical figure that he actually was in the development of science in America.

The emphasis here is "that he actually was." (but he is in reality unknown to public)

2)He (Charlse D. Walcott) was an excellent scientist in his own chosen field of geology and paleontology and yet curiusly, in spite of all his accomplishments, he is virtually unknown as an important historical figure in the development of science in America.

The emphasis here is "he is virtually unknown to public."
Am I on the right track?

I'd say not so much emphasis, Ori, as statement of fact. He wasn't unknown, but almost completely unknown.

Well, a bit of an emphasis is still an emphasis. But where is the emphasis in 2)?