Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Correct Introduction?

Please correct introduction to:

Albert Einstein (14 March 1879 – 18 April 1955) was a Jewish American (German-born) theoretical physicist.

טחינה (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

That isn't really anymore correct for the lead than the current version at which afaik other editors arrived after longer discussions. Einstein's national designation is rather complicated as he was holding several citizenships during his lifetime (German/Würtemberg, Swiss, American) and was even stateless for a while. Listing combined citizenship however is usually avoided as it ambiguous (for instance German-American might refer to an American with German ancestry or a person holding both citizenships (parallel or over time)).

Religious or ethnical designations are usually not given in the lead either, unless they are of particular importance for their work or for whatever aspect made them (primarily) encyclopedic noteworthy in the first place. As Einstein is primarily known as one of leading physicists of his time and the author of special and general relativity, that doesn't seem to be the case here, consequently his religion/ethnic is not stated in the lead.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. See the talk page archives: [1] - DVdm (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

If he wasn't Jewish, he wouldn't have to escape from Germany to USA, that would have changed all course of history. טחינה (talk) 08:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Not really, he did almost all of his important works in physics while living in Switserland and Germany: Due to his pacifist and "left" views he might have fled Nazi-Germany anyway (even without being Jewish). And the atom bomb would have been built anyway, his letter at best sped up things in the US a little. Also as pointed out above, this issue has been extensively discussed in the past already (see DVdm's link).--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should reflect the reality. He was Jewish, so this fact must be stated clearly/explicitly. Not mentioning that Albert Einstein was Jewish, is exactly as not writing that Donald Trump is an American. טחינה (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

See the archives. And see also similar remarks at Talk:Richard Feynman#He was Jewish. Please do not rewrite history - DVdm (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2018

The statement below should be removed or at least rephrased to show it is a claim and not a fact; to represent it in this manner should require a direct reference from Albert Einstein himself. Furthermore, I would argue that an outright removal is best because of the inherent ambiguous nature of the sentence. What does "knowledge gap" refer to? Does it mean that Einstein had no competency, little competency or moderate competency in Nuclear Physics? The original author should be more specific on the nature of Russi's contribution to Einstein's education in Nuclear Physics.

"Mody would occasionally fill in knowledge gaps that Einstein had in Nuclear Physics." The81flames (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done That entire passage was added by an editor who received countless warnings and advisory messages regarding the problematic content that they added to various Wikipedia articles in the time they were active. Problems with adding plagiarized text and unsubstantiated claims, including an unwillingness to curb these additions, eventually led to that editor being blocked. I think it is prudent to take the information they've added here and remove it as suspect. The idea that Mr. Russi Mody -- an accomplished and successful Indian industrialist in his own right -- lent his expertise in physics to Einstein in between tickling the ivories seems to be a claim that would warrant extra references.  spintendo  08:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2018

Fortnite gang kamryn (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

change date of birth to 1876

 Not done Nope, since that would contradict our cited sources which indicate he was born in 1879. General Ization ^Talk 19:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Is he the most intelligent person ever?

In my opinion, he may not be THE most intelligent but he may be ONE of the most intelligent people. Having an IQ of 160, he shares the same IQ as of Stephen Hawking. He has been respected and honored for the equation of E=mc2. BRAINLY456 (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

BRAINLY456, I share your admiration for Einstein, but please ask general questions at the reference desk. Talk pages are for discussion about improvements to the article, not general discussion of the article subject. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

If they did share that would be only 80 each! But I've never seem any claim that Einstein was even ONE of the most intelligent people. Many dispute the common assumption that intelligence can be measured by IQ score, let alone creative thinking. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by BRAINLY456 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2018

he is very smart 124.169.163.251 (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make to the article; please be precise. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

No One Goes it Alone

The possible contribution of Einstein's first wife to Relativity should not be ignored. Without a section on this, the article is inaccurate, out-of-date, and perhaps even biased. 69.126.10.103 (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a source explaining what specific contributions were made by his first wife? —UpdateNerd (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

At most, it appears that Einstein used Mileva Maric as a sounding-board. Trying to make more of that would be misreading the affectionate letters that have been preserved from this early period between the two, in particular the one letter where Einstein wrote, "bringing our work on relative motion to a successful conclusion!" The letters between Einstein and Maric are highly asymmetric in their topic coverage. Einstein's letters are full of his ideas about physics, while Maric's are silent about physics. Furthermore, although Maric was exceptional in her time for being a physics student (which was one of the things that attracted Einstein to her in the first place), she does not seem to have been especially talented at the subject, failing to pass her exams. The conspiracy theory first advanced by Walker Harris in the late 1980s remains nothing more than a conspiracy theory. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Mileva

The Albert Einstein page should link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mileva_Mari%C4%87 Mileva Marić Einstein. She is mentioned, and has her own page, but the link is missing.

There is a link to her both in the infobox and in the first mention of her in the text, the "Einstein's future wife, a 20-year old Serbian woman Mileva Marić". – Þjarkur (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

After graduating in 1900, Einstein spent almost two frustrating years searching for a teaching post.

Wasn't he spending this time working on his PhD?
According to another page:
Alfred_Kleiner "Einstein's controversy with Paul Drude took place in the middle of 1901. It was at this time that Einstein transitioned from Weber to Kleiner ... At that time, most dissertations in physics by ETH students were carried out under the supervision of H.F. Weber, Einstein's former teacher at the Polytechnikum, as it was then called. ... Einstein also showed Kleiner his first PhD thesis dissertation in November 1901 "
Can't find anything about this "controversy".
p.s. are all these the same place, can't it be simplified:-
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
, Swiss Federal Polytechnic in Zürich
, Zürich Polytechnic
, Polytechnikum
, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule
, ETH

Yes, they are all (sort of) the same. The institute had different names at different times as it underwent restructuring. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

There is evidence that A.E. did in fact find a job! In Schaffhausen. I discovered the following on an obscure website, but it is only in German (Google Translated) Albert Einstein in Schaffhausen 1901/02 in September 1901 came A. Einstein to Schaffhausen , for a job as a tutor at the private teaching and educational institution of Dr. Jakob Nüesch to take over. From December 1901 to the end of January 1902, he was staying in the Restaurant "Cardinal". Albert Einstein took effect on 15 September 1901 his job as a tutor in the "Teaching and Education Institute" Dr. Jakob Nüesch in Schaffhausen on. Although he was not entirely comfortable in this position already in advance, so he was glad to escape at least for some time his material needs, especially as he Dr. von Nüesch had received an annual contract. To his friend Marcel Grossmann, Einstein writes: "But now I'm in the fortunate position to be at least for one year the eternal food concern going. Because I'm ... made on 15 September at a mathematics teacher in Schaffhausen as a private teacher, where I prepare a young Englishman for the baccalaureate. You can imagine how happy I am about it, even if such a place for self-nature is not just an ideal. But I believe that this, after all, still a little time for my favorite studies remains, so I do not have to get rusty at least ... " 194.207.86.26 (talk) 10:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Managing to land temporary jobs as a teacher in Winterthur and later, for a private school in Schaffhausen wasn't his notion of what he wanted to do with his life. Perhaps "...After graduating in 1900, Einstein spent almost two frustrating years searching for a teaching post..." should be more accurately worded. I'm separated from my reference materials at the moment, so I can't make any corrections. Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity in wording! Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Query about wording

@DVdm: "Reconciled Maxwell's equations for electricity and magnetism with the laws of mechanics by introducing major changes to mechanics close to the speed of light" (my italics). Are you sure Einstein expressed it such a restricted way—without a hint that it's more generally applicable over the range of speeds? Source? Tony (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• The problem lies in the wording, which is why I edited it. It says that Einstein reconciled blah blah by introducing major changes to mechanics close to the speed of light. That's not what is meant, surely. Tony (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tony1, it depends on which changes one considers. The changes to the formulae of mechanics are of course neither major or minor. They are just changes. But the changes to the values are only major in the vicinity of the speed of light. For small speeds the changes are minor. That is what the original wording tries to convey, and your edit removed that. The original wording provided more information and was fine, so I undid the edit. - DVdm (talk) 11:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The original and reinstated wording (which is displayed just above) is completely misleading. It says that the changes to mechanics he introduced were only "close to the speed of light". Are you sure you don't mean the changes he exemplified? Do you see the problem? Tony (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

It is not the changes that are close to the speed of light. It is the the part of mechanics that is close to the speed of light: "mechanics close to the speed of light". In that part of mechanics, the changes are major indeed. I don't see a problem. - DVdm (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

There is a big problem with the wording. It doesn't express what you express here, but something very different (and untenable). Have you read my post above carefully? Tony (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Outside opinion here: now that DVdm explains it, I can see that the intent expressed is that close to the speed of light, the changes that Einstein introduced are major. But I certainly was not able to grasp that on first reading, so I agree with Tony that it needs to be expressed better. I've only read this talk page, not the changes, so I don't know if the way he expressed it is great. DVdm, since you clearly know the intent, can you just find a more clear way to express it? Dicklyon (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

 OK, done: [2]. Thanks for your comment. - DVdm (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The following can be misread:

It reconciles Maxwell's equations for electricity and magnetism with the laws of mechanics, by introducing changes to mechanics, resulting in small changes in the Newtonian limit and large changes in situations where objects are moving at speeds close to the speed of light. 

The above wording seems to be saying that the changes that Einstein introduced to mechanics resulted in changes in the definition of the "Newtonian limit". Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to hone - DVdm (talk) 11:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Fine-tuning (honing) didn't work. What made the sentence hard to fix was the entire surrounding context. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 08:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Tony1 and Dicklyon: Does my rewording work? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

PCH, to me, your recent change is good. But I'm not in the field. Tony (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

That is precisely why your input is valuable! An encyclopedia is not supposed to be a forum when show-offs get to baffle the target audience with their supposedly deep knowledge of a technical subject. This is an Albert Einstein biography, not a technical article meant to go into detail about his theories. For example, a statement saying that Minkowski understood the principle of relativity "...to be a generalization of rotational invariance from space to space-time" not only snows the typical reader, it is also misleading. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. But let's be fair, "a generalization of rotational invariance from space to space-time", is a pretty spectacularly nifty thing to contemplate, isn't it? . - DVdm (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Sure! - DVdm (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The text reads better, for sure. But it also attributed some interpretation of Einstein to his primary sources, which I'm not at all sure I agree with (that is, for example, I'm not at all sure his original papers argued that the ether theory was superfluous, even though that was an implication of it). I don't know if this came in with recent edits or was there before (the diffs are complicated!). It would be good to see secondary sources for the interpretive stuff, so I tagged for citation needed. Dicklyon (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Some of the statements that you question were carried over from previous version. Also, I had also noticed the need for additional references, but you tagged before I could fill them in. Will take care of them as soon as I am able. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 03:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised you did not tag It reconciled conflicts between Maxwell's equations (the laws of electricity and magnetism) and the laws of Newtonian mechanics by introducing changes to the laws of mechanics, but on the other hand did tag the statement about the aether being made superfluous. That was a plain, direct statement in Einstein's paper requiring no interpretation. Anyhow, I added a note with an interwiki link to Saha's translation. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 05:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I have three suggestions for minor edits:

1. In the section labeled "1933: Immigration to the US," the last sentence reads as follows: "On september 9, they take the ferry to Dover, and arrive in the US on october 17." Perhaps it should be, "On September 9, 1933 Einstein and Elsa took a ferry to Dover and ultimately arrived in the United States on October 17, 1933."

2. I personally don't think the ferry needs to be mentioned. A citation here would also be nice because specific dates are used.

3. The dating system is not consistent (e.g., earlier in this section 28 March is used, whereas the sentence I discussed in #1 uses the American format). This inconsistency is visible throughout the article and often within the same sections.

I'm new to editing Wikipedia articles. I hope this is the correct way to suggest edits; please let me know if I'm in the wrong place. ScienceJohn99 (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@ScienceJohn99: Welcome, and thank you! I edited the page. If you look at the top of this top page, it clearly says this page is originally written in American English and should remain as such unless there is broad consensus to change. In American English, months come before dates, so changing all the dates to this format is justified. Nerd271 (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nerd271 thank you for the welcome. I did see the note about using the American dating system in this article. I don’t know how many instances exist where the dates are incorrectly formatted, but I’m betting there are more than what I found on a cursory search through two subsections. My eyes automatically look for these things because I had a German advisor in graduate school. ;-) I’m happy to start correcting or you can ask someone who isn’t a newbie; just pointing it out in case it’s of interest. ScienceJohn99 (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Jancsi von Neumann?

I think someone hacked the John von Neumann link, "Jancsi" means "Johnny" in Hungarian. 80.99.216.133 (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, it was a mistake, I see it's a genuine quote. 80.99.216.133 (talk) 10:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The ChildHood of Einstein

What was it like growing up for him? What encouraged him to do devote his life to science and math?

P.S any information will be very helpful as i am doing a school project on Albert Einstein Ivan Gill (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ivan Gill: See if you can find Einstein: A Life in Science by Michael White and John Gribbin and Subtle Is the Lord by Abraham Pais in your school library. I have read them both and think they are rather good biographies. (Note that the second one is more technical.) Good luck! Nerd271 (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Category suggestion

I was wondering if it would be appropiate to add this article to Category:Thermodynamicists (EDIT: I tried to link to that category, but noted in the preview that doing so lists this talk page to said category. Oops). Prior to quantum theory and relativity, Einstein researched statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, which led to his mathematical explanation of the Brownian motion, as well as the specific heats of solids at low temperatures. --2601:701:300:4BC0:2546:B1F4:FF75:1DEF (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2019

Albert Einstein brain vs human brain 2409:4043:2019:8D0E:B1DF:61D7:B2EF:35F2 (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

That somewhat sketchy article says this: "In 1999 Sir Einstein's brain was compared with those of 35 normal brains of roughly matched age . brain height, length, weight, sizes of the corpus callosum and measurement of the frontal and temporal lobes revealed that Einstein's brain was not statistically different from the control brains. Even the brain weight (1230 gm) was not much different from that of the controls ,"clearly indicating that a large brain is not a necessary condition for exceptional intellect." Not sure we'd call him Sir Einstein? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart

Agree with Nici. And I'm unsure this article should be entering very uncertain waters—possibly even trivial territory. Also, the cited excerpt above mentions "SIR Einstein". Really? Tony (talk) 05:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Friends

Under the heading Friends Marie (and Pierre) Curie are not listed. Marie is the only person to win the nobel prize twice (once in physics and once in chemistry) She together with Pierre Curie (her husband) discovered Polonium and Radium. Marie and her two daughters went often on vacation with Albert Einstein and his youngest son.~~Herold van de Ven~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.113.118.140 (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

That autobiography does not seem to appear currently at the Marie Curie article. I'm guessing it was published originally or even only in Polish? Perhaps there is an alternative English language source? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2019

Jonastheediter (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Albert Einsteins dad was Jonas einsein

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. aboideau^talk 23:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2019

"After being stateless for more than five years, he acquired Swiss citizenship in 1901, which he kept for the rest of his life."

This sentence is not sourced, which is all right because it's in the lede, but as far as I can tell it doesn't reflect any information in the rest of the article, except the equally unsourced statement in the infobox. Elsewhere, the article clearly demonstrates that he became an American citizen at a later date. Please remove "which he kept for the rest of his life" unless you can find something that I overlooked. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

No, that's not "all right because it's in the lede". It should be sourced, regardless of where it appears. I agree it could be re-phrased. But didn't he just keep his Swiss citizenship? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, if it's sourced elsewhere, WP:LEDECITE. The problem is that it's not sourced anywhere, in fact isn't even mentioned elsewhere. I don't know if he kept his Swiss citizenship. I just guessed that becoming a US citizen meant renouncing another country's. If that's wrong, the "kept for the rest of his life" needs to be mentioned elsewhere (and sourced) so that I can believe it. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, it needs sourcing and mentioning elsewhere. I don't know whether taking US citizenship in 1901, would have necessitated relinquishing Swiss citizenship, from either country's point of view. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Until someone finds a source, could "which he kept for the rest of his life" be removed, along with the equally unsourced statement in the infobox? 208.95.51.53 (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it could be removed. But it doesn't seem a very controversial or damaging claim. So it might be better to just add a "citation needed" tag, to encourage editors to actually find a clarifying source? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Martinevans123 and 208.95.51.53 — After doing some Googling I've managed to find an article on History.com mentioning Einstein's dual citizenship. I believe it's OK to add but I want to get your opinions before I implement the change. Philroc (c) 18:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I see that the article, from history.com, says: "In 1896, he renounced his German citizenship, and remained officially stateless before becoming a Swiss citizen in 1901" which is quite close to our current article wording! I see it was originally published in October 27, 2009, although we can't see any intermediate versions. But I don't see the word "dual" anywhere in that source. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The article may not explictly state that Einstein was a dual citizen, but it still makes clear that Einstein kept his Swiss citizenship after becoming an American citizen: "Einstein, who became a U.S. citizen in 1940 but retained his Swiss citizenship..." Philroc (c) 18:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes ok. Looks good to me. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

 Source added. Philroc (c) 19:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

"Al Einstein" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Al Einstein. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 17:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Add Death section

Proposal to add section about his death, as is normally done for those who are deceased. Should include the cause, aprox time/date, location and maybe Where body is interred. Aarondevo (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

See Albert Einstein#Death - DVdm (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The story of the magnet

Please add the following information to the article. Once a relative gave a magnet to Einstein. He played continuously with it and wondered at the ability of the magnet to draw in nails and pins from a distance without being connected to them. Somebody400 (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Presumably you mean the story of his father giving the five-year-old Einstein (possibly when he was sick in bed) a magnetic compass and that this "awakened his passion for physics", with him writing later: "That experience made a deep and lasting impression on me... Something deeper had to be hidden behind things.": [3]. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The magnet was gifted by a relative. Somebody400 (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Then I don't know what you mean, sorry. You'll need to provide a source. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is the source:http://ncert.nic.in/textbook/pdf/leph105.pdf Somebody400 (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

He is best known to the general public for his mass–energy equivalence formula ... false

The article currently says, in the lead, "He is best known to the general public for his mass–energy equivalence formula E=mc^2 which has been dubbed "the world's most famous equation"" I would dispute this and I looked in the cited source and it does not say this. what it does say are things like:

"His work in relativity had made him the most famous scientist in the world."... "It wasn’t actually E=mc 2 and his other work from 1905 that first made Einstein famous. If that were all he had done, his name would have become recognized within the specialized community of theoretical physicists, but probably not otherwise known to the public... Something else happened that built on E=mc 2 but went further—and ended up making him the most famous scientist in the world." And the author then goes on to talk about relativity, i.e. the fact that E=mc^2 holds true not just in an inertial frame, but also in an accelerating frame. <-- which I would propose is also not what the general public knows about him, but that is a different claim the author is making than the one in the lead.

The source of the confusion is the title of the book, "E=mc^2 A biography of the world's most famous equation" which is not making a claim about Einstein but about the equation; and "everybody knows", authors don't generally title or create the covers for their books, the publishers do based on their ideas about marketing, so citing the book as supporting this idea is doubly false. And as a quibble, E=mc^2 could still be the most famous equation without that being what Einstein is best known for (for instance, he could be and is much more famous than the equation)

(more as an aside, what I would personally propose in case it resonates with others here, he is best known for "time is the 4th dimension" or the "speed of light is a constant" or "can't go faster than the speed of light" or "grandfather paradox", or even what he should be known for, the Brownian motion paper he wrote was the first theory confirming evidence of the existence of atoms: atomic theory.) 98.7.201.234 (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2020

Hi, my name is michael, i am from israel and i am learning about albert in school. I had to do a project about him in English leasson and I chose his connection to Judaism (which was not very strict but still he was part of the jewish kind). I was surprised to see that it does not say in the first line "german-jewish". i dont know how it works in "wikipedia english" but in hebrew we always write like this. Also, if the man who is the artist is Jewish, Muslim or Christian. I would like an answer and change it! thank you, Michael Weinreb, Raanana, Israel. 2A00:A040:188:9166:6C2D:1FC8:F33C:BED8 (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Hi Michael. As you can see, the article says this: "The Einsteins were non-observant Ashkenazi Jews, and Albert attended a Catholic elementary school in Munich, from the age of 5, for three years." So just being from a Jewish family doesn't really warrant a mention of him being "Jewish" in the first line? He didn't really rate Judaism very highly, saying: "For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Albert Einstein -- Friends

I apologize in advance if this is not the correct way to do this -- this is the first time I have ever tried to edit Wikipedia.

I just wanted to add under the Friends heading that Albert Einstein was friends with Marian Anderson -- this is documented in her Wikipedia bio. In those more racist times, no hotel in Princeton would allow Marian Anderson to stay there, so when she performed in Princeton, she always stayed with Einstein.

This is especially important because Einstein was a strong supporter of civil rights before it was fashionable (a Google search brings up a Harvard Review article that talks about this.) Although Einstein spoke many times at what we would now call HBCUs (historically Black colleges and universities) and other Black organizations and institutions, the mainline press would never cover these events because of the tenor of the times. I think it is important to have these items included in Wikipedia, which has become the primary source of information for so many people today.Rcfeinson (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2020

Mention that Einstein explained the radioactivity that made the Curies famous, followed Galileo's plan to apply maths to the universe, improved on Newton's laws, developed Faraday's ideas of unification, had the patience of Mendel, was a lot nicer than Pasteur and liked the seaside as much as Aristotle. And, not only is he the most famous scientist of all, he is arguably - also - the most brilliant. RobloxCount (talk) 09:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. This would be a wholly inappropriate addition. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2020

change 'Einstein's work gradually came to recognised as significant advancements.' to 'Einstein's work gradually came to be recognised as significant advancements.' 2.218.249.11 (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Number agreement? "Work" is singular, "advancements" is plural.Achar Sva (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed revision to sentence regarding Marić's contributions

Original sentence: There have been claims that Marić collaborated with Einstein on his 1905 papers,[33][34] known as the Annus Mirabilis papers, but historians of physics who have studied the issue find no evidence that she made any substantive contributions.

Proposed revision: Scholars debate whether Marić collaborated with Einstein on his 1905 papers, known as the Annus Mirabilis papers, with some crediting her as co-author, identifying statements by Einstein referencing “our work” in letters to Marić as confirmation, while others find no evidence that she made any substantive contributions.

The way this sentence is written is biased towards research that presents Maric’s contributions as unimportant, as I believe that, unfortunately, there is not evidence that supports either position, as every source’s author offers their own speculation on the letters between Einstein and Maric.

Source 34, Walker, Evan Harris 1989, is probably the best at highlighting the debate between physicists on the subject, as it is a letter by Walker (support) with a response by Stachel (against). The PDF linked the citation also included another letter by Walker that rebutted Stachel (citation: Walker, E.H. (1991). Mileva Marić's Relativistic Role. Physics Today. 44 (2): 22-23). It should be noted that in both these responses are letters to a publication about each scientist’s opinion and are not peer-reviewed. Source 34 should also be edited to include Stachel as an author to be consistent with Physics Today https://physicstoday.scitation.org/author/Walker%2C+Evan+Harris.

Source 33, Troemel-Ploetz 1990, and source 38, Martinez 2005, are both articles in journals, with the former being an examination of a biography of Maric in light of a biography of Einstein and the latter a review of sources for Maric’s involvement in light of a PBS documentary. These sources both take an objective view of the evidence, including posthumous sources. Both highlight the lack of evidence with Martinez commenting, “[f]aced with such ambiguities, each historian must decide whether to believe, disregard, or at least incorporate…”.

Source 37, Stachel 2002, is speculative about the factors that led to Maric not to pursue an academic career. Source 36, Holton 1996, once again speculates about Maric’s motivations and the meaning of words such as “our” in the letters.

Source 35, Paris 1994, does not appear to speak to the issue at all within the cited pages and only references Maric autobiographically and should be removed from this section.

In summary, the evidence is too vague to take a stance either way, and the article should objectively present the evidence. --Elgallow (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2020

Hello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4051:0:37FB:2049:5AC7:2560:907A (talk) 02:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2020

SAURABH PRAKASH SINGH (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

There is not a request here.--VViking_TalkEdits 13:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request 25 April 2020

(Apologies for any mistakes in formatting and such, this is my first contribution)

This is a request to fix a wrong citation and clarify a misleading statement on Einstein's citizenship. I cannot enact these changes myself due to the semi-protected nature of this article.

The second paragraph states that "Einstein was born in the German Empire but moved to Switzerland in 1895 and renounced his German citizenship in 1896", giving [5]: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1921/einstein/biographical/ as its source.

The source given does not directly mention his first renunciation of citizenship, only saying that "He became a German citizen in 1914 and remained in Berlin until 1933 when he renounced his citizenship for political reasons". The "Early Life and Education" section of this Wikipedia page clarifies his reasons for renouncing his citizenship and gives [30] as a source, which I have verified. The original source also does not mention the year 1895 at all, but source [28] does. Therefore, source [5] is wholly inadequate for this statement, and should be replaced.

The opening section is also very unclear in general about Einstein's citizenship, and gives the false impression that he had given up his German citizenship for good in 1896. While the matter of Einstein's citizenships is too complex to be fully explained in the opening summary, there should at least be a mention of his 1933 renunciation of his German citizenship, and a mention of the fact that he became a German citizen again in 1914.

I propose the following three changes:

• Replace the source for the statement in the second paragraph that "Einstein was born in the German Empire but moved to Switzerland in 1895 and renounced his German citizenship in 1896" from [5] to [28] and [30]
• Modify the phrase "In 1914, he was elected to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin, where he remained for 19 years" in the fourth paragraph to "In 1914, he was elected to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin, where he remained for 19 years, and became a German citizen".
• Modify the phrase "Because of his Jewish background, Einstein did not return to Germany" in the fifth paragraph to "Because of his Jewish background, Einstein renounced his German citizenship and did not return to Germany".

Gravensilv (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Legal Status of the Public Domain Image

The page Albert_Einstein_in_popular_culture#Licensing contradicts the legal status of enforceability of image rights in this article. Namely, that page only references the 2012 ruling, whereas the present main article claims that the ruling was subsequently made void. This is important for two reasons:

• communicate the status of Einsteins image rights accurately across articles
• clarify the implication of this material for wikipedia: in particular, do the rights extend to the main images of A.Einstein used in this article, and the Albert_Einstein_in_popular_culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkuncak (talk • contribs) 18:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2020

Change the name Jancsi von Neumann to John von Neumann. The name is incorrect in the line mentioned below.

than Jancsi von Neumann's Sainik Biswas (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as this is part of a quote. - DVdm (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, and it is a nickname of János.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2020

Could a link be added connecting the equation "E=mc2" to "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolay_Umov", "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olinto_De_Pretto"; or at least to the "others" section of "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence" at the first mention of that famous formula? It seems, it would increase historical completeness and balance; as well as, show how varying views of the same equation can alter science.

Thanks for your consideration 2601:1C0:CD00:1A15:CFA:C042:E3C7:BEDA (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. I think linking the equation to Mass–energy equivalence per se., as the article is currently doing, is the best approach. El_C 04:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

“German-born” - should be omitted, just as in Copernicus’s case

As above. LordParsifal (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Restored per wp:CONSENSUS on this talk page and its archives. - DVdm (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: see my edit summary. That is why the HTML-comment was put there. - DVdm (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Princeton University

I noticed that no mention was made of Princeton University in the list of institutional affiliations. Einstein's relationship with PU was complex. He gave lectures there. He also had an office on the campus. However, he was not actually a member of the PU faculty, and I'm not sure what to do as far as that school goes. (He was a member of the neighbouring Institute for Advanced Study, though.) See https://library.princeton.edu/special-collections/topics/einstein-albert — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 01:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

It turns out the IAS was at Fine Hall on the Princeton University campus during much of the 1930s. I guess that explains that. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 02:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

"Einstein" misspelled

"Einstein" is misspelled in the sub-point "Marriages and children" of the section "Life and career" in the third sentence of the fifth paragraph with "Einsten" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activivan (talk • contribs) 12:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

With respect, this is Wikipedia, if you can add this to a talk page, why didn't you just correct it? Stub Mandrel (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Negative Character Traits

This article glosses over his poor treatment of women and barely mentions racist attitudes. These documented negative aspects of the man should be properly covered in the interests of demonstrating that we are all, no matter how gifted, flawed individuals. Stub Mandrel (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Stub Mandrel: Yep; he was a human being, just like the rest of us (and he was subject to some discrimination in his native country, IIRC). This isn't supposed to be a forum, though. Do you have any suggestions for things to be included? Keep in mind, please, that information to be included here must have first been published by a reliable source (see WP:RS), and we never to "original research" (see WP:OR). — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 17:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Renunciation of German citizenship in 1896

In the header it says that he renounced his German citizenship in 1896, with the Nobel Foundation as the source. However, the source doesn't mention that renunciation. It does discuss acquiring German citizenship and in 1914 and a subsequent renunciation in 1933 which is later mentioned in this article with Isaacson as a source. Is there a source that specifically states the 1896 German citizenship renunciation? Procyonidae (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't included in the ref provided, but search for '1896' and you'll find this information & a ref in the body of the article. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Opinion of V. I. Lenin

A while back, an editor (SpaceLeninist, now renamed to SpaceSandwich) attempted to add the following text:

Einstein was inspired by Vladimir Lenin, as he once remarked,"I honor Lenin as a man who completely sacrificed himself and devoted all his energy to the realization of social justice. I do not consider his methods practical, but one thing is certain: men of his type are the guardians and restorers of the conscience of humanity."<ref>{{cite book |last= Feuer|first=Lewis S.|date=1989|title=Einstein and the Generations of Science|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7S_jiIbNq6cC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q&f=false|location= |publisher=[[Routledge]]|page=25|isbn=978-0878558995}}</ref><ref>Einstein: An Intimate Study of a Great Man. Dimitri Marianoff, Palma Wayne. p.96</ref><ref>"Ich verehre in Lenin einen Mann, der seine ganze Kraft unter völliger Aufopferung seiner Person für die Realisierung sozialer Gerechtigkeit eingesetzt hat. Seine Methode halte ich nicht für zweckmäßig. Aber eines ist sicher: Männer wie er sind die Hüter und Erneuerer des Gewissens der Menschheit." - [http://alberteinstein.info/vufind1/Record/EAR000014817/TOC#tabnav Einstein Archives: 34-439]</ref>

but it was reverted for source reliability. Now, a new editor, Seekallknowledge, has inserted this text (which looks nearly identical, errors and all):

Einstein was inspired by [[Vladimir Lenin]], as he once remarked,"I honor Lenin as a man who completely sacrificed himself and devoted all his energy to the realization of social justice. I do not consider his methods practical, but one thing is certain: men of his type are the guardians and restorers of the conscience of humanity."<ref>{{cite book|last=Feuer|first=Lewis S.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7S_jiIbNq6cC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q&f=false|title=Einstein and the Generations of Science|date=1989|publisher=[[Routledge]]|isbn=978-0878558995|location=|page=25}}</ref><ref>Einstein: An Intimate Study of a Great Man. Dimitri Marianoff, Palma Wayne. p.96</ref><ref>"Ich verehre in Lenin einen Mann, der seine ganze Kraft unter völliger Aufopferung seiner Person für die Realisierung sozialer Gerechtigkeit eingesetzt hat. Seine Methode halte ich nicht für zweckmäßig. Aber eines ist sicher: Männer wie er sind die Hüter und Erneuerer des Gewissens der Menschheit." - [http://alberteinstein.info/vufind1/Record/EAR000014817/TOC#tabnav Einstein Archives: 34-439]</ref>

I've reverted the insertion, for the same reasons as before. I invite him/her to come here to discuss it. (I've also asked Seekallknowledge, on his Talk page, if he's related to/affiliated with SpaceLeninist/SpaceSandwich.) — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 13:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Seekallknowledge here. I will copy and paste my response to Bubba: I am not affiliated with spacesandwich I don't know they. I simply put that edit there again because I thought it was interesting and relevant to Einstein's politics. I initially thought someone had removed it without consulting the rest of the editors, but after looking at the page's history I can see that he put this claim many times and many other editors removed it. Seekallknowledge (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Einstein really did say that about Lenin: a reliable source

On the claim that the sources cannot be trusted: if one is to search this passage on google books, you will find a lot of books citing it. Including, "Einstein on Politics: His Private Thoughts and Public Stands on Nationalism...", written by the historian David E. Rowe:

https://books.google.com.br/books?id=_X1dAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA413&dq=Einstein+on+Politics:+His+Private+Thoughts+Lenin&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjC5_G49PLrAhX7KrkGHfGwAJcQ6AEwAHoECAYQAg#v=onepage&q=Einstein%20on%20Politics%3A%20His%20Private%20Thoughts%20Lenin&f=false (it is on page 413)

It is clear Einstein really did say this. If you have any other historian claiming Einstein never said this and that David E. Rowe was wrong, then discuss it on the talk page. Otherwise, there is no reason to keep Einstein's opinon of Lenin out of the page. Seekallknowledge (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Image

@DVdm: I think the image in the infobox should be changed to this one because this image is one of the more well-known images of Einstein just like how in the article Earth, the blue marble is used because its a well known image of it. Interstellarity (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I personally prefer the current image, and I think the de-facto consensus is to keep it. Comments from others are always welcome. - DVdm (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I also prefer the current image. It shows how Einstein looked at the height of his scientific career. —teb728 t c 09:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Personal life of Albert Einstein

Would it be possible to create/suggest a link to the Wikipedia article "Jost Winteler" the professor in whose house Einstein lived whilst completing his schooling, with whose daughter Marie he was in love and with whom he maintained a friendly relationship for many years. This article has a lot of information about Einstein's life; possibly more than about Winteler himself! Thank you and best wishes,

                                    Luke.wiseman (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2020

The section, 1.9.3 Einstein and Religion, paints the beliefs of Einstein to much in the direction of atheism.

A closer inspection of his beliefs reveals that Einstein admired the beauty and symmetry of the laws of nature and his feeling that it has a higher meaning. There are many quotes by Einstein revealing this view, but perhaps his spirituality is best exemplified by the following quote from Jammer’s book:

“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man.”

REF. Max Jammer, Einstein and Religion (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 1999) 83.209.251.24 (talk) 08:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Given that the section includes the quote "I am not an atheist", I'm not convinced it goes too much in the direction of atheism. I think it's better to keep the quote you've provided in its broader context at Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Put Paragraphs in Chronological Order

From:-
In 1894,[...] then 15, [...]
Einstein always excelled at math and physics from a young age, [...] 12. [...]
At age 13, [...]
In 1895, at the age of 16 [...]
To:-
Einstein always excelled at math and physics from a young age, [...] 12. [...]
At age 13, [...]
In 1894,[...] then 15, [...]
In 1895, at the age of 16 [...]
194.207.86.26 (talk) 14:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Einstein's PhD specialty

This is not intended as an edit but as a suggestion to the article's author(s). Please include Einstein's PhD field in those areas dealing with his education. For example, PhD Physics, or Math, etc. Thank you.38.124.147.11 (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean in the info box? The title of his 1905 thesis, with a link, is provided lower down. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2021

In the Marriage and Children section there is the passage: :"I think of you in heartfelt love every spare minute and am so unhappy as only a man can be." He spoke about a "misguided love" and a "missed life" regarding his love for Marie.[51]

The name Marie is incorrect. It should be Marić as stated earlier.

Change Marie to Marić. Gaboak1227 (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Marie Winteler, Einstein's "early love", was the daughter of Jost Winteler. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Lede too long

The MoS recommends a lede section of at most 3-4 paragraphs; at present it is twice as long as it needs to be. See MOS:LEADLENGTH. There's a lot of extra padding text that can be removed. It should just be a succinct summary of the article. Praemonitus (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The last paragraph could easily be redistributed. The second and third sentences should end the first paragraph, while the first sentence should be tacked onto the previous paragraph. I'm not really sure Wigner's quotes need to be in the intro at all.

The third and fourth paragraphs could possibly be merged. The details of all the universities at which he worked seem a bit excessive. And voila, four paragraphs. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Praemonitus: I've gone ahead with my proposal. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Clarityfiend: Thank you. It's still a bit bulky for a summary, but it's an improvement. Praemonitus (talk) 06:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

For later

<ref name="zjqYe">{{cite book |title=The Recollections of Eugene P. Wigner |edition=illustrated |first1=Eugene Paul |last1=Wigner |first2=Andrew |last2=Szanton |publisher=Springer |year=2013 |isbn=978-1-4899-6313-0 |page=167 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6Hj1BwAAQBAJ}} [https://books.google.com/books?id=6Hj1BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA167#v=onepage&q={{urlencode:deeper than Jancsi von Neumann}}&f=false Search quote]</ref>

Keep for later. Currently not used. scope_creep^Talk 17:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Einstein and Jewishness

RCraig09—you are removing relevant information that is supported by at least one good quality source. Furthermore the information I added is properly placed in the article as it is in the "Early life" section after Albert Einstein's date of birth and place of birth. Your edit summary is saying "The fact that Einstein was Jewish is set forth in the ensuing paragraph". If that is the case then please remove or whittle back such material from the "ensuing paragraph".

The source I am using to support my edit is Smithsonian (magazine) and it contains the following information:

• As a target of anti-Semitism in Germany and abroad between the World Wars, the Jewish scientist was well aware of the harm that discrimination inflicts, and sought to use his platform to speak out against the mistreatment of others.

• While he never fully endorsed the Zionist cause, he spoke frequently of his Jewish identity and used his fame to help raise money for the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, making him a very public face not just of science but of Jewishness.

• "Being a Jew myself, perhaps I can understand and empathize with how black people feel as victims of discrimination".

• And he knew from his experiences as a Jewish scientist in Germany how easily that freedom could be destroyed in the name of nationalism and patriotism.

(I have added the highlighting in the above excerpts from the source that I am using in support of my edit.)

There are actually other references to his Jewishness in the source article. Therefore this is well-sourced and relevant. And it is properly placed. That he was Jewish is most appropriately stated in the "Early life" section after where and when he was born, as I have done in this edit. My single edit obviously does not constitute an entire re-writing of the article as it is only one single edit but if you feel that other adjustments need to be made such as material pared back, I hope you will work on that. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bus stop: The objection is that the content is specifically recited and expounded on in the very next paragraph. Your addition adds nothing to the article.

Further, under WP:BRD, my reversion was the second step ("R"), and your next step should have been the third step "D" of discussing on the talk page rather than reverting my reversion, to avoid WP:EDITWARs. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

RCraig09—you are referring to material "in the very next paragraph". What material are you referring to? Could you please paste it here? Bus stop (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Watchlonly—why, in this edit, do you remove that Einstein was Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

It's much better to say he was born into a Jewish family as sourced in the ensuing paragraph (the ensuing paragraph starting with "The Einsteins were non-observant Ashkenazi Jews, ..."), rather than Bus Stop's bluntly saying "he was Jewish". However, to state it either way in the first paragraph adds nothing to the article, since it'a already in the second paragraph of the section. I won't argue the issue further. Adios. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

RCraig09—of course you can write in the article that Einstein was "born into a Jewish family". I have no objection. That would be a separate and different assertion. It is not the same as "Einstein was Jewish." We are permitted to state the identities of the subjects of biographical articles if those identities are reliably sourced, which is clearly the case in this instance. What do you think it means when Einstein is quoted as saying "Being a Jew myself..." or a reliable source refers to him as "a Jewish scientist in Germany"? I am making an appropriate edit and you are inappropriately reverting reliably sourced and relevant content. Bus stop (talk) 07:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

For the third time: the material was already in the article one inch further down; I acquiesced because Watchlonly's wording makes the repeated content read more accurately in context at that point.

It is proper to delete material that is cumulative or repetitive, as I have now thrice stated here plus in my original edit comment for the article. If this were not the case, we might well write "Einstein was born to Jewish parents,^[cite] making Einstein Jewish,^[cite] so that he was a Jew,^[cite]—in effect a Jewish-born Jewish Jew.^[cite]" Sourcing isn't the issue. Au revoir. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with RCraig09, here. But if we want to add a citation, add it to the section that already discusses Einstein's Jewishness. Thanks. Attic Salt (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

You say "Sourcing isn't the issue." Sourcing is the issue, RCraig09. Sourcing is always the issue at Wikipedia. I am not objecting to you writing that he was "born into a Jewish family". You are objecting to my writing that Einstein was a Jew, despite considerable support in sources for Einstein being a Jew:

• "He had been a refugee from Germany since 1933, and had spent the past 20 years living in Princeton, New Jersey, where he was now a U.S. citizen. But he was still the most famous Jew in the world."

• "Is any name more synonymous with Jewish genius than Albert Einstein?"

• "He recoiled from Orthodox Judaism, but he felt a deep kinship with the Jewish people."

• "a revolutionary and outspoken Jewish scientist, a pacifist and an internationalist"

• "Einstein still felt held back as a Jew"

• "Einstein did not try to assimilate like other German Jews"

The above quotes are from The Jewish Daily Forward, found here. Please feel free to say in our Wikipedia article that Einstein was "born into a Jewish family". I am not objecting to that. You are objecting to a simple statement of fact, reliably sourced, and on-topic, that Einstein was Jewish. The question here concerns what you are objecting to. The subject of the biography was a Jew. That is a defining feature of his life. We are permitted to state in Wikipedia biographies that people are/were Jews. We are even permitted to do so "bluntly". Concerning Einstein—he didn't to any degree hide the fact that he was a Jew. He is not known to have ever endeavored to make less conspicuous the fact that he was Jewish. Virtually all of his statements are in the affirmative concerning his Jewish identity. This is found in many sources, not just the two cited above, one of which is Jewish-associated, but the the other of which—the Smithsonian Institution-associated source—is entirely secular. The Smithsonian is a "trust instrumentality of the United States". You refer to "Bus Stop's bluntly saying 'he was Jewish'". Of course I am bluntly saying that Einstein was Jewish. We are engaged in the writing of a realistic biography of Einstein. It can be "bluntly" stated that Einstein was Jewish. Wikipedia has that capacity. Why shouldn't we "bluntly" say that Einstein was Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Focus. Content that is cumulative or repetitive is the issue, regardless of sourcing of that content. Focus. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I recently came across The Forward, at the Stella McCartney article, being used to support a claim that her mother Linda McCartney was Jewish (and also describing Paul McCartney as "the Jewish Beatle"). Possibly not the most impartial of sources? Just sayin'. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123—what is your issue with this source? You write "not particularly notable, nor well-sourced" and you remove the wording added by another editor that "Her mother was Jewish". You don't seem to understand that this is a collaborative project. You point out that "The Forward" is a media organization for a Jewish-American audience.[4] Is that of some relevance? Bus stop (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

If you think Linda McCartney was Jewish and/or you think Paul McCartney was the Jewish Beatle, I wish you luck in adding those descriptions to the respective articles. I won't be collaborating with you, or anyone else, on those additions, thanks. If you think any "media organization for a Jewish-American audience" is going to necessarily provide you with the best source material for Einstein, well maybe you'll be lucky. They employ all sorts of authors, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

You are not explaining, Martinevans123. Why are you removing "Her mother was Jewish"? Bus stop (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I thought my edit summary was pretty clear there. Nothing to add, in fact. If you want to discuss further, I suggest the best place might be at Talk:Stella McCartney#So what?, not here. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123—do you happen to have a source that might cast doubt on Einstein being Jewish? If so, please present it here. Please tell me why you consider The Forward to be "not the most impartial of sources"? Can you present a source suggesting that Einstein might not be Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll have a look for one. I get the impression that The Forward might want to promote Jewish things. Just a guess, of course. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Jewish sources are more likely to be knowledgeable of Judaism, Martinevans123. Bus stop (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure thing. Who knows, maybe John really was a buddhist. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

You wrote "I suggest the best place might be at Talk:Stella McCartney#So what?, not here." Take your own advice and try to stay on the topic of the article ostensibly being discussed. Bus stop (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think any discussions about of the religious inclinations of Einstein or Lennon belong at Talk:Stella McCartney#So what?. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

You say in edit summary "still searching". Please ping me when you find the source that calls into question the Jewishness of the subject of this article. Bus stop (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

You're suggesting Einstein might not be Jewish, Martinevans123. Bring a source. Bus stop (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Um, no. I suggesting that source is not an impartial one. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC) p.s. I think you meant "might not have been".

I'm finding the behaviour of Bus stop to be offensive. I think he/she should stop this exchange. Attic Salt (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Now I suggest that everyone cool it. This is a slippery slope. Attic Salt (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Why is it not "impartial", Martinevans123? The Forward writes for instance "But he was still the most famous Jew in the world." You can disagree with the characterization of "most famous", but what issue are you raising about whether or not he was a Jew? Bus stop (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm. I guess they wouldn't consider this guy then? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Pardon any inadvertent offensiveness, Attic Salt, but reliable sources have been presented. Both Smithsonian (magazine) and The Forward are reliable sources. They are approximately equal in reliability. Bus stop (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

That isn't what is upsetting me. I also support reliable sources. You seem, however, to be trying to drive in a wedge, suggesting that an editor might not think Einstein was Jewish. You need to stop that. Attic Salt (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

We have a policy for what you are doing. WP:FORUM says "article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles". I'm sometimes in violation of WP:FORUM myself but I'm not interested, Martinevans123, in discussing the extraneous topics you are raising. Bus stop (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Lol. I thought we were discussing "the most famous Jew in the world"? I mean, "What have the Romans ever done for us?!" Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not interested in discussing Jesus or Lennon or McCartney or The Beatles in general. Bus stop (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh well, never mind. Rather than looking to an "American news media organization for a Jewish-American audience. Founded in 1897 as a Yiddish-language daily socialist newspaper", I was wondering what Einstein himself might have said about his religion or his ethnic heritage. You'll be interested to know he said this in 1921: "If relativity is proved right the Germans will call me a German, the Swiss will call me a Swiss citizen, and the French will call me a great scientist. If relativity is proved wrong the French will call me a Swiss, the Swiss will call me a German and the Germans will call me a Jew." Quite funny really. But then he did also say this, in 1920: "I am neither a German citizen nor do I believe in anything that can be described as a "Jewish faith." But I am a Jew and glad to belong to the Jewish people, though I do not regard it in any way as chosen." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123—you are quoting Einstein saying that he is a Jew: "But I am a Jew and glad to belong to the Jewish people, though I do not regard it in any way as chosen." (I added the bolding.) Bus stop (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Well spotted. I'd rather rely on Einstein himself than on any 2020 article, about Zionism, from The Forward. Just sayin'. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Martinevans123, and the quote that you mention, "But I am a Jew and glad to belong to the Jewish people, though I do not regard it in any way as chosen", seems to be found in several sources. Therefore I think we can proceed to assert in the article that Einstein was Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I guess so, He's already stuffed into four different "Jew Categories". But I find the existing quote in the article, from a German-language letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, dated 3 January 1954, to be slightly more enlightening:

"For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. ... I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123—I've made this edit. I welcome your feedback. Bus stop (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems OK to me. Although the previous version was also 100% true. A good source that explains what his Jewishness meant to him. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to add "what his Jewishness meant to him". But you might consider looking to Jewish sources to get the lowdown on that. This one, for instance. Bus stop (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, another good source: "He spent his last years promoting the concept of world government to prevent war and, as a result, was under scrutiny by the FBI, which had a file of 1,427 pages on him. He declared that he was not a German but “a Jew by nationality” and compared himself to Cervantes’s Don Quixote, because he resembled the great character of the novel in his tilting at windmills. ... Einstein considered his relationship with the Jewish people “my strongest human tie once I achieved complete clarity about our precarious position among the nations of the world.” The Israeli diplomat Abba Eban met with Einstein in 1955. Einstein told him that he saw the establishment of the State of Israel as one of the few political acts in his lifetime that had a moral quality." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

"He was offered a professorship in 1909 at the University of Zurich, but there were strong reservations because of his Judaism. A letter from the faculty mentioned that Einstein did not exhibit any of the usual Jewish characteristics — 'all kinds of unpleasant peculiarities of character, such as intrusiveness, impudence, and a shopkeeper’s mentality in the perception of their academic position'."[5] What is a "shopkeeper’s mentality in the perception of their academic position"? (I'm not expecting you to know the answer.) Bus stop (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I would say this is important, vis-à-vis him being a scientist: "If Einstein could not accept organized religion or believe in a personal God who intervened in history, he did consider himself religious in one sense: 'Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible, and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion' ... Clearly, study of the universe inspired in him a sense of awe and wonder." Bus stop (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Best not emphasize a position that was dismissed Alice Calaprice; Daniel J Kennefick; Robert Schulmann (27 October 2015). An Einstein Encyclopedia. Princeton University Press. pp. 235–. ISBN 978-0-691-14174-9..--Moxy 🍁 18:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

We are not "emphasiz[ing]" anything, Moxy. It is a simple statement: "Einstein was Jewish." Does that provide "emphasis" or is that a simple statement of fact? Bus stop (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

It's too much emphasis because there are the several meanings of Jewish including religion, race and culture, and Einstein emphatically did not practice the Jewish religion. He did not celebrate a bar mitzvah and he did not engage in any other religious ritual. He felt connected to the Jewish culture, and of course his genes came from Jewish lines. If we state baldly that he was Jewish, many of our readers will misinterpret that statement to think he practiced the religion as well. Binksternet (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

We go by reliable sources, Binksternet. Reliable sources support that Einstein was Jewish. I don't know why you are engaging in original research concerning for instance his alleged absence of a bar mitzvah. Not only is it original research but a bar mitzvah has nothing to do with whether a person is a Jew. Bus stop (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the attempted lecture. You might want to read Ze'ev Rosenkranz's 2011 Einstein Before Israel: Zionist Icon Or Iconoclast? which supports everything that I just said. Binksternet (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

You could just leave it to reliable sources to determine whether or not someone is a Jew, Binksternet. Can you present a source calling into question that Einstein was a Jew? How many more sources need I present supporting the assertion that Einstein was a Jew? "Albert Einstein, the greatest physicist since Isaac Newton, was a Jew. That is a simple and obvious statement, but what does it mean?" We are writing an encyclopedia article. We can say that he was Jewish. And then we can say how Judaism expresses itself in this individual's life. Bus stop (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I just did: Ze'ev Rosenkranz's 2011 Einstein Before Israel: Zionist Icon Or Iconoclast? You are wrongly applying a monolithic definition to the word Jew, which has multiple meanings. Your arguments in favor of calling Einstein a Jew are based on a blindered definition. Binksternet (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet—you are removing from the article that Einstein was a Jew with the edit summary "it's more complicated than that". Thank you for your original research such as "there are the several meanings of Jewish including religion, race and culture, and Einstein emphatically did not practice the Jewish religion". But we are far better off leaving it to reliable sources. (And also see our article Jewish secularism.) We go by reliable sources. Please present wording from a source asserting Einstein was not Jewish. I have presented several sources asserting that Einstein was Jewish including instances in which Einstein says that he is Jewish. Have you bothered to look at the entirely secular Smithsonian (magazine) source I have provided at the top of this thread? I have provided excerpts that undoubtedly support that Einstein was Jewish. Yet you are reverting the assertion that Einstein was Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Again you accuse of me of original research when I plainly and explicitly said that I was summarizing the book by Rosenkranz. I'm not at all convinced by your argument which balances creakily on a one-legged view of the concept of Jewishness, in contradiction to every source describing Jewishness as multi-faceted: Religion, culture and ethnicity are the three elements. Einstein was two of those three, not all three. Binksternet (talk)

Binksternet—provide excerpts from sources just as I have done. Please provide a source asserting Einstein was not Jewish. We are concerned with what Einstein says about himself and what others say about Einstein. For instance in the entirely secular Smithsonian magazine, Einstein is quoted as saying, "Being a Jew myself, perhaps I can understand and empathize with how black people feel as victims of discrimination". And the Smithsonian magazine also says about Einstein: "the Jewish scientist was well aware of ... spoke frequently of his Jewish identity ... a Jewish scientist in Germany". These are found here and they provide complete support for the inclusion in our article of a simple assertion that Einstein was Jewish. Honestly, I do not know what you are objecting to. But the burden is clearly upon you to provide the sources that contradict the many good quality sources supporting the generally acceoted fact that Einstein was Jewish. Please provide such sources. I want to examine actual wording. You cannot blithely tell me you are "summarizing the book by Rosenkranz". I'd like to see the actual wording for myself. Please provide excerpts from any reliable sources asserting Einstein was not Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

You are setting up a black-and-white test for a question that must be answered in three shades of gray. It's a complex issue but you are ignoring the complexity and making a simplistic demand. I am not going to empower your irrelevant test by engaging in it. Suffice to say that Ze'ev Rosenkranz supports every assertion that Einstein identified with Jewish culture and Jewish people, and that Einstein never practiced the Jewish religion. A not-very-controversial conclusion, since other authors largely agree. Rosenkranz is straight down the middle in his analysis—mainstream. Binksternet (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet. And with the multitude of references to his religion in the article, including what Abba Eban said, it's a clear case of useless redundancy. --Light show (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet—you need support in sources that Einstein was not Jewish. Does Ze'ev Rosenkranz make the claim that Einstein was not Jewish? I doubt it. But if you feel there is wording in a source, such as by Ze'ev Rosenkranz, that Einstein was not Jewish, will you be so kind as to present that wording here? A cut-an-pasted excerpt would be nice. A link would be nice. You know, the way I have done above. Bus stop (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Bus stop, did somebody here claim that "Einstein was not Jewish"? Again, your campaign, here, is outright offensive. Attic Salt (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Attic Salt—let's take this edit, by me. It is not original research because an adequate source has been provided, which brings up the question—why was it reverted? I don't want to get into the weeds about the "three shades of gray" of Judaism according to my fellow editor Binksternet. It is just a simple question that I think calls for an answer. Why was it reverted? The response should involve sources because that's what Wikipedia is about, basically. We make assertions that are relevant to topics that are indicated by titles of articles as well as the ledes of articles. Those assertions have to be accompanied by adequate sources. This is being removed despite the fact that it is reliably sourced. Do you see the problem or am I just spinning my wheels? Bus stop (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, Attic Salt, Binksternet is writing "You are setting up a black-and-white test for a question that must be answered in three shades of gray." We need sources for all assertions in Wikipedia articles. Where are Binksternet's sources supporting that Einstein is either two-thirds Jewish or one-third Jewish? Sources have been provided by me, in spades, that Einstein was Jewish. Where are the presumed-to-exist sources asserting that Einstein is either not Jewish or only fractionally Jewish? There is the concept of half-Jew but we do not have a source asserting that Einstein was "half-Jewish". We have not seen any source whatsoever asserting that Einstein was fractionally Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

And by suggesting such things, Bus stop, you cross into indecency. Please stop. Attic Salt (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

"- They all have these horns? - No, this is the Russian Jew. The German Jew has these stripes.". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet is saying "He did not celebrate a bar mitzvah and he did not engage in any other religious ritual". What bearing does this have on whether he (Einstein) is a Jew or not? Binksternet is removing from the Einstein article that Einstein was Jewish. Binksternet is making the assertion that "Einstein was two of those three, not all three". Fine, but Binksternet has to present a source. Where is the presumed-to-exist wording in a reliable source supporting that "Einstein was two of those three, not all three"? Quote an excerpt from Ze'ev Rosenkranz supporting your assertion, Binksternet. There are a dozen excerpts above that I have compiled from several reliable sources supporting that Einstein was Jewish. Please expend the effort, Binksternet, to similarly provide excerpts from sources. Bus stop (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you questioning whether Einstein was not religiously observant? Page 12 of Rosenkranz quotes Einstein himself saying that his religious phase came to "an abrupt end at the age of twelve." He was assigned a tutor for his bar mitzvah, his non-observant parents retaining that vestige of tradition, and he studied partially for the ritual, but did not complete it. Page 20 has the explicit statement about having no bar mitzvah, the beginning of Einstein's "striking turn from religion to science". There are lots of quotes from Einstein about his dismissal of religion caused by his embrace of science in his youth. Rosenkranz includes a long one on pages 19–20, and these sorts of quotes can be found in many other biographies of Einstein. Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet—would it satisfy you if, instead of the article saying "Einstein was Jewish", as I have edited into the article in this edit, and which you reverted in this edit, if we turned it into "Einstein was a nonobservant Jew"? Would you be satisfied with that wording? Bus stop (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Your suggested wording is an accurate statement but it is also graceless composition. The fact can be worked into the article more elegantly than one bleak sentence. Binksternet (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet—what is "graceless" about "Einstein was a nonobservant Jew"? Bus stop (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I hope this is found to be acceptable to all. Bus stop (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm. Those baby Jews... they're so unobservant!? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't know it could be even more graceless. I was wrong. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet—we go by reliable sources. Einstein was Jewish. Not because I say so. But because Smithsonian (magazine) supports that Einstein was Jewish. All sources support that Einstein was Jewish. No source supports that Einstein was not Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Have you noticed you are the only one here views Jewishness as a 1-bit datum? That someone is either a Jew or not a Jew? It's more complicated than that, which is why everybody keeps saying no to your questions and proposals. Give it a rest. Binksternet (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

"I won Jewish comedian of the year, my mum was judging, then again, she always does." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Please try to understand, Binksternet, that we are only going by reliable sources. This source for instance supports that Einstein was a Jew. It is the prestigious Smithsonian (magazine). Bus stop (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The more you repeat your tired argument, the less I consider it valid. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet—what does your mention of "1-bit datum" have to do with this discussion? We compile material which has been vetted for support in sources into articles. You are overthinking this. Bus stop (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Attic Salt—why are you reverting 5 seconds after I make an edit? Isn't this a collaborative project and don't you believe in using this Talk page? Bus stop (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Light show—sources are what matter, not original research. Please present sources on this Talk page, just as I have done above. Bus stop (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

A statement like It is borne out by all of the sources I've examined that Einstein was Jewish is OR IMO. --Light show (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Light show—does a reliable source support the assertion in this edit? You are quibbling with my edit summary. Bus stop (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Right now I'm more concerned about whether the Pope is Catholic, since nowhere in his article does it clearly say he is.--Light show (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

If only Albert had accepted the offer of President of Israel? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

That is the reader's problem. Unlike being Muslim or Christian, being Jewish does not require religious practice or belief. Knoterification (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Oy vey. It's pretty clear the article does not deny Einstein's Jewishness, in fact, it goes into great detail about it, from Zionist causes, to leaving Europe because of it, to being offered presidency of Israel, to "the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong"... That detail is sufficient, that we don't have say "Einstein was Jewish", because Who is a Jew? is a sufficiently complex question that we have a rather long article about it. If this were a fifty word stub, yes, those should be three of those words; as it is, though, we have plenty of space to go into details and nuances, as we do, and we don't need to put in those possibly misleading words. Possibly more important, Bus stop seems to be completely not listening to what multiple editors are saying. --GRuban (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that very accurate summary, GRuban. I wholly agree with you. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

... waiting for three days to elapse, this 2004 article from Snopes made interesting reading. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Number of Papers in 1905 is in error

Under the section First Scientific Papers is the statement: Also in 1905, which has been called Einstein's annus mirabilis (amazing year), he published four groundbreaking papers, on the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, special relativity, and the equivalence of mass and energy, which were to bring him to the notice of the academic world, at the age of 26.

It was not four papers but three: The paper on Relativity contains the derivation of the equivalence of mass and energy, as a footnote within the paper. It was not in a separate paper as this section states. 2600:1700:7890:5A40:E5D4:FE28:5E1E:581C (talk) 06:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Annus Mirabilis papers says four. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

"universally acknowledged to be one of the two greatest physicists of all time, the other being Isaac Newton."

What is this nonsense statement? How can you assert anything to be "universally acknowledged"? And what is the basis that Newton and Einstein are the "two greatest"?

The statement should be changed to:

"widely recognized as one of the (greatest/most influential) physicists of all time."

VectorizeEverything (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I made the change. Attic Salt (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I wrote that. Universally, or maybe just planetarily:

• Einstein, then Newton, according to a poll by Physics World
• Einstein, followed by Newton, according to a poll of "100 of today's leading physicists" (BBC)

Show me anything that indicates otherwise. You won't find it. Who else is in the running? Maxwell is a distant third. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

It can't be objectively determined. But, perhaps you can see that the summary of who Einstein was is more effective without all those superlatives. Attic Salt (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps then you'd also like to delete the rankings in Isaac Newton#Fame? As Jane Austen would say, "it is a truth universally acknowledged" by fellow physicists. Objectivity is irrelevant. There are lots of legitimate rankings in Wikipedia based on expert opinions. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

There are two people who have kicked over the physics apple cart. Others have replaced an axle, patched a sideboard, added a lamp, but only two have knocked it to pieces. They're on a different level.

At the very least, "widely" is a woeful understatement. Is there some corner of Lower Slobbovia where this is contested? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

There is absolutely no doubt that Einstein was an incredibly significant scientist, but it's simply nonsensical to claim anything to be "universally accepted".

Okay, maybe not universally. In the People's Paradise on Earth and Diet Clinic (Lose 25 kg in a year, or your money back!), there's another number one (or un). Clarityfiend (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Additionally. what makes Newton comparable to Einstein? If anything, Einstein's accomplishments dwarf Newtons in both originality, complexity, and impact.

Regardless of who's the best or whatever, the point still stands that nothing can be "universally accepted" and thus the statement must be removed. VectorizeEverything (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, and based on how they changed the world, I have Newton ahead of Einstein but, hey, who am I to say that because it is nothing but an unqualified personal opinion. To claim, without very strong evidence, "universally acknowleged to be the two greatest physicists" is certainly not encyclopedic language. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Weren't these two guys in two different universes anyway? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we should not use "universally accepted". There actually exist people out there who still think relativity is a fraud, and while they may well be considered cranks, they probably do not consider Einstein one of the two greatest—and if even one person disagrees and even for bad reasons, it is not "universally", as that would denote worldwide unanimity. I see no issue with "widely considered"; that's certainly well supported. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I guess that will have to do, seeing as this page is also part of the universe. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Resolved

Adding Doctoral dissertation in 1905 – Annus Mirabilis papers section

Request to add Doctoral dissertation - "A new determination of molecular dimensions" as it was also completed in the year 1905 by Albert Einstein. Even in the biography written by Walter Isaacson, the title of the section is ′Doctoral Dissertation on the Size of Molecules, April 1905′, and there is a line which says - ′...he was working on, titled “A New Determination of Molecular Dimensions,” which he completed on April 30 and submitted to the University of Zurich in July...′, which is referenced from ′Completed Apr. 30, 1905, submitted to the University of Zurich on July 20, 1905, submitted to Annalen der Physik in revised form on Aug. 19, 1905, and published by Annalen der Physik Jan.1906. See Norton 2006c and www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Einstein_stat_1905/′. I think the Doctoral Dissertation should be mentioned in the Annus Mirabilis Wikipedia article as well as Albert Einstein's Wikipedia Article.

The same thing has been also been discussed in the Talk page of Annus Mirabilis Wikipedia Page. And it seems a consensus was also reached to add the doctoral dissertation in 1905 Papers. (Rakaar (talk) 06:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC))

A resource from the Princeton site - https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/206 also suggests that the paper was completed on 30 April 1905 and submitted on 20 July (Rakaar (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2021

Albert Einstien was considered "The first human genius to ever exist" KateyRhoades (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

By whom? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2021

Change:

Albert Einstein (/ˈaɪnstaɪn/ EYEN-styne;[4] German: [ˈalbɛʁt ˈʔaɪnʃtaɪn] (About this soundlisten); 14 March 1879 – 18 April 1955) was a German-born theoretical physicist,[5] widely acknowledged to be one of the greatest physicists of all time.

To:

Albert Einstein (/ˈaɪnstaɪn/ EYEN-styne;[4] German: [ˈalbɛʁt ˈʔaɪnʃtaɪn] (About this soundlisten); 14 March 1879 – 18 April 1955) was a German-born, jewish theoretical physicist,[5] widely acknowledged to be one of the greatest physicists of all time. 46.117.17.151 (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Unnecessary Jew-tagging. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Wrong internal link, edit request on 08 June 2021

The link to the son Eduard is wrong, where it says: 'Their son Eduard was born in Zürich in July 1910' This is the correct link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_family#Eduard_%22Tete%22_Einstein_(Albert's_second_son) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilceltico (talk • contribs) 07:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.

 Done, at least for now, until they change the header over there again : [6]. DVdm (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Improve explanation for Einstein not returning to Germany

In the Introduction, the explanation for why Dr. Einstein did not return to Germany seems to trivialize the developing crisis there as well as Einstein's own views: "In 1933, while Einstein was visiting the United States, Adolf Hitler came to power. Einstein did not return to Germany because he objected to the policies of the newly elected Nazi-led government.[16]"

This is underscored by section "1933: Emigration to the US" in this same article, which points out not just Einstein's concerns about the Nazi government's policies, but also Gestapo searches of his cottage, attacks on his Jewish colleagues, and escalating brutality against Jewish people and intellectual thought.

Suggest changing to, for example, "In 1933, while Einstein was visiting the United States, Adolf Hitler came to power. Einstein did not return to Germany because of his concerns about the brutal autocratic tendencies, antisemitism, and anti-intellectualism of the new Nazi-led government."

Recommend that someone examine this suggested change who is closely familiar with the timeline of events during 1933 — including when Einstein was in the USA, as well as a visit to Europe that prompted him to relinquish his German passport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.209.96 (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2021

Albert Einstein is a German-American. 2409:4073:4E97:19D7:99B6:C2B9:21D3:7FEE (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.   melecie   t 05:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Abortion?

"As World War I broke out that year, the plan for Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics was aborted. The institute was established on 1 October 1917 ..." Aborted, then "born" three years later??? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Influences

The 'Influences' section of these biographies is always a joke. Burraron (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

If you want things to change, you might want to provide some constructive criticism. intforce (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Actual pronunciation needed

In the first line of the first paragraph, Northern German pronunciation is given. Einstein's own version came from much further South.

It seems that he did not use a back "r". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:4e9f:d101:4453:1cf8:c8a5:1d74 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2021

103.120.69.162 (talk) 08:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

i90uiokonklnkjnjnclde justine

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 08:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Wrong information concerning Certificate

It is necessary to correct the English name of Einstein's school certificate "Maturazeugnis" from Germany. The English equivalent is not "Matriculation" but High School Diploma. 178.165.180.102 (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you.

I've corrected "Matriculation" to "Matura", which is what it is in the article text.

Nihil novi (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Nature "does not play dice"

Einstein didn't say "nature does not play dice". He said "God does not play dice" and there's no reason to purge his religious conviction from the quote by replacing "God" with "nature" and starting the quote at the second word Pianomanty (talk) 04:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Here's the current source. He was writing, in German, to Max Born: "Einstein does not use the word ‘God’ (Gott) here, but ‘the Old One’ (Der Alte). This signifies a “personification of nature”, notes physicist and Nobel laureate Leon Lederman (author of The God Particle, 1993)." I'm sure this has been discussed here before. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Lederman's work on the muon neutrino does not entitle him to tell us what Einstein really meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4E9F:D101:7411:453A:60CB:9E12 (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It might be better to spell out exactly what Einstein wrote, rather than to tell the reader "what he really meant"? The current article text doesn't rely on "Lederman's work on the muon neutrino". Nor should it. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

See https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_w%C3%BCrfelt_nicht . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4E9F:D101:3093:BB4A:6228:1C4D (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that Lederman's opinion is relevant. On the contrary, I think it is abundantly clear that the relevant literature translates "Der Alte" as "God":

Google	Scholar hits
Einstein "God does not play dice"	4160
Einstein "Nature does not play dice"	21

Following the literature, I think we can safely keep Einstein's "God" in the translated quote. - DVdm (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

A few minor notes: 1) the words inside quotes are just "does not play dice", not the word in dispute; 2) this appears in the lead section but nowhere else in the article; 3) it does not appear in the de:Albert Einstein article. I'd suggest use of a footnote with the actual German words he used. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

No problem, and I'm perfectly happy with the current state of affairs with nature outside of the quotes. If/when we put something inside the quotes, then it should probably be "God", much rather than "Nature" - DVdm (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

This article's "Religious and philosophical views" section quotes Einstein: "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

This strongly suggests that Einstein was indeed using "Der Alte" as a culturally-conditioned personification of nature, whether the expression be rendered into English as "the Old One", "the Old Man" (as German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer was referred to), "God", or "Nature".

If, as seems to be the case, Einstein did not choose to call himself an "atheist", it may have been due to reasons (such as absence of a compelling need to stir unnecessary controversy) other than belief in a deity.

It may also have been – as seems to be the case, from the above quotation, "The word God is for me nothing more than..." – due to an application of Occam's razor, which counsels the eschewing of concepts not based in a demonstrable reality.

Nihil novi (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Can we avoid using the quote as a straight statement? It has been variously interpreted, for instance by Andrew Robinson in Nature three years ago,[7] then again in his 2019 book, Einstein on the Run, which has a full chapter discussing Einstein's beliefs about uncertainty and random chance in nature, titled "God Does Not Play Dice with the Universe". In both works, the quote is considered to be about how nature works, not about the actions of a deity figure. The same assessment is given by Max Jammer in the 2000 paper "Einstein and Religion". It's safe to say that Einstein was not attributing a deity-based universe when delivering the quote. Binksternet (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the idea of adding a note with the original German and the various interpretations would be effective. This is usually what I find the most helpful when there is a statement translated from another language. Captain Cookie 20:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainCookie (talk • contribs)

Socialist

Yeah, Einstein was a pinko. The label Socialist has been applied wantonly to everything from Communism to Social Democracy, and even Barack Obama got smeared as Socialist. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. As I have asked previously, where does the article say, with support from WP:RS sources that he was "a socialist"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: These categories have been removed a while ago (apparently without raising the same kind of ideological objections as others), so the issue should be resolved. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

/* Einstein's influences */ new section

Hello,

I am a scholar who is currently studying Dostoevsky. Einstein's list of influences should include the russian author Fyodor Dostoevsky

I point you to this article, which cites a quotation from Einstein that he "learned more from Dostoevsky than any scientific thinker, even Gauss" (who it seems, should also be on the list).

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015052600536&view=1up&seq=113&skin=2021

I am studying Dostoevsky's nonlinearity and his portrayal of time as an illusion which "divorces the human mind from reality".

He should certainly be listed as one of Einstein's influences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.s.puckett (talk • contribs) 15:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

We currently list Arthur Schopenhauer, Bernhard Riemann, Hendrik Lorentz, Michele Besso, Moritz Schlick, Thomas Young and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz as influences. Shouldn't there be some evidence for these? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Fwiw, the articles on these subjects support the claim that they influenced Einstein. The article Fyodor Dostoevsky just says that Einstein admired Dostoevsky. It does not suggest that he was influenced by him. - DVdm (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. So perhaps they have some citations? We know that WP in not WP:RS. If Einstein's admiration of Dostoevsky was notable, I guess it could be added to the article main body somewhere, but again with some source(s). Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Re. "non-defining categories"

@BD2412 and Clarityfiend: See WP:NONDEF, in particular:

• a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject.
• if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining;

In addition, WP:OCEGRS also probably applies to a fair few of these. Detailed table below (something being "long-standing" does not give it any special privilege if it is factually wrong or if the LOCALCONSENSUS falls afoul of well established principles):

Removed categories

Factual errors	Not mentioned or otherwise supported by article text	Mentioned, but clearly not defining	Non-notable ethnicity and X intersections not already covered elsewhere
Category:Activists from New Jersey Category:People from Princeton, New Jersey (Einstein is "from" neither of these places)Resolved	Category:Charles University faculty (unsourced in infobox, no further comments elsewhere, not the location of any of his major works) Category:Corresponding Members of the Russian Academy of Sciences (1917–1925) (no mention; do not confuse with "Prussian"...) Category:Determinists ("He was skeptical that the randomness of quantum mechanics was fundamental rather than the result of determinism," is at best a passing mention, and would still not make this defining...) Category:Foreign associates of the National Academy of Sciences Category:Members of the United States National Academy of Sciences (no source provided to support either of these, the only mention in the article is "he accompanied representatives of the National Academy of Sciences", which does not imply that either) Category:Foreign Fellows of the Indian National Science Academy Category:Foreign Members of the Royal Society Category:Honorary Members of the USSR Academy of Sciences Category:Institute for Advanced Study faculty Category:Leiden University faculty Category:Members of the American Philosophical Society Category:Members of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences Category:Members of the Lincean Academy (all of these not mentioned beyond categories) Category:Recipients of the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society Category:Recipients of the Pour le Mérite (civil class) (neither of these awards is defining, but more importantly, no source is provided to support this anyway, nor are they mentioned in the prose of the article)	Category:American agnostics Category:German agnostics Category:Jewish agnostics (Einstein's self-described agnosticism gets mentioned in passing in one sentence far in the body of the article... He's otherwise not notable for his religious or philosophical thoughts. In addition, this, and the other ones based on the intersection of ethnicity and some other fact, are a clear example of WP:OCEGRS, as previously mentioned) Category:American anti-capitalists Category:German anti-capitalists Category:American socialists Category:European democratic socialists Category:German socialists Category:Jewish socialists (the sum total of coverage about this is "Later in his life, Einstein's political view was in favor of socialism and critical of capitalism". Not nearly enough for this to be a defining characteristic if it is only mentioned in passing) Resolved Category:American humanists Category:German humanists (the sole mention of this is "Einstein was primarily affiliated with non-religious humanist and Ethical Culture groups in both the UK and US.", which does not even claim Einstein was a humanist, merely associated with such groups) Category:American pacifists Category:American Zionists (Einstein was not a prominent member of these movements, nor is Einstein particularly well-known [i.e. "defining"] for either of these two things. He's known for the theory of relativity...) Category:ETH Zurich faculty (he thaught there for a grand total of two years... not something he is widely known for...) Category:ETH Zurich alumni Category:20th-century Swiss inventors(never heard of Einstein being called an "inventor". Clearly not defining.) Category:Members of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (ok, this one is sourced, unlike most of the other "members of X", but it is not any more "defining") Category:Pantheists Category:Spinozists (having "sympathy for" something does not make one be something, nor are these defining characteristics: is this really something that most would readily associate with Einstein? Again, none of this is significant enough to be mentioned in the lead, so it clearly is not "defining", a split-out section about it notwithstanding)	Category:Jewish American physicists Category:Jewish Nobel laureates Category:Jewish physicists Category:Ashkenazi Jews

You get the gist, and I don't have the time right now to complete the table with all I removed, but the explanation is not particularly hard to figure out. Einstein is not unique in having an overcategorisation problem, and really having this many simply makes it less likely they're going to actually be useful in any way. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm certain that some categories may be in error or otherwise suspect (e.g. Category: American letter writers?), but wholesale deletion is unwarranted. He is most certainly very well-known as a pacifist, so deleting Category:American pacifists is definitely a non-starter (I note that you didn't provide any rationale for that one). Same with humanist (Essays in Humanism and Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein#Humanism and moral philosophy). So any deletions should be on a case-by-case basis. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

"In 1926, Einstein and his former student Leó Szilárd co-invented (and in 1930, patented) the Einstein refrigerator." So "chill thy quantum beans", Random. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: (fwiw, the fact even here it is just one short paragraph is telling) And is this a characteristic that "reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having"? Is this something that would be worth mentioning in the lead? I reckon the answer is no to both (and in addition, "Jewish inventors" should go in either case, being an non-notable intersection of ethnicity and another random topic where ethnicity is not that important) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Those fridges are just fine for kosher, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Humourous deflection aside, don't think that's a particularly good reason, especially if one takes MOS:ETHNICITY into account as well. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

No, I've never heard of him being called an "inventor" either, let alone a "Jewish inventor". That's just our limited personal experience, I guess. But I'd have to concede this is not one of his "defining characteristics." In fact, I have a bit of an issue with Jewish anything (as I discovered back in February). Martinevans123 (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: I had posted information relevant to this discussion on your talk page, but it appears that you deleted that post, either without reading it or without acknowledging it. To restate, however: "Please note that the proposition that Einstein was "not notable for either his political or philosophical views" is inconsistent with the existence of the extensively sourced articles, Political views of Albert Einstein and Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein". His philosophical writings were probably both more extensive and more widely read than those of many people in the encyclopedia solely for having been "known as" philosophers. WP:NONDEF and WP:OCEGRS are more directed to which categories should be created at all, rather than how inclusive we want those categories to be. BD2412 T 16:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@BD2412: I explicitly moved the discussion here (which is the proper place). I fundamentally disagree with your assertions, both on the existence of articles on the subject and on the inclusiveness of categories. On the first, I don't think there's room for reasonable doubt about the fact that Einstein is notable for his physics work, not for his philosophical views (this would also be consistent with the article's lead as it stands, which begins [Einstein] was a German-born theoretical physicist, not Einstein was a German-born philosopher and political thinker). So, while sources might have written about this (in light of Einstein being probably the most influential scientist of the 20th century), these are not defining characteristics. On the second, it is very clear that "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining" applies to inclusiveness and not creation (there are probably plenty of examples of people who could be reliable sourced as being X or Y, but where this is a very minor aspect of their character and where this would not be a defining characteristic). WP:OCEGRS, combined with MOS:ETHNICITY, strongly suggests any categorisation based on ethnicity is not a very good idea unless there are good reasons for such a categorisation (such as Category:Jewish emigrants from Nazi Germany to the United States, which I probably ought to have been more attentive about. Not an excuse for the others, though) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest that to have "moved the discussion" would have included some acknowledgment of the referenced comment. I would disagree that Einstein as a philosopher was a "very minor" aspect of his character. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you think that categories like Category:Jewish inventors should not exist at all. I do appreciate, however, that you have initiated discussion of your concerns. BD2412 T 17:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Is Einstein notable for being a philosopher, or for being a physicist? I.e. is Einstein commonly defined as being a philosopher, or as being a physicist (since that is what a defining characteristic is - the example given in WP:DEFCAT is Caravaggio, an Italian artist of the Baroque movement, which is pretty much the basis for all the necessary categories [which, thankfully, are a reasonably limited selection, unlike here))? The answer should be obvious, but just in case, since you appear to disagree on this, Britannica has "Albert Einstein, (born March 14, 1879, Ulm, Württemberg, Germany—died April 18, 1955, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.), German-born physicist who developed the special and general theories of relativity and won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1921 for his explanation of the photoelectric effect."; while a look through other sources will inevitably show you that Einstein is first and foremost regarded as a "great physicist" or as "one of the greatest scientists of all time". "Correct me if I'm wrong" - People should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career. For instance, in sports, a Roman Catholic athlete is not treated differently from a Lutheran or Methodist. [...] While "LGBT literature" is a specific genre and useful categorization, "LGBT quantum physics" is not. To take this example further, does religion or ethnicity have a significant impact on someone being an inventor? No? Well then, yes, said categories should "not exist at all". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

To apply this further, taking the first paragraph of the lead, and putting relevant categories in light of that:

Extended content

Albert Einstein Category:Albert Einstein (14 March 1879Category:1879 births – 18 April 1955Category:1955 deaths) was a German-born theoretical physicistCategory:German physicists,[5] widely acknowledged to be one of the greatest physicists of all time. Einstein is best known for developing the theory of relativityCategory:Theory of relativity (or Category:Relativity theorists), but he also made important contributions to the development of the theory of quantum mechanicsCategory:Quantum physicists. Relativity and quantum mechanics are together the two pillars of modern physics.[3][6] His mass–energy equivalence formula E = mc2, which arises from relativity theory, has been dubbed "the world's most famous equation".[7] His work is also known for its influence on the philosophy of science.Category:Philosophers of science[8][9] He received the 1921 Nobel Prize in PhysicsCategory:Nobel laureates in Physics "for his services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect",[10] a pivotal step in the development of quantum theory. His intellectual achievements and originality resulted in "Einstein" becoming synonymous with "genius".[11]

Or, all listed in one place for convenience:

With possible allowances for narrowing down by nationality. The above, being stuff the subject is widely known for, are all WP:DEFCAT. All the rest is fluff, except maybe one or two which get mentioned later in the lead. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

It is standard practice to include all academic affiliations and awards received for which categories exist, and a "from" category (though I understand the disconnect with describing Einstein as "from" New Jersey; Category:Scientists from Munich should definitely remain). I would agree that the collection of anti-capitalism and socialism-related categories goes overboard, but his pacifism is defining and should be mentioned in the lede, in the same sentence as his endorsement of atomic bomb research. I don't know about "Pantheism" but his "Spinozism" is significant to Spinozists. BD2412 T 20:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

It is standard practice to include all academic affiliations and awards received for which categories exist Well obviously that "standard practice" needs to be changed because it leads to obvious overcategorisation problems (and no, these are rarely defining categories, judging by how many of them are not even mentioned in most articles they appear in). Scientists from Munich should remain - Einstein is from Ulm, which is well over a 100 km from Munich. That would be like saying that somebody from Cambridge is "from London"... his "Spinozism" is significant to Spinozists - it is not something he is widely known for; and if it is not significant to a wider public, then its not particularly relevant. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

It was explained to me some time ago that "from" as used in Wikipedia categorization doesn't mean "born in". BD2412 T 21:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Well he moved to Munich when he was just one-year old, was educated there, grew up there and stayed until December 1894, in order to finish his studies? So I'd say Munich has more of a claim than Ulm. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Correcting some erronous peceptions:

• Category:Scientists from Munich (Einstein is "from" neither of these places) --> Pardo-me?! He grew up in Munich. RTFA!
• Category:ETH Zurich alumni (was never a student there) --> yes, indeed!
• Category:ETH Zurich faculty (he thaught there for a grand total of two years... not something he is widely known for...) --> Wrong (us-biased?!) perception. Besides it is also his Alma Mater.
• Category:Charles University faculty (unsourced in infobox, no further comments elsewhere, not the location of any of his major works) --> Again, wrong. RTFA!

These category statements are all very well sourced. -- ZH8000 (talk) 12:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@ZH8000: You know how to use Ctrl+F to look for stuff in an article, right? Well, if you do that for "Charles University" (or just "Charles"), you'll only get two hits in the article: the infobox, and the category at the bottom. Neither of these is sourced, and that does not change the fact neither of these is a WP:DEFCAT. For ETH Zurich, the same applies: the only hit, beyond infobox, categories and bibliography titles, is that he taught there for two years. Whether he studied or taught there, neither is a DEFCAT. This article has 85 categories (if my count is correct), which is much more than the level at which they are actually useful to anybody. See my post dated 19:43, 29 November for an example of what the actually relevant categories are. Most if not all of the others are definitely WP:NONDEF and should be removed. There's already agreement for a few of them, so I'll go ahead and do that now. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

My dear RC, you did not read seriously and thoroughly enough, otherwise you would be aware of your own perception errors by yourself. Try it again! Or: try to read instead of controleffing ;-)

Both(!) help pages about categorization clearly say: "A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having". It does not say anything about duration or even "importantness" of a category. It only requests evidence. AND they are given. Full stopp.

Again: READ and understand – hopefully. -- ZH8000 (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@ZH8000: You are not understanding. The example given in DEFCAT is: "For example, in Caravaggio, an Italian artist of the Baroque movement, Italian, artist, and Baroque may all be considered to be defining characteristics of the subject Caravaggio." And then you're also selectively ignoring WP:NONDEF; i.e. a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject. and if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining;. I must also take offense at your suggestion (in your previous post) for me to "run the f away"... Again, it would be more useful if you offered your opinion on my post dated 19:43, 29 November RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Uff. Uff.

RTFA means "Read the f.. article" derived from RTFM ("Read the f.. manual").

Really, I am serious about it!

HINT: Items can change their name over time. Period. -- ZH8000 (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

As you could assume (from the rather extensive table above, complete with quotes where relevant), I have indeed read (if somewhat diagonally, at least for some parts). None of your comments give any good reason for keeping most of the categories I objected to. The mere fact of something being verifiably true about someone, and a corresponding category existing, does not mean that the category needs to be included. The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics. (WP:CATS) In short, you need to take yourself in the shoes of a non-expert reader and figure out what the most essential details about the topic at hand are. This is akin to the concept of keywords, such as one would include for an academic article which would help researchers find it. Unless I'm entirely out of left-field and off in the wild, the first few words that come to mind when thinking of Einstein are "physicist, theory of relativity, Nobel Prize"; not "ETH Zurich, Spinozist, agnostic". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Supposing you were interested in knowing about notable persons associated with ETH Zurich, about Spinozists, or about agnostics – would it not be helpful to be able to find Albert Einstein in pertinent categories? People look up topics for all kinds of reasons.

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nihil novi: The problem of your approach is that one can very well make the opposite example. Say, I don't know, you're interested in books about topic X. You wouldn't be interested in a book about topic Y which happens to incidentally mention topic X on one page. Or say, you're interested about reading philosophers who contributed significantly to spinozist thought: you wouldn't be interested in someone who merely might have held some view about this and where this is barely mentioned in one paragraph. Categories, as I understand it, and as I think they're most useful to readers, are a concept akin to index terms. You tell me which approach better does that... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to me that Wikipedia:Categorization of people#By association specifically supports categorizing people by educational institution and by company (for purposes of alumni affiliation the former would apply, for purposes of teaching affiliation, the latter would). BD2412 T 19:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

It does not "support" such categorising, it merely reflects that, currently, that is what is done in practice. No justification why this is done is given (hence, citing it to support such categories is a circular "this should be done, because it is currently done"). Plus, there are plenty of other problematic categories, discussion about all of which seems to have gotten lost in the noise created by the alumni-cat sillyness. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The exact language of the guideline is: "Wikipedia supports categorizing People by educational institution", so I do think "support" is the correct verb here. As for the other problematic categories, is the discussion supposed to focus on everything at once? BD2412 T 18:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

1) It is a guideline which does not appear to have been updated recently in regards to this. It may well be out of sync with newer developments (such as the one you are well aware of); 2) Wikipedia also "supports" categorising by a whole lot of different things, including religion, other types of places or topics one may have been associated with, ... It does not mean that every such category must be included on every article which matches it (a position which is clearly not supported by either policy, as clear from the fact that DEFCAT and NONDEF even exist, nor supported by the recent discussion). Using it to support this kind of category here remains a circular "this should be done, because it is currently done". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I would encourage you to consider the principle of Chesterton's fence. If you feel that Wikipedia:Categorization of people#By association should be repealed, you have every right to seek a consensus to that effect. BD2412 T 04:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

And I would encourage you to start actually making a better argument than an argument from authority. Wikipedia policy and guidelines are not some Verbum Dei-like construct (and, given the edit history of the pages themselves, its rather trivial to show that the relevant section was indeed not updated in over a decade), and they almost always require that the specific circumstances of an article be taken into account (what may be a defining category on one article can very well not be on another), and you have not provided any reason why these categories should appear here (why they are "defining") other than "they appear everywhere [sic.] else"; entirely (and I would start to think, intentionally) sidestepping the issue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The policy "was indeed not updated in over a decade" because it is correct, and does not need updating. There are laws against murder that have been on the books for decades without being updated. This does not suddenly make murder legal. As for what makes the fact defining, our policy requires such a thing to be routinely reported in reliable sources. It is. BD2412 T 17:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Since you're going to ridiculous extremes to disregard my point, and to take back the metaphor, what I am saying is closer to "not every case where someone is killed by somebody else is murder". Simply because such categories are "supported" does not mean that they are appropriate on every article. "I-don't-hear-you" finger-pointing at a guideline which may very well be out of date (despite your most ardent desire to disregard DEFCAT), without addressing the arguments why these categories (and many others) are inappropriate, is not helpful. There's a clear difference between routine facts being reported in sources and defining characteristics, as made clear by existing policy: if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. There's not too much room for interpretation there, and I hope you don't take this as a dare to try to get an even more far-fetched argument. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

This category has been in the article for nearly fifteen years. You can call this an appeal to tradition, but contested changes to longstanding content require consensus for their removal. You are, of course, welcome to seek consensus, but where consensus does not support your views, then you need to adjust your understanding of the relevant policies accordingly. BD2412 T 01:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@BD2412: And you are clearly stonewalling to this supposed consensus (silence does not always imply consent. like here, it can just be the case that nobody bothered until the problem became large enough) and using this as an excuse to ignore whatever I say. DEFCAT is rather unambiguous, and it is your view (the "every category should be included in an article which matches it, no matter the relevance of it to the subject's encyclopedic notability or it's potential [or lack thereof] for use as a keyword by readers") which is blatantly against it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

You have proposed an affirmative change to the nature of the article. You certainly cannot interpret silence with respect to your proposal as consent for it, nor can you return to edit warring on the point, as you did with your improper revert of Clarityfiend. Of course, this is not a matter of silence equaling anything. Clarityfiend, Martinevans123, Nihil novi, and ZH8000 have all objected to your proposal. There appears to be no further point in engaging with you. BD2412 T 18:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

No, you going into endless circles without addressing either the DEFCAT or the V arguments (many of these categories are not even mentioned, let alone sourced, let alone defining) is bad-faith non-negotiating (i.e. stonewalling). I'll go and remove the material which fails V, at least, since that should be unambiguous: if something is not even mentioned in the article, there's no valid reason to keep it as a category. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is contesting matters regarding things that do not appear in the article. BD2412 T 20:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I have restored the categories per WP:BRD because no proper justification has been provided. It is not hard to check that Einstein was awarded the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society in 1926.[8] Similarly Einstein's connection with the Lorentz Institute in Leiden is easy to check with very little difficulty.[9] Likewise being a member of the United States National Academy of Sciences is a distinction and easy to verify.[10] And so on. This article on biography and science should be handled with much greater care than is happening at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 07:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:V is a hell of a justification, one whose WP:BURDEN is on those seeking inclusion (and you know full well that, if you ever want to pretend this is something that meets DEFCAT, such stuff should at the absolute very least be sourced to independent, secondary sources, to show how it is encyclopedically significant. I'll note). Plus, again, like BD, you act like you live in some bubble where DEFCAT does not exist. I gave a proper reason. You being stubborn about it does not mean the reason is improper or invalid. The WP:ONUS is on those seeking inclusion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Today there has been disruptive edit-warring on this article without WP:consensus. Erroneously removing the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society (see the pdf link above) only to be added back a minute later is concerning. For comparable articles on Nobel Laureates or Fields Medallists, the distinction of being elected to the National Academy of Science is almost always mentioned (if applicable). There seems to be no wikipedia policy that justifies Einstein being singled out as an exception. This article on theoretical physics or the history and philosophy of science is for the benefit of readers of this encyclopedia, i.e. something constructive. Mathsci (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I see no problem with that Gold Medal Category. But is that anonymous pdf really the best source we can find (and why is different to the version in the article)? And shouldn't all the awards also be mentioned and sourced in the main body? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Already replied below in Talk:Albert_Einstein#Awards. Mathsci (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The only thing disruptive here is you behaving like DEFCAT does not exist (probably a fair bit of these categories actually need to be deleted/listified if they are not already), and obliquely belittling me, despite both of those things having been pointed out to you multiple times. But instead of doing "disruption", it would be best if you could actually engage with the argument instead of chasing fairies across the sky. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

His religion-and/or-ethnicity had a very significant bearing on his career - it made him move between continents! I'd go so far as to say that all German, and even most European, Jews (whether by religion, or ancestry, or even mistake!) from oh, let's say 1938-1945, have this as a very significant bearing on their career, life, and even existence. Given how obvious this is, I venture that Random Canadian's other deletions may well be similarly not thought through. --GRuban (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

While his emigrating to the US might be a defining characteristic, most intersections of "Jewish" and "[occupation]" are not notable intersections and should be deleted. The rest of your argument is guilt by association and can safely be disregarded. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

So you're going to accept "Jewish American physicist", then? --GRuban (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

No. Category:Jewish emigrants from Nazi Germany to the United States is acceptable (which is why it is not listed in the table, maybe?), but the other ones are not (the intersection of "Jewish" and "physicists by nationality" is not encyclopedic). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

If anyone is going to be reading this section and judging consensus, mark me down as a voice for "restore everything" (per guilt by association as Random Canadian would have it). There could be an argument made for delicate trimming, discussion, etc ... but the dozens of removals listed here do not give me confidence. --GRuban (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

If anyone is going to be reading this section and judging consensus, mark me down as a voice for "most readers never get as far as the categories, and even if they did they couldn't really care less about them". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for caring enough to tell us how little you care! --GRuban (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

How very categorical dare you! As you know, I care passionately. But the average reader... hmmm, not so much, I fear. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Awards

Are all the awards listed in the infobox supported by sources, at least next to a mention in the article main body? If so it might be better to add the references there. It's usually a good idea to provide a WP:RS before adding a corresponding Category. It's also a good idea to add the reference source in the appropriate citation format, instead of just leaving a snide edit summary and assuming someone else will do it for you. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

For the National Academy of Sciences, I used the official membership directory (see pdf link above). For deceased members, there are biographical memoirs[11]: in this case it was written by the physicist John Archibald Wheeler. Mathsci (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

(P.S. The biographical memoir of the Nobel laureate and experimental physicist Luis Walter Alvarez was used as a WP:RS for his 1947 NAS membership.) Mathsci (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Note that there is a separate article currently titled Einstein's awards and honors (I have proposed to rename it), which does appear to source a number of these. BD2412 T 19:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I've commented there. The recent edits to Member of the National Academy of Sciences (on my watchlist) were not helpful.[12][13] Mathsci (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Then you should justify why those are unhelpful at the relevant place, which is not here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

While the immediate concern was that most of these are not mentioned or sourced, at all, in the article, this still does not address how these are DEFCAT. I note that some of these categories might better be served by a list article (or a link to the official list, not necessarily on Wikipedia - i.e. see WP:NOTDIRECTORY) [which in some cases already exists]. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

This thread was really meant to be about Einstein's awards, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I assumed it was about the categories related to such. If you want to thank people for derailing discussions, go to Mathsci for bringing up edits to another page RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

No, its just about awards, thanks. That's why it's a separate thread. But perhaps they'll win an award? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

This concerns awards & honours. I already mentioned to BN2412 elsewhere that further details on the list of awards & honours can also be found on the page for AE of the Nobel Prize website and in the long NAS biographical memoir by John Wheeler (cf Gravitation by Misner-Thorne-Wheeler). Mathsci (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

External links

The External links section currently contains 18 links, which seems excessive. I just removed three clearly non–essential links, but I'm not sure about the rest. Is anyone interested in giving the list a trim? Lennart97 (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

It could be useful, if you gave Diff to edit in question; I was interested, which links you removed, and why. As I compared that version to curent state, I found some other interesting links went missing too - see Diff. --Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2022

Albert Einstein was inducted into the New Jersey Hall of Fame in 2008. Elizaruby18 (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I see it's already in the Cats. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Einstein and Jewishness, revisited

Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive 19#Einstein and Jewishness archives a lengthy discussion where Bus stop raised the claim that the way coverage of Einstein's ancestry amounts to erasure of his Jewishness. His handling of the discussion was excessively heated and was the proximate cause of his banning from the site. Looking over the lead now, however, I'm inclined to think he's right: the penultimate paragraph of the lead goes into a relatively detailed discussion of his Germanness vs his Swissness, but the only mention of a Jewish connection is in the last paragraph, is the three words "of Jewish origin" and a longer mention of his opposition to Nazi race law. In Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1059#Bludgeoning (Bus stop), Fences and windows raises this concern, linking to a decent Aeon article, Identifying Einstein, by Michael D. Gordin (Apr 2020), on the relatively higher priority Einstein accorded his Jewish identity than his state nationality long before the rise of Hitler. The subsequent discussion, as is usual for AN/I, tackled the content issue only slightly and focussed on the behavioural issue. With Bus stop banned, it's possible to revisit the question without the behaviour hanging over us.

So two questions: first, now that the dust has settled, is there an issue here? I'm inclined to think the treatment of Einstein's identity generally, and his Jewishness in particular, is too slight, treated essentially only when they were required, when in fact we have plenty of reliable sources saying this was important to Einstein. Second, if we agree there is, is the coverage in the Aeon article the kind of sourcing we want to draw on to fix it? — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I would not object to a small amount of additional well-sourced detail. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I saw some sources referring Jewish influences on child Albert Einstein (while in Munich) while I was looking into Max Talmud/Talmey sources, and when I get those again, I'll put them here too.

Edit: Some of sources from there about Albert Einstein/Max Talmud/Talmey relationship (which was initiated, and influenced, by Jewish custom); if someone uses them before I can (s)he is welcome.--Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

There are also sources about him learning sailing in Switzerland, and owning a sailboat while in Berlin (and having that sailboat seized by Nazi after Hitler came to power) and I'll give those too.

Edit: A comprehensive source on that: --Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Someone might point out sailing was not his defining characteristic, but when sailing there are true and apparent wind relative to the speed and direction of movement of the boat - so he had another (and practical in this case) experience on relativity of the movements that is not yet mentioned here. Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Clearly Einstein highly valued his Jewishness as a cultural heritage. Whatever emphasis we give to the Jewish question should not mislead people to think he was a believer in God or religiously observant. He was instead a declared agnostic, and he acted atheistic. Binksternet (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Sources I looked into stated his family was non-observant (I think they call it that) in Ulm, but when they moved to Munich and Albert got into catholic school they wanted him to know about Jewish faith too. There was a story that he then started to be strict and devout (he seemed to take things seriously), until he found inconsistencies in what he was taught (and one of sources he was taught about was Talmud (the book). I suppose Max Talmud's (and his older brother Bernard before him) family name triggered 10 year old Albert's targeting him with questions about that (but that had not yet been supported by any source), and because it was also interesting to Max, then about 11 years older medical student, their discussions about pretty much everything continued for about 6 years (till Max graduated and moved from Muenchen, and - about the same time - Albert's family moved to Italy (that part is confirmed by sources).

And my conclusions about adult Einstein's religiousness is similar to yours. I am sorry, but for several months I won't be much on comp or at internet, and can't find time to cite exact location in sources, so anyone willing to continue before I find time is welcome. If not, I'll probably continue in November or so. Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

dismissal of the use of nuclear energy

According to https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/neverwrk.htm and https://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/29/magazine/tomorrow-never-knows.html Einstein said in 1932:

There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear] energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.

--Espoo (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2022

The last sentence of this section should be changed to “His thesis was accepted in July 1905, and Einstein was awarded a PhD in January 15, 1906.

Citation: Annus Mirabilis 1905, Albert Einstein, and The Theory of Relativity John Gribbin and Mary Gribbin 2005 Penguin Group

First scientific papers In 1900, Einstein's paper "Folgerungen aus den Capillaritätserscheinungen" ("Conclusions from the Capillarity Phenomena") was published in the journal Annalen der Physik.[77][78] On 30 April 1905, Einstein completed his dissertation, A New Determination of Molecular Dimensions[79] with Alfred Kleiner, Professor of Experimental Physics at the University of Zürich, serving as pro-forma advisor.[79][80] His work was accepted in July, and Einstein was awarded a Ph.D.[79][80]

A 76.82.19.143 (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, those dates seem correct. But this might be a better source as it's all available online? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done with source provided by Martinevans123. —Sirdog (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

New quote

All the quote as it is now has to stay completely or be removed completely. Suggesting through omission that he toed the line of the Abrahamic God is not done. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Madison Square Garden

please change ((Madison Square Garden)) to ((Madison Square Garden (1925)|Madison Square Garden)) 2601:541:4580:8500:14BD:5C79:F24B:FA2B (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Mindmatrix 02:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2022

i want to edit this page , because i think i could add some useful , educational and interesting information , that may help kids with school work . 2A02:2F08:EC01:4100:EC5A:B965:B638:F50 (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Albert Einstein (Nobel).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Max Talmey to be added to infobox

Max Talmey (born Talmud) should be added to infobox as a significant influence., relevant info is in fourth paragraph of the section "Childhood and education". Other useful, but not yet used (AFAIKnow) sources are in the Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive 19#Einstein and Jewishness, revisited. If someone can use these sources before I can, (s)he's welcome. --Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC) Marjan Tomki SI

Another source for several aspects, including some data (and sources) about his his early childhood development and temperament, about influence of his uncle and Max Talmud, and about his Luitpold Gimnasium teacher Joseph Degenhart who required pupils learn material by rote, which Einstein was not good at, and refused to do, and who "prophesied that Einstein would never amount to nothing"; from Galina Weinstein Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Another source for "amount to nothing..." (and a peek into his pre- and annus mirabilis time) Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

And another...

• Prezi site seems to be about means for dyslexic people to overcome their problem. IMO article includes author's thesis Einstein was dyslectic, which I am far from sure was the main reason for his troubles presented here. Facts about Einstein's troubles fit data scattered among several other, and are here together and well presented, even if written a bit dyslexic.
• Princeton has mention of dr. Josef Degenhart at Luitpold Gimnasium, but I don't see enough of the document in question at the moment to see the context; will look into when I can.

Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 10:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Einstein, a whitewash

Did Einstein write this article himself?

in the text we read: In his own travel diaries from his 1922–23 visit to Asia, he expresses some views on the Chinese, Japanese and Indian people, which have been described as xenophobic and racist judgments when they were rediscovered in 2018.[103][104]

There is so much wrong with this. It says the way Einstein's views have been described, but that's not how they were described at all. Nowhere in the article cited is it indicated that they were "judgments". The word never even appears. So basically whoever wrote that sentence is trying to pass off something that was never said as what was said. It's interesting, too, the choice wording "expressed some views", which is itself a pass off, and whoever wrote that is also taking the artistic license to interpret what the article cited expressed and synthesize it in the least offensive terminology possible. Of course, the article doesn't actually dare to include what those views actually were, either (i.e. that the Chinese are an "industrious, filthy, obtuse people"). The BBC makes it clear: [[14]], and there are other sources as well: [[15]]

The article goes further to avoid any controversy; we have the failure to indicate Einstein's work with the "Institute of Sexual Experimentation" in Germany, or even his opinions on abortion or pushing young boys into homosexuality. Nor is there any mention of his blame for racism being cast as "a disease of white people". This man is no less infallible than the "Founding Fathers" which everyone revels in tearing apart. There's clearly a double standard in the treatment given to Einstein on Wikipedia, and others. A heavy, heavy slant. --Gkkkj098 (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

If you ask me, seen the epoch wherein he lived, somewhat racist statements were excusable (we don't cancel Kant, Hegel, and Heidegger because they were antisemitic). But how he handled his wife is more of a relevant criticism than passing remarks about race.

By default, any ethical opinion about abortion is controversial.

The idea that one can become a homosexual just because you ask them nicely to become homosexual is ridiculous. Nobody becomes a homosexual just because they read something in the newspaper. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

This part needs some formatting

"[Einstein] had worked through the whole book. He thereupon devoted himself to higher mathematics ... Soon the flight of his mathematical genius was so high I could not follow." AyoubHN (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Einstein as "unsuccesful" in his career

This is really a Wikipedia sentence, it doesnt have any meaning and it is probably not true or should not be true by no means. It does not work as a wikileaks you should know. Quote: "However, for much of the later part of his career, he worked on two ultimately unsuccessful endeavors." Politfinder (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Einstein, as Jewish, objected

To me this sounds a bit stilted? Maybe "being jewish" or "a jew" or even just "Einstein, Jewish"? 82.14.154.14 (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Obviously it is the Jewish name of Eins -stein (was here, wrote it) as they use it even today about physics when they hate me being jewish physicist for example. --Politfinder (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Typo in subsection title

The subsection "Relationship with Zionism" has too many =-signs, so the title is not bold.

Somebody with permission: Please change this. Teegrube (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Teegrube: The demotion of the section "Relationship with Zionism" as a subsection of "Political views" appears to be intentional and not an error. The heading is bold, but uses a smaller font to indicate that it is a subsection of the parent section. General Ization ^Talk 03:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Zurich and its umlaut

Moved my talk page. -- ZH8000 (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I've just had a look at the website of the University of Zurich, and of course, you're quite right about the umlaut. But when I got to the bottom of the page, what did I see? "© 2023 Universität Zürich". No doubt it's something to do with the Uncertainty Principle... Niggle1892 (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's because the legal relevant copyright statement is written in the local language. Besides, some websites do not change their headers and/or logos and bottom lines independent of the chosen language. But both, ETH and University Zurich do in their English text. -- ZH8000 (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

duly or dually?

In the sentence: Einstein graduated from the Federal polytechnic school in 1900, duly certified as competent to teach mathematics and physics. Dually seems to make more sense, even if duly would be technically correct. 172.126.37.115 (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Duly is better and far more common. There's no need to belabor the obvious, that he could teach two subjects. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Is it necessary to have either word? Just say "in 1900, certified as competent..." If you want emphasis on the dual-ness, you could use "certified as competent to teach both math and physics" 172.4.66.98 (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

1905 papers

Wasn't his PhD thesis the paper that firmly established the validity of the molecular hypothesis? If so, shouldn't it be included with the other four 1905 papers as groundbreaking? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

See Relativity priority dispute. The other four were never "ground-breaking" in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23CC:B59B:6B01:887D:B39B:9AFE:4A0A (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Civil rights and Marian Anderson?

Section #US citizenship briefly mentions Einstein's civil rights involvement. Shouldn't there be a mention his hosting Marian Anderson when she was turned away by a hotel in Princeton at which she had reservations? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

See https://qz.com/1304341/albert-einsteins-diaries-nobel-prize-winners-private-journal-reveals-his-racism . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:7984:5101:2952:C10D:C790:4D47 (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Childhood

Albert Einstien was called dumb by his teacher and could read by age nine. He called his teachers drill sargents. please add this. also, this page is 12 hours to long. If you need any facts of any kind, tell me. I can help you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheesemaster12 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

He wasn't considered dumb, but he could not adapt to the German discipline of that time. Also, there are many myths about Einstein. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2024

I suggest that you edit the passage where you describe the hospital that Einstein was taken just prior to his death. In 1955, The University Hospital of Princeton at Plainsboro did not exist as an entity; Einstein would have been taken to the hospital known merely as Princeton Hospital, near State Route 206 in Princeton Borough. The latter hospital did not come into being until 2011. 2600:1003:B03E:F81A:3135:1233:782E:E666 (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Liu1126 (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2024

NE0DOG00 (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Retributions to quantum mechanics

 Not done: the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". - DVdm (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2024

The later “Humboldt University” called Berlin University was named „Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Berlin“ at the time.

Source: Reimer Hansen: Von der Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zur Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Die Umbenennung der Berliner Universität 1945 bis 1949 und die Gründung der Freien Universität Berlin 1948 (PDF; 980 kB), Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin 2009, ISBN 978-3-9813135-7-4. 93.89.207.15 (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Einstein's comments about Asians

Any reason why his comments about the different Asian cultures are not included? These where published in 2018 by Princeton University Press as "The Travel Diaries of Albert Einstein: The Far East, Palestine, and Spain, 1922-1923" and was edited by Ze'ev Rosenkranz, assistant director of the California Institute of Technology's Einstein Papers Project.

Here's a good RS: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44472277

Some of Einsteins comments are: -calling the Chinese "industrious, filthy, obtuse people". -in Ceylon, writing of the people: "They live in great filth and considerable stench down on the ground, do little, and need little." -He also describes Chinese children as "spiritless and obtuse", and calls it "a pity if these Chinese supplant all other races". -He calls China "a peculiar herd-like nation," and "more like automatons than people", before claiming there is "little difference" between Chinese men and women, and questioning how the men are "incapable of defending themselves" from female "fatal attraction". 68.188.156.135 (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Yup, his comments are not done nowadays, but hardly essential to his biography. If anything, they show he was as amenable to prejudice as anyone else. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

it's an excerpt from his private diary, not a defining fact of his biography. Artem.G (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2024

The sentence 'In 1933, while he was visiting the United States, Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany' suggests that Hitler was visiting the United States when he came to power. Propose that you change 'he' to 'Einstein'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.67.35 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done, I don't think it's ambiguous in context. Remsense诉 21:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Anachronistic raid by the Gestapo of his family's Berlin Apartment in 1933

In the beginning of the subsection of Life and career, titled 1933: Emigration to the U.S., there is a sentence that claims his family's apartment was raided by the Gestapo repeatedly from February to March 1933, 1-2 months before the existence of the Gestapo as a Nazi organisation (or rather, before its renaming from the Prussian Secret Police to the Gestapo).

This is a strange anachronism and puts to question the reputability of the source of this information. I can find one source (https://library.yu.edu/c.php?g=1073982&p=7823903) that corroborates this information, albeit without the specification of it being the Gestapo who were responsible for the raid. Instead, the raid is attributed to nameless "troopers."

The bibliography cites two books which I do not have, so I cannot currently check the citations for this information.

KayvK (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: "Use British English" template

I propose the "Use British English" template. Since Albert Einstein is one of the most influential people in human history, I think it would be more correct to use the main English, i.e. the British English. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Could you please explain each logical step in this thought process before you ask for other editors to spend time discussing it? Because it presently makes no sense whatsoever, and moreover does not seem to take relevant site guidelines into account. It's really tiring to spend hours picking through every assumption you make in trying to argue for changes, only to point out that none of them actually reflect very accessible site guidelines. Remsense诉 23:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense: it's just a proposal, if you prefer to move the discussion to a more suitable place that's fine. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Right, but it's a proposal based in statements that directly contradict site guidelines. You say it would be more correct to use the main English, i.e. the British English, which can be frustrating because WP:ENGVAR says very plainly that The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety over others. So other editors have to spend time trying to understand how to reconcile the two, and it can be frustrating. Remsense诉 23:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense: I have just modified the comment by writing "I think". JacktheBrown (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Jack, I hope you feel comfortable when I ask these questions, because I really don't want to come off as bludgeoning or anything, I ask in good faith: why does that matter at all? Of course that's what you think, that's why you've made the proposal. The fact remains that WP:ENGVAR says what it says (please consider reading it in full) and describes how these decisions are made. We explicitly don't switch things up for no reason, and for our purposes the reasons you've supplied are explicitly discounted by the aforementioned guideline. There's a lot of room for flexibility on Wikipedia, but explicit guidelines exist for a reason, reflect strong existing consensus, and should generally be acknowledged when relevant.

Please take this as pragmatic rather than elitist gatekeeping: it is puzzling to try and engage with your suggestions when they are obviously contradicted by guidelines or policy. How are we supposed to answer other than just pointing you to the same places over and over? Before asking many questions like this, editors usually acquire some habit of checking if policy (here including guidelines, the MoS, etc.) have anything relevant to say. Then, any exceptions or nuances to discuss can be preemptively addressed by you.

In a post like this, I would usually expect an experienced editor to say something like "I know WP:ENGVAR says this, but here's why this situation is different..." or "here's why we should consider an exception..." Making us point to the obvious things first is a waste of other editors' time, Jack. I don't expect anyone to have an encyclopedic (ha) knowledge of any of this, but generally people try because policy is important, it reflects the existing consensus of editors and should not be ignored.

Sorry, one more thing: Jack, I have a feeling you are uncomfortable browsing policy pages or the Manual of Style on your phone, I know you're a mobile editor. Is this the case? If you want, I can try to help you so that it's easier to check what project pages actually say.Remsense诉 05:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The subject was a US citizen; we're obviously not changing this for the reasons discussed at MOS:ENGVAR. No national variety of English is a preferred or "main" version on Wikipedia. VQuakr (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@VQuakr: "was a US citizen"; yes, but only for 15 years: "United States (1940–1955)". JacktheBrown (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

And? VQuakr (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@VQuakr: if you want to use American English for this page I agree, but your reasoning, in my opinion, doesn't make much sense; let me give you an example: if John Lennon had lived in the United States for five years, would you have used American English for the John Lennon page? JacktheBrown (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

If John Lennon was born on the Danube and spent much of his earlier life in Switzerland, probably.

1. British English is not the "main" or "default" variety.
2. If there are ties for this subject, it's American, not British.

That's the entire point. You are still arguing with an underlying assumption that is contradicted by policy. Please stop doing that. Remsense诉 17:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense: all right, I will leave the discussion and, if I receive replies, I will give you the task, if you wish, to continue it. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

As always, I appreciate your patience! Remsense诉 18:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

If John Lennon had been born outside of Britain/former British Empire nation and then had moved to the USA and become a citizen, yes we likely would end up with his biography written in American English. Those are some major changes to Lennon's biography, though, so it seems like quite the tortured analogy. VQuakr (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Childhood, youth and education

The material is out of chronological order, and that confuses on several places.

If there is no objection, I'd move the paragraph on Einstein family, and business, moving to Italy in 1894, currently almost at the top of section, after the paragrapghs addressing Einstein's school years and progress in Munich, and before the paragraph about his exams for Swiss federal polytechnics school.

Between there, the story how and why he left Luitpold Gimnasium before finishing it (when abitur was required for access to most university studies) should be at least mentioned (and maybe dr. Josef Degenhart, too). That shall also answer why a school in Swiss was chosen and neither one in Munich (as article imples family planed) or in Italy (where family then resided).

Current sequence of paragraphs is pretty much a mess even when individual facts are true, and I don't see how to make it better without this repositioning. Because this article is high profile I propose this change before making it. Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

[[Old Cantonal School Aarau]] might refer to Einstein studying in grammar school in Aarau for a year, mostly to improve his capability in French language (where he failed at first exam for federal polytechnics school); but before addressing reevaluation of citation proposed (I already see it is a secondary, not primary school as would be for Munich paragraph, and adding others relevant to what I wrote above), repositioning of paragraphs in better order I propose above is needed.

Anyway I can already see this: user:JackTheSecond (who added citation) was right to add citation, but wrong on what it meant and where it belongs; user:Zeev59 was right to return the previous Munich primary school, but failed to interpret the citation correctly and so probably wrong to remove the citation (which I'll use if it confirms what I expect, when we come to that ;-)

ž And Hieronofsyracuse was right putting that school into the infobox, even when Einstein did it only for a about a year, it was significant for several reasons, including that Einstein graduated there (which he didn't at Luitpold Gimnasium in Munich, just context I intend to give is still missing. I'll revert the Artem.G's removal of it (hi, in most situations your action would be OK) after I give context

References

Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Letter to NYT about Menachem Begin

Today I made an improvement to this article, but it was deleted without my consent. When reading the section that mentions the letter Einstein wrote to the New York Times about the visit of Menachem Begin to the United States, I realized that wikipedia actually has an image of the letter in Wikimeida Commons. This image is displayed in-line with the articles on other signatories, but it was unfortunately absent from Einstein's page. Obviously providing the source-content as a visual aid is a great addition to the quality of this article, so I added it. Then User:Artem.G maliciously removed it without my consent.

Can someone please restore these revisions?

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albert_Einstein&oldid=1191459172
* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albert_Einstein&oldid=1191458692

Thank you

Unlock request

It appears that this article is locked from editing by User:Cirt -- a user who has been permanently banned from Wikipedia for abuse. Because the user who locked this page is a known bad actor, can we please unlock this page so I can restore my edit?

I see above text was written at 21:03, 23 December 2023 by user:Maltfield, and was neither signed (by four ~), nor signed by bot (second probably because edit contained more than one section?) as I think Maltfield expected.

User:Artem.G reverted edits cited above commenting that the contents is undue (excessive, unsuitable), proposing summarising it for this article, and proposing discussion on talk page before reverting his reverts. Maltfield tried to discuss here, but because his post was not signed Artem.G (and other editors who look after this site) missed it. I suppose in discussion he would claim the letters to New Yourk Times editors would be at least borderline Non neutral point of view (see above), and if Menachem Begin is still alive as I believe he is, also Biography of living persons apply, so additional sources confirming info in that letter is true would be needed before reverting. And if it can be confirmed as I suppose is required, the contents of that edit would be better placed at Begin article, or an article about history of Israel (written in a NPOW way), possibly here only resumed (because Einstein was one of several who signed it, not the sole author), as Artem proposed in his edit comment. As far as I see, there definitively was no malicious intent from Artem.G.

About consent to change contents of a contributor: Maltfield, following editors don't need consent of previous editors to further modify contents previous editors contributed (also need no consent for removing it if need be, please see copyright Wikipedia:Text of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that is applicable, and link to it is shown whenever you publish here).

Furthermore, as far as I could find, when User:Cirt protected this site in 2009 he was not banned yet, because he did not yet commit the abuse that caused his ban; then he was still a bona fide admin, acting on approved request, see:

08:34, 10 June 2009 Cirt talk contribs changed protection settings for Albert Einstein ‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite) (vandalism, prot req fm WP:RFPP) (hist) (thank)

See also when he resigned his admin rights, and when and why he was banned: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cirt/Archive; conclusion: this page has been semiprotected permanently years ago because of continuing high vandalism count on it, like several others, to relieve a bit the burden on patrollers, not explicitly (and malevolently) to prevent you to revert reversion of your edits.

What my answer here can help to: my mentioning links to all involved above shall cause Wikipedia software to notify them about this problem when they are next logged in, and because I addressed misconceptions I found above I think they can look into it together and resolve it.--Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)