Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Nationality

I believe that Albert Einstein's nationality tag should be changed immediately to 'Swiss-American' for the several reasons which I will now explain:

• Wikipedia's laws state that each subject must be tagged by their citizenship(s) ('German-born' is most definitely not a citizenship)
• At the time of his death, he was a citizen of the United States of America and Switzerland, not Germany (he had previously renounced his German citizenship)
• Wikipedia advocates using citizenship (Swiss and American), not ethnicity (German (possibly Jewish depending on personal beliefs about Jews as an ethnic group)), as the nationality tag placed in the introductory biography.
• Birth place is unnecessary and not supported in the opening paragraph. Such details are shown clearly in Einstein's info box and also explained further down in the article.

For those reasons I will change the nationality tag immediately.

Cypriot stud 18:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• There is no "Wikipedia law". If you think there is a policy or guideline, providing a link would be useful.
• Why do you pick the time of his death? He was born German (and later became a citizen of the German Reich).
• Einsteins Nationality is complex and this parapgraph is the result of a long discussion. Before changing it "immediately", try to obtain consensus.

--Stephan Schulz 22:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Whatever label(s) go in the lead sentence of a bio are decided on a case-by-case basis, according to whatever best summarizes to subject. The question of what label(s) to put in Einstein’s lead sentence has been extensively discussed on this talk page (Einsteins nationality (archived), Jewish-German-Swiss-American scientist (archived), Jewishness (archived), Nationalities (archived), Putting "Jewish" back in the opening sentence (archived), Geeman's comments on "Jewish" (archived)). The consensus was that Einstein’s nationality, citizenship and religion were not sufficiently notable to mention in the lead sentence (but that “German-born” should be retained to explain why the German pronounciation is given). Notice, however, that his Swiss and American citizenships are listed in the infobox, and his citizenship has a section in the body of the article. --teb728 22:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the two relevant questions to ask when deciding how Einstein's nationality/ethnicity should be described in the opening sentence is first: What best describes the man? Second: how did his origins affected his legacy? From what I can tell, Einstein's Swiss and American citizenships were more pragmatic than personal, and more incidental than influential, so I don't think they belong in the opening sentence. Further, they did not necessarily have a dramatic effect on his impact in history. I would argue that his being German-BORN was significant, and that his being a jew is signficant (for reasons I've already elaborated upon pretty extensively, so I'll not regurgitate them other than to mention that I don't think anyone has made any substantial counter argument to them so far) but despite being an American myself I don't find his American citizenship particularly noteworthy, nor do I think his Swiss citizenship tells us much about Einstein as a person or historical figure that we don't already learn by noting he was a German-born jew. Geeman 23:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Look [1] here. You will see where it says that citizenship, not ethnicity, must be used as the nationality tags.

Why do I choose his citizenship at the time of his death? Because it was the most recent citizenship he had. He was no longer, in the eyes of the law, classed as a German (about a German as a Jamaican who has never left Jamaica). His birth place is clearly visible in his info box, as well as his explained multiple nationalities. But the most up-to-date and, in accordance with Wikipedia's regulations on citizenship, correct citizenships were Swiss and American, so there is no reason for him to be labelled otherwise. Also, 'German-born ' is not a citizenship; it can really only be German or Swiss-American. Birth isn't relevant in the introductory paragraph.

Cypriot stud 17:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Look again. What the Manual of Style says is that one of the things the opening paragraph should give is “Nationality (In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person … was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.)” In the first place, it says “should” not “must”: it’s a guideline not a law. In the second place, taking the guideline at face value, if Einstein’s nationality were a “normal case” (which it isn’t), it should be listed as “Swiss” (where he discovered special relativity and the photo-electric effect) and/or German (where he discovered general relativity) – certainly not American (where he came long after becoming notable).

But Einstein’s nationality is anything but the normal case: He hated nationalism. And labeling him Swiss or German (or American) tells a reader nothing significant about him. His is the rare case where his German-born (or perhaps, as Geeman says, German-born Jewish) ethnicity is more relevant to his notability than his citizenship. --teb728 22:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to reiterate a bit on TEB728's (who is a bit quicker on the trigger than I--God, I hate edit conflicts....) comments. The MoS says: "In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." (My emphasis.) Einstein fits all of these qualifications as if they were written to describe him. His citizenship is not normal. His ethnicity is directly related to his notability. His personality and relevance to world history (to completely introduce 4. What they did, and 5. Why they are significant in the opening paragraph) are directly tied to his being "German-born" (not simply German, Swiss or American) and his being born to a family of Jewish ancestry. Otherwise, why didn't Germany get the atom bomb first and nuke London, Leningrad and/or Washington D.C. for that matter? Why was he offered a leadership position in the new nation of Israel? Why did he become American or Swiss at all if he weren't born in Germany into a jewish family at a time when that was particularly unpleasant? Geeman 22:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a small correction: At the time Einstein was born, being born Jewish was less unpleasant in Germany than in most other continental European countries. One of the scary things about the Nazi ideology is that it overtook what was until then a (relatively) enlightened and liberal society. --Stephan Schulz 09:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. The basic idea behind including his nation of birth and jewish heritage remains the same for the qualification, though. Geeman 14:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, his nationality is complex and should not be reduced to "German-born" in the opening paragraph. "German" and "German-born" are two different things. It needs to be disscused in detail, otherwise mentioned, American and Swiss citzenship as well. And as for his Jewish ethnicity, it was very relevant to his history...... Epson291 03:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, it is all discussed in detail, later in the article. Again, the use of "German-born" in the introduction was justified to explain the immediately preceding use of a German pronunciation guide. If Einstein had instead been a Hebrew name, then probably the introduction would have said "Jewish-born". Of course "German" and "German-born" are different, which is why "German-born" was correctly chosen for that spot. Again, once you start adding qualifications and details to the introduction, it becomes a very poor example of an introduction. The introduction is already too wordy (in listing so many areas of physics). — DAGwyn 23:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

One would find out that he was German-born within the details (and understand why there is a German pronounciation). By just saying German born, many readers would be very confused and wonder why the man credited for being the father of the atomic bomb (and a Jew), that Germany did not have the bomb until much later in the article. And many people will think, "wasn't he American?". And it isn't so simple as him being German born. His citzenship was revoked. As for him being Jewish, in his later life he focused a lot of it on the creation of Israel (as well as being an American), and is fatured on Israeli currency, helped Israeli universities (and left all his work to them), and was even offered the position of Israeli president. It does not seam right for the country that revoked his citizenship, to be the only country listed, espeically, when had it not been for this theories and working with the United States (versus Germany) that they sucessfully developed the atom bomb. The way it is now is very confusing, I do not dispute that his German birth shouldn't be mentioned but it should be along the lines of,

Albert Einstein () (March 14, 1879 – April 18, 1955) was a German-born Jew of Swiss and American citizenship, who, as a theoretical physicist is widely considered one of the greatest physicists of all time. While best known for the theory of relativity (and specifically mass-energy equivalence, E=mc²), he was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics for his 1905 (Annus Mirabilis) explanation of the photoelectric effect and "for his services to Theoretical Physics". In popular culture, the name "Einstein" has become synonymous with great intelligence and genius. Einstein was named Time magazine's "Man of the Century."

As for the ethnicity, when the ethnicity is important to the role of the individual, which in many, many cases was with him (his citizenship being revoked and working for the Americans instead, his role later in his life supporting the State of Israel, etc...) it should be mentioned in the opening paragraph. As for his American citizenship, it needs to be mentioned in the opening paragraph (as opposed to tucked away in the 4th) as it had a profound impact on his work and the course of history. However, the details of this is of course entirely inapopiate for the opening paragraph. And in fact, it is quite enycylopedic to announce his citizenship at the opening paragraph (from 1933 onwards he was no longer a German citizen), and after the war he never petitioned for his German citizenship back. Epson291 11:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

We went through an editing cycle like that before, and the result just looked ridiculous. In fact the details are given, elsewhere in the article and in the Infobox.

A major problem we have with Einstein is that so many special interest groups want to claim him as one of their own. I left "German-born" there when I cleaned up the previous mess, not because I'm promoting Germany but because (a) the pronunciation link raised the immediate question, Why German pronunciation? and (b) it hints at complex nationality, which will be discussed later in the article (just as relativity is discussed later, not all crammed into the introduction). — DAGwyn 11:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

And I would like to add his significance to Jewish culture/politics was imense, and it should be mentioed that he was a Jew in the opening paragraph. The manual of style (which is not wikipolicy, only a wikiguideline) says that ethnicity should be mentioed when it is notable to the person, yes his main notability is for being a physicst, but also he is very notable for being a Jew. Epson291 18:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I responded below at the new ongoing discussion. Epson291 07:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

We could put in "various" as a teaser... ~ Otterpops 19:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, Albert was German. Not American. People who want him labelled as American do it for selfish reasons. He was Germany's treasure, not America's. Civ-online 19:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Funny discussion. typical american ;-) always claiming great men for themself due a lack of having one by themself.... at last he was a great men and its nonrelevant if he was american or german. everyone who claims him for their own country is a *****

Religion entry in infobox

User: Starnold recently wanted Einstein’s religion to be listed in the infobox as “Pantheist, does not believe in a personal God.” User: Prep111 wanted it to be “Jewish (non-observant ).” These are just two instances of why his religion is too complex to summarize in the infobox. We discussed this issue at length in an archived section of this talk page. --teb728 00:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

As I indicated in the preceding section, everybody wants to lay claim to Einstein. (Unless they're deriding him.) I've studied Einstein's work for nearly 50 years now, yet am unaware of any significant impact he made on Judaism per se. Indeed, his Jewish heritage helps explain his migration, and perhaps influenced some of his thought, and thus deserves coverage in the article, but doesn't seem significant enough to further bloat the introduction with it.

If any changes are going to be made in the introduction concerning his group membership, it should be to remove rather than add. However, I think it is fine as it stands. — DAGwyn 11:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't believed he praticed Judaism in any great lengths. So I would agree it should be left out of the infox box. And to user:DAGwyn, I am not aware of any, and I mean any, impact (significant or otherwise he made on Judaism). So I would disagree with you. He was completly unreligous. However, the issue is not his Judaism but his nationality. He certiantly conciderd himself a Jew, by nationality (or ethnicity if you prefer). To quote Einstein himself, A Jew who sheds his faith along the way, or who even picks up a different one, is still a Jew. Einstein was a commited Zionist (with Zionism being originally a purely secualr idea). And if you are confused about the differences between what Jew and Judaism mean, please see the articles. Epson291

No, the issue in this section has nothing whatsoever to do with his nationality: In this section the issue is what if anything should go in the “Religion” entry of the infobox (read the section header). The poll here decided there should be no Religion entry in the infobox. --teb728 06:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but you didn't read my post, that isn't what I said. Epson291 20:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I did read your post; you said, “However, the issue is not his Judaism but his nationality.” Nationality may be the issue in some other section of this talk page, but it is not the issue in this one. --teb728 21:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I know, that is the point. But maybe you didn't read it the second time either, just one part, so I'll quote it for you. "So I would agree it should be left out of the infox box" As in, his ethnicity might be Jewish, but his religion is complex and clearly not clear cut Judiasm. So it shouldn't be mentioned under "Religion" for the infox box (the issue at hand). Yes I did mention his ethnicity, for the reason that the user's above were discussing his "Jewishness" and his "Jewishness" has nothing to do with his religion but rather the cultural part, which has nothing to do with it... I wouldn't really object to "Jewish (non religious)" in the info box, but I still believe it should not be there. (And rather discussed in the article about his complex relationship with religion) Teb728, I believe you were confused because of what I wrote in the other part of the talk page I'm guessing, or I wasn't clear in what I wrote, but I did intend to only talk about the religion talk. Epson291 06:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Einstein was a difficult person, it's fact, but he always said: "I don't believe in a personal god." And he also said: "I believe in Spinoza's God". He was a pantheist and nonbeliever of a personal God. He didn't like atheism. --Starnold 15:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

And of course, I agree with the view, that Einstein came from a Jewish family, but after the age of 12, he was a nonobservant Jewish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Starnold (talk • contribs) 15:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Agreed, though I will point out pantheist isn't actually a religion, so it shouldn't be going into the info box. Epson291 22:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

But Pantheism already a religion. I saw "religions" in Wikipedia called: Agnosticism for instance (it isn't a religion too.)--Starnold 18:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Nationality field of infobox

Although I remain skeptical of mentioning Einstein’s Jewish nationality in the first paragraph and quite opposed to mentioning his Swiss and American citizenships there, I think it might be a good thing to list his Jewish nationality in the Nationality field of the infobox. I wonder if Geeman and Epson291 would be content with that. The difference between the infobox and the first paragraph is that the infobox is a list: As such it doesn’t need to be good prose and it is easy to skip over information that one is not interested in. I am thinking of a Nationality entry like this:

Ethnic identity:

• Jewish
• German

Citizenship:

• German (1879-96, 1914-33)
• Swiss (1901-death)
• American (1940-death)

An archived poll here voted to include only citizenship in this field, but perhaps that issue might be reopened. --teb728 22:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It is possible, but I wonder if some users may object to it. (the Jewish nation being referred to as a nation (as lets say a "people"), for the reason that they might take "nation" in the most common definition of the word, (being a "country"), rather then, as the article nation or a dictionary would say, "A nation is a group of humans who are assumed to share a common identity, and to share a common language, religion, ideology, culture, and/or history. They are usually assumed to have a common origin, in the sense of ancestry, parentage or descent." So while I would be personally content with that (but still prefer it to be in the opening paragraph because as a Jew, his contributions were great to the Jewish people), but I do wonder if wikiusers would find issues with this because of confusion (or ambiguity) over the term "nation" Epson291 07:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

National labels in opening paragraph

To user, user:DAGwyn, as for your comment about people wanting to claim him as his own, I would think so, concidering his contributions, if it was say, Émile Durkheim or one of the many famous Europeans (who just happened to be Jewish), and whose being a Jew had nothing to do with their life or notability , I would definitely argue for it not to be in the opening paragrah (rather in their biography of growing up). However, Einstein is notable for his continued contributions to the Jewish people, which was a big part of what he did later in his life. The word "Jew" would give proper respect to that. I object to "German-born" being the only mention in the opening paragraph, since it is not simply that he was just "German-born" and then moved around a lot. I would not object to "German-born" or just German, if other mentions were made. (Are there any quotes to how he felt about his "Germaness" after his German citizenship was taken from him, or later in his life?) I object to it being the only mention since it disorts the picture of reality. As for the German pronounciation, a confused reader, would find out later in the article the reason for that. It is not different from a user getting confused by the singular German mention. (An American English pronounciation, should likely be included as well, since he became an English speaking naturalized American citizen for the rest of his life) Epson291 07:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Religious Quotes

Should we move the quotes to wikiquote and provide a link at the relevent point? It would help 'streamline' the article Jnb 14:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea, although it is probably worth retaining the one about a personal god vs. Spinoza's god in the main article, just so it doesn't leave the reader who doesn't follow the links completely in the dark. After all, Einstein was not really a religious leader; the only reason anybody would really care about his opinions outside his area of expertise would be to hear what the "smartest man in the world" had to say on the matter. — DAGwyn 10:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Taking out the big block quotes and replacing them with a link to other Einstein-relevant articles is one of the things I'm doing while I copy edit. Reassignment and organization of them into the other articles is NOT something I'm doing though, does anyone want to pick that up so they don't just vanish forever? ~ Otterpops 19:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I've been away from this article for a bit, but I really don't think it was a good idea to gut the religious views section. This is an important matter in the contemporary debate - Dawkins devotes a whole chapter on it in The God Delusion and we need the (carefully amassed) evidence here. FWIW I also think we need to slow down the massive number of changes esp by a single editor. NBeale 06:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion an encyclopedia article is no place for a string of miscellaneous quotes. The place for these quotes is (if anywhere) Wikiquote:Albert Einstein. --teb728 07:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Einstein article is primarily a biography of Einstein, and religion played a negligible role in his life. I think the very minimal remaining coverage of this in the current article is just about right, for this article. If it matters for some other article, the extra text (quotes etc.) should go there. — DAGwyn 03:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi DAGwyn. It is completely untrue that religion played a negligible part in his life! Even Richard Dawkins knows this! Have you read Subtle is the Lord?? "By his own definition, Einstein himself was, of coruse, a deeply relgious person." (Pais, 1982 p 319) NBeale 07:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep it as is. Its fine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.187.72.3 (talk)

"By his own definition, Einstein himself was, of coruse, a deeply relgious person." (Pais, 1982 p 319) I have a big problem with this because in fact this give a totally false impression. This is what Pais claims about Einstein ie ("deeply religious") and not what Einstein says about himself, which is the impression that the editor is trying to give. The whole religious views section is distorted and contains none of Einsteins criticisms of "believers" 68.60.68.203 17:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Photos

It seems to me that User:Epson291 is adding more photos than are needed, particularly since some of them are questionable in the fair use department. In particularly the pictures of Einstein playing the violin, with Eban, and with Ben-Gurion do not contribute significantly to the article, as required by the Wikipedia fair use policy. (In contrast a plausible fair-use rationale can be made for the use of the Time cover and the picture of the Einstein memorial, for example, in that they illustrate the mentions in the text of the Person of the Century award and the memorial.) --teb728 23:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The photographs do contribute significantly to the article, and I hope their attributions can be sorted out satisfactorily. The problem is that, as it is now, the main article is far too long. Several massive sections should be stand-alone articles with summaries and pointers in much more brief sections in the main article. — Athænara ✉ 02:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The photos seem great to me, even though some of them are in funky places. They add intriguing teaser and modifying detail that really adds to the text. I especially like the one with Einstein and the future first president of Israel in New York the year Einstein accepted the Nobel, and the one of "combatants" Einstein and Bohr sitting around together smoking with messy hair. Photos! Photos! ~ Otterpops 19:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

I've found that cleaning up the grammar, removing redundancies and reserving the in-depth descriptions and critiques of Annus Mirabilis Papers for the Annus Mirabilis Papers article (although they were very well written) has knocked about 10kb off the article.
I've only gotten to the section entitled "General Relativity" so far, no links checked, and still inconsistent about native v. English translations of organizations. I'll be back to work on it tomorrow.
~ Otterpops 18:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Still working on the General Relativity section when vandals struck and activity on article went way up. I think the east coast kiddies must have gotten home from school.

I'm combining the Middle Years and General Relativity sections into one that shows chronological continuity for the pre-Nobel years. Also helped get rid of redundancies and made a lot more sense without all the foreshadowing. Removed scientific descriptions by writers who have not yet taken freshman physics. ~ Otterpops 20:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The Middle Years + General Relativity = The Academic Einstein: General Relativity. Still needs links checked. Source citations are a bit um elementary. ~ Otterpops 20:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Prize section, not done when 1:30 p.m. activity went up - trying to assemble the events of 1921 into a coherent portrait of Einstein that year with notable statements and actions. Repercussions of same will be treated in their own later sections e.g. the Copenhagen Interpretation.~ Otterpops 21:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of priority dispute info

This paragraph replaced a post by a banned user. In relevant part he noted the removal of the link to Relativity priority dispute and the names of other scientists mentioned there. --teb728 09:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of that is well removed as non-biographical material from an overly long article. Also well removed was text defending Einstein's priority. All that is treated in Relativity priority dispute; this biography is not the place to duplicate it. I agree, however, there should be a link to Relativity priority dispute, together with the briefest mention of why it is relevant. --teb728 05:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Elaborating on the debate merely makes the bloated article even worse. I agree that (just) a link is appropriate. I would like to see even more irrelevant cruft removes, such as Einstein's early schooling, to the extent that it was not unique.

General relativity is not "just a theory of gravity", It is foremost a theory of general covariance of physical laws; gravitation then falls out from that principle as a natural consequence, rather than as an ad hoc phenomenon as it was in previous theories. — DAGwyn 16:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. Right up top, "see Relativity priority dispute". Thanks to whoever was so quick with that. ~ Otterpops 18:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Good attributions will help make these very similar relativity terms less confusing - Gallileo, Newton, Planck, etc., also show non-scientist readers why Einstein was startling and groundbreaking (not because he was famous, had a big tongue, messy hair and liked the Bhagavad Gita). I'm working on the attributions but it's slow, I have to look up each one (science is a second language for me), so I'll appreciate the efforts of the historians who can just see "Brownian motion" or "principle of relativity" and know who it came from and what century they lived in.~ Otterpops 21:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Annis Mirabilis Papers & Einstein as a PhD student

Urban legend says that Einstein was a lowly patent office drone when he wrote the A.M. Papers that eventually got him the Nobel, but putting the chronology together I'm starting to understand that he was actually a PhD student (ABD at that) when he published them in a very prestigious journal where he had published before. (This is plenty remarkable, as any ABD will tell you.)
I'm getting the impression that Einstein couldn't get TA-ships because he annoyed professors but had to keep supporting his family while he was in grad school so he got the job at the patent office while doing the PhD, it was an after-school job (also plenty remarkable). As it reads now the article implies that as soon as he published those four papers in 1905 (as if Annalin der Physic took manuscripts over the transom) he was boom granted a PhD by the University of Zurich.
Anyone have good info from one of the bios that talks about what PhD programs he applied to, when he applied to them, in what subjects, and how he ended up at Universitait Zurich? I did find a quick note in the article on his advisor that mentions Einstein quarreling with his first advisor and changing horses midstream.
Reality checking... ~ Otterpops 19:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

See the article on Einstein's doctoral advisor Alfred Kleiner. --teb728 08:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Also, the current version seems to imply that he was actually studying in 1905 rather than working on his thesis, and one might get the impression that Kleiner was responsible for the 1905 papers other than the thesis. --teb728 08:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how 1905 Swiss universities worked at the time, but to get a PhD in the US today, a person applies to (is sponsored into) a program bcz s/he is potentially a desirable member of the advisor's research team. S/he then takes classes for about three semesters but also works as an instructor (a TA) for a tiny salary plus "considerations" (tuition waiver plus health insurance, usually). When the classes are finished, the person takes a nasty series of written and oral exams called "comps" (comprehensive examinations). When the comps are passed, the person is "ABD" (All But Dissertation) and begins writing a giant torturous paper or more likely series of papers on one topic (the dissertation) including original publishable research that makes a master's thesis look like a book report. A person might be ABD for years and years, a student in perfectly good standing without taking any classes at all (they register for "thesis hours" listing their advisor as the instructor). The long dissertation is sometimes wise because that means s/he has access to university research facilities, equipment and staff with only Teaching Assistant responsibilities.
Academia is a weird world with its own jargon, I'm trying to find good ways to communicate accurately to people living in it at the same time as being clear for people who have no reason to know anything about it. I'll have another look at that wording to see if it can be put better. ~ Otterpops 22:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't read your first post carefully enough: Apparently you did see the Kleiner article but missed its explanation of why Einstein's PhD was technically from the University of Zurich. Also when you call the patent office an "after-school job," is it your impression that he commuted daily between ETH in Zurich and the patent office in Bern? I always understood that the patent office was a full-time day job and that he visited Zurich off hours as needed. --teb728 20:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Two different universities? Oh my goodness. I don't have an Einstein bio lying around, can someone who does dump some info into that section? Changing advisor (research project) is one thing but quitting a PhD program in one school to move to another school is something else. I never looked at a map to see how far Bern was from Zurich...yes, I did assume he was commuting. He wouldn't have had to show his face at the campus daily if he wasn't taking classes, but still, holy moly. My only point was that universities don't spontaneously hand people PhDs on account of smartness (oh if only they did!) ~ Otterpops 16:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Otterpops, do you really know enough about Einstein to do such extensive copyedits? He was at the patent office when he wrote the papers. It was not a minor job, it was a major preoccupation and had direct connections to his special relativity work. He was not commuting, he was an outsider to the physics community completely at that point. And the European system of education bears little resemblance, especially in 1905, to the modern US educational system. --24.147.86.187 03:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the chronology is wrong? If you want to get some solid references on date of graduation from PhD program, etc. that would be terrific. Put them in and I'll integrate (and correct my misunderstandings) when I do the reference-check sweep.
~ Otterpops 16:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

Mostly organization today, coming back to work on Dangerous Politics section more tomorrow. ~ Otterpops 22:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

I have removed "probabilistic interpretation of quantum theory" which is linked to the 'copenhagen interpretation'. I feel that this is more of a intellectual dispute rather than a major contribution - particularly in comparison with his groundbreaking "annus mirabilis" papers. The 'unified field theory' was an ambition rather than an achievement. Overall I feel that the introduction could be improved, so that users without a background in quantum physics have a smooth start. Inwind 02:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Unified field theory as an ambition unfilled is noted, you are correct. I'm clarifying that as I work through the article. What section did you remove from? Intro? I think the topic is actually covered adequately in the "Collaborations & Conflicts" section. I'm with you on the non-scientist reader needing serious consideration in this article.

~ Otterpops 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. Einstein during his last couple of decades was famously known for his work on a unified field theory, right behind relativity and e=mc², and he did construct such a thing (in several prograssive versions). While it may not have been considered a major success by most physicists, it has significant ramifications in the history of ideas and it was more important to Einstein than many of the other things mentioned in the introduction; it was the main thing he worked on for a major portion of his life, and was one of the main things he was known for by the general public, therefore it should not be downplayed in the biography. The preexisting text about UFT, and the linked main article, has already been carefully edited by an expert in the subject, and is best not changed to say something different.

As to the Copenhagen interpretation, it is important to retain it in the context of the Einstein-Bohr debates, although I agree that it isn't an achievement of the same kind as the other things listed in the introduction (including construction of a UFT), and thus isn't necessary to include in the introduction. — DAGwyn 00:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's been carefully edited by all and sundry. I'm working hard to find a way to say it that will make everyone happy. Still not there yet... ~ Otterpops 16:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

EPR Paradox section removed (sorry!)

The EPR Paradox not only has an article of its own, it's covered in-depth in the Bohr-Einstein Debates article (which links to the EPR article). EPR Paradox has virtually no meaning (let alone significance) to a person with an ordinay college education and because its importance is apparent only in the context of the debate (the intricacies of and explanations for which there is no room for in the "Albert Einstein" biography article) I had to take this newly introduced section out. I'm so sorry, please don't be hurt, your contribution was and is valuable. Could you maybe go to work on the "Bohr-Einstein Debates"? I think that one needs an educated eye.
Please understand that this article is much too large, and was becoming incomprehensible to the everyday reader. A newspaper article is written at a 6th grade reading level, and I'm attempting to edit this Albert Einstein bio to a Liberal Arts BA level.
Thanks for the offered help. Say...if you have any Einstein books laying around the house, could you check some of these "fact"-tagged dates and quotes? That would be a huge help.
~ Otterpops 20:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The reasons I added it in the first place were (a) to continue the Bohr-Einstein explanation in a more useful direction than what had previously been there, and (b) to provide a hook for the link to the main EPR article, which definitely belongs in an Einstein biography, being one of the main things his name is associated with (much more so than the refrigerator!) EPR is of considerable importance in the history of ideas, being often cited in connection with quantum entanglement, for example. A reader should not be expected to read the linked Bohr-Einstein article in order to even see a reference to EPR. Further, I dispute the notion that the article should be dumbed down to the extent of omitting references to anything requiring more than trivial thought; the main thing about Einstein was that his ideas were nontrivial. Note that the text I inserted should be intelligible enough to anybody who has a decent general English vocabulary; the linked article(s) go into greater depth. I'm putting the text back, however as a paragraph rather than a section, to help clarify the Bohr-Einstein issue and also to make a reference to EPR visible to anybody looking for it in the logical place. — DAGwyn 00:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

EPR paradox could be explained in plain language quite easily, but in any case I think it should not be overstated how much it represented Einstein's views: it was primarily written by Rosen, not Einstein, and Einstein himself later expressed discontent with the argumentation. --24.147.86.187 03:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Accidentally dropped the picture of the Einstein 5-lira note from Israel

I can't intuit how to put it back in after the section about Einstein being offered the presidency of Israel in "Dangerous Politics". I can look up how to do it, but is there anyone more on the ball than me who can just pop it back in? ~ Otterpops 21:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I frankly doubt it adds much to the article, but if you really want it, add
[[Image:Einstein paper money.jpg|thumb|right|222px|A 5 [[Israeli pound]] note from 1968 with the portrait of Einstein.]]
ahead of the paragraph you want even with the top of the image. --teb728 23:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I think it adds because it shows Einstein as a kind of founding father of a country, not just a pop hero. It's also a quick way of showing the info instead of adding in an awkward sentence about "Einstein's portrait appears on Israeli paper money between the years Y and Z". ~ Otterpops 16:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That’s my point, sort of: It shows him as a kind of founding father of Israel, but he was not any kind of founding father. Undoubtedly the Israeli government put his picture on the money because he was a pop hero who was also a Zionist (but not kind who would emigrate to Israel). Maybe the place for the image is in the “Honors” section. --teb728 21:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Good point. Do you want it gone? Or moved? I haven't gotten to the "Honors" section yet, that might work better and look more natural. ~ Otterpops 22:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

Organization, language, globalization, historical clarification for "Dangerous Politics". Have not checked links, will do tomorrow. ~ Otterpops 22:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Persisting speculation about the long running Myth

Why is it believed that when Einstein was in highschool the grading scale was suddenly reversed? I do not understand where this information comes from and why such a change would happen, neither is it noted in the article. Naturally, the scale is 1-6 with 1 being the highest at the Luitpold Gymnasium and it is to this day, so why was it reversed to begin with? And what of the quote, "The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Though this isn't proof enough, neither is merely stating that he was a good student. unsigned comment was added by 139.182.13.148 talk • contribs 02:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of anyone who believes the grading system was reversed--suddenly or otherwise; that's not what the article says. It was always one way in Germany and the other way in Switzerland. --teb728 09:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Then there it is, the Luitpold Gymnasium has always been the way described above so either it "was" reversed, or he did bad in school. Perhaps he did bad in highscool and superb in elementary school? But things are still either unclear or outright wrong. But, his diploma reads half 6's and at the Gymnasium the highest is 1.

This Page Needs Serious Editing and Additional Content

When comparing the Einstein page to the Carl Gauss page its very apparent that this needs a lot of work. There is no discussion about the subjects of his 1905 papers nor its impact on the field of physics. Nor is there any discussion about the problems that he worked on in any serious matter. All in all you dont really get a feel for why Einsten is considered to be one of the greatest physicists of all time from this write up. unsigned comment was added by Zaidkhalil (talk • contribs) 08:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The subjects of his 1905 papers are discussed in Annus Mirabilis Papers; the biography links to that sub-page. When the Gauss biography gets overly long like this one, the editors there will move details into subpages. --teb728 09:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Putting Einstein's most important work into a subpage is a ridiculous approach. I think people are losing sight of what an encyclopedia article is meant to look like; Wikipedia articles are meant to be articles, after all, not just a maze of links to subpages. To call the 1905 papers "details" shows either a painful ignorance of the subject or a willful desire to have a bad article. --24.147.86.187 00:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. If it were it would be necessary and practical to put everything on a subject on one article. The fact that Wikipedia is a web encyclopædia means on the one hand that it is easy to link to subpages, and on the other hand it is necessary to have guidelines on article size. If Annus Mirabilis Papers were folded into the main article, the result would be about 100 KB long—a very long article by Wikipedia standards. I would agree, however, that the main article should have a better summary of the 1905 papers—one that entices interested readers to look at the subpage. --teb728 09:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to express the scope of what Einstein did by attribution of the various theories - if we say he reworked "Newton's" principle instead of just "the" principle it will help show how world-changing his work was. ~ Otterpops 22:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Except you keep getting it wrong. I suggest that you leave all explanation of physics to the physicists, who evidently care more than you about the ideas involved. — DAGwyn 04:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The summary of the 1905 articles that I think should go in this article would emphasise their importance, avoiding as much as possible the details of what they say (leaving that for the subpage). That importance as I see it is: He wrote 4 papers in one year--any one of which would have made him an important physicist. The 1st paper led to his Nobel prize and revolutionized physics--leading ultimately to quantum mechanics. The SR papers also revolutionized physics--replacing Newtonian mechanics in theoretical physics. Actually writing this may be beyond what Otterpops can do; does someone else want to take a crack at it? --teb728 09:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The actual influence of Einstein's ideas/discoveries/inventions goes much deeper than that; they affected the entire framework within which theoretical physics is done. For example, special relativity is a principle, not just a theory of mechanics, and it is now so entrenched that relativistic invariance is taken for granted as a requirement when developing any fundamental physical theory, including quantum theories. (For example, Dirac's equation for the electron, which unexpectedly predicted positrons, arose from trying to meet this requirement.) Elementary particle theories these days are almost always gauge theories, the essential ideas of which hark back to unified field theory work by Weyl, Eddington, and others that probably would not have progressed as far without Einstein's involvement. Some areas of mathematics, such as fiber bundles, received more attention due to their connection with Einstein's theoretical work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DAGwyn (talk • contribs) 20:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Copy Edit

Copy edit turned into writing a section, this may duplicate linked articles but I'm out of energy and will have to check and pare it down tomorrow. Dont proofread yet, please. ~ Otterpops 21:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Desecration?

IMO the article was better without the so called “desecration” part. Maybe it should be moved to Thomas Stoltz Harvey and/or relegated to an extended footnote to a statement that some investigators found differences in the brain and others none. As it is, it is an irrelevant, lurid (and borderline POV in its criticism of Harvey) detail in an overly long article. --teb728 23:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I took a break and then came back and worked it down so that someone that follows the link to "Albert Einstein's brain" will still get an interesting story. Is an extended footnote a possibility? I hadn't considered that.

I'm not sure I like "desecration" in the section title myself, but Law says it's a big and bad no-no. People even talk to their rabbis before checking the 'organs-donor' box. I included a link-ref that leads to a thoughtful discussion of when the Law permits it (if it's done to save someone's life, the instruction to help overrides the instruction to bury a person's remains intact).

Does anyone have a text that includes discussion of Einstein's will or portions of it? We've already said that he left all his papers to The Hebrew University, and now there are the instructions about him wanting to be cremated and disagreement over whether he left portions of his body to science...

Mostly I was trying to account for all the pseudo-technical babble details ("Einstein's geo-cortical texture fissure, the region resposible for visual audio sensory theater, was found to be 15% larger than normal people's") in there - if the topic isn't addressed at all someone(s) is almost immediately going to add them back in, in all innocence, because it's interesting.

~ Otterpops 17:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If Talmudic Law on dismemberment were relevant to this article, then so would its position on cremation. --teb728 19:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Einstein was not a practicing Jew at all, I don't see how this is relevant. --24.147.86.187 00:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

'Desecration' is going to go but I haven't figured out a better way to put that yet. Any suggestions? The two reasons for that passage (after the one about his death) are to account for all the common knowledge info about how his brain differed from others, and also to include the info that yes, his brain was stolen, it wasn't just a rumor even though it sounds like one.

Your first reason is good for this article; the second is not. Saying the brain was stolen smacks of POV, and handling that angle in an NPOV way is too much for this article. Maybe the part that follows that angle could be merged in an NPOV way into the Harvey article. --teb728 09:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think "stolen" is NPOV in this case. It's not as if the brain was lying around on the sidewalk and Harvey happened upon it. If someone takes a body part from a corpse without permission and refuses to return it after being told by the family that it was against that individual's wishes then one is an organ thief. Maybe (though, doubtfully) Harvey's theft will be of some benefit to science, but describing it as something other than theivery is IMO a whitewash. Geeman 09:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What about "Albert Einstein's brain was removed from his body and preserved, but it was several decades before neuroscience progressed to a point where examination of it could provide any fruitful...etc. etc." and mention Marian Diamond by name because she was the first? In other words, get the link in there but don't touch it otherwise?
~ Otterpops 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The latest copyedits are awful

The changes of the last few days look awful, on the whole. The article no longer makes sense at all and several sections are totally gutted and have ridiculous titles. Good job, guys. Compare the most recent version with the one from six days ago. Even the table of contents looks better on the other one. I vote to restore it, no offense Otterpops but it is a mess at the moment. Headings like "The patent office job" look both unencyclopedic, unprofessional, and silly. And at the moment there is NO explanation in this article of why anyone gave a damn about his 1905 papers! Obviously we can have a whole article devoted to the details but any reasonable person would expect to be able to at least understand that these fundamentally bucked the status quo and had all sorts of startling conclusions!! And his rise to fame and prominence is covered in one sentence?!?! I also love the complete overkill on the "citation needed" — apparently every single sentence needs a citation, even ones which are their own source (i.e. the description of the London Times headline.

The article was a mess before, true enough, but now it is a disgrace and a tragedy. If it is not restored it just means that someone will have to rewrite it all in the future—it is fundamentally unacceptable and does not at all reflect any real understanding of the subject or what is important about it. Its current state is embarassing and amateurish. Again, no offense Otterpops, but I think you are in a little over your head here and I don't think it has been positive. We all have things we are good at writing about and we all have things we would bungle. --24.147.86.187 03:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive, 24.147.86.187. A big part of the problem is that this isn't a quick one-day job, so the interim versions are really ugly. I wonder if I should just put an "under construction" template at the top and leave it there. I know a lot of people love this article and have contributed to it, so maybe that will help them feel better as they watch scary change happening. Mutilations even.

In the future it will be rewritten (even as I work it's being rewritten) and that's the nature of Wikipedia. The League of Copy Editors has a >1000-article backlog, I just got lucky and pulled this one off the top of the pile ("A" for "Albert"). They're doing a recruitment drive right now - it's hard work but it's interesting, and I recommend signing up!

Citations: Every quote requires one. Paraphrase paragraphs from a source listed in the References section can get a single note at the end of the paragraph. Psychic biography is beyond the pale (i.e. we can't put "Einstein thought that rote learning was a waste of time" but we can put "Einstein wrote that rote learning was a waste of time" as long as we reference where he wrote it and when). There's more...there's a Wikipedia instruction page or two for referencing, also they teach this stuff starting in 9th grade in the U.S. - that's why you have to waste all your time on that godawful Research Paper (buck up, they used to make us do it with index cards, and we had to turn in the index cards too). All the requirements for 'verifiability' do add up to a whole bunch of "fact" marks all over the page but the object is to let the reader who thinks "Hm, that sounds fishy" follow the evidence backwards to something they find reliable. The alternative is to fill up the article with "My friend heard on the radio once that Albert Einstein used opium to enhance his thought experiments".

Keep on caring, bud. I am going to put that Under Construction sign at the top.

~ Otterpops 18:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, we'll see how good it looks after you are done. I am not convinced you know what you are doing here, I am not convinced you are actually improving it in any way. I'll be more than happy to eat my hat if it turns out that all of the problems the article currently has incurred as a result of your "editing drive" are simply "temporary" or "transitional". As for the citation needed quotes; you have 45 in the article right now. That plus its pre-existing 72 references means that an encyclopedia article should have 117 references? Rather humorous but oh well. As for referencing I am well familiar with it -- I am an academic, I know how to reference, I also know that adding footnotes does not in any way equate with actually adding accuracy or verifiability, and I know that a quantitative number of footnotes does not in any way add up to a better or more reliable article. But this is a general criticism, not one specific to your editing. It is especially ironic given the subject matter here, though; Einstein's first famous 1905 paper carried with it zero footnotes. --24.147.86.187 00:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Otterpops spits on her hand and holds it out. Deal. And when I'm done, you can leap in and give the whole thing a face-lift if you want. It's just that all the insult yelling while I'm working on it is distracting. So is the editing and counter-editing, as you can imagine!

~ Otterpops 17:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Otterpops' assessment above. I might do a bit of hacking at it myself (I don't mind stumbling through construction zones). Oh, and anonymous editor, have a bit of patience-you ought to see some of the terrible-looking drafts I've hacked at in userspace before putting them up, sometimes a major project needs some work for a bit. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 17:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Userspace...Sandbox...wait...if the whole article were copied into the sandbox, edited there and then just dropped onto...no, no, people would flip out completely, they'd lose their minds. Also I need and use the information and feedback as I go...but...hmmm...

~ Otterpops 23:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

AHA! The large number of "fact" marks is because sentences were being moved all over the place. The whole sentence, with all notes, editor's marks and references, had to travel intact. THAT's why those are all over the place. I'm cleaning some up now to let paragraphs paraphrased from biographies get a single reference (at the end of the paragraph). If anyone can remember which biographer said what, it would be terrific to put some citations onto the long strings of biographical passages and give them some credit for their research.

~ Otterpops 23:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Linking every date and year

What's the reasoning behind linking each date and year? Once the info is added to the The Timetables of History-style articles, does it need to stay linked? Curious readers can look for a year or a date in the Search: "Hmm, but what else was going on that year...was that before or after the explosion of the Hindenburg?"
~ Otterpops 06:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If the full date is given, one should link it so that it is displayed in accordance with the user's set preference. Otherwise, one should probably not link it unless it adds to the article and the reader's understanding of the topic. --ElKevbo 03:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Took down Under Construction template

The chronology is in place, also overall structure of the article - no further really alarming changes coming at you. Working through Manual of Style, standardizing and checking notes, references, and links now. Have at it.
~ Otterpops 10:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I was surprised at how little mention was made in the lead to his non-Physics writings and activities. Saying "... but also non-scientific works, ... " and then having at least one-third of the article talk about those is strange.

It used to be even worse. Really, Einstein is mainly about physics; the rest is comparatively minor. — DAGwyn 04:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

... later married Paul Winteler".

The brother of Marie?

In 1917, Einstein published an article in Physkalische Zeitschrift that proposed the possibility of stimulated emission, the physical technique that makes possible both the laser and the nuclear warhead.

Um, no problem with 'laser', but how does this relate to fission/fusion? I don't think this should be taken to be neutron emission ... ?

No, I hadn't noticed that text before but it's wrong about the connection to nuclear warheads. — DAGwyn 04:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I like how the article reads currently. It is quite 'compact'. I hope that this universe will not be subject to too much inflation. My congratulations to the editors.

That said, I appreciate SuperGirl finding and adding back the See Also section. The See Also list provides an easy review of links that people might like to pursue, without having to either click on every link as they occur, or at the end paging back through the article to find a link to click. Please see Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Shenme 03:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

you spelled traveling wrong! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.63.203.240 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I got a shock the other day to find that I was correcting the word traveling/travelling to the 'other' spelling, the one not taught in our schools! After reading Wikipedia articles, CNN, BBC, and such long enough, I've kinda lost a particular preference for either English conventionality. And that feels comfortable. :-) Shenme 04:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

General and Special Relativity texts

Writing by Einstein himself on General and Special Relativity (two articles) is available at the Gutenburg Project website, his own words. Doesn't seem like it should be just a footnote (External Link, actually) but I'm not sure of the best place to either mention it, see-also, or link it. Suggestions? This would be the best explanation of all for the physicists around here.
~ Otterpops 17:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Just the link is fine. Einstein's own writings (in German!) are not the best way to describe these subjects to somebody who isn't a contemporary (early 1900s) physicist, and after all the Wikipedia does have articles on these topics. — DAGwyn 19:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations and Copyright Violations

While cleaning up 'External Links' links, I found sources for some uncited assertions, also looks like one user was clipping sentences right out of the pages listed there. If anyone feels like learning ALL ABOUT Albert Einstein, it would be a worthy project to spend some time with those articles and then add attributions, paraphrase and/or quote marks, and citations for the information we stole from them.
~ Otterpops 19:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation system

Why are we switching from one of the 3 MOS approved citation systems to another? It seems to me that Wikipedia:Footnotes read better than Wikipedia:Harvard referencing. --teb728 23:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I chose the Harvard system because it's not necessary to make footnotes serve double duty. Additional comments by users shouldn't be "buried in a footnote" with that footnote then buried in citations (or grafted onto the ends of them). "See also: XYZ" is a terrific traditional footnote that we've taken to putting into the middle of the text because by using numbered footnotes for citations as well as Notes we've guaranteed that reader doesn't see a small superscript numeral as anything alerting.

With embedded citations the reader doesn't click to another screen just to read "ibid." and then click back to look for his or her place in the article again.

A text citation is less likely to be left behind if a sentence has to be cut and pasted at some future point.

Finally, I have a vague hope that if citing your source is as easy as writing (TEB728 2007), then people will start to do it, instead of running along as if they were writing fiction. Tolerating that invites the notorious Internet Lies, Half-Truths and Rumor-mongering.

"Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source."

- Anonymous

I had to check and correct the citations and the References section anyway so I picked the most workable citation system for an everchanging piece of hypertext.

~ Otterpops 04:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a reason to accept new Harvard citations but not for converting existing footnotes. --teb728 08:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that we shouldn't make such changes without a strong consensus. As a Cambridge (England) man I find the Harvard system a bit fussy anyway. And it also makes it very hard to understand what amendments have actually been made if the history page shows 50 or so edits which turn out to be changing ref style from one format to another. If errors creep in how can fellow-editors know? Suggest we leave well alone. NBeale 14:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As a Southern Girl (US Army) I caution you not to drink and revert - the citation style is the smallest part of what I'm doing with the references. For each one I'm link-checking, looking up author, homepage, ISBN, copyright date and publisher information (if they were missing, the majority), and listing the source in the References section if it's not there already (about half). I'm separating out User notes from the citation info and inserting them as stand-alone notes, all information and comments intact. An added bonus of the Harvard referencing is that it sticks out, so everyone can easily see the ones I've worked on, contrasted to the ones that still need verification.

If you really really love that citation style, change the citation style, but please know what you're wiping out when you wipe... Also, if you remove a reference without removing all the citations that point to it, someone's just going to have to dig it up later.

~ Otterpops 17:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Matura

6 is not the highest possible mark. It is the lowest on a scale of 1-6 commonly used in German, Austrian and Swiss grading systems, from what I learned in German class. Nesbittk 14:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the Switzerland today, but in 1896 the highest mark in Switzerland was 6. In Germany the highest mark was 1 as you say. The matura image seems to have been separated from explanatory text to that effect. --teb728 19:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Einstein's Obit, NY Times, 4/19/1955

There is available a pretty good obit on the greatest physicist of all time at the NYT... if someone with edit rights on the locked article deems to include it under External Links:

Obituary, NY Times, April 19, 1955, Dr. Albert Einstein Dies in Sleep at 76; World Mourns Loss of Great Scientist68.228.70.223 14:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity field of infobox

User:Gilisa disputes whether the "Ethnicity" field of the infobox should list Einstein's German-ness, but he seems resistant to discussing his objection here, where it belongs. So I copy his posts from my talk page together with my replies: --teb728 19:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The nazis said ,once upon the time, that only an arian or ethnic German could be a citizen of the third rich.Einstein, like many other prominent Jewish scienticts, was expelled from Germany since he wasnt an ethnic German. When you refer to him as an "ethnic" German you mean that it acctually was his historical origin-and it wasnt...In the same way, you wouldnt refer to any German citizen which is of a Turkish ancestry as an "ethnic German" I would ask you to understand that Jewishness is not only a matter of relligion , but it also an ethnic group as well -in any aspect you choose to test it :from history to biology.More, I dont understood how a man which is not of a mixed origin can be realted to 2 very different ethnic groups.Einstein state himself (nor did it matter for the facts about his true and only ethnic origin) after Hitler's rise to power:"If this is Germany,I am not a German any more"(he never came back from his words).And finally, it think that you shoyld know a litle a bout the welding of the German ethnic identity before you state that he was a German ("... The ethnogenesis of the Germanic tribes is assumed to have occurred during the Nordic Bronze Age, or at the latest, during the Pre-Roman Iron Age. From southern Scandinavia and northern Germany, the tribes began expanding south, east and west in the first century BC, coming into contact with the Celtic tribes of Gaul and Iranian, Baltic, and Slavic tribes in Eastern Europe..".-and not only you did it, you also put it over his Jewish ethnic origin. I deleted the "German" from the Albert Einstein ethnic clause -and I hope it will stay like that.--Gilisa 08:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

By Nazi ideology he was not German because he was not racially German, but their ideology is not applicable to Wikipedia. Your quote on the Bronze Age is similarly inapplicable, for his German-ness was cultural rather than racial. (I think it unfortunatate that you insist on defining people racially.)

Thank you for your Einstein quote, “If this is Germany, I am not a German any more.” It shows that except for the 15 years of Nazi rule he considered himself a German. Furthermore, combined with his undoubted Jewishness, it shows that one can be both German and Jewish. --teb728 18:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

See answers below -einstein didnt seem himself as an ethnic German but only as acultural one (and as the ethnic origin is arbitrary its not really important how he consider himself )-and any way , he didnt consider himself as acultural German after the holocaust , he never said "Im a German again". you state that your ancestors are all from europe but you are american.Well ,USA is undoubtly amulti ethnic state and you can consider yourself as "all american" might be that you are have Jewish roots (for example) and you dont know it-so i can never refer to you as a Jew because only if you know what is your ethnic roots-they mean somthing.As im against the nazis , not only that i belive that one could be a German without beeing Aryan, but also one can be a German without beeing an ethnic one.more over-there is just to much words in this page-mainly because of my long answers.--Gilisa 18:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Since when the facts are for democratic vote???? and the culture from which he was affected mean nothing for the ethnic origin which is undepented.I understand that you dont like to mention his Jewishness,but he was an ethnic Jew...--Gilisa 12:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

He was definitely an ethnic Jew. And I have always wanted to say so (except in the lead paragraph). Indeed when we added the infobox, I argued in favor of listing his “Nationality” as “German and Jewish,” but I lost in a democratic vote to those defined “nationality” to mean “citizenship.” (In those days the “Citizenship” and “Ethnicity” fields were combined as “Nationality.”) --teb728 18:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You wouldny claim that a person from the Turkish community in Germany is an ethnic german-even if he were influenced from the German culture.And if you do-its just dont true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gilisa (talk • contribs) 12:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

I don’t know much about the Turkish community in Germany. But I would certainly say that anyone so culturally assimilated as Einstein was German. The same way, I, for example, am American even though all of ancestors come ultimately from Europe. --teb728 18:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

--copied from my talk page teb728 19:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Your claims about the ethnic origin are beat about the bush.In the common sense, an ethnic origin refers to the people from which someone historclly came from.True,it involve with heritage and ancestry defintions but not with RACISEM (i.e the German nazis made alot of crimes, one was to categorize humans as deserve or not deserve to live according to their own ethnic identity which was there much before Hitler and will stay there much after him)!!!and thats the big difference.If you want to redefine the meaning of "ethnic origin"-dont do it on the back of the Jewish people.My father was from a long German Jewish ancestry ,He acctually born there -speak the language -and knew the culture-like any body who born there:Turkish,African,Russian -and etc and didnt became being an ethnic Germans he stayed an ethnic Jew-nothing else.In the case of the Jewish people which were forced to establish their communities outside their own historical homeland -its even stronger.Objectivly, refering Einstein as an ethnic German is bad for the true, bad for Wikipedia , and just a provocing act.--Gilisa 11:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you follow the Nazi definition. For them, Jewishness was not an ethnic question, but a racial one. Fully assimilated, christianized Jews, some of which were highly decorated veterans of the first world war, would be prosecuted. People with one quarter Jewish heritage, some of which were not even aware of it, were send to the death camps. Fully "Germanic" converts to Judaism, on the other hand, might be pressured to repudiate the faith, or forced to break up marriages (the most frequent reason for conversion), but they were not targeted for annihilation. Einstein was a German Jew, born into and participating in German culture probably more than in Jewish traditions. --Stephan Schulz 13:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop your demagoig claims-THE ONES WHO FOLLOW THE NAZIS ARE THUS WHICH TRY TO ELIMNATE AND TO DELETE ANY MENTION FOR EINSTEIN ETHNIC ORIGIN!!!FOLLOW THE NAZIS MEAN TO DEFIND PEOPOLE AS BAD OR GOOD FOR THEIR RACE ,TO CITE GREAT MAN LIKE EINSTEIN AS A JEW IS ON THE OPPOSITE FROM THE NAZIS. the ethnic origin have nothing to do with Hitler. according your claims:since Hitler it is forbiden to consider Jewishness as an ethnic origin-or, there is no Jewish ethnic origin....we should denay that there is such a thing as Jews and this is a different origin...I feel no guilty to cite Einstein as a Jew.Jew which convert himself is still from Jewsih ethnic origin -the problem is with the anti semic Europeans which make it to a problem-not with me , and i have no intention pay for their own crimes by changing the facts.More, i get support from many Jews all over the world - might be they are all nazis?is that what you said MR Schulz?--Gilisa 18:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I cannot make out what you are trying to say, except that you strongly disagree with me. What I am saying is that not all people in this world have a single ethnic origin, and that, in contrast to the Nazi opinion, it is possible to be both a Jew and a German at the same time, just as it is possible to be an Italian American, or a Jewish Arab, or a Swiss Italian. And if you insist on formality, it's Dr. Schulz. I'd be fine with Stephan, though. --Stephan Schulz 23:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Gilisa, Please clarify: According to you, can one be a German without being German in a racial sense? --teb728 00:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are trying to win this disscussion by asking provok , unrealted quastions then I dont have to clearfy nothing to you or to schultz-you are doing it on purpose ,but: I can be a German citizen , yes , but it doesnt change my ethnicity - only the nazis , and there followers, said that someone who want to be a german citizen and\ or to live must being an ethnic german . When people tallking about the ethnic origin they refer to the historicl nation of which someone came from.schultz-I guess you are a german-sorry to say, but the german culture for which Einstein grown to was the culture that made the holocaust...so even if the ethnic origin was based on the culture -and it is a pure lie to say so ,to put someone which is from the Jewish nation as a german is only a provocing act. More, i know much more about Jews then you peopole know (i.e im a Jewish myself , living all my life between Jews) and the very most of the Jewish peopole which , for example, came from Arab countries are strongly against the notion of "Arab Jew" (and ethnicly , from all classical communities, Jews are far more realted to the Arabs than to the germans) which came -like your deliberately missleading ,poor claims about ethnicity from left wing , post modernist thinkers (several Sephardi Jews which are clearly not represent the very most of the Mizrachi and Sephardi commuinites-and it is not only an assumption-it was drawn by mant studies) .Sure, Italian or german which immigrate to USA can be cosiderd as Americans-but their his ethnicity will stay Italian (does i really have to explain it to you? or you just delibertaly refuse to understand?) whats wrong about that...is it make him less good person?????In the same way -A Jew which immigrate from Israel to England , and his descendents from there to USA and then to Australia -are keeping only one ethnic identity constant-the Jewish one.you are raciset if you think that someone ethnic identity is being delete while he living in other country in which his ancetors didnt came from.--Gilisa 07:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Do you think one be a German without being an “Aryan” German in a racial sense? It's a simple yes or no question. --teb728 07:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC) --revised teb728 01:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It is, but I agree that it is misstated. Not even the Nazi's claimed that, especially not in the later years. The relevant question is wether one can have more than one ethnicity. And the answer is - to me - obviously yes. What if your parents are Italian and Swedish, but you grow up in France?--Stephan Schulz 07:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"..Not even the Nazi's claimed that, especially not in the later years.." really?? are you sure?? i do know about mixed origin germans (i.e half Jewish or quarter Jewish-they calld "Mishlinga (you probably know to spell it better as it is a German word ,insulting when it refer to humans , as it usually referd to mixed dogs)) that been forced to serve in the German army but was excuted by many in the end of the war.More , it was manily peopole with German mother and so their mother had to decleare that the child is not from the Jewish husband... this is a strange comparsion any way since what important is what nazis done and any way it is clearly very fer from me.--Gilisa 16:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

One can have more then one ethnic identity but it not depends on the culture in which you were grown.thats why there are such a things like "Afro American" and countless ethnic groups which live inside countries that are dominated by other ethnic groups -this is a valid fact. Best--Gilisa 18:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I now see what you mean: "Aryan" never meant what I was trying to say. But it seems to be precisely the crux of our disagreement with Gilisa that he defines ethnicity as a purely racial matter. Is that right, Gilisa? --teb728 08:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC) --revised teb728 01:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This kind of quastions you used ,calld: beeing provocative (and you allready put me a warning for saying that opinion-who can it fits with democratic discussion? and in any aspect i didnt mean to that you did it on purpose or to be personal-so why did you put me a warning??)

you used this quastion: "I don't understand. Do you think one be a German without being an “Aryan”? It's a simple yes or no question." which looks to me provokative( and i assumed good faith as i )explend here-but ,again,you choose to put me awarning insted of answer it.

The"Aryan" is aprovocative word and it takes all of my claims out of the context because it means , as it used in Nazi-Germany , that the ethnic Germans are better , not only them -but all of the north european original ethnicitis

.The nazis ignore the different history of each group (which is of a slight difference if you compared it with the historical differnce between Jews and Germans) and the differnte self definition of each group.They claim that any body who fit the racial definitions is a suprior human.

More, they made racial tests (i.e,hair texture,hair color,skin color,height ,face figurs, phsycal body structure , eyes color and etc) which send purly ethnic Germans to concentration camps (i.e they send Germans that look like they are of a Jewish or Gipsy ancestry , retierds, cripels , mental ill pepole and etc) and on the other hand took Russin and Polish childs (which according to their twisted definitions came from an inferior race in general , i.e the slavik race)and state that they are Aryans because they pass the race test with great success.

I guess that you know all of this very well ,and you also know that i never claimed that the ethnic origin make somebody to be suprior or inferior -but when you use the word "Aryan" you make me sound like that, and thats why i referd to this quastion as a potentialy provocative. (the bold is for importance and not for shuting).

So why are you still implied to a connection between my definition of ethnic origin (which is by far the most common) to a racisem??(and just for your knowledge you are doing that inevitably when you are using the word Arayn...not only that , you also strongly implies that im a racist with your second quastion: "...Perhaps the Nazis didn't claim that, but unless I misunderstand him, Gilisa does. That seems to be precisely the crux of our disagreement with him: he defines ethnicity as a purely racial matter. Is that right, Gilisa?.." and so i strongl suggest that you delete your unjustified warnings against me).

I think that if you take a minute to think about that you will find this claims/suggestions to be unfair and from a kind that shouldnt take place.

I just claim that it is highly offensive to credit the germans (and by doing that causing to discredit the Jews-wheter you want it or not) for somhting which is just not true.

for many Jews it is offensive to hear that einstein was equally ethnic geramn and ethnic Jew-while he wasnt an ethnic German at all.

Yes, i think that someone who wasnt born as a Jew will never be an ethnic one -but there are many converts to Judaism which are very much part of the Jewish peopole , and like that i think that someone who wasnt born to an ethnic german will never be a one (and it depend on the German peopole wheter they consider some one who adopt there culture as "German"-but ethnicly he is not a one).

It look to me that you make a wrong and missleading connection ,out of the context , between my claims that Einstein was an ethnic Jew and not a German one -and racisem (acctually , its on the contrary).

And so, i suggest that you refrese your quastions -since im quite the opposite of beeing racist in any aspect and this kind of quastions is sounds provoking and missleading.

Acctually,speaking with all the cards on the table , in the first time that i read them i had no intention to aswer your qaustions-but now , after i read your last comment to me on my tallk page, i assume good faith and i will answer your quastion: an ethnic Jew is a desecndent for the "sons of Israel" (בני ישראל "Bnney Israel") , i.e, the pepole which were exiled from Israel -as all the Jewish ethnic groups in there vast majority answering this definition it refers to all of them.If, for example, Einstein granfather was a German that convert to judaism -you could state that Einstein had German ethnic roots-but he wasnt...--Gilisa 18:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Now,afetr you read my revised comment-please delete any warning that you put upon me.I feel like you adopt a new method of shuting me-but there is nothing personal or uncivilzied in my comment-so,just move it and stop sending me a warning any time you dont understand or dont like something that i wrote. Best--Gilisa 07:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Gilisa, Ordinarily I don't have trouble with your English, but that last post is too much for me--even after your revision of it. I have clarified my questions. Please revise your reply in light of my revised questions. I am sorry you were offended by my using the word “Aryan.” I used it as a shorthand for “German in the pure racial sense.” I intended no value connotation. But it was insensitive of me to use it, and what's more, the word never had the meaning I intended. --teb728 01:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

Okay! I am outa here! Good luck, and many thanks to my quiet supporters (you know who you are). Please pardon the mess and disruption, and thank you all for all I've learned through the Albert Einstein ordeal. ~ Otterpops 23:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

About Einstein's ethnic identity

First, i have to appologize about my English. I have deleted the "German" from Einstein ethnic clause.TEB728 is systamticly go against it -with out giving any any good expalnation -he just dont want Einstein to be a Jew. As i allready told to Teb, and he delete my quots from his tallk page -when he run out of exuses, a Turkish which born in Germany is not an ethnic German....there is very big difference between the culture in which sombody was grown to and between his ethnic identity.According to the absurd claim of TEB i could, for example, to live in Cuba but to be considerd as an ethnic German since I was raisd upon the German culture...no body claim that Einstein was an ethnic german .Acctually ,einstein was expelld from germany since he wasn a one- in every objective sense in which you consider to test it:from history to biology...An ethnic identity is no body to decide-its forced on every human since beeing in the womb. But TAB,and God know his reasons, just keeping doing that -ignoring the facts.

You should look my claims against TEB728 ,which he deleted without answering (to my last claim HagermanBot get involved and told TEB728 that i didnt sign my last, and the less important , messege...Very good exuses....)

Now plese look at my answers and claims to TEB728 :

Dear TEB728 - - The nazis said ,once upon the time, that only an arian or ethnic German could be a citizen of the third rich.Einstein, like many other prominent Jewish scienticts, was expelled from Germany since he wasnt an ethnic German. When you refer to him as an "ethnic" German you mean that it acctually was his historical origin-and it wasnt...In the same way, you wouldnt refer to any German citizen which is of a Turkish ancestry as an "ethnic German" I would ask you to understand that Jewishness is not only a matter of relligion , but it also an ethnic group as well -in any aspect you choose to test it :from history to biology.More, I dont understood how a man which is not of a mixed origin can be realted to 2 very different ethnic groups.Einstein state himself (nor did it matter for the facts about his true and only ethnic origin) after Hitler's rise to power:"If this is Germany,I am not a German any more"(he never came back from his words).And finally, it think that you shoyld know a litle a bout the welding of the German ethnic identity before you state that he was a German ("... The ethnogenesis of the Germanic tribes is assumed to have occurred during the Nordic Bronze Age, or at the latest, during the Pre-Roman Iron Age. From southern Scandinavia and northern Germany, the tribes began expanding south, east and west in the first century BC, coming into contact with the Celtic tribes of Gaul and Iranian, Baltic, and Slavic tribes in Eastern Europe.."[2])*. and not only you did it, you also put it over his Jewish ethnic origin. I deleted the "German" from the Albert Einstein ethnic clause -and I hope it will stay like that.--Gilisa 08:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC) - - consensus??????????????????????????

- - Since when the facts are for democratic vote???? and the culture from which he was affected mean nothing for the ethnic origin which is undepented.I understand that you dont like to mention his Jewishness,but he was an ethnic Jew...--Gilisa 12:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC) -

and again - - You wouldny claim that a person from the Turkish community in Germany is an ethnic german-even if he were influenced from the German culture.And if you do-its just dont true.(THIS WAS MY LAST COMMENT TO HIM-WHICH I FORGOT TO SIGN)

• If you compare the german ethnogensis to the Jewish one- you find that they are from a very, very very, different ethnic origin-So, how can einstein considerd as an ethnic german

This is an insult to every jew and espesically to thus whos servive the holocast been done by the ethnic Germans -TEB728 is going delivertly agains the facts!!!. --Gilisa 06:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As I indicated in the deletion edit summary on my talk page, I deleted your comments there because I moved them to this talk page (two sections up). Please look there and read my thorough replies to your comments. Perhaps the crux of our disagreement is that you seem to understand ethnicity as a racial matter whereas I understand it as a cultural matter. Also, if I understood you correctly, you complained on my talk page and in an edit summary somewhere that his German-ness was listed ahead of his Jewishness. I would have no objection to reversing the order, if that would satisfy you. --teb728 08:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It is very well mentioned in the table that he was raised in Germany -and this is enough.There are several ethnic groups in Germany and allmost in any country , and the ethnic origin is invaribaly refers to the historical roots of which every Human have, you should know that, so the ethnic origin of an Arab, for example, who was raised in china -is still Arabic .So this is completly wrong to mention Einstein as an ethnic German.--Gilisa 09:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There was no need for you to apologize for your lack of fluency in English; I think we understand you well enough. You might consider apologizing, however, for your use of all CAPS; doing so is considered shouting and rude.

You might consider apologizing for apparently not trying to understand other people’s replies to your comments and replying meaningfully to them. In particular you keep saying that someone is trying to deny Einstein’s Jewishness. No one denies he was an ethnic Jew; the question is only whether culturally he was also a German. You seem to be the only one who denies his German-ness. Einstein considered himself to have been a German, for his statement that he might not be a German any more (as you quote him) clearly implies he was (at least formerly) a German. --teb728 00:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear TEB728

I never claimed that culturly he wasnt infulenced by the german culture-or even been culturle one. I Just said that he wasnt an ethnic german ,there is a big differnce between the two-i hope that you at last can agree with me on that .

Using the Caps had no intention to shut or beeing rude I just didnt rememberd this part in Wikipedia policy , and more , it was because to me it looks like you ignoring my claims.

And Einstien statmnet clearly dont implay that he was an ethnic German (this is an Objective fact even throw it is not neccery to mention it because he explicity admited his ethnic origin as beeing Jewish-and i dont remeber the exact statmnet in which he said it) but it can implay that he was culturly one (and abndoned it ,at least ,formaly)-if you want to add a clause about his culture-i have no objection...

and another thing: Einstein ones said that a Jew remain a Jew eve if he convert or dont consider himself as one.this refers to ethnic backgroud which is arbitrary.So,when he said that he "is not longer German" it mean that he never consider himself as an ethnic one...So,even he himself admit it...

• I bold the " I never" only because it is important .

--Gilisa 10:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I please urge everyone to abide by WP:AGF - it goes both ways. Please also remember WP:Bite.--Runcorn 16:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think what should really be addressed, instead of all the above ranting, is what the purpose of the "Ethnicity" field in the Infobox is supposed to be! Why is it supposed to be so important that it is one of the few items of information presented in a summary of the man? Is there any possible entry in anybody else's "Ethnicity" field other than "Jewish", or is that the only Ethnicity that wants to be called out in this medium? — DAGwyn 18:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Famous Students of Einstein

Why isn't Cornelius Lanczos included? And according to Dover Press's bio Peter G. Bergmann was one of his students, too.

So when you all are quite through generating more heat than light with discussions confusing ethnicity with nationality, please consider updating the list of his famous students (near the bottom of the article) with these students/coworkers/assistants of Einstein.

For that matter, if you want to broaden the category to famous coworkers/associates, you should include Paul Ehrenfest, too. 204.119.233.210 22:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Cornelius Lanczos did his PhD at the University of Budapest. Einstein was never there. Lanczos was an assistant to Einstein. The box would have to be broadened to co-workers to include this. In my opinion that is too much work. It would be better to just add a section to the article on notable co-workers. That is interesting in the case of Einstein...but totally boring in the case of a lesser known scientist. In the case of Peter Gabriel Bergmann, unfortunately Philipp Frank was his PhD advisor and not Einstein [3]. Just because the Dover book says he was a 'student' means nothing. I am said to be a 'student of Aristotle', if I study the works of Aristotle. This box is talking about a close PhD-advisor type relationship not some general 'student' relationship. To broaden it to that would be way too wide and it would get out of control. Schlammer 13:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur, and there is another problem with trying to fairly mention notable coworkers even in the main text: to say what they were working on, which seems like a minimum requirement, would in many cases be "too technical" for this general biography. For example Einstein and Infeld produced a wonderful result concerning Einstein's version of the unified field theory (actually, just one of its more or less similar versions), namely that true singularities in solutions to the field equations would obey particle-like geodesic laws. Try explaining that to the general public within our space constraints! — DAGwyn 21:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Eating my hat

Hi, just dropped back in to tell you guys this: I had a very distinct memory of my Physics 2010 (CU Boulder 1995) describing (and answering a student question on) the use of stimulated emmission (which produces a photon from the nucleus while the introduced photon is fully accounted for) in overcoming binding energy to initiate the chain reaction in nuclear fission. So many of you said "Huh?" that I looked up my old professor to double check. He's gone from CU Physics now, so I sent an e-mail to the two others teaching 2010 nowadays (an adjunct and an associate prof) to ask them if I remembered correctly. Only one answered, Michael Dubson, and he says nope, it's not the case. So I apologize and I bow to your objections, not because you wanted it that way but because you were right! Here's what Dubson had to say on the matter:

No, Einstein's work on stimulated emission had

no direct effect on the development of the A-bomb. Stimulated emission has nothing to do with the A-bomb chain reaction (which involved neutrons). Actually, none of Einstein's work had any *direct* bearing on the design and development of the A-bomb. Contrary to popular opinion, the formula E=mc^2 had no more influence on the design of the A-bomb than it did on the design of refrigerators. Einstein's influence is almost everywhere in modern science, but it is often indirect. Einstein's work laid the foundations for 20th century physics, which produced lasers, transistors, and A-bombs. Einstein worked on none of these things directly, but all of them can all be traced back to Einstein's work. It is as if Einstein invented bricks, concrete, and steel. Other people went on to design and build cities. Feel free to quote me. -cheerio, Mike

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Otterpops (talk • contribs) 17:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Does Anyone Know This...

What was Albert Einstein's middle name? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LILLYofTHEsouth (talk • contribs).

According to an except from the official birth register printed in Jürgen Neffe's "Einstein - Eine Biographie", he had just one given name. That is in no way unusual in Germany. --Stephan Schulz 15:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

References

One wonders about some of the huge list of "Books about Einstein". In particular, does the Hawking & Mlodinow book really talk about Einstein as such, or is it like Hawking's other books and merely contains a different interpretation of relativity theory. If the latter, then it doesn't belong in this list (although it may be appropriate for one of the technical articles). — DAGwyn 08:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

For whatever it may be worth, that book was added here. --teb728 09:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

General relativity section

The current article's "General relativity" section first of all discusses things other than general relativity, but more importantly, it doesn't seem to anywhere state that in 1915 Einstein published his theory of general relativity in essentially final form. — DAGwyn 19:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I added the missing statement the other day. — DAGwyn 05:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Accusations and Evidence of Plagiarism

I've just run into this article[4] claiming that in his Special Theory of Relativity, Einstein essentially represents work already developed by Poincare, Lorenz and others as his own; that his paper of 1905 lists no references to earlier work in which the famous formula E = mc^2 appears, nor any references to prior work at all.

If someone can verify these assertions, they may be worth incorporating into the Wikipedia article. Best regards, Duality Rules 23:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The claims of the article to which you refer and similar claims are already discussed in the Wikipedia article Relativity priority dispute. --teb728 02:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. Regards, Duality Rules 20:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In the Dover Press book on General Relativity by Torretti, "Relativity and Geometry", Torretti covers this topic in some detail. It is clear from that coverage that the accusation of plagiarism is simply not true. Rather, it fails to understand the key difference between Poincaré's theory, which could _not_ break with the notion of an absolute ether, and Einstein's, which introduced a new constant of nature (the speed of light in vacuo) and dispensed with the 19th century notion of an absolute ether.

So the nexus magazine article you cite has failed to understand this fundamental difference.

Finally, one of the interesting things about Torretti's coverage is that he speculates that such accusations of plagiarism get a lot of momentum from Poincaré's own shock at being outdone by a 'mere' patent clerk! To the end of his life, he could not get over this. 204.119.233.210 22:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Poincaré did not have any problem "getting over it" because he just didn't recognize Einstein's work as that important. For him it was a clever trick to derive the Lorentz contraction from the idea of a constant velocity of the speed of light; he didn't really consider the hypothetical ramifications of that to have a lot of concrete physical meaning. And as for the ether, Poincaré found it useful but not indispensible. Galison's book on Einstein and Poincaré is essentially about the differences between the two; he argues quite coherently that it shouldn't be seen as a modern guy versus an unmodern guy, but as two different types of modern guys with two very different agendas. --140.247.249.200 21:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Einstein's major contribution, viewed with 20/20 hindsight, was in appreciating that the form of physical laws had to be related to symmetry, space-time invariance in the case of relativity. This general principle has been exploited ever since, including at the foundations of QED and QCD. — DAGwyn 05:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The arguments above, that Einstein was completely different from Lorentz and Poincare (and incidentally Larmor), abolishing the ether, different point of view, importance of symmetry etc, is not an answer to why there are no references in the 1905 paper. By today's standards the only proper answer to that question is that Einstein did not know of those papers; if he did he know of them he should have commented on those earlier papers and show why his was different from them. If the modern system of review before publications was in place then, the referee might well have been Lorentz, the expert in the field of electrodynamics at the time, but if it were another expert, that expert would insist on a re-write to clarify what was different about the paper. So the question is "Did Einstein know the papers?" So if Torretti is really only interested in why Einstein is different and better then he has missed the point, in my opinion. Of course, this assumes anyone cares anymore, but apparently some people do care. E4mmacro 05:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The interesting point form a history of science point of view is how bad or non-existent the reviewing system for Journals must have been then. A modern journal would be very disappointed if it published a major paper which derives a set of equations which were already published eight years previously (in 1897 by Sir Joseph Larmor for the Lorentz transformations) and never refers to that work. It would want a re-write before publication, putting the work in context. E4mmacro 05:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)