Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

quotes

"The value of a man resides in what he gives and not in what he is capable of receiving." Albert Einstein —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.184.26 (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 116.68.209.34, 23 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

116.68.209.34 (talk) 07:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. sonia♫ 09:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Did not go to Albania

Why does this article say that Einstein went to Albania in 1935? He moved to Princeton in 1933, and he never went back to Europe after that.

Whoever wrote the above - I agree. I see some ambiguous information here. A web site claims that Einstein was in Albania in 1935, another source states Einstein joined the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey in 1933. I think the web site information is probably inaccurate. Now, in the body of the article it says he emigrated in 1933 and then traveled to the United States via Albania in 1935. Also, a reference stating that Einstein joined the Institute in New Jersey has been removed. I don't know when this happened. Anyway, this needs to be straightened out. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, someone should fix this. He emigrated to the U.S. in 1933, settled in Princeton that year, and joined the Institute for Advanced Study. He never went back to Europe after that. It's all detailed meticulously in the Isaacson biography. There are hundreds of weird websites of people saying that their aunt or cousin or someone they knew secretly harbored or had a child with Einstein or some such nonsense. These should not be used as sources on Wikipedia. The obviously incorrect statement that Einstein went to Albania in 1935 (or for that matter ever went to Albania on his way to the U.S.) opens up Wikipedia to ridicule. 70.107.217.74 (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the anonymous IP illustrates a good point about a reliable sources. Apparently, the subject of Einstein has generated some misinformation out there on the world wide web. Perhaps this is part of the price of being notable and popular (at least in this instance). I removed the references and text related to Albania. However, I only wrote "copy edit" in the edit history, because I was doing a series of edits trying to sort it out without disrupting the article. In any case, it appears there is much support for accurate information regarding this article (there are two sections on this talk page related to "Albania"). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

A Google Books search found no mention of Einstein being in Albania. A few books that cover his lifetime's travels,The Private Lives of Albert Einstein By Roger Highfield, and Albert Einstein, by Albert Einstein, make no mention of Albania. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

small details

I was in America during the 1960s when there were people still alive who'd known Einstein.

One small snippet of information says that he was left handed, the other that he hated driving and never learned to drive212.138.113.4 (talk) 07:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Emigration / Immigration

You emigrate from and immigrate to. Someone please fix the title ("Emigration to the United States") and subsequent text ("Einstein was compelled to emigrate to the United States"). Correct title: Immigration to the United States. Correct text: Einstein was compelled to immigrate to the United States. Thank you 76.89.169.7 (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Per Webster's Dictionary, "to leave one's place of residence or country to live elsewhere: 'emigrated from Canada to the United States.'" --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your example proves I'm correct. Did you bother to look up the definition of immigrate as well? You emigrate from and immigrate to. http://www.uhv.edu/ac/newsletters/writing/grammartip2005.02.15.htm 76.89.169.7 (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right; I changed it. I chose to title it "emigration from germany" because I feel it better reflects that he felt compelled to leave Germany (as opposed to being compelled to go to the US). Trebor (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Adding 2 books in Further reading at Einstein's page (as at Gödel's)

• Yourgrau, Palle, 1999. Gödel Meets Einstein: Time Travel in the Gödel Universe. Chicago: Open Court.
• Yourgrau, Palle, 2004. A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Gödel and Einstein. Basic Books. Book review by John Stachel in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society (54 (7), p 861–868): [1]

(Pumpkingood (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC))

Albert Einstein's Inventions

I was reading this article and noticed that it does not mention very much detail about the inventions he has invented.I would like someone to do something about that since he invented multiple things. It does not mention how his invention have been altered either so please add this!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.21.244.17 (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

School

Just a detail: Einstein finished his "High School" at the Luitpold Gymnasium, which is correctly stated in the article, but the link points to an other school also in Munich that is called Luitpold Gymnasium nowadays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luitpold_Gymnasium). The Luitpold Gymnasium he visited is now called "Albert-Einstein-Gymnasium München (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert-Einstein-Gymnasium_München). I think the link should point to the latter, the one he visited, not the one with the same name he did not visit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.85.158.78 (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Changed. Mr. Granger (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Citations

I think some sections need more reliable citations. please help! Milk Coffee (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity/Citizenship/Nationality

Albert Einstein was born and raised in Germany and his mother's tongue was German. As far as I am concerned, this makes him simply German. The fact that he was persecuted and had to give up German citizenship doesn't have anything to do with it. Neither does the fact that he was Jewish. I find it more than confusing to state in the fact table of a famous person the "ethnicity" and the several citizenships he/she adopted. Has anybody seen any other article that follows this scheme? To me it seems a pointless, inexpert proceeding that, most likely, doesn't pursue any functional purpose, but is due to mere anti-German resentment. Alternatives would be

• to simply not state any nationality/ethnicity, but only places of birth and death.
• nationality: "German/Jewish" or "Jewish German"
• nationality: German (this is what I would consider to be most adequate)

Any opinions/remarks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby3636 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the "ethnicity" label is inappropriate, and propose that it be removed. I don't see any other biographical articles that add this to the table like Einstein. The entry on Martin Luther King doesn't list "ethnicity: black" anywhere, and such information would be far more relevant in King's case. 131.111.184.95 (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I see, it's removed now. This will likely raise the old issue of the lead again. Henrig (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for heads up. Hope new ref could help. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I am not sure if the new reference changes anything about my original criticism. Nobody argues that Einstein was Jewish, nor that he developed an actual awareness for this circumstance in the course of his life. Anyway, it is worth mentioning that he came from an entirely assimilated Jewish-German family (he and his parents all had non-Hebrew first names) and it was only due to Nazi persecution and raising antisemitism that he developed the aforementioned awareness. Be it as it may, I do not like the idea of stating the ethnicity in the lead. I think we all agree that a good encyclopedia should have a clear, systematic structure and I assume that we also agree that an encyclopedia which for every person states the ethnicity in the lead would be more than grotesque. Not to mention the fact the there is no consensus on how to define the ambiguous concept of ethnicity (language, color of skin, traditions, religion, etc.) Bobby3636 (talk) 10:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I myself would consider especially in Einstein's case as a good solution to mention instead in the lead like, for instance: "A German and Swiss Nobel laureate, who wrote, that he considered himself since 1914 mainly as ...." But that's only an opinion and I assume, the search for the best convenient description will occur betimes once and again. (The advantage in Einstein's case is, that most facts are known and there might be only a little issue for their exact presentation. There are really more complicated cases.) Henrig (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is not about adding references. The fact that Einstein was of Jewish ancestry is well-documented, and mentioned numerous times within the body of the article. The issue is whether the label of "ethnicity" belongs on the info table at all. Adding it to Einstein's table goes against the pattern used for other biographical articles. Furthermore, this exception seems to exist for no good reason, as the fact that he is Jewish had no impact upon the scientific achievements for which he is remembered. LJosil (talk) 09:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll wait a few days for a response. After that, I will change the data table back. LJosil (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I can see a point of consistency. The question of Einstein's Jewish ancestry is discussed in the article body in several sections, so I guess this topic should be summarized in the WP:LEAD somehow. Maybe born to a Jewish family in Germany could work. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Your argument doesn't seem to make any sense. There is no reason to "summarize" it in the lead; it is already documented throughout the article. It also has nothing to do with what Einstein is famous for, and therefore has no place in the lead. Placing it there is actually even more inconsistent with other articles than the issue about the data table. I am reverting this change as I consider it unilateral and inappropriate. LJosil (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

In any event, seeing as there don't seem to have any objection, I have removed the "ethnicity" label from the data table. LJosil (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to help, LJosil. This is my understanding of WP:LEAD: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article.. Anyway maybe other editors would like to comment. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. So I think that it makes sense for the lead to focus on the things that Einstein is most remembered for, namely his research and to some extent his role with nuclear weapons. Personally, I think even the designation "German-Swiss" is a bit unnecessary in the lead, and I think it would be better if it were removed. I don't like all of these socio-ethnic designations of famous figures. I believe that the most concise and best lead would be one that simply talks about his scientific achievements. I feel that all of the other things such as where he was born, what culture he comes from, etc. are secondary to his science. For that reason, they should be left to the main body of the article, not put in the lead. LJosil (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, it seems to me that there is a lot of fluff in the first paragraph of the lead. For instance, the Nobel prize is mentioned twice. Einstein is mentioned as a "philosopher" and an "author", although these are not really his significant contributions. Perhaps cleaning it up a bit would make the lead better. LJosil (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup, encyclopedia... AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see what Britannica has to do with anything. They have their own emphasis and style, but this is wikipedia. LJosil (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

And in Wiki we should follow WP:LEAD. I guess the wording is encyclopedic. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record, here's the relevant passage from WP:OPENPARA: "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." LJosil (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Emigrate vs immigrate proper usage

• emigrate < e (“out”) migrare. To leave the country in which one lives, especially one's native country, in order to reside elsewhere.
• immigrate < in migrare. To move into another country to stay there permanently.

Examples: Einstein emigrated from Germany. He immigrated to the United States. —teb728 t c 11:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Mileva Maric's influence in Einstein's works

Reading through the article, I noticed there's very little about Einstein's first wife, Mileva Maric. It's been stated on numerous occasions that she's been a major influence and has contributed to many of his works, yet in this article she's give very little acknowledgement. I believe that for the article to be better rounded and more neutral a more in depth part on her involvement would be necessary. Lukic12345 (talk) 09:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Assertions (statements) are not necessarily valid. Historians of physics (e.g., John Stachel, Gerald Holton, Alberto Martinez) who have investigated the claims about Maric's alleged contributions find no serious evidence to support them. See, for instance, John Stachel, Einstein From 'B' to 'Z', 2002, pp. 31-38: [2] See also [3]

Maric twice failed the Zurich Polytechnic diploma exam for teaching physics and mathematics in secondary schools, with poor grades in mathematics (Albert Einstein Collected Papers, vol.1, doc. 67), and there is no known authenticated work in physics by her. In her letters to her closest friend, Helene Kaufler Savic, Maric always attributed published papers to Einstein, with no suggestion that she had played any part in their production (M. Popovic, In Albert's Shadow: The Life and Letters of Mileva Maric, Einstein's First Wife, 2003.) As Stachel points out, there is not even hearsay evidence of any specific ideas on physics from Maric.

The dubiousness of so much of what is claimed for Maric is illustrated by the widely circulating contention that Maric did Einstein's mathematics for the 1905 special relativity theory, stemming largely from Senta Troemel-Ploetz's much-cited article "Mileva Einstein-Maric: The Woman Who Did Einstein's Mathematics" (Women's Studies International Forum, vol. 13 (5), 1990, pp. 415-432). But a glance at Einstein's paper shows that the mathematics (algebra and calculus) is quite elementary, and at a level achieved by Einstein by self-study by the age of 15.

There is much that is commendable about Mileva Maric's life, but unfortunately in recent times there has been a determined effort to credit her with achievements that she herself never at any time claimed for herself. Esterson (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons paragraph in the lead

I am personally of the opinion that the paragraph on nuclear weapons doesn't really belong in the lead, as it is not really what Einstein is notable for. For that reason, I think it should be left to the main body of the article. Any other opinions? LJosil (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree, not sure why this stuff is in the lede, appears as prominence issue to me. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree in part, since his personal life should be mentioned in the lead. After all, escaping from Nazi Germany, inspiring nuclear weapons research, becoming a U.S. citizen, and living and teaching in the U.S. for over 20 years, are key aspects of his life. And compared to the preceding paragraph, at least, one doesn't have to know physics to understand it ;) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggested rephrasing:

"He escaped from Nazi Germany in 1933 and settled in the U.S., becoming a citizen in 1940. On the eve of World War II, he helped alert President Franklin D. Roosevelt that Germany might be developing an atomic weapon, and recommended that the U.S. begin nuclear research. That research by the Manhattan Project resulted in the U.S. becoming the first and only country to possess nuclear weapons during the war." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think he is quite often popularly associated with nuclear bombs (& nuclear energy) - and for many good reasons: theoretical, historical, and political --JimWae (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, contribution to nuclear physics is notable, I'd suggest phrasing for the lede along lines of "E was instrumental in the development of nuclear physics when he produced first mathematical analysis in 1905 of phenomenon now known as Brownian motion, caused by the thermal motion of water molecules." See BBC Atom, episode 1, more sources available at Atoms - Origin of scientific theory. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think one can say that Einstein's mathematical explanation for Brownian Motion, regarded as confirmation that an atom was a real entity not a useful artefact, played a significant role in the development of nuclear physics. The latter arose from the discovery of the electron by J. J. Thomson in 1897, and the experimental work performed under the direction of Ernest Rutherford at the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge over the next fifteen years, followed by Niels Bohr's model of the atom. And so on. Esterson (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Albert Einstein has Albanian citizenship

In an interview given by HRH Géraldine Apponyi de Nagyappony Zog, Queen consort of the Albanians declared that King Zog had given Albanian citizenship and Albanian passport Mr. Albert Einstein. Please tick Albanian citizenship for Albert Einstein. Irvi Hyka (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC).

Do you have a source for that? ― A._di_M.^{3rd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 12:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have source for that: "In 1935, Albert Einstein benefited from Albanian help to transit through Europe to America. He stayed in Durrës on the Albanian coast for three days in the royal mansion and then, equipped with an Albanian passport, continued his journey towards the free world." form http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/features/18790/?tpl=299&ST1=Text&ST_T1=Article&ST_AS1=1&ST_max=1

All people in Albania know that Albert has received Albanian citizenship to escape the new regime in Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs) 17:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Albert Einstein have Albanian citizenship http://www.raoulwallenberg.net/?en/press/albanian-muslims-sheltered.4808.htm Irvi Hyka (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC).

It's an interesting fact and we have two reliable sources. Anyone against entering it in the article? I'll wait a little and then tick him in the infobox and also in the history with the fact. Feel free to edit me afterwards: my English is professional not native. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 12:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Made the edits [4]: really interesting fact and it covers the gap of the history of his life in the 1935 period.--_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 14:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Both sources only mention an Albanian passport, not citizenship. Does the first automatically imply the second? (Note that an earlier claim of Albanian citizenship was considered vandalism, see Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive 15.)--Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

[[5]] explicitly lists all of AE's citizenships and does not mention Albania anywhere.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have a RS explicitly say that Einstein had Albanian passport then yes, one imply the other. You can't have one country passport without being its citizen. This is international borders law and this is how any country works. Also, in all passports it's mentioned that you are a citizen of the country issued it and many time "the holder of this passport is citizen of X". In short, you can't have passport of one country without being its citizen. --Gilisa (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

But Einstein had still Swiss citizenship, I believe. Why should have been an Albanian passport necessary? Are there other sources, which confirm this interview? Otherwise it seems to be a quite weak source. For what reason should Einstein not have used his Swiss citizenship? And obviously Einstein emigrated already in 1933 to the USA. What should he have done in 1935 in Albania? It sounds a bit strange to me and seems to be a myth. --78.43.102.181 (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the sources are more than sufficient. And it makes sense that he permanently went to the USA in 1935, since he got the US passport in 1940, after five years of permanent residency: that's US law. There is a lack of info for the 1933-1935 period though: we know that he went to the US for the first time in 1933, but we are not sure under what visa he was staying there during the 1933-1935 period, however those are the sources for now. And he had many citizenships, nothing wrong with that. Albania was a country that protected him and the Albanian monark was his friend. It seems like he needed an Albanian passport to go to the US in 1935, and chances are that he was going there under a different citizenship because he had stayed too much in the USA in the 1933-1935 period without a proper visa, and probably he needed another passport to be granted permanent residency in the USA. This is very smart of him or of the lawyer that advised him. However it is a little OR on my side as well. Still we have good sources to safely say that it was through Albania that he managed to go to the free world for the second time in 1935 after having gone for the first time in 1933.

Please don't remove WPSQ: The scope of WikiProject Albania is to follow all Albanians, be those natural citizens or naturalized ones (such as Einstein), and that's up to the members of the WikiProject only to decide. Read Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/WikiProject#Define_the_scope. Einstein can be followed by whatever project puts him in the scope and that's a good thing for the article. WPSQ is not here by mistake. --Sulmues ^(talk) 18:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It just seemed a bit nonsensical to me to have the wpsq banner here when Albania is mentioned once in the entire article in a small paragraph about how he used Albania to get to the US. Whether or not it's a good thing for the article to be under the Albanian wp is debatable; to my knowledge, the only edits from Albanian editors to this article came about when trying to prove that he was Albanian citizen at one point in his life. It's certainly not negative thing, but the A-class status of this article didn't come about through the edits of Albanian wp members. Regards. --Local hero ^talk 20:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

So am I right or am I wrong? If any Albanian editors are interested in editing this page, they know where to find it; the banner up there won't increase the number of edits from that project's members. --Local hero ^talk 15:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the sources are sufficient. In fact, assuming User:Gilisa's claim that "passport implies citizenship" is right, we have two contradicting sources, one ([6]) claiming that Einstein held an Albanian passport, the other ([7]) claiming he was not an Albanian citizen at any time. Personally, I consider the second source more reliable than the first. (Note that the other source given above supporting an Albanian passport ([8]) only calls this claim a "story", it doesn't claim it is right. So it's "1:1" on authoritative sources.)--Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No, Einstein did not go to Albania in 1935, nor did he ever travel through Albania to get to the U.S., nor did he benefit from Albanian help in getting to America in 1935, or at any other time. On Oct. 7, 1933, he boarded the ocean liner Westmoreland in Southampton, England, traveling on his Swiss passport. He had come to Southampton from Belgium, where he had spent the summer [Isaacson, 424.]. Before that, he had spent the winter and spring of 1932-33 as a visiting lecturer at Cal Tech in Pasadena, Ca. He arrived in New York harbor on Oct. 17, 1933. He never returned to Europe after that. In 1935, rather than being (as the article has it) in Albania, he was living in Princeton. He had rented a house with Elsa in Princeton in late 1933, and he bought 112 Mercer St. that summer of 1935. His only trip in 1935 was a brief cruise to Bermuda from New York City in May, and upon his reentry from there he applied to become a U.S. citizen. If he was ever offered Albanian citizenship, it was honorary. He never carried an Albanian passport, never listed himself anywhere as an Albanian citizen, and was not in Albania (or anywhere in Europe) in 1935. -- Blastfinder52 (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds plausible, thanks. (Much more plausible than the claim of Einstein re-entering Europe without a valid passport in 1935, IMO.) Can you give a specific reference for his living in Princeton in 1935, eg. from the Isaacson biography? Then we can change the article accordingly. I don't have the biography myself, but apparently it does not even contain the phrase "Albania" (search for it on [9].)--Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The events of 1935, including the trip to Bermuda and the purchase of 112 Mercer St., are on page 437 of the Isaacson biography. -- Blastfinder52 (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a second source [10], which is much more detailed than the first but that says that the Albanian citizenship was given in 1931 not in 1935 (it seems like Queen Geraldine's erroneous mentioning of 1935 has made a mess). According to this source in 1931 Einstein seems to have gone to the US for the first time and in 1932 for the second one both times on an Albanian passport. The source also says that the passport has been confiscated by Nazi Germany. I don't know if this is wp:fringe: Bardhyl Berberi is a journalist and his findings are based on the Central Archives of Albania. I will detail a little further. --Sulmues ^(talk) 04:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Ok, here's what it says: Jani Basho, personal doctor of Zog of Albania since 1928, in 1931 brought Zog for a medical visit in Vienna, where he met with a community of Albanians of Vienna, inclusive of Alexander Moissi. They made him the request to intervene with the king to give Einstein the Albanian citizenship because the scientist' life was in danger from the nazis. The second testimony is that of former employee of the Albanian National Bank Ajeti Bega, who claimed to have met Einstein personally and brought him to the office of the bank's director, then an Italian citizen. According to Bega, on 9 April 1931 Einstein deposited a check in the bank, which was a gift from Zog of Albania. On April 10 1931 Jani Basho received a permission to bring Einstein with him to Pogradec, his town of birth, and later Einstein has had the Albanian passport. Einstein went to the US for the first time in december 1931 on the Albanian passport and also a second time in 1932. Only at the end of 1932 he's received a Swiss passport and travelled definitively to the US. The Basho family considered Einstein a close family friend and Jovan Basho, descendant of Jani Basho, well known doctor and professor, keeps a big photo of Einstein to this day in his living room.--Sulmues ^(talk) 05:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

From his biographers in the Einstein archive in Jerusalem, Einstein seems to have been issued a German passport dated 18 November 1930 but he has never used it. In fact that passport was annulled by Germany. The Swiss passport has been issued on 08 November 1932 by the New York Consulate of Switzerland. The question is: On what passport did Einstein go to New York in November 1932 since he couldn't use the German one? My source has the answer: On an Albanian passport issued in April 1931. Please let me know your thoughts and I'll enter this source. I apologize for not having made a full due diligence research on all the sources with my first entry. --Sulmues ^(talk) 05:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No, this is all completely wrong. People develop all sorts of tales about Einstein that simply are not true. Einstein's first trip to America was in 1921 (not 1931, as you say). For his second trip to America, Einstein took a train, in late November 1930, from Berlin (where his stepdaughter had just gotten married) to Antwerp, Belgium, where he boarded a boat for New York. Einstein arrived in New York in early December 1930 [See "Einstein Consents to Face Reporters," the New York Times, Dec. 10, 1930, available online.] He traveled (as he had in 1921) using his SWISS passport (and citizenship) that he had held for three decades, ever since he was a student in Zurich. (He also had a German passport, which he carried with him on that trip.) He was one of the most famous people in the world at that point, and certainly he was not sneaking to or from Albania. Indeed, many reporters were covering his trip to America, and that week's issue of Time Magazine had his wife Elsa on the cover and an interview with her that described handling his travel arrangements. (It's available online.) He celebrated Hanukkah with 15,000 people that week in Madison Square Garden as a star attraction [Isaacson, 369]. At the end of December 1930, he traveled by boat from New York for that year's teaching gig at Cal Tech. On the way, his boat stopped in Cuba, where he famously addressed that nation's Academy of Sciences, and sailed through the Panama Canal before docking in San Diego. It never went anywhere near Albania. Einstein spent the entire spring at Cal Tech, where one of his most notable moments occurred. At the Mount Wilson Observatory, he was shown evidence that the universe was expanding, thus causing him to call a "blunder" his use of the cosmological constant. At the end of his time at Cal Tech in 1931, he took a train with Elsa across America and stopped at the Grand Canyon and was photographed wearing a headdress of the Hopi Indians [Isaacson, 374]. I say all of this because he was so famous that almost every day in this period there are newspaper stories about him. At no point does he go to Albania, nor does he ever need an Albanian passport to get into the U.S. -- nor in those years before Hitler took power would he need help sneaking into or out of any place. It makes no sense that in 1931, before Hitler and the Nazis were even in power, that he would have to go to Albania and get a passport or secretly be smuggled anywhere. It didn't happen. Not then, nor when he came to America for good in 1933, nor anytime. -- Blastfinder52 (talk) 05:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not wrong, and I said that Einstein went to the US for the first time to the US with an Albanian passport in 1931, not for the first time overall. This says that Einstein was continuously a Swiss citizen since 1901, which is a little dubious, as Einstein seems to have gained Austrian and regained German citizenship after 1901 (respectively in 1911 and 1914). I wonder what the Swiss, German and Austrian laws were at that time, but I doubt that you could have dual citizenship as easily. Once that you earned a citizenship you should give up the prior. That law is still in force in Germany and Austria AFAIK. Why should Einstein have earned another Swiss passport in 1933 if he already had one? And why in New York City? It seems like he had already given up the Swiss citizenship either since 1911 when he earned the Austrian one or in 1914 when he regained the German citizenship. The Albanian passport theory is very plausible and there are lots of testimonies and archive search. The main biographers might not have picked it up, but we have some sources that bring very convincing facts. In addition the word of former Queen of Albania is reliable too, although she messed up the year. --Sulmues ^(talk) 13:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I waited some days to get a response, and I'm going to wait another couple of days. If no one will answer I'll go ahead and edit by showing the most recent source and bring in the article that the Albanian citizenship was given in 1931, rather than in 1935. --Sulmues ^(talk) 17:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

If I get it right, this would include, that he had no Swiss passport in 1931 and that he was secretly in Albania in 1931, never mentioned this officially and regained Swiss citizenship in 1933. --109.192.204.93 (talk) 08:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

He had a Swiss passport from Feb. 21, 1901, until his death. It was regularly renewed, including at the Swiss consulate in the U.S., and it never lapsed. Every entry into the United States (including his December, 1930, entry and the subsequent one, which was in 1933) was done on the Swiss passport. (He did not reenter the U.S. in 1931; after his arrival in Dec. 1930, he went to Cal Tech and lectured there that spring.) He was among the most famous people in the world, and his location each day is amply documented by newspaper stories and by documents in the Einstein Archives. He had dual citizenship -- Swiss and German -- from April 1914 to March 1933. (http://www.einstein-website.de/z_information/variousthings.html#national) He was permitted to have dual citizenship when he became a member of the Prussian Academy in 1914, which also conferred German citizenship. The Nazis did not come into power until 1933, and until then Einstein was a member in high standing of the Prussian Academy and traveled very freely. All of his entries into the U.S., however, were done using his Swiss passport. -- Blastfinder52 (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The following sentences are still in the article: "In 1935, Einstein traveled to the United States via Albania. He stayed in Durrës for three days as a guest of the Albanian royal mansion. Equipped with an Albanian passport, he continued his journey to the United States." It's passages like these that cause people to criticize Wikipedia. Whether or not he ever had an Albanian passport, we know those sentences are incorrect. -- 64.50.141.158 (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I know they are in there and they are wrong. We are having a content dispute on whether the source by Blastfinder52 is better than mine: i.e. whether Einstein held Swiss citizenship all the time or not. Sources are contradicting one another as of now: probably we ought to have a third opinion. I myself don't know what is the truth, but both sources are verifiable. --Sulmues ^(talk) 14:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues: You wrote: "The main biographers might not have picked it up, but we have some sources that bring very convincing facts. In addition the word of former Queen of Albania is reliable too, although she messed up the year."

First, why should an account by the former Queen of Albania necessarily be reliable? Again, stories that contain manifestly erroneous statements are unlikely to contain "very convincing facts". For instance the citation to the relevant passage on the Einstein Wikipedia page says:

"In 1935, Albert Einstein benefited from Albanian help to transit through Europe to America. He stayed in Durrës on the Albanian coast for three days in the royal mansion and then, equipped with an Albanian passport, continued his journey towards the free world."

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/rescue-in-albania-how-thousands-of-jews-were-saved-from-the-holocaust

[The link on the Einstein page does not work, but this is the article.]

But Einstein never left the United States after he took up a permanent post at Princeton in 1933. (Anyway, why would he, in 1935, when permanently settled in the States, want to go to Albania to "equip" himself with an Albanian passport?)

The second source you cite as "much more detailed than the first" contains manifest errors: http://www.albaniapress.com/lajme/8006/Doktori-pogradecar-qe-pajisi-Ajnshtajnin-me-pasaporte-shqiptare.html

An electronic translation reveals it says that Einstein went to Albania in April 1931 when pursued by German Nazis, and left with the passport to go on to the U.S. But Einstein had just returned from the States (March 1931), so why would have required an Albanian passport? (He left Germany in May 1931 for a spell in England, then back to Germany before returning to the States at the end of the year for his stint at Cal Tech in the winter of 1931-1932.) The article says that in 1931 his passport had been seized by the German Gestapo. But the Gestapo didn't come into existence until April 1933 after Hitler had seized power, when Einstein was safely out of the country.

The passport arrangement was supposedly at the instigation of one Dr. Jani [Janice] Bashua, a "friend" of Einstein's. None of the biographies of Einstein have an index entry for Bashua, and a Google search for the name brings up around 100 entries, mostly Albanian, none in English.

Far from being plausible citations, these clearly cannot be trusted. On the other hand Blastfinder52 has provided full details of Einstein's well-documented travels in the period 1930-1933, after which he never returned to Europe. All this information can be found from the major biographies of Einstein.

You wrote: "This says that Einstein was continuously a Swiss citizen since 1901, which is a little dubious, as Einstein seems to have gained Austrian and regained German citizenship after 1901 (respectively in 1911 and 1914). I wonder what the Swiss, German and Austrian laws were at that time, but I doubt that you could have dual citizenship as easily."

There isn't any doubt that Einstein retained Swiss citizenship throughout his time in Germany, and for a period also had German citizenship. Again, see any major biography.

In short, the citations for the Albania story contain too many major errors to be credible, whereas Einstein's whereabouts in the period 1931-1933 are well-documented and indicate there would have been no rhyme or reason for Einstein to visit Albania in April 1931.

I shall delete the paragraph about Albania if no credible objection to the above is posted here. Esterson (talk) 10:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The claim of Albanian citizenship seems highly dubious, and his transit through Albania in 1935 also seems to be equally dubious. Also I would like someone to try to verify what countries he was a citizen of, since Albania appears to have been erroneously added to the information box, which I removed. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Steve: Thanks for your considered response. On the question of the supposed 1935 visit to Albania, it is well documented that Einstein never left the US after his final arrival in 1933, and thereafter he was settled securely at Princeton. The idea he visited Albania in 1935 (for what possible reason?) is a non-starter.

On the issue of his citizenship, all major biographies record he took up Swiss citizenship in 1901 and retained it when he also had German citizenship for nearly fifteen years while resident in Berlin. There is semi-official confirmation of this in the book co-authored by Helen Dukas, Einstein's secretary from 1928 to his death in 1955, and thereafter a trustee of his literary estate: In 1919, "while retaining his precious Swiss citizenship [obtained in 1901, p. 31], he became a German citizen" (p. 137, *Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel*, Banesh Hoffman, with the collaboration of Helen Dukas, Granada Publishing Ltd, 1972.) 86.172.242.103 (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to log in for the above comment Esterson (talk) 07:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The Swiss embassy acknowledged in 1933, that Einstein never lost Swiss citizenship. If Einstein ever had an Albanian passport, it was from this point on nearly of no value for him and it would be somewhat imgaginable, that he never mentioned it later. But did Switzerland realy always acknowledge his Swiss citizenship or only afterwards in 1933? Although I have no sources at hand, I've read, that Switzerlang refused to prolong his passport in 1925 (Perhaps after they had learned on the occasion of his Nobel prize, that he had regained German citizenship.) But in the uncertain political situation in the early 1930s, a second passport became somewhat the character of an insurance. In this case it seems imaginable, that Einstein secretly seized a possible opportunaty for any second passport, even if he never visited the country of this passport. A visit in Albania in 1935 can clearly be called a myth! And mentioning an Albanian passport in the article needs more evidence! And what about the Swiss citizenship between 1925 and 1933 in this case? It seems, there are a few doubts, whether the Albanian story is completely so baseless as described, but also a need of better sources. Henrig (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources provided for his passport please don't remove --Vinie007 13:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Referring to this edit, this source cannot be found, and in this source T. Scarlett Epstein OBE says: "Even Albert Einstein took refuge in Albania for a few days in 1935 before continuing his journey to America with an Albanian passport." So, (1) who is T. Scarlett Epstein OBE and how reliable is this, and (2), is "with an Albanian passport" evidence for having Albanian nationality? DVdm (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Pending a convincing reply, I have undone the edit. DVdm (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, good reliable neutral sources are needed for such important info. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 02:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

With reference to DVdm's questioning the reliability of T. Scarlett Epstein's statement that "Even Albert Einstein took refuge in Albania for a few days in 1935 before continuing his journey to America with an Albanian passport":

We know this is erroneous as Einstein left Europe to settle in America in October 1933 and never again left America (see any major biography), so there can be no question of his "continuing his journey" to America in 1935. From the article referenced by DVdm it is evident that Epstein is grateful for Albanian hospitality at a time of urgent need, and it seems likely he has been told the story about Einstein and is happy to take it on trust. But it is evident that the claim is inauthentic. Esterson (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

At least that must be included i think, even if we haven't found yet the "right" source--Vinie007 13:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The following has now been added to the Albert Einstein webpage (19 January):

Escape via Albania

In 1935, Einstein traveled to the United States via [[Albania]. He stayed in Durrës for three days as a guest of the Albanian royal mansion. Equipped with an Albanian passport[44], he continued his journey to the United States. The gesture of the Albanian royalty of King Zog is said to be part of the traditional Albanian besa (honor), according to which many Jews (including Einstein) were saved from Nazi forces prior to and during World War II in Albania." [45][46]

There is a determined effort by a few editors to promote this story, despite the fact that it has been several times shown on this Discussion page that it is manifestly inconsistent with known facts, i.e., Einstein was in Pasadena, California, when Hitler came to power in 1933, and on his return to Europe he accepted the hospitality of the Belgium royal family and then visited England before leaving for the United States in October 1933, never to return to Europe. (Banesh Hoffman and Helen Dukas, Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel, 1972, pp. 164-173.) The heading "Escape via Albania" therefore bears no relation to the facts of Einstein's leaving Europe.

Leaving aside the fact that the 1935 date for Einstein's travelling to the United States is erroneous, it is inconceivable that Einstein's secretary, Helen Dukas, who looked after all Einstein's travelling arrangements, would not have recorded a visit to Albania had there been one.

All this should suffice, but I'll also deal with the citations for the newly added paragraph above. The unreliability of the hearsay story recycled by T. Scarlett Epstein has already been dealt with above, notably by Blastfinder. The second citation quotes Imam Qemal Lami, of the Albanian American Moslem Community, reporting that he "relayed the story of a German-born Jewish professor who escaped to the U.S. after securing a new passport in Albania", the professor in question supposedly being Einstein. This is not evidence, it is a recycling from an Albanian source of a hearsay story that has been shown to be erroneous. A third citation has been added, a tourist clip on Youtube for Parmoor House, Buckinghamshire, England. King Zog of Albania lived there from 1941-1945. The clip shows that there was also an entry in the visitors' book prior to this period showing that at some time before the residence of the Albanian royal family Einstein stayed there on one of his several visits to England from 1921 to 1933. (Nehru and Baden-Powell were also named as being in the visitors' book.) This provides not a jot of evidence for the claim that Einstein went to Albania in the period of his leaving Europe for America: [11]

I think it is time a senior editor ended this "debate" once and for all. Meantime, I shall revert the paragraph in question.Esterson (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

New Facts

Hi, some information is really missing from this article : 1. Einstein's ethnicity - He was a Jewish German, not just a German. 2. Einstein's plugializing of works of James Maxwell & Hendrik Lorentz without giving credits to them. 3. Einstein was denied Nobel Prize for his work in general relativity (obviously his major achievement). And instead his promoters gave him Nobel Prize for photoeffect, that was invented by russian scientist. That is important fact - it was a scandal at that time. Steelmate (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Content in Wikipedia must be supported by references to reliable sources. In your edit to the article you cite www.biblebelievers.org, which is not a reliable source. Do you have a reliable source for your “facts”? —teb728 t c 12:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Per TEB728, what is your reliable source for this proposed material? It sounds like opinion to me. --John (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

His source at [12] is disgustingly anti-Semitic. Dougweller (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Not only is it antisemitic, it also is factually crap. I'm sure the ETH Zurich is properly described as "an engineering school in Zurich" with "a simple entrance exam". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Swiss or German or both

Yworo made this edit [13], stating that Albert Einstien was a Swiss theoretical physicist. I reverted the edit on the grounds that Einstein was born in Germany, and it seems to me that he is more well known as a German citizen. User:Yworo claims that according to the Manual of Style birth nationality is not used at the time the person became notable. However, the MOS (here}, appears to state that either are relevant (unless I am misreaing this paragraph).

In 1896 Einstein did give up German citizenship [[14]] (see page xix). In 1901 he became a Swiss citizen, and by 1917 he held a dual Swiss and German citizenship, with a position in Berlin. I think at the very least he is known for dual citizenship. Also, although my edit was reverted [15] by Yworo, this was reverted again as unnecessary by another editor, Physik-Nobelpreisträger. I agree with this because the following sentence states he was a German-Swiss Nobel laureate, and there is no need to repeat this. I feel that simply stating that Einstein was a Swiss-only physicist is misleading. Any thoughts on this matter? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The German gouvernment counts him among the German Nobel prize laureates. Deutsche Physik-Nobelpreisträger. When he got in 1922 the Nobel prize for 1921, he lived since eight years in Germany again. The International Nobel Commitee listed him officially as a German Nobel prize laureate. (Not as a German-Swiss laureate. The German ambassador received the prize for Einstein.) But since he never renounced his Swiss citizenship, it seems as well justifiable to call him a German and Swiss laureate. (The tem 'German-Swiss' could perhaps be a bit ambiguous, hinting also to the German speaking part of the Swiss.) Henrig (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Concerning a nationality or an ethnicity in the lead, there were to my knowledge already a few disputes in former years with the result, this would not be necessary. Henrig (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I propose that the first sentence be amended so that "German theoretical physicist" be replaced by "German-born theoretical physicist". This has precedence on Wikipedia, for example, in the case of Lise Meitner (Austrian-born) and Max Born (German-born). It is especially appropriate for Einstein, given that he deliberately gave up his German citizenship at sixteen when he joined his parents who had emigrated from Germany to Italy (Albert Einstein Collected Papers, vol. 1, doc. 16). His acquiring German citizenship again (alongside his Swiss citizenship obtained in 1901) during his residence in Berlin seems to have been involuntary, at least at first (his post at the Prussian Academy commencing in 1914 was officially deemed to make him a "Reich German", though he was unaware of this at the time [A. Fölsing, Albert Einstein, 1997, pp. 334-335]). He renounced his German citizenship in 1933 even before he left Europe for the United States (Fölsing, 1997, p. 661), where he soon acquired American citizenship. With this history in mind, and given his antipathy towards Germany starting while he was still in his mid-teens, I think it appropriate that "German" should be replaced by "German-born". Esterson (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm completely against having "German-born" in the lead sentence. WP:MOSBIO specifically states that "previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability". It's redundant to say "German-born" because it already states in both the infobox and biography section that he was born in Germany. --John of Lancaster (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

In my view it is highly relevant that Einstein was German-born, as this was a major aspect of his school education and contributed to his later attitudes to education and to the development of his socio-political views, not to mention the issues about his renewing German nationality when he went to Berlin. The fact that this is mentioned elsewhere is neither here nor there. Esterson (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you are right. --John of Lancaster (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Esterson (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity = Jewish ?????

Judaism is a religion. Einstein's ethnicity should be traced to the LANDS of his relatives, not their beliefs.

71.220.217.39 (talk) 23:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)Scott, 12/25/2010

See Who is a Jew?. Sean.hoyland - talk 23:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, ethnicity Jewish- I don't think that many people truly believe that being Jewish is only a religious matter and in any case Jews are widely referred as ethnic group. --Gilisa (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Agnostic or Atheist?!

I need to settle this once and for all - was Einstein agnostic or atheist?? --KpoT (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Einstein often referenced God in the same fashion that Hawking used to; both use the word God in reference to that which we don't know about the universe, or in reference to the underlying energies seemingly behind it all. However, Einstein was not religious and in reference to the traditional anthropomorphised God of western theology, the God of Einstein's comments was more akin to the deist view of God: the great clock maker that wound the clock and let it be. To call him a believer in God would be inaccurate, therefore, without defining God. 208.88.8.22 (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point to this quote: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." (Albert Einstein) SOURCE: http://atheism.about.com/od/einsteingodreligion/tp/Einstein-on-a-Personal-God.htm Spinoza's god is something much more than an atheistic or agnostic point of view. It is a belief in god. I think it is worth mentioning in this article. Einstein has repeatedly made fun of a "personal" god such as the god in Christianity, but seems to lean on the pantheistic world view (hence Spinoza). I ask you not to overlook this because Einstein was a world famous scientist, he deserves to be seen as he was. Silenzer12 (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Silence

Einstein's two mental break-downs are passed over in silence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.81.64 (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It would help if you gave citations. I have seen suggestions that his health breakdown in 1917 following his massive (and continuing) work on his general relativity theory was a mental breakdown, but this is erroneous. (Albrecht Fölsing, Albert Einstein, 1997, pp. 405-406; W. Isaacson, Einstein: His Life and Universe, 2007, p. 233). Although for a period of some months Einstein was confined to bed, his work on physics continued unabated. I know of no other period for which it is claimed that Einstein had a mental breakdown. Esterson (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

See Archive 14 # Both of the current Talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.49.73 (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand that last message. What is Archive 14 and how do I see it? Esterson (talk) 11:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably means Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive 14#Both. —teb728 t c 11:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added this to Archive 14 # Both: On neither of the occasions mentioned did Einstein have a "nervous" illness. At the end of 1895 he obtained a medical certificate from an obliging doctor, the elder brother of his medical student friend Max Talmud, attesting he was suffering from "neurasthenic exhaustion", but this was merely a pretext to enable him to be granted permission to leave his Gymnasium in Munich and join his parents who had emigrated to Italy earlier that year (A. Fölsing, Albert Einstein (1997), p. 30). In 1917 he fell ill with a stomach ailment, later diagnosed as a duodenal ulcer, almost certainly precipitated by his failing to take sufficient care of himself since his marriage with Mileva broke down, and he lived alone while working intensely on General Relativity theory. He continued to experience stomach problems over the next two years, and was confined to bed for some weeks in 1918, but continued working on physics during this time (Fölsing, pp. 405-06; 417-18).Esterson (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Good job Esterson!

Thanks. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Travels abroad

The first sentence in this section, reporting that Einstein first visited New York in 1921, is followed by a statement of his views on science which seem to me to be out of place here. In any case, the reference citation is to "'Geometry and Experience', (1921), reprinted in Ideas and Opinions". But the latter book (p. 232) shows that "Geometry and Experience" was a lecture delivered at the Prussian Academy of Sciences, 27 January 1921.

I shall remove the statement of Einstein's views and leave the paragraph with only the subject matter pertaining to the title of the section. Esterson (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Request image restoration

A useful image, File:Einstein in UK.jpg, with the caption, "Einstein with Oliver Locker-Lampson, being protected in Norfolk, England, after escaping Nazi Germany in 1933", was deleted for the 2nd time despite its direct support of the commentary. The reason for the deletion was "You can't just keep uploading an image every time it is deleted." However, the deleting admin disregarded, or didn't see, the newly added text describing the image or the new rationale given on the image description. A consensus to restore the image would be a good idea, so that anyone can then comment:

• Keep, per above explanation. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Another image, of a newspaper headline announcing his death, is also marked for deletion, and any other votes to "keep" or "delete" should be made on the image's talk page. Otherwise it can be deleted in 2 days. The rationale for keeping it is on the image page. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been able to see: File:Einstein in UK.jpg. But it relates to a brief passing episode among many more important in Einstein's life, so I don't see the need for it, especially as the article is probably overlong as it is. Esterson (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

While on the subject, I'm not convinced the details about Oliver Locker-Lampson should even be in the text of the article. If this kind of detail were introduced for every stage of Einstein's life, the article would be considerably longer for no good purpose. My view is that the whole Locker-Lampson item should be removed, with "prior to leaving for the United States in October 1933" added to the previous sentence, so it reads: "On his return to Europe in March 1933 he resided in Belgium for some months, before temporarily moving to England prior to leaving for the United States in October 1933."[42] Esterson (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the biography is too long, but not for the same reason. The majority of this "biography" has too little to do with the life of Einstein, and too much about science. Simply look at the endless array of scientific sections, most of which make little mention of the life of Einstein. Typical example from the lead sentence from the "Scientific career" sections:

"His 1905 paper on the electrodynamics of moving bodies introduced his theory of special relativity, which showed that the observed independence of the speed of light on the observer's state of motion required fundamental changes to the notion of simultaneity."

The 2nd paragraph in the lead is also focused just on science. So contrary to a massive amount of such impersonal science details, the Locker-Lampson visit at least describes his personal life, and in this case a very significant transition period during his emigration. The photo showed Einstein being protected by armed men, including Locker-Lampson, which implies that Einstein's life was at serious risk. That's the kind of stuff that bios need more of, IMO. I mentioned this same problem about Johannes Gutenberg's life, where personal bio details were removed in favor of details about the history of typography, books, etc. For the Einstein article, I'd prefer to trim sub-sections that have full article links and expand details related to Einstein the person. Just my opinion.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As the science held a central place in his life for so much of it, I dare say many contributors would disagree with your view.

"...which implies that Einstein's life was at serious risk."

Not necessarily. It implies that Locker-Lampson thought he was at risk (or was merely taking precautions to be on the safe side), though with only "two girl secretaries" armed with rifles [were such individuals legally allowed to have firearms?] to help him, I doubt a serious assassin would have had too much trouble in succeeding.

http://www.northnorfolknews.co.uk/news/man_who_brought_einstein_and_carnivals_to_cromer_area_1_763453

Whatever threats were being uttered in Germany, no one else seems to have felt that Einstein needed a bodyguard while he was in England in 1933. I remain unconvinced that the Locker-Lampson reference deserves a place on the Einstein webpage. It suffices merely to note that Einstein stayed a short time in England between his stay in Belgium when he returned from the States in March 1933 and his leaving for the States in October 1933. Esterson (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The photo proves otherwise. But if you can support your opinion that Locker-Lampson was just overly paranoid and needlessly protective, that's fine. As a navy commander, he might have disagreed with you, though. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The photo proves nothing beyond the fact that Locker-Lampson protected Einstein with rifles, something no one is disputing. I don't need to support my opinion that Locker-Lampson was almost certainly needlessly protective (I didn't say he was paranoid – he was obviously heeding outrageous words emanating from Germany), other than to point out that no one else seems to have thought he needed it. None of the major biographies mention any official armed protection for Einstein during his stay in England.

I would like to delete at least part of your recent addition: "He was an outspoken opponent of the Nazi persecution of Jews [44][45] and some have considered his other efforts, such as helping Sigmund Freud,[46] "exceptional in how he saved Jews from Germany." [47]

This is supposed to be a Wikipage on Einstein. If this kind of detail (about Locker-Lampsom and Freud and his assisting Jews to escape to England) were included for most people who came into close contact with Einstein, the article would increase substantially. Leaving aside that the reference to Freud is inappropriate for the Einstein Wikipedia page, it's not even as if Locker-Lampson had any role in Freud's coming to England after the Nazis took over Austria. This was facilitated by the efforts of Freud's colleague and friend Ernest Jones and by the Home Secretary Sir Samuel Hoare, who immediately gave carte blanche for Jones to fill in permits for Freud and his entourage. (E. Jones, Sigmund Freud: Life and Work. Vol. 3, p. 237.)

I hope a senior editor will oblige by giving his opinion on this matter. Esterson (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

With regard to the U.K. assisting Einstein and offering him armed personal protection, you "point out that no one else seems to have thought he needed it." Maybe that's true. And whether his protection was actually required, in hindsight, is simply a matter of opinion. But that also makes it necessary to explain why Locker-Lampson alone, in the U.K., would do more. The sentence you think should be deleted helps explain why: "He was an outspoken opponent of the Nazi persecution of Jews, and some have considered his other efforts, such as helping Sigmund Freud, "exceptional in how he saved Jews from Germany."

When compared to the earlier, much larger, exchange about whether Albania should be credited with merely stamping his passport or letting him stay for a few days while in transit, it seems odd to want to discredit evidence that anyone in the U.K. did so much to help him, and others, escape Germany. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher1: You write, comparing this with the Albania issue, "it seems odd to want to discredit evidence that anyone in the U.K. did so much to help him, and others, escape Germany." These two items are completely unrelated. With the first, it's a matter of the authentic evidence, of which there not a scrap to support the claim, and plenty to refute it. The notion that I "want to discredit evidence" that anyone in the UK did so much to help Einstein escape Germany is strange. Nothing I wrote supports this, I merely question whether so much detail is appropriate, especially when it goes beyond material directly relating to Einstein. But what you write here is incorrect anyway. Locker-Lampson didn't do anything "to help Einstein…escape Germany". Einstein stayed in Belgium on his return from the States in March 1933, and before his first visit to England that year he knew nothing of Locker-Lampson. Nor did Einstein need Locker-Lampson's help for him to come to England prior to his leaving for the States in October; he was completely at liberty to come to England as he had earlier in the year, and there were plenty of people who would have been happy to give him hospitality.

You write: "But that also makes it necessary to explain why Locker-Lampson alone, in the U.K., would do more." By "more" you can only mean giving Einstein armed protection (though all may not be quite as it seems, see Isaacson below). Here is Einstein biographer Ronald Clark on the colourful, not to say eccentric, Locker-Lampson: "In the First World War he pursued an adventurous career [etc, etc]. It was in character that Locker-Lampson should have served under the Grand Duke Nicholas and later been invited to murder Rasputin by one of the men who eventually carried out the assassination" (1971, p. 566). And here is Walter Isaacson: "In a drama worthy of a James Bond movie, Locker-Lampson had two young 'assistants' take Einstein up to a secluded cottage that he owned… There he was swept into a whirlwind of secrecy and publicity. The two young women posed next to him holding hunting shotguns for a picture that was given to the press agencies…" (2007, pp. 422-23)

I can only repeat what I wrote before, that all this detail about Locker-Lampson is inappropriate for the Einstein page, given the immense amount of scientific work he undertook, and the enormous amount of non-scientific events with which he was involved. That the photo was posed for a publicity shoot only adds to the reasons for omitting this material. Esterson (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, you write that some have considered Locker-Lampson's "other efforts, such as helping Sigmund Freud, 'exceptional in how he saved Jews from Germany'." But he played no role in helping Freud escape from the Nazis in 1938 (see above). The citation on the Einstein page relates to the following year, 1939, when he proposed a parliamentary bill to confer citizenship on Freud. Esterson (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I agree that it would be "strange," as you say, for anyone "to want to discredit evidence" that Einstein received such help. So it's even more strange that your comments again seem to do more of it. You repeatedly describe a "posed" photo with two women to undermine the event, yet the only picture that's being discussed is this photo. And the sentence which gives the subject context and substance, and includes 4 citations, you want removed because "all this detail about Locker-Lampson is inappropriate."

Yet you apparently see no problem with the obviously bloated "Scientific career" material, like this one, which I suggested could be trimmed. This one section is an essay of over 800 words of scientific details which only a physicist could understand, and lacks any citations! To top it off, it even has a hatnote to its own article. That's the kind of material that is "inappropriate," IMO.

Since Locker-Lampson helped Freud also, why leave his name out? It also adds context and substance. His name is only mentioned, not described in the detail you've added. Yet Locker-Lampson stood before the House of Commons in order to give an "alarmist" description of Freud's condition. Brenda Maddox, in her book, Freud's Wizard, (2006), writes that Locker-Lampson wanted to do the same for Freud that he earlier did for Einstein, and act as his "protector." Since you also mention that Locker-Lampson was "eccentric" and a James Bond-type figure, it makes the subject even more interesting and relevant. I suggest that we just leave the sentence in, and you and I instead write a movie script about the adventurous and daring Locker-Lampson. Or else we can hire a ghostwriter. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There seems no point in discussing this further until another editor comes in to give his or her opinion. (You seem to ignore the detail of much that I wrote, for instance, still writing that Locker-Lampson "helped Freud" when he actually gave no direct help to him, whatever Maddox says he wanted to do – I have all the major biographies of Freud, and the only one that even mentions Locker-Lampson is Jones's, and then only to say that he raised the question in Parliament of speeding up the normal procedure for naturalization as a British citizen for Freud.) You criticize the amount of material on Einstein's scientific career, though it is primarily his scientific work on which his great reputation rests. If you check out Freud's Wikipedia page, the great bulk of it (rightly) is about his psychoanalytic theories. Do you object to that? More generally, the Wikipedia page for any first-rank scientist covers their scientific work extensively, which is as it should be. Esterson (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• The paragraphs pertaining to Oliver Locker-Lampson appears to be off topic, and Einstein's stay with Oliver Locker-Lampson appears to be an insignificant detail. To maintain this amount of content regarding Oliver Locker-Lampson, in this article, amounts to giving too much weight to an insignificant detail and irrelevant opinions. Moreover, the photo provided by Wikiwatcher1 does not demonstrate that Einstein's stay at this secluded cottage is significant and worthy of note. Furthermore, to imply that Einstein was in serious danger because of this photo probably amounts to synthesis. Also, this biography is not about the Admiral's views. This material appears to be merely an unnecessary digression. I support removing this material, and support only mentioning that Einstein stayed in England before emigrating to the USA. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Steve, some of your recent edits to the WWII section seem reasonable. However, it wasn't necessary to do so with a slightly hostile attitude, per some of your summary comments: remove minutiae, remove name of author of a current opinion article from this article, remove misrepresentation of facts, Correct the wording to represent the facts accurately; What does "that research" mean? - nebulous wording. Also remove promotional wording -- ("the first country blah, blah,") -- which could also possibly be WP:SYN.There's no reason to create an adversarial atmosphere by such phrasing, and I doubt that's what Esterson was requesting.

But your rationale above, for instance, that "to imply that Einstein was in serious danger because of this photo probably amounts to synthesis." shows you are commenting off the cuff. There are cites and article links included that make those assertions. If you personally don't think Time magazine or the Norfolk newspaper should have stories like that, that's fine, but it's your personal opinion. Those were reliable sources, and they felt they were significant parts of Einstein's life. All of the details with Locker-Lampson were related to Einstein in a significant way.

Since you don't like trivia or SYN, why not do something about the largest portion of the bio that hardly mentions Einstein, such as sections 2.1 Annus Mirabilis papers; 2.2 Thermodynamic fluctuations and statistical physics; 2.3 Thought experiments and a-priori physical principles, and the others. These first three sections are completely original research with no required citiations, with each having a full article hatnote. So instead of excising "biographical" cited facts, why not trim these mostly non-biographical essays and really improve the article? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher: The fact that Steve does not think the article citations are appropriate for the Einstein page does not mean that he thinks the publications in question shouldn't have stories like that – that's their job. But neither show that Einstein was in danger. As Isaacson reports, Locker-Lampson was a colourful personality who arranged a posed photograph largely for publicity purposes – if Einstein's security was really at risk, why would Locker-Lampson have publicised where he was staying? The other includes a statement made by Locker-Lampson in Parliament which, incidentally, has him saying "How proud this country must be to have offered him shelter at Oxford". As I've said above, Locker-Lampson didn't rescue Einstein in any way – he was free to come to England and any number of eminent people would have been glad to give him hospitality had Locker-Lampson not gone out of his way to offer Einstein a secluded spot where he could entertain a few guests as he pleased in peace and quiet.

Your paragraph includes something about Locker-Lampson supposedly helping Freud, but as I've already pointed out, he was not involved in any way with helping Freud escape from the Nazis, as the sentence in question implies.

You refer to sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 as hardly mentioning Einstein. That's quite extraordinary, seeing as they are completely about some of Einstein's major contributions to physics. They are not "original research", they are descriptions of Einstein's achievements, as is entirely appropriate for a Wikipedia page on an outstanding scientist.

When I suggested reducing the amount on Locker-Lampson you promptly considerably increased it. There are now two people with a good knowledge of Einstein and physics who disagree with you here, but you insist you are right. Frankly it is absurd to have so much on a man who scarcely impinged on Einstein's extraordinarily eventful life, while lifelong friends like Michele Besso, Maurice Solovine and Max Born, people of great significance to Einstein, scarcely get a mention. Esterson (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologize that the wording in my edit histories that pertain to the WWII material came across as terse.

And it is true that the science sections directly pertain to Einstein - and some of the content is difficult for the general reader to understand. In an attempt to shorten the article, and make the scientific achievements more understandable I have done some copy editing. But it is not easy. I think the processes that Einstein employed in order to reach his conclusions are worthy of note. However, at 137,000 bytes the article appeared to need trimming. Hopefully this article will not reach the size of the article entitled The Holocaust, which is currently just above 241,000 bytes.

I don't think it would be a bad idea to split off the Science Career section into a new article. I am sure it could be done so that this part of his biography is given the signifigance it deserves. I have a couple of ideas how this could work. Also, the proposed Science Career article could be expanded with simple introductions in each section for the general reader. This could be followed with more detail in each section, as desired. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Einstein famously used thought experiments. However, the way this section was written, it seemed to emphasize a philosophy rather than emphasizing the work Einstein was specifically engaged in. So, I temporarilly changed this section until some more definitive text that directly relates to Einstein can be developed.---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

From a general reader impression, I think Steve has helped return this biography article to a more balanced state. Trimming the "Annus Mirabilis papers" section down from 820 words to 80, and trimming other sections, at least invites non-physicists in the door. Simply looking at the Table of Contents in the Isaacson biography of Einstein shows a reasonable balance between his personal life and career aspects, and the level of detail a bio should devote to those sections.

But Esterson's comment that "Locker-Lampson supposedly helped Freud," and, with a straight face, claim that "he was not involved in any way with helping Freud," even with the cited details in that paragraph, is amazing. However, I'll agree that he was probably free to come to England, as apparently the British were very accommodating to homeless Nobel Prize winners, especially ones with a bounty on their head. When you suggested reducing the amount on Locker-Lampson, however, you wrote that this "brief passing" and insignificant event should not even be mentioned. The added citations were therefore added to help prove the significance and to replace some details that the deleted photo now required.

Originally, only the photo was shown, without any commentary, but its removal on the basis of its lacking commentary then made adding the commentary more necessary. This entire Talk section was a" Request image restoration," but that request seems to have backfired. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher1: You write it is amazing that I wrote that Locker-Lampson "was not in any way involved with helping Freud", even with the cited details in that paragraph. I've already dealt with all this, but here it is again. If you're going to quote me, please do so accurately. What I wrote was that "he was not involved in any way with helping Freud escape from the Nazis", which is one hundred percent true, as is evident from the biography by Freud's friend and colleague Ernest Jones (details above). All your citation shows is that Locker-Lampson, at the instigation of H.G. Wells, raised in Parliament the year after Freud arrived the possibility of speeding up naturalisation for Freud (presumably because he knew Freud was near to death by then). It would not have made the slightest difference to Freud's settling in England if Locker-Lampson hadn't existed.

Freud wasn't just "probably free" to come to England, he was free to come to England, as the Home Secretary allowed Ernest Jones to have the necessary documents to be signed by Freud. And, incidentally, Freud was not a Nobel Prize winner.

You write: "Contents in the Isaacson biography of Einstein shows a reasonable balance between his personal life and career aspects, and the level of detail a bio should devote to those sections." But Isaacson's biography is for a popular readership. Why should a Wikipedia page necessarily follow such a policy? If you look at the Freud Wikipedia page, the great bulk of it is (rightly) denoted to his ideas and clinical practice. In any case, it shouldn’t be the case that so much is written on Locker-Lampson when his presence in Einstein's life was insignificant compared with Born, Besso and Solovine, to name just three. Esterson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC).

The reason WP does follow that policy is because the essence of WP readership is that the reader knows nothing about the person discussed in a biography. My guess is that the "average" reader coming to the article is more interested in the life of Einstein than overly detailed science, i.e. " a gas made up of a molecule with two atoms can be thought of as two balls on a spring. This spring has energy kBT at high temperatures, and should contribute an extra kB to the specific heat. It does at temperatures of about 1000 degrees, but at lower temperature, this contribution disappears. At zero temperature, all other contributions to the specific heat from rotations and vibrations also disappear."

But rather than delete persons relevant to his bio, why not add the connections he had with Born, Besso and Solovine? I think what Steve did in summarizing science sections that had their own articles is a great improvement and helps overall readership. We are not all physicists. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think the point is that this incident, and Einstein's relationship with Locker-Lampson appears to be trivial. Locker-Lampson was not Einstein's peer, and did not confer with Einstein as a scientific colleague. In essence this person does not appear to have notability in regards to impacting Einstein's life. And he has no standing to be such a significant part of this biography. The admiral made no noteworthy scientific contribution as did the others mentioned on this talk page. Again there is no impact on Einstein's life nor his contributions to science and society.

Just from these articles I can glean that Locker-Lampson appears to be merely a flamboyant character. Furthermore, stating in this article that he "...was an outspoken opponent of the Nazi persecution of Jews and a leading member of a Blue Shirts anti-communist league, for whom he wrote a marching song..." appears to be off topic. This article is about Einstein and not Locker-Lampson. In addition, "Today Professor Einstein is without a home!' cried Commander Locker-Lampson" is still about Locker-Lampson, was a matter of opinion, and appears to be designed to play on the emotions of a governing body. This appears to be trivial at best. Moeover, to have a quote surrounded by white space in the middle of a paragraph appears to be in contradiction to WP:UNDUE, and appears to be a single incidence of POV pushing. In any case, all of the material pertaining to this person appears to be in contradiction to WP:NPOV.

Finally, it appears that consensus through editing has decided that Einstien's scientific research and contributions is to have the amount of coverage this area receives in this article. I doubt one editor's disagreement with this development will change that. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• The statement about helping Frued is again about Locker-Lampson, and this is an article about Einstein. This is not Locker-Lampson's biography. Also I question the relevance of the paragraph about other scientists who fled germany. This article is not about other scientists or other Nobel laureates. This appears to be POV pushing. Except for Einstein's statement, this probably belongs in some other article. I think all that needs to be said is other expatriots, or other emigree scientists joined Einstein and then Einstein said "Such and such..." ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no requirement that everyone mentioned in a scientist's bio be a fellow scientist. Your statement, "Locker-Lampson was not Einstein's peer, and did not confer with Einstein as a scientific colleague. In essence this person does not appear to have notability in regards to impacting Einstein's life," is illogical. His notability has been shown and his relevance to Einstein's visit has been proven. So your conclusion that he should be deleted because he "made no noteworthy scientific contribution," is also illogical, at best. Nor does the article state that he was "a leading member of a Blue Shirts anti-communist league, for whom he wrote a marching song..."

You also rely on an extremely minor and easily edited detail like blockquoting (recommended for readability,) and using that to imply "POV pushing." That simply refreshes the first comment to you above about your seemingly hostile attitude. It also contradicts WP policies to assume of good faith. You now add a mention of Freud, with 2 cites, in relation to Locker-Lampson and Einstein, as more hostile assertions of POV pushing. I've added considerably to his personal life details over many months, including finding and adding valuable photos. I did so to improve the article, not merely because I was asked to join in a discussion to achieve consensus. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• The point is Locker-Lampson has had no discernible impact on Einstein's life or his work. Furthermore, this addition to the article serves as a platform to present a mini-biography of Locker-Lampson. The admiral's views, according to Time magazine (or any publication) are not relevant to this article. The fact that he presented a bill which may generally affect Jewish refugees is still part of a mini-biography about the admiral. His characterization of Einstein's displacement is Locker-Lampson's opinion. Locker-Lampson's other efforts, such as helping Sigmund Freud is also part of a mini-biography about the admiral. The partial quote "...exceptional in how he saved Jews from Germany," is, again, part of a mini-biography about Locker-Lampson. This mini-biography is out of context in this article. Hence, since this article is being used as a platform for irrelevant material it appears to be POV pushing.

It is true the article does not say "a leading member of a Blue Shirts anti-communist league, for whom he wrote a marching song..." - I confused that with the sources.

I suggest that material pertaining to Locker-Lampson be merged to his biography.

I am not sure which person you are talking about when you state, "I've added considerably to his personal life details over many months, including finding and adding valuable photos." Are you talking about this article? If that is the case then I am glad that you have contributed to this article, but that is not relevant to this discussion. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, the "extremely minor and easily edited detail" of a blockquote does not tell the whole tale. This minor detail has the affect of making this quoted text stick out like a sore thumb. If the quoted text is not relevant to the particular article then, as in the case, it serves to add unmerited signifigance to the text (and might be construed as POV). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You seem gung-ho to continue creating a tower built on erroneous statements. Your foundation is based on your POV that 1) Locker-Lampson had no discernible impact on Einstein's life; and 2) that every mention of him is part of a mini-biography. But the proof you offer, such as a blockquote by him, only proves the exact opposite: if you read it you'll notice there is nothing in that quote that is about Locker-Lampson, as it's only about Einstein. So what you, like Esterson, are again asking for, I assume is more substantiation, which I'll be happy to add to the section if necessary.

For example, Locker-Lampson also took Einstein to visit Winston Churchill. Einstein wrote to his wife about their meeting: "He is an eminently wise man. It became clear to me that these people have made preparations and are determined to act resolutely and soon." He later took him to visit Austen Chamberlain, and former Prime Minister David Lloyd, and others. He helped promote Einstein's appearance at the Royal Albert Hall aimed at raising money for other German scholars. As a result, all 9,000 seats were filled and the aisles and lobbies were jammed. A thousand students came to act as guides and guards against any pro-Nazi demonstrators that might show up. During his speech, Einstein said,

"If we want to resist the powers that threaten to suppress intellectual and individual freedom, we must be clear of what is at stake. Without such freedom there would have been no Shakespeare, no Goethe, no Newton, no Faraday, no Pasteur, no Lister. . . "

I'm no Einstein, as the saying goes, but I'm beginning to share his dislike of attempted censorship. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher1: On Locker-Lampson's initiating Einstein's visits to Winston Churchill, Austen Chamberlin and David Lloyd George, none of these discussions had a major role in Einstein's life. Einstein saw numerous eminent people on his visits to England, and if he'd particularly wanted to see these people he only had to ask. It speaks well of Locker-Lampson that he did so much to promote the Royal Albert Hall meeting to publicise the Nazis treatment of German scholars, but it was originally organised by the Academic Assistance Fund started by William Beverage and Ernest Rutherford before Locker-Lampson had any involvement.

More on Locker-Lampson from Ronald Clark's biography: "The assassination story was, in fact, made up by Locker-Lampson and 'leaked' to a London evening newspaper when the sale of tickets for the 'Einstein meeting' at the Royal Albert Hall was flagging." (p. 601)

You ask: "But rather than delete persons relevant to his bio, why not add the connections he had with Born, Besso and Solovine?" Because if little extra snippets of information were to be added to every person who made a significant contribution to Einstein's life, the length of the page would go up by leaps and bounds. It's a question of priorities, as Steve has tried to explain to you.

It seems that further discussion is a waste of time. You set yourself up as an arbiter of what a Wikipedia page should contain, and sometimes ignore or misrepresent specific points made against your relatively extensive passage on someone who was insignificant in comparison with a huge number of people who impinged on Einstein's life at various points. Then you provide a plea against the suppression of intellectual and individual freedom made in an entirely different context, and use it to describe considered expressions of opinions from two people who have extensive knowledge of physics and of Einstein as attempts at censorship. By that criterion, every time a contributor to Wikipedia suggests that an item is inappropriate, or too extensive for its subject-matter, they are engaging in attempted censorship. Esterson (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that further discussion appears to be a waste of time. Therefore, I have removed the material. Esterson and I have pointed out the discrpancies pertaining to this material, and provided sufficient rationale as to why this material is inappropriate for this article. Yet we continue to have to deal with a refusal to get the point WP:HEAR. In any case, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The contentious material may be one or two or events that were probably newsworthy, but most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion WP:NOTNEWS or WP:INDISCRIMINATE. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. And that is right on point. The sources for this material are based on routine news reporting on celebrities. Take your pick, which celeberties. Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. WP:NTEMP. Tabloid journalism is not significant coverage.

Also, I have already established that this was merely biographical material related to another person, and not Einstein. There is also Esterson's revealing recent entery on this talk page, which supports the contention that this was essentially a publicity stunt (certainly not noteworthy), i.e., "...from Ronald Clark's biography: "The assassination story was, in fact, made up by Locker-Lampson and 'leaked' to a London evening newspaper when the sale of tickets for the 'Einstein meeting' at the Royal Albert Hall was flagging." (p. 601) ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, the following also supports that this material is based on a publicity stunt (as was already presented above):

• "In a drama worthy of a James Bond movie, Locker-Lampson had two young 'assistants' take Einstein up to a secluded cottage that he owned… There he was swept into a whirlwind of secrecy and publicity. The two young women posed next to him holding hunting shotguns for a picture that was given to the press agencies… " Walter Isaacson (2007, pp. 422-23) ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment summary

Although there are at least a dozen biographies of Einstein, and you both use Clark's to back up most of your comments, I'll stick with Clark's book to reply to the comments by Esterson and Quinn combined, since they are basically the same. Note also that Clark discusses Locker-Lampson on at least 18 pages, including one with a photo of him and Einstein.(p. 464)

You both write, "The paragraphs pertaining to Oliver Locker-Lampson appears to be off topic, and Einstein's stay with Oliver Locker-Lampson appears to be an insignificant detail. . . the relationship with Locker-Lampson appears to be trivial. . .[and] had no discernible impact on Einstein's life," etc. But Clark's book does not support that conclusion:

When Einstein was to decide where to go, writes Clark, "Einstein received a letter which was to have considerable repercussions later in the year." (p. 566) and Clark includes the text of Locker-Lampson's lengthy letter to Einstein two years earlier: That even Einstein should be without a home has moved me deeply and perhaps this justifies me, a modest M.P, in approaching you, the greatest scientist of our age. (p. 567)

Einstein himself made it clear that the visit was pivotal in his career:

"I shall become a naturalized Englishman as soon as it is possible for my papers to go through. Commander Locker-Lampson has already suggested to your Parliament that England should adopt me immediately. . . . I cannot tell you yet whether I shall make England my home. I do not know where my future lies." 603

You find POV pushing everywhere, which clearly violates guidelines to assume good faith:

"to have a quote surrounded by white space in the middle of a paragraph appears to be in contradiction to WP:UNDUE, and appears to be a single incidence of POV pushing . . . affect of making this quoted text stick out like a sore thumb."

Yet you yourself highlight a relatively minor point (above) using not only a blockquote and whitespace, but italics and a bullet! (And thanks for not also using all uppercase bold.) But for what purpose? So what if Clark thinks "The assassination story was, in fact, made up," because even if it was, it would only describe Locker-Lampson's dramatic promotional efforts. Clark also implies that even Churchill was not above using Einstein as a"pawn in the great game." (p. 600)

Whats more, your careful selection of a single quote, and concluding "that [because] the photo was posed for a publicity shoot only adds to the reasons for omitting this material," is nonsense and is contradicted by Clark[16] He points out, for example, that Einstein was being guarded in Belgium by the police (p. 601); that Germany had posted a $5,000 reward "for the man who would kill Einstein (p. 600); that Einstein's wife telephoned Locker-Lampson to ask if he would invite Einstein back "without delay"(p. 602); and a week earlier another German professor who fled to Czechoslovakia was "tracked down by Nazi thugs and murdered."(p. 600) So this "red herring" issue of whether Einstein's life was at risk is almost irrelevant, as it could equally be argued from Clark's book alone that Locker-Lampson did not protect Einstein enough. (see also biography by Denis Brian "Scotland Yard got wind of a plot to silence him for good and gave him an escort of two carloads of detectives." (p. 250)

You both complain about even mentioning other scientists who fled Germany. There is obviously every reason to put Einstein's fleeing Germany in the context of other German scientists who did the same thing for the same reasons. Attacking this logical point as "POV-pushing" is incredible.

But excluding the "red herrings" and cherry-picked quotes, your conclusion that Einstein's relationship with Locker-Lampson was trivial and had no impact on Einstein's life is shown to be false. What Clark makes clear is that his visit to England, his last ever, may have had an even greater effect on British science. Clark writes, "It is tantalizing to speculate on what might have happened" had Oxford's Clarendon called Einstein a day earlier, before he left for the U.S., to offer him a professorship at Oxford. "Only a couple of months earlier [Einstein] had prefaced his Herbert Spencer Lecture with the assurance the the links between himself and Oxford University were 'becoming progressively stronger' and many at Oxford expected that he would soon be added to the select band already settling there under Lindemann's auspices."613.

You have both now completely erased (diff) all mention of Locker-Lampson, and other valuable details, and replaced this significant visit, for both Einstein and Britain, with a shameful, "temporarily moving to England." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• You yourself "bolded" text in this edit [17] to emphasize a point.

They were copies of already bolded section headings.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Refering to the above references: On page 566 it says their relationship would seem absurd. However, Locker-Lampson appreciated the fact that his association with Einstein would bring his nanme into the news. This just supports "publicity stunt". I will have to study the other references - however -

The other issue that biographical material about Locker-Lampson was placed in this article has not been addressed. This is a biographical article about Einstein. Therefore, a section that digresses into a biography about another person does not belong in this article. Will this issue be addressed or sidestepped? At the moment, tt appears to be an attempt to promote Locker-Lampson. Also, I notice that you have been recently editing the Locker-Lampson article. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Prefacing who he was and explaining why he said or did what he did, is necessary for readability.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Locker-Lampson in the House of Commons in 1933: "That even Einstein should be without a home has moved me deeply…"

Yes, following the Nazis taking over his property and the fact that there was no way he could, or would want to, return to Germany after Hitler achieved power, he lost his home. That doesn't mean he was destitute, as Locker-Lampson's rather melodramatic appeal makes it seem. It was just a matter of his deciding where he would make his home – he had numerous offers of posts, unlike in the case of some scientists who fled Germany.

You write: "What Clark makes clear is that his visit to England, his last ever, may have had an even greater effect on British science."

Not really. As is well known, Einstein had by that stage long completed all the scientific work for which he is revered. By then he focused on trying (unsuccessfully) to produce a unified field theory to cover all the known forces (and as a sideline occasionally to try to find holes in quantum mechanics). But in the event he achieve nothing of any great consequence in the last period of his life. There is no reason to suppose that if he had taken up the Clarendon post he would have had more than a marginal effect on British science – not to mention the fact that there would have been plenty more lucrative and attractive offers to tempt him to the States.

You write: "You have both now completely erased (diff) all mention of Locker-Lampson, and other valuable details, and replaced this significant visit, for both Einstein and Britain, with a shameful, 'temporarily moving to England'."

The hospitality Einstein received in Belgium, where he mostly stayed on his return to Europe in 1933, was at least as important as his short stays in England in the sense of finding a temporary refuge. His lengthy friendship with Queen Elizabeth of Belgium lasted for more than twenty years, but she gets no mention on the Einstein page. This is right – it is a question of priorities, and because Wikipedia is not the same kind of thing as a popular biography.

I'm not saying Einstein's brief acquaintanceship with Locker-Lampson was negligible, only that he was only one of a huge number of people who impinged on Einstein's eventful life at one point or another, and it is neither feasible, nor appropriate, that he should be singled out for special mention. Esterson (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You cite Clark as mentioning Locker-Lampson on 18 pages. I have just about all the biographies on Einstein, and Clark is the only one to give so much on him. Here are some comparisons of citings of L-L compared to Einstein's great friend (and early scientific confidant) Michele Besso in other major biographies. Isaacson: L-L 4, Besso 40; Fölsing: L-L 3, Besso 52; Brian: L-L 2, Besso 31; Neffe: L-L 0, Besso 36. That gives a better measure of Locker-Lampson's importance in Einstein's life than the fact that a single biographer decided to give him so much space. Again, Einstein's special friend Max Born has 60 entries in Clark, 40 in Isaacson, and 45 in Fölsing. Born gets only one passing mention on the Einstein Wikipedia page, and Besso none at all, because it is not a biography: the emphasis is (rightly) on material pertaining to the reason why Einstein is a major figure in science, and in relation to some important socio-political events in the first half of the twentieth-century. Esterson (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The deletion of the few paragraphs on Locker-Lampson are not explained by those rationales. Whether the Belgian Queen gave him equal hospitality was irrelevant to his career options. The Clark book was used because you chose to cite it. You have both spent time and thousands of words attempting to justify why Locker-Lampson should be excluded, rather than simply using your combined expertise on Einstein and physics to simply add the missing references to Born, Besso and others. You could have done that in a few minutes, it appears. Using the scale of logic and common sense, your efforts seem seriously off balance, IMO. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• I don't agree with Wikiwatcher's assessment. It appears material that was in this article pertaining to Locker-Lampson was given prominence that was out of proportion. Also, the the material was inappropriate - because it was biography of L.L. within a biography of Albert Einstein.

It appears to me that L.L.'s impact on Einstein's life was negligible compared to other contributors involved in his life. Esterson's comparison in the respective biographies really does show how much print L.L. deserves in this Wikipedia article. Specious arguments based on "enlightening" the reader about someone who appears to be motivated by generating good press for himself does not work. Neither does promotional journalism.

This is not a book, where every person known to Einstein can be covered (or has to be covered). This is a Wikipedia article. Einstein established his own notability through science first. His science has had a profound, almost indescribable impact. This was followed by his other non-scientific endeavors which are also certainly notable. Compare these events to images of females toting guns, or two males toting guns. Then compare Einstein's notable endeavors to the apparent (mediocre) desire of L.L. to gain empty publicity from this period in Einstein's life. It appears that the material pertaining to the Locker-Lampson, was off balance. And this is according to Wikipedia guidelines, not IMO or imho.

Furthermore, it is unreasonable to expand the article to include extra material about every lesser encounter with Einstein -- just to accommodate the least significant personalities. Not to mention, it was a biography of someone else, within the biography of Einstein.

One more thing - the statement "They were copies of already bolded section headings" is obviously a very weak rationale. Copying and pasting text to any Wikipedia page results in the same font. Therefore, bolding text has to be edited into the page. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The so called "biography" included the following details not directly related to Einstein: He was a "Royal Navy commander and former conservative Member of Parliament," who "spoke fluent German" and was "an outspoken opponent of the Nazis who 'flayed Hitlerite persecution of Jews.'" That's only 23 words! In relation to his helping Einstein obtain citizenship, etc, the few details are necessary, and is minimal compared to his "real" biography: Oliver Locker-Lampson.

Since I made it through basic math in school, I was able to come up with the following: This article, now that you've seriously trimmed the Science sections, is 11,125 words, excluding the references; The Clark book, which you both focused on to prove your points with quotes, is 725 pages. The 18 pages related to L-L in Clark amount to 2.5%; 2.5% of this trimmed article would be 278 words that could have been related to L-L to keep it in balance with Clark's biography. Hence, deleting all 23 words seems a bit extreme, especially now that you've both written thousands of words to justify it. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You write of Locker-Lampson's "helping Einstein obtain citizenship", when you mean his proposing Einstein for citizenship. But however well-meaning Locker-Lampson may have been, since Einstein was only in England a very short time before leaving in October 1933 to take up his post in Princeton it wouldn't have been anything more than a sympathetic gesture for the Home Secretary to accelerate the process of naturalization rather than of any practical significance. Einstein wouldn't have needed to become naturalized had he wanted to stay in England longer.

As to your mathematical calculation, that presumes the equivalence of biographies and Wikipedia pages, which neither I nor Steve accepts. In any case, if you're going to do such a calculation you should have based it on (say) the five major (in terms of length) biographies, which would have given a very different result. On that argument, there should also be about the same number of words on Queen Elizabeth of Belgium, and many more on Besso, Born, and many other individuals than on Locker-Lampson. Esterson (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Einstein in England 1933

I have deleted the following passage in the section "Emigration from Germany":

According to the BBC, during those three weeks in hiding with Locker-Lampson, he worked on theories to produce a nuclear weapon. "This was a tremendously difficult thing for Einstein to do as a pacifist, but he knew that if the Americans did not get a nuclear bomb the Nazis may very well get it first, and that would be the end of the world," states McClaren. He concludes that the weeks Einstein spent at Norfolk "had tremendous repercussions for the future of the world."[46]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/norfolk/features/insideout_einstein.shtml

First, the story here is not according to the BBC, but from a writer called Stuart McClaren. I can find nothing about this writer, but what he says about Einstein working on theories to produce a nuclear weapon is not mentioned in any of the biographies of Einstein. It is difficult to conceive what kind of work this would be, especially at that early stage well before nuclear fission was discovered. I think it is evident that the story comes from someone who is completely ignorant of the physics, and without any evidence. This is far from a reliable or authoritative source, and not worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia.

I also propose to remove the first part of that paragraph:

British writer Stuart McClaren notes that Locker-Lampson was "the kind of man who couldn't stand anti-Semitism," and speculates that "some sort of scheme was concocted between the King of Belgium and Locker-Lampson and possibly Winston Churchill to get Einstein to safety."[46]

This again finds no confirmation in any Einstein biography, and appears to be nothing more than the speculation of a writer without him providing any evidence in support. Esterson (talk) 09:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The rephrasing makes sense. But what's your opinion about the previous image question relating to this visit? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

See above.Esterson (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Special relativity—not general relativity—"effected a revolution in physics"

The first sentence in the article states that general relativity effected a revolution in physics. In fact it was the special theory of relativity which was so revolutionary.

In a recent article on CERN’s startup of the Large Hadron Collider after a 10-week shutdown, Robert Evans of Reuters and the Toronto Sun got it right when he said:

“New Physics, the motto of the LHC, refers to knowledge that will take research beyond the 'Standard Model' of how the universe works that emerged from the work of Albert Einstein and his 1905 Theory of Special Relativity.” (http://www.torontosun.com/news/world/2011/02/21/17353401.html) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.179.0.116 (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sinister

A recent broadcast by a BBC speaker claimed that Einstein "was left handed, which helped give him a somewhat different insight"

Was Einstein left handed?AT Kunene (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Not according to Chris McManus in Right Hand, Left Hand: The Origins of Asymmetry in Brains, Bodies, Atoms and Cultures. See page 301. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Not in this photograph Anyway, it sounds like a kooky theory to me.Esterson (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

God does not play dice with the universe

The phrase "God does not play dice" currently redirects to Albert Einstein. I suggest changing it to redirect to the Bohr–Einstein debates article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.124.33 (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

"taught at Institute for Advanced study...."

I think there is (little or) no teaching done at the institute, which admits no students. Practiced or worked might therefore be the better verb here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.191.169.89 (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Einstein Szilard letter

The wiki article states "In the summer of 1939, a few months before the beginning of World War II in Europe, Einstein was persuaded to lend his prestige by writing a letter, with Leo Szilard, to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in order to alert him of the possibility that Nazi Germany might be developing an atomic bomb." However, it was Szilard that wrote the letter with help from Edward Teller and Eugene Wigner. Einstein wrote very little of the letter but signed it because of his international prestige in the scientific community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thompn4 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

See footnote 7 in Isaacson's book for more details.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Early life: alleged speech difficulties et al.

I have amended the sentence about Einstein's supposed early difficulties in speaking. This is disputed by an authoritative article (i.e., one based on solid evidence) on the Albert Einstein Archives website: "Einstein's Alleged Handicaps: The Legend of the Dull-Witted Child Who Grew Up to Be a Genius"

"The grandparents, visiting two-year-old Albert, did not observe any developmental particularities and, in a letter to other family members, expressed enthusiasm about the grandson's good behavior and 'drollige Einfälle' (funny or droll ideas or vagaries). Yet the reputed handicap of late talking became part of the family legend and is confirmed by Maja. The same family legend, though, reports that, at the age of 2½ years, when his newborn sister (a Mädle) was shown to the boy, Albert, obviously expecting a toy to play with, could already verbalize his disappointment: 'But where are its wheels (Rädle)?' Might one assume that the 'comparatively late' talking reflects the anxiety of an overambitious mother rather than the child actually having an identifiable problem?'"

http://www.albert-einstein.org/.index11.html

More generally, in relation to various contentions about Einstein's mental faculties, I suspect that even so eminent an authority on autism as Simon Baron-Cohen may be basing his diagnosis of Einstein on misconceptions rather than accurate facts. This point is well made in the above article:

"Who dares to determine ex post facto, whether Einstein's genius is a result of autistic traits or of schizophrenic features? As long as the experts base their judgments on outright erroneous assertions about his childhood deficiencies, on misunderstandings regarding his performance at school, [etc]... those judgments can hardly pass for reliable scientific expertise. As long as the same symptom is cited as an evidence of schizoid traits by one and as proof of being an autism spectrum disorder by another expert, one ought rather trust a third expert who frankly admits that while a pre-mortem diagnosis of a disorder with no known biologic markers would seem difficult enough, definitive post-mortem diagnoses are clearly impossible." Esterson (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

dyslexic

why its not write that einstein is dyslexic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean65001 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Because it is not true. Roger (talk) 04:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Albert Einstein's E=MC2 was not his idea

On November 29, 1903, Olinto De Pretto was the first person to introduce the theory that matter and energy are the same and related according to the precise formula E=mc2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olinto_De_Pretto

Albert Einstein wasn't the first person to theorize this. Please correct this. You have people believing that Einstein came up with the idea. -- Signed by Ron Paulian

See also Relativity priority dispute. Roger (talk) 11:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The important question is not who first came up with a particular formula, but of the significance of the formula within the context of the theoretical structure out of which the formula is derived. De Pretto's theoretical framework evidently included a conventional view of the ether, whereas Einstein's removed the concept. The question one needs to ask is: Is De Pretto's theoretical framework accepted within modern physics?

Possibly one might consider the situation in regard to evolution as analogous. Plenty of people had suggested the idea, but it was Darwin who not only proposed a specific theoretical schema underlying the process, but developed the theory in great detail. Esterson (talk) 09:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Another example is the theory of continental drift, i.e., that the continents had once formed a single landmass. Several people had proposed this before it was fully formulated by Alfred Wegener in 1912. It is Wegener who is (rightly) credited with the idea in its developed form. Esterson (talk) 07:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, De Pretto's reasoning was completely invalid - something which his article failed to mention in the lead. Corrected! -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 09:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Stating that Darwin is the one who developed the theory of evolution in great detail is purely benighted. His theory then, would NOT be accepted in moden biology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.166.193 (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Einstein was Jewish, not German

Please change "German-born" to Jewish. Just because Einstein happened to live in Germany for a few years does not make him German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerAdam (talk • contribs) 17:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Einstein was born in Munich in 1879 to parents who had German nationality. He left Germany at the end of 1894 to join his parents in Italy, where they had emigrated after his father's and uncle's electrical company had failed, but remained a German national until he was 21, when he took Swiss nationality. So he was definitely German-born. Also, as far as I'm aware "Jewish" is not a nationality.

Incidentally, apart from living in Germany for the first fifteen years of his life, he later lived in Berlin for nineteen years, from 1914 to 1933. That totals rather more than "a few years" that he lived in Germany.Esterson (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed Einstein was born in Germany, like many other Jews. So I see no problem with German born. Though it worth reminding that anyone who read a serious biography that described the relationship of Einstein with his Jewishness know that Einstein renounced not only his German citizenship, but any connection with the German people. After WWII he wrote in one of his letters that only very few Germans were exceptional during the third Reich regime, while most Germans adopted Nazism and Antisemitism happily. In any case I'm not responding here about that, but about the ethnicity entry that was removed from the info box. This entry was the unavoidable outcome of many months, even years, of very very long discussions on this TP. These discussions were involved with the participation of many many Wikipedians. Once in a while someone remove the entry and by that engaging into disruptive editing that ignore the special circumstances that lead to its creation and evade and violate consensus. So, here by I restore it.--Gilisa (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The ethnicity label was removed after careful deliberation and in accordance with wikipedia policy. If you wish to see the record, the discussion is on archive page 16. LJosil (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

That discussion just shows you insisting on removing it, and falsely claiming there were no objections to removing it; it doesn't show any consensus for doing so. It also does not accord with policy; rather, it just shows you insisting (irrelevantly) that the article doesn't comply with WP:OPENPARA. The "infobox person" is not the opening paragraph, and is irrelevant to it; it has an "ethnicity" parameter, which has been used correctly. If you think the infobox shouldn't have that parameter, you should make that argument at the infobox page. Finally, your edit does not comply with what reliable sources have to say regarding this obviously relevant fact. Don't remove it again without reference to relevant policy and a real consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Your accusations here appear to indicate that you are not truly interested in attaining any sort of objective analysis of the situation at hand, nor are you interested in assuming any measure of good faith. You appear to have not read the previous discussion very carefully. The citation of WP:OPENPARA concerned the opening paragraph of the article, not the infobox. There was a separate conclusion reached for the infobox. Let me repeat the outcome of the discussion from before: there are no other examples of famous scientists, such as Newton, Lavoisier, Gauss, etc., nor of other famous Jewish figures, such as Weizmann, Ben-Gurion, etc, have ethnicity listed in their infoboxes. The ethnicity label was removed because its presence is inconsistent with the infoboxes of other biographical articles. The issue is NOT whether Einstein was Jewish, a fact which is noted at many points in the article. Therefore your assertion "does not comply with what reliable sources have to say regarding this obviously relevant fact" entirely misses the point. Neither you nor the other people who have restored the ethnicity label have given any satisfactory counterargument to the reasons for removal articulated in the previous discussion, and you have indeed (perhaps deliberately) turned a blind eye while Gilisa has ignored the consensus from before by changing the page. I have noticed that you have placed a warning on my page for "violation of consensus" (although you have given neither evidence, arguments, nor any citation of policy for doing so), yet I see no warning offered to Gilisa for unilaterally changing the page without any rational explanation. In short, if you wish to discuss this matter in a rational fashion, then you will do so fairly or we will find another admin who is willing to do so. As a first step, I await your warning to Gilisa. LJosil (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I warned you about edit-warring, quite rightfully telling you that if you continue doing so you will likely be blocked. Where's this alleged consensus regarding the infobox? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Where's your "warning" to Gilisa? If you search the talk archives for his name, you will see that he has been at this for quite a while, indeed going to great lengths to ensure that the ethnicity label not mention any other adjectives such as "German". I already pointed you to the past discussion about this topic; observe that the discussion involved more than one person. The change was made due to an agreement by the participants. LJosil (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Gilisa restored the parameter once in the past three months - that's not edit-warring, and would not be sanctioned. You, on the other hand, reverted three people in one day, and have edited this article solely for the purpose of identifying Einstein as German-only. And you haven't "pointed" anyone to any previous discussion about infoboxes; the only one I've seen is this discussion, where people don't agree with you, and which is only about WP:LEDE anyway, not about infoboxes. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. I made two reverts today concerning the topic under discussion. The third change was for an unrelated issue. Don't accuse me with incorrect claims. You are also wrong in the assertion that I have intended to list Einstein as German-only; the reasons why he is listed as German have been articulated over and over again. If you examined the past discussion, you would have noticed that I supported the removal even of the label "German". The previous discussion resulted in agreement, which was how a change was subsequently made without dispute. And the arguments there about the lead apply equally to infoboxes. LJosil (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. A revert is a revert - it doesn't matter what the "topic under discussion" is. And you need to understand that very well, because if you don't, you're likely to get blocked for violation of the WP:3RR rule, protesting that you were reverting "different topics". So, now that we're clear on this, you have no excuse. Also, please stop claiming there has been "previous agreement" about this, when the discussions I've seen indicate the opposite, and when you've pointed to no other discussions. And finally, WP:LEDE and WP:OPENPARA apply to the lede text, not to infoboxes. Please stop making false Talk: page statements. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. A consensus was reached previously, which is why the change was made. I suppose you think that the change somehow occurred in the middle of the discussion and slipped past unnoticed. The argument concerning the infobox has been repeated again and again here; it is inconsistent with other articles. And you have refused to address it. Please do not complain that no argument has been put forth. LJosil (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You keep claiming there was a consensus about the infobox, but when challenged have quite obviously failed to show where any such "consensus" existed. In the future, please make more accurate Talk: page statements. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

<- Folks, it seems that slow burn edit warring over the ethnicity attribute has broken out again. That's bad. It's better to discuss it here rather than edit war over it. My view on the ethnicity attribute = I don't care either way, not interested, but others are presumably able to produce more rational, informed, policy based views than mine, so lets see them. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

There's merit to what you say in the most general sense, but

1. the "infobox person" has an "ethnicity" parameter and there seems to be no reason not to use it here,
2. the only person deleting it (over a long period) is User:LJosil,
3. LJosil is an inexperienced editor, with just over 200 total article edits,
4. he has edited the article solely for the purpose of repeatedly removing mention of Einstein's ethnicity, and
5. he has not presented a policy-based reason for doing so.

LJosil needs to stop removing this pending some new consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I will say this, if there is one biography in Wikipedia where the notion of Jewish identity was/is highly notable, pertinent and central to understanding the person as a human being to the extent that an ethnicity attribute seems like a no brainer, it's Larry David Einstein. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue is not about whether Einstein is Jewish - that is already mentioned in several parts of the article. The issue is that the fact that the ethnicity label is used on almost no other biographical articles of any kind, including both other scientists and other Jews. Therefore it should not be used here to maintain consistency with the format of other articles. LJosil (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

WP policy on this is mentioned above. To assist, the relevant quote from MOS:BIO: "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." Any help? --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. These were the guidelines I was operating with when I made the change in the first place. LJosil (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Considering that his ethnicity is nowhere mentioned in the article's lead, much less in the opening sentence, how could this possibly be relevant? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The infobox template for scientific biographies can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_scientist . As you can see, there is no ethnicity label, which indicates that ethnicity was deliberately inserted into Einstein's infobox at a later point in time and explains why this infobox is inconsistent with that of other scientific personalities. The general rule for adding new items into the template is that they should be done only if there is something notable about it. This lack of notability is why it does not appear in the lead, and it is why it should not appear in the infobox. LJosil (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The infobox used here is "infobox person", which does have an ethnicity parameter; no doubt the authors felt Einstein's notability was not just as a scientist. If you add non-standard parameters to infoboxes, they don't appear. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The "infobox person" template features, among other things, home town, party, salary, net worth, height, and weight. Are you suggesting that we fill all of them in? Let me quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_person : "Do not use all these parameters for any one person. The list is long to cover a wide range of people. Only use those parameters that convey essential or notable information about the subject." LJosil (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, let me explain to you what my reasoning is. I've reproduced this from my answer to Robert below. If you feel that Einstein's ethnicity is notable, then you will not doubt agree that Martin Luther King Jr.'s ethnicity is far away one of the most notable features about him as a person; indeed, his life centers around his ethnicity in a sense. Certainly Einstein's ethnicity does not compare in notability. And yet, even for Martin Luther King Jr., the civil rights leader, his infobox does not list any ethnicity. Why then should it be listed for Einstein? LJosil (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting all the parameters need be filled in, but in the case of Einstein, his Jewish ethnicity was obviously one important facet of his life. Perhaps King's infobox should include his ethnicity - I don't know. Regardless, I won't discuss other infoboxes, because we're discussing this unique individual in this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"was obviously one important facet of his life" is nothing but your opinion, which is hardly free of bias concerning the ethnicity in question. I see that you do not appear to have raised any objections over the removal of the term "American", so you are inconsistent in your judgments and appear to have a great personal investment in this ethnicity label. Also, a "facet" is not the same as being notable. Perhaps Einstein found music or philosophy to be important facets of his life; this does not justify listing him in the lead as a musician. Finally, whether you like it or not, and whether you wish to discuss it or not, the standard for infoboxes is set by the format of other biographical articles. And that is the standard that this infobox will be measured against. LJosil (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, not just my opinion, seeing as pretty much every editor here except you thinks it's important, and the article itself lists many notable points relevant to this. And I point out that I have indeed questioned your removal of the term "American" (below) - I've also pointed out that it is you who is inconsistent in your application of WP:OPENPARA. As for your statement about "standard", the standard infobox has an ethnicity parameter, and that's what we'll be using. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You've made accusations but furnished no evidence. My arguments are consistent with WP:OPENPARA, as you would see if you read my discussions. And don't try to lie about some imagined consensus. You are the only person participating in the discussion who seems dead set on including this label. And which standard infobox parameters gets used is not decided by you. LJosil (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I've made accusations about what? WP:OPENPARA discusses the text of opening paragraphs, it mentions nothing about infoboxes. Quoting User:Schalfly here, "I think that Einstein's Jewishness is a significant part of his notability". Quoting User:Sean.hoyland here, "if there is one biography in Wikipedia where the notion of Jewish identity was/is highly notable, pertinent and central to understanding the person as a human being to the extent that an ethnicity attribute seems like a no brainer, it's Larry David Einstein". Quoting User:Robert K S here "I agree that Einstein's ethnicity was not insignificant to his notability." Considering you've been reverted by several different editors now, it's quite apparent that no-one else here seems to share your view on this. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that Einstein's Jewishness is a significant part of his notability. He strongly identified with being a Jew throughout his life. He is mainly famous for being a physicist, but he is also frequently quoted for his opinions on God, religion, and peace. He was an active Zionist and a Nazi refugee. People are fascinated with the details of Einstein's life, and his Jewishness is one of the first things they learn. Saying he was Jewish is as important as saying that he was German-born. Roger (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Einstein's notability comes from his scientific achievements alone. Essentially all of his other actions have achieved their notability because of his accomplishments in physics i.e. the reason why people quote his opinions about God, etc. is because he is "Einstein, the great physicist". The reason why he is listed as "German" is because he was a German national at the time of his discoveries (1905), and it is just standard wikipedia convention to use the nationality he held when he did his greatest work. In fact, Einstein did not identify with Judaism all his life; he never considered it to be of any importance in his early life. It was only after the events of WWII that he came to sympathize more with Jewish causes. LJosil (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

He described his 1923 visit to Palestine, where he was mobbed by Jewish throngs as "the greatest day of my life". He was on the first Board of Governors of Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He decided to emigrate from Germany in 1933 because of its anti-Jewish policies. That year his books were burned in Germany, and a price put on his head as a "Jewish intellectual". All that happened considerably before "the events of WWII". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Einstein's ethnicity was not insignificant to his notability. Einstein was not able to have a successful career in Germany (or any part of German-controlled Europe) because of his ethnicity; in his later years, Einstein did a lot of thinking and writing on the problem of the Jewish state in Palestine. I further would posit that Einstein's country of birth was not insignificant to his notability. It would certainly be absurd to call him only an "American scientist" in the lead. Robert K S (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

But he is not called an American scientist in the lead. The reason why he is listed as German is not intended to present him as being especially German; it is just a convention that, if nationality is to be listed at all, then we should use the one he had when he made his discoveries. Personally, I would support removing German, American, and any other national or ethnic labels from the lead. But if we insist on including one, then German is the one that is consistent with other articles. As for his role in Jewish causes, there are entire sections of the article which detail that, but this is not related to his primary notability, which is physics. LJosil (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Robert, let me explain to you what my reasoning is. If you feel that Einstein's ethnicity is notable, then you will not doubt agree that Martin Luther King Jr.'s ethnicity is far away one of the most notable features about him as a person; indeed, his life centers around his ethnicity in a sense. Certainly Einstein's ethnicity has no comparison. And yet, even for Martin Luther King Jr., his infobox does not list any ethnicity. Why then should it be listed for Einstein? LJosil (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps King's infobox should note his ethnicity - it seems quite relevant. In any event, we're discussing this article and this infobox, not every other bio on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

this article must conform to the policy set for all Wikipedia articles. A sure way to detect deviations from guidelines is to pinpoint inconsistencies with other articles. LJosil (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This article does conform to the policy set for all Wikipedia articles, which is why you have not been able to show even one policy or guideline that supports your claims. If you've found an issue with the King article, go fix it. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue has been shown again and again. This label is not notable. If it is not notable for the lead, then it is not notable for the infobox. The format of other articles supports this reasoning. I never advocated putting the label in MLK's box, instead using it as an example of why the label should not be in this box. If you wish to remain consistent with your own reasoning, let's see you put out the money and add the label to the MLK box yourself. LJosil (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You keep claiming it's "not notable", but everyone else here disagrees with you, and you have not policy regarding infoboxes to back up your edits. This is not a label, this is an infobox parameter. I have no interest in the MLK article, and am not required in any way to read or edit it; further references to it will be ignored as obvious diversions. Please make better and more relevant arguments. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what date he wrote that. The events of 1933 are included into "the events of WWII" in the sense that I mean. Regardless, all of these things you list take place long after 1905 (even after his Nobel prize) and so are not relevant to his situation when he was doing his research. LJosil (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

He stated that in 1923. You implied Einstein's interest in (and relevance to) his Jewishness started in 1945. I showed that it was demonstrated decades earlier. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a source for your claim, but in any event, 1923 is decades after his discoveries. And there is no sign that he had any big involvement in Jewish movements other than being happy about visiting Palestine. I gave the date after WWII because that is when he was actually actively involved in Jewish causes. LJosil (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The "greatest day of his life" is obviously significant, and I've specifically mentioned other Jewish causes he was involved in before WWII. Please make more accurate and relevant Talk: page comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

If the "greatest day of his life" was going to a music concert, that does not make him a musician. You have mentioned nothing that occurs even within a decade of the time of his notability (1905). Please do not deviate from the topic under discussion. LJosil (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Your arguments don't even make sense anymore. Einstein was a Jew, and he was notable for most of his life, not just in 1905. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The purpose or spirit behind the guideline is to prevent "claiming" by ethnic boosters on notable figures for whom ethnicity really is irrelevant to notability. E.g., Cher's success or Madonna's success as pop singers really have nothing to do with their Armenian ethnic heritage or Italian ethnic heritage, respectively, so we don't want editors who are Armenian boosters or Italian boosters to come along and make them "Armenian-American" or "Italian-American" singers rather than just "American" singers. So the question here is, would calling Einstein a "Jewish" physicist merely be an act of "claiming", done solely for the unacceptable purpose of ethnic boosterism, or does it have a rational basis in the facts of the figure's notability? With Einstein, I think, there are good arguments to be made that the circumstances of his fame and notability arose out of his emigration and escape from Nazism which was attributable not in small part to his ethnicity. (I have no explanation for MLK's ethnicity being unlisted. His primary notability is as a transformative black civil rights leader.) Robert K S (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Robert, this is exactly my point. My suspicion is that the people who keep returning this label to the box or insert adjectives into the lead are motivated by a ethnic-boosting or nationalist-boosting (in the case of "American") desire to "claim" Einstein because he is such a celebrated physicist, when in reality the source of his notability has nothing to do with these factors. I think the absence of ethnicity labels for many other prominent Jews as well as civil rights leaders of all kinds gives evidence supporting this belief. Thus, in an attempt to reach some level of objective measure, I have used the biographical articles of other people as a baseline to decide the question of whether Einstein's ethnicity is notable. The case for MLK is just one instance I found which convincingly suggests that it is not. LJosil (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I would want to know more about your other examples. MLK is an anomaly. We could also look to descriptions from outside of Wikipedia. Robert K S (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Robert, sure. For civil rights leaders, you can look at the article for Gandhi or Nelson Mandela. For other Jewish leaders, where their ethnicity clearly played a larger role than Einstein's, try David Ben-Gurion or Chaim Weizmann. For scientists, take Isaac Newton, Carl Friedrich Gauss, Antoine Lavoisier, etc. Not a single one of these articles employ ethnicity labels in their infobox. Quite honestly, I have not seen an article to date (except this one) where ethnicity is listed. I am somewhat reluctant to look outside wikipedia in setting a standard. For one thing, it is possible to find anything on the internet. For another, we don't know what the standards for external sources are, and how they compare to those of wikipedia. LJosil (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Your "suspicions" regarding motivations are irrelevant, and should in no way guide your editing. As a point of reference, Britannica's opening paragraph in its Einstein article says "Born to a Jewish family in Germany, he grew up in Munich, and in 1894 he moved to Aarau, Switz." Note the fourth word, "Jewish"? Do you suspect Britannica's staff of "ethnic-boosting or nationlist boosting"? I also note they describe him as a "German-born Swiss-U.S. scientist" - you've been quite insistent that the lede sentence can describe him only as "German-born". If anything, that insistence that he be described only as German-born could be seen as "ethnic-boosting or nationlist boosting". Jayjg ^(talk) 18:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should work for Britannica, Jayjg. It appears that you think that your style of editing conforms more closely to their standards than they do to Wikipedia's standards, although I suspect that the editors of Britannica will disagree. Your ethnicity should in no way guide your editing. First, what Britannica does is irrelevant; we are discussing Wikipedia. Second, you are missing the fact that Britannica's format is different from that of Wikipedia. Brittanica's lead is a single sentence which is followed immediately by an entry on his early life. Observe that the lead says nothing about his ethnicity. Wikipedia, on the other hand, mentions his Jewish ethnicity right towards the beginning of the section on his early life. In short, Wikipedia and Britannica are actually adopting the same policy of reserving ethnicity for the section on his early life. Don't accuse me of being "ethnic-boosting"; you clearly haven't been following the previous discussion. You want to remove "German-born" from the lead right now? Go ahead; I will support you fully. LJosil (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I've written 7 Featured Articles and 7 Good Articles. Clearly my "style of editing conforms... to Wikipedia's standards". You, on the other hand, have made fewer than 250 article edits in total. Also, your point about "ethnic boosting" has been disproved by the example of Britannica. Finally, I haven't mentioned my ethnicity here or anywhere else on Wikipedia - don't bring it up again. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

What you've written in the past does not give you license to dictate policy on a whim. And if you don't think that the MLK article is relevant to this one, then the articles you have written are even less relevant. Try to maintain a consistent position, please. Experience does not substitute for poor reasoning. Also, it has been pointed out that Britannica's article was styled similarly to the Wikipedia article before the label was inserted. And if you wish to drag up editing history (something that I have tried to avoid), then it should be pointed out that you can hardly be expected to behave in an unbiased way towards to the label at hand. This applies whatever your ethnicity happens to be. LJosil (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No, what I've written shows that (unlike you), I actually do know what policy is. And I'm telling you for the last time, make no further reference to or suppositions about my ethnicity. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and as a point of information, WP:OPENPARA states quite clearly "previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." So, if anyone has been violating guidelines here, LJosil, it would appear to be you. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"Previous nationalities"? As a point of information, you might want to ask yourself "previous" to what? The answer, found in the same page you just cited but didn't read, says the date when the person "was a citizen when the person became notable". When did Einstein become notable? When he made his breakthroughs in physics. When did that happen? 1905. What nationality was he then? German. Want to dispute those? Good luck. Read the guidelines carefully before you make accusations. And don't try to divert attention away from the topic of discussion; we are talking about the ethnicity label, not nationality. LJosil (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing in the guidelines that indicates Einstein's Swiss-American nationality or his Jewish ethnicity should be removed from the lede/infobox, and you clearly have no consensus for continually removing it. Please review WP:LEDE and WP:OPENPARA. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus for continually inserting it, and furthermore such insertions are at odds with accepted Wikipedia convention. Furthermore, you yourself have just cited the reason why additional nationalities were not included; they should not be included unless they relate to notability. Let me refresh your memory: "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." Observe the inclusion of ethnicity, which you conveniently omitted in your citation. LJosil (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"American" is not Einstein's "previous nationality". It was the nationality he held the longest, and the nationality he held at his death. Do you have any other arguments to present? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

LJosil says, "1905. What nationality was he then? German. Want to dispute those? Good luck." I do dispute that. Einstein had renounced his German citizenship, and was not a German in 1905. Roger (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, if that is accurate, then your point is fair. Feel free to remove the label. I have no objections. LJosil (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that Einstein's ethnicity should be included, as it is clearly connected to his notability. Einstein was truly an icon and symbol of the Jewish community.

Several of the examples given above are poorly chosen. Mandela, for example, is notable because of his race (which was "Black"), not because of his ethnicity (which was Xhosa). The concepts are not synonymous. Additionally, we have a handful of editors who excise this information any chance they get, so the current state of any given article isn't necessarily proof that the article meets Wikipedia's standards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Vegetarian

Why is he listed as a "Swiss Vegetarian"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.243.166 (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Because he was a vegetarian for the last few months of his life, and he lived in Switzerland about 40 years earlier. Roger (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Was he a vegetarian while he lived in Switzerland? If not, he was never a Swiss vegetarian. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Do just a few months count? Should we also add Category:Meat eaters? How confusing. Chesdovi (talk) 08:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Honorary degree from Complutense Univ

It seems I removed this image some time ago [18]. However, I can't seem to locate that particular edit. In any case, it has recently been placed into this article. This image was placed in this article by User:PaulTheOctopus. This editor appears to have a focus for editing of the article entiteld "Complutense University of Madrid" [19], which is certainly related to this photo. I question whether this photo merits a place in this article, since honorary degrees were offered to Einstein from a number of institutions. I don't see any reason why this honorary degree stands out more than any other. In other words, this may be a case of undue weight WP:UNDUE. Especially since the photo is currently at 300px. -----Steve Quinn (talk) 03:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed it per WP:NFCC#8, which allows a non-free image only if its use significantly increases reader understanding. I remember there used to be a big block of Complutense text; maybe that is what you removed. —teb728 t c 07:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like I previously removed the text per WP:UNDUE. Thanks for pointing that out. Also, I agree with removal of this image. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The FFD discussion on this file may show it to be in the public domain. If so the reasons in the original post are still a good reasons for not using it here. —teb728 t c 08:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. However, this may have a place in Einstein's awards and honors (a new article). There is plenty of room for expansion and this image, along with any related text would most likely be on topic. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 83.244.215.134, 10 May 2011

Please could somebody correct the awards section, it was a Nobel prize not a Hobel prize Thanks

83.244.215.134 (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Correcting self: I suggested "RVV" in the edit summary but, after some help from WikiBlame, it now seems to have been typo.--Old Moonraker (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was my typo. Thanks for the correction. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 79.17.240.87, 20 May 2011

please change "established" to "hypothesized" about constancy of speed of light, because theories hypothesize whereas only experiment can "establish". thanks. d. giancoli.

79.17.240.87 (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Done Kinaro^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"Swiss-educated"?

I am reverting the addition of "Swiss-educated" in the first paragraph, firstly because that is not the appropriate place (his education is covered under "Early life and education"), but mainly because the bulk of his education was in Germany. All his primary school education and all but one year of his secondary school education (more than ten years in total) was in Munich. Only his last year in secondary education and his four years in higher education were in Switzerland. Esterson (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Estersson has a valid point. Einstein's education is accurately covered in the section entitled "Early life and education". Furthermore, to state that he is only "Swiss-educated" would appear to leave out relevant facts. Moreover, I don't think his education is neccessary in the introduction, because there are so many of Einstein's accomplishments to summarize in this area of the aricle. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Einstein's unsuccessful investigations

From the section entitled Other investigations I created a WP:Summary style paragraph and merged the contents of this section to Einstein's unsuccessful investigations (a new article) in order to help cut down on this aricle's size. Hopefully it helps. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Merger

I have proposed that Hermann Einstein and Pauline Koch be merged to Einstein family, this may be of interest to watchers of this article. The discussion can be found at Talk:Einstein family#Merger proposal. Quasihuman | Talk 22:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Tid är Einstens egen gåta vilket har funnit sitt svar i teorin om gravitation som båda teorierna bygger på. Tid är rörelse kontra ingen gravitation utan rörelse. Dvs Einstein var ute efter en teori som kunde förklara det totala sambandet och han hade naturligtvis rätt som vanligt att ett enkelt samband var svaret på det han sökte. E=mc scuare. Det vi frågar efter är ännu mera av tänkbara och dolda samband. De finns inte pga det totala innehåll som Einsteins ekv. innehåller. Tid finns således inte utan kan kallas relativiteten i rörelseenergi, dvs universums verkliga och outredda drivkraft. Vi kanske aldrig blir underförstådda med en enkel kille som Einstein men svaret på vår innersta fråga är ej värd att veta ty, -kanske jorden är den sista utpost som innehåller det som en gång var!?? Vore jag den store anden skulle jag planerat på samma sätt som nu sker därför att bland mina misstag finns också lyckade företag. Hoppas ni orkat att lyssna. Vänliga Hälsningar Bernt Karlström. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.146.244 (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Kaleb29, 21 July 2011

The article forgot to mention that Einstein began speaking whole sentences at two or three years old.And despite myths about failing grade school, he also did very well.He did not fail any exam except for his college exam, and he reasoned that he lacked the desire to study because his dad wanted him to "Follow a technical occupation".Einstein's biographer, Ronald W. Clark, proved that not only did Einstein pass grade school but did exceptionally well.Ronald Clark further explains Einstein's life in a book called "Subtle is the Lord: the Science and Life of Albert Einstein". Kaleb29 (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Is there a reliable source for the first part of your request? and I only see one mention of him failing anything which is "Lacking the requisite Matura certificate, he took an entrance examination, which he failed, although he got exceptional marks in mathematics and physics" Jnorton7558 (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Abraham Pais wrote Subtle Is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein by the way. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

With reference to the first item mentioned by Kaleb29, see the following on the Albert Einstein Archives website:

Link: Einstein's Alleged Handicaps [20]

'The grandparents, visiting two-year-old Albert, did not observe any developmental particularities and, in a letter to other family members, expressed enthusiasm about the grandson's good behavior and “drollige Einfälle” (funny or droll ideas or vagaries). Yet the reputed handicap of late talking became part of the family legend and is confirmed by Maja. The same family legend, though, reports that, at the age of 2½ years, when his newborn sister (a Mädle) was shown to the boy, Albert, obviously expecting a toy to play with, could already verbalize his disappointment: “But where are its wheels (Rädle)?” Might one assume that the “comparatively late” talking reflects the anxiety of an overambitious mother rather than the child actually having an identifiable problem?'

On Kaleb29's other point, the article paragraph on Einstein's education could mention that he had to obtain special dispensation from the Principal of Zurich Polytechnic to take the entrance exam that he failed in 1895 as he was still only 16, some eighteen months younger than the requisite minimum age. It could also mention that when he passed the Matura the following year, still only 17, he was top of the nine examinees from his school. [A. Fölsing, Albert Einstein, pp. 36, 38.] Esterson (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Please correct the error concerning Bell's Theorem

This article erroneously states the following:

...principle distilled the essence of Einstein's objection to quantum mechanics. As a physical principle, it was shown to be incorrect when the Aspect experiment of 1982 confirmed Bell's theorem, which had been promulgated in 1964.

This should be changed to

"...it was shown to be incorrect when the Aspect experiment of 1982 exhibited VIOLATIONS of Bell's inequalities, which had been promulgated in 1964."

Note that Bell's inequalities were an consequence of Einstein's objections. That they were shown to be false experimentally showed that Einstein was incorrect. (Not that they were shown to be true, as the article mistates.) 173.32.146.126 (talk) 13:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Same thing. Bell's theorem is that quantum mechanics violates Bell's inequalities. Roger (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Please correct the error concerning citizenships

Albert Einstein entered the United States as an Albanian citizen. Therefore there should be credit given to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.73.179 (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This claim has been discussed in great detail in an earlier Talk page (I don't know how to find and link to it) and shown to be without substance.

Additional information: Einstein's entry permit to Britain in 1933 [21] shows that, as is well documented elsewhere, he had Swiss citizenship. Esterson (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Previous discussion (one among several) here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Quotations

I am about to remove the new Quotatins section. Wikipedia is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations. That is the function of Wikiquote. The External links section of the article has a link to Wikiquote: Albert Einstein, which contains most of the quotes here and identifies one of them as not by Einstein. See Wikipedia:Quotations#Overusing quotations. --99.100.87.240 (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)--99.100.87.240 (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)--99.100.87.240 (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Concerns over his citizenship

The article stated "Albert Einstein was a German-born theoretical physicist who developed the theory of general relativity, effecting a revolution in physics. For this achievement, Einstein is often regarded as the father of modern physics....". The term German born is confusing. Einstein became United States citizen— an American— in 1940s. Why shouldn't it re-written as "Albert Einstein was a German-born American theoretical physicist who developed the theory of general relativity, effecting a revolution in physics. For this achievement, Einstein is often regarded as the father of modern physics. Any views? Comments?

He did not develop anything while he was a United States citizen, so that would be a bit misleading, I think. DVdm (talk) 07:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Not to start an unending battle that may have taken place already, but what about Swiss-American? He was a Swiss citizen during some of his most productive years, surely? Feketekave (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You might read through the archives of this talk page :-) - DVdm (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

What is confusing about "German born" ? He was born in Germany. He renounced his citizenship. then, later in the life , he became american citizen.

65.35.249.125 (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand the sentiments from the various US individuals who wish to, for want of a better word, tag, Albert Einstein as an 'American' (in truth it should be US citizen considering the multitude of Americans that live upon both South, Central and North America), but if we are going to reopen an earlier discussion about this then I think it is entirely appropriate that he be correctly defined as a European. He was born within Europe, he grew up within Europe, he was educated within Europe, he undertook his most important work within Europe and he spent the majority of his life within Europe. It is entirely misleading, for perhaps patriotic reasons, to label Einstein as an American as it detracts from the historical facts of his life in that he spent only the last part of his life within the US. I support the status quo but if their are arguments that he should be called a US citizen then the identifier European is a stronger and more apt term. 94.171.57.7 (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that we have the consensus lede based on previous discussions. Furthermore, Einstein's emigrations and citizenships are covered in the first parts of the article (including the introduction). I think trying to cover all this activity in the first sentence of the lede would be cumbersome and probably very confusing. Also, I have to agree with User:DVdm that focusing on his American citizenship would be misleading. I think it would be a case of giving undue weight WP:UNDUE to this single fact. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Why in the world is his ethnicity Jewish. Isn't Judaism a religion?

This has been discussed to death in the archives. Judaism is both. Deal with it. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's being discussed here again... Struck me as odd too. 86.26.5.83 (talk)

No, it isn't being discussed again. Your personal feelings don't change the previously arrived upon consensus just because you're new. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Let us not bite the newcomers.

"Consensus" here is a relative term, as this is a discussion that has been going on forever. Einstein's feelings on the matter are discussed in the appropriate term in the article. At the same time, many users do seem to feel that the "Ethnicity" entry here is superfluous at best. Feketekave (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

- and, for what it is worth, the archives show that the current state of affairs was reached thanks in part to the contribution of users User:Newport, User:Runcorn, User:Brownlee and User:R613vlu, all of whom are now banned for sock-puppetting and related offenses; it would seem they were one and the same user.

Feketekave (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Karl-Ferdinand University in Prague

Please correct to Charles University in Prague ( Karl-Ferdinand was just a name of a part of the university) 65.35.249.125 (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If Einstein worked in that part —evidence here—, then there is no mistake, and the wikilink points to Charles University in Prague anyway. DVdm (talk) 07:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

did you even read my post? THAT IS NOT A NAME OF CHARLES UNIVERSITY IN PRAGUE! How hard is it to comprehend? 65.35.249.125 (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

According to the article on Charles University in Prague article, they dropped "Ferdinand" as part of the university's name approximately 1920. Einstein went there in 1911. Note: The history of the university seems quite complex. --Alvestrand (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

DVdm - I don't understand how that link (that you provided) pertains to Einstein and the Karl-Ferdinand University in Prague. Can you please explain? Steve Quinn (talk) 03:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Lines 5–6: "The call he expected was supposed to come from the Karl-Ferdinand University, the German university in Prague", and Einstein ended up in Prague. One could call it "original research" I guess :-) - DVdm (talk) 10:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no misery there. He was teaching at Charles University (which German speaking part was called Karl-Ferdinand) 65.35.249.125 (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Mileva Marić

Why this article doesn't have a picture of Albert and his first wife Mileva who has a big influence in his works? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Albert_Einstein_and_his_wife_Mileva_Maric.jpg

It is said many of his works were actually Mileva's and you can find today's scientists trying to give vilidate documents about it.

Also why don't you mention that their 2 sons were baptized in Serbian orthodox church in Novi Sad. Also why don't you mention next to Mileva Serbian Mileva Marić as well as next to Cyrillic name of her Serbian Cyrillic: ...Thank you79.175.104.86 (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

This was discussed here previously (presumably in the archives). Einstein's biographers have found no credible evidence for the belief that Einstein took credit for Maric's work. Note that this is a Wiki, so if you can cite reliable references you can add information yourself. However, much of what people have claimed about Einstein has turned out to be "urban legend" that was false. — DAGwyn (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting discussion follows, but off-topic in article talk space

Just one point to add to DAGwyn's comment. It is historians of physics/Einstein (e.g., John Stachel, Gerald Holton, Abraham Pais, Alberto A. Martinez), rather than biographers, who have examined the claims and found no credible evidence for the various stories about Maric's supposed contributions to Einstein's work. Esterson (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC) There is some evidence. She was a physicist, and there are letters showing that she helped him on on his papers. Einstein did not credit his sources, and the extent of her help is unknown. Roger (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC) A response to Roger: 1. Maric twice failed the final diploma examination for teaching physics and mathematics in secondary school, and there is no authenticated work by her in physics beyond that in her Zurich Polytechnic course. In the absence of documented further evidence, I see no grounds for describing her as a "physicist". 2. Roger writes: "there are letters showing that she helped him on his papers". This is so vague that one needs to ask, e.g., what papers? There is certainly no evidence that she assisted on the celebrated 1905 papers. What I presume Roger is alluding to are the letters written in the period when Einstein and Maric were students and just beyond (1897-1902). All the ideas on extra-curricular physics in these letters are from Einstein (and they come profusely from him). Even where we have letters from Maric directly in response to such letters, she does not even mention the ideas he has excitedly written about. There are a couple of letters that indicate he asked her to check out some factual information in text books relating to his extra-curricular researches. These relate, e.g, to his work that led to his first published paper, on capillarity (Einstein 1901). Any actual work on the subject Einstein ascribes to himself, even though he writes "we" or "our" on a couple of occasions. In a letter to her closest friend, Helene Kaufler Savic, in relation to the capillarity paper Maric wrote: "Albert wrote a paper on physics that will probably soon be published in the Annalen der Physik. You can imagine how proud I am of my darling." That hardly sounds like the words of a collaborator – and indeed neither here, nor at any time, does Maric remotely suggest to Helene that she played any role in Einstein's published work. To illustrate how the contents of the early letters have been misconstrued, there are two letters of Einstein's from September 1900 that have been cited as indicating collaboration. However, these refer to respective dissertations by Maric and Einstein, both on heat conduction. Maric's was for her final diploma examination (which she had failed in July) which she hoped to develop into a Ph.D. thesis (aborted after her second failure the following year). Einstein's was an intended Ph.D. thesis which he soon abandoned in favour of a different subject. So the letters have nothing to do with any of Einstein's published papers. More detailed examination of the letters in question can be found here: http://www.esterson.org/Stachel_Einsteins_letters.htm http://www.esterson.org/milevamaric.htm (scroll down to "The Einstein/Maric correspondence and related claims".) 3. It is true that there is a paucity of references in Einstein's early papers, but we have a good idea of the groundwork on which he built from the numerous references to books by notable physicists that he was studying for his extra-curricular work in his letters to Maric during their student years. It is also true that the extent of possible help (if any) from Maric is unknown, but it is up to the proponents of the notion that she collaborated, or at least materially assisted, on Einstein's published papers to provide reliable evidence that this was the case. There are several such claims, but when the sources are traced they do not add up to genuine evidence. On this, see Alberto Martinez's "Handling evidence in history: the case of Einstein's wife": https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1/m/Maric_files/EvidenceMaric.pdf Esterson (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Good idea of the groundwork? There is not even any agreement about which of the relativity papers of Lorentz and Poincare that Einstein had read. It would be very surprising if Einstein had not discussed the content of his papers with Maric, and if she had not reviewed his drafts and offered her comments. Roger (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC) We know from the early letters from Einstein to Maric that he sought out and studied books by Boltzmann, Drude, Helmholtz, Hertz, Kirchhoff, Wien, Mach, Ostwald and Planck on extra-curricular physics. The subject matter of these authors ranged from kinetic theory of gases and statistical thermodynamics, electromagnetic theory (including Maxwell's equations), heat conduction, electron theory of metals, black-body radiation, and physical chemistry. See the early letters (1898-1901), and the summary in Albert Einstein Collected Papers, vol. 1, ed. J. Stachel et al, 1987, Introduction, pp. xxxix-xli; see also "Einstein on molecular forces", pp. 264-265 and "Einstein on thermal, electrical, and radiation phenomena", pp. 235-237. Some of these books he certainly read with Maric in their student days (up to 1900), but the initiative came from Einstein, who discussed the subject matter in his letters. In contrast, none of the surviving letters from Maric discuss any of this (she wrote overwhelmingly on personal matters), and if she had discussed extra-curricular physics in the missing letters we can be sure that, with his enthusiasm for this material, there would have been some sign of it in Einstein's replies. (We also know precisely when he came across Lenard's 1900 paper on the photoelectric effect from his letter of 28 May 1901 in which he excitedly told Maric of his joy on reading this "marvellous paper".) The only specific work that you allude to from this early period is special relativity. We know from comments and ideas in half-a-dozen letters to Maric from 1898 through 1901 that Einstein was intensely interested in, and reading up on, the electrodynamics of moving bodies, and developing ideas of his own on the subject. (See "Einstein on the electrodynamics of moving bodies", Collected Papers, vol. 1, ed. J. Stachel et al, pp. 223-225.) We know from Maurice Solovine, one of the three members of the self-styled "Olympia Academy" who met regularly together in Berne for a few years (starting around Easter 1902), that they read and avidly discussed Poincaré's Science and Hypotheses. We also have a pretty good idea of just what works of Lorentz and Poincaré Einstein had read (or not read) when he completed the 1905 paper. For a close examination of this topic, see Gerald Holton's superb chapter "On the origins of the special theory of relativity", in Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought: Kepler to Einstein, 1988, pp. 191-236. Roger: You write: "It would be very surprising if Einstein had not discussed the content of his papers with Maric, and if she had not reviewed his drafts and offered her comments." Again, you do not indicate what papers you are alluding to here. If you are referring to the relativity paper, for instance, the conceptual notions were so advanced that some physicists closely involved with the subject matter did not grasp its significance at the time. Maric may or may not have reviewed the draft and offered comments (though there is no evidence that this was the case), but is it likely that a twice-failed physics and mathematics teacher training diploma student would have had anything much to offer when some physicists familiar with the subject failed to understand it? What we do know is that Einstein spent a great deal of time discussing the topic with Michele Besso prior to his writing the 1905 paper (and Einstein acknowledged the value of these discussions at the end of the published paper). See this excellent account of Besso's involvement with the crucial breakthrough in 1905: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s3-08/3-08.htm Let's assume that Maric did read, say, the 1905 papers (a not unreasonable assumption) before Einstein sent them off. Maybe she also made comments on them to Einstein. Where does that leave us? Einstein also discussed his work in this period with Besso and Conrad Habicht (the third member of the "Olympia academy"). Are they also to get some credit for these papers, when the initiative for writing them, and the hard work of developing the ideas, was all Einstein's? There is no reliable evidence to indicate a direct involvement by Maric in physics following her double failure to graduate (1900 and 1901), the aborting of her Ph.D. project in 1901, the loss (by death or adoption) of baby Lieserl in 1902, marriage to Einstein in 1903 and the birth of Hans Albert in 1904. We do know that in her letters to her closest friend Helene Kaufler Savic during this period she never hints at any involvement in physics, or assistance to Einstein, when alluding to his papers. For what it's worth, we also have the following, presumably directly from Einstein, in a passage relating to the time of their marriage, from Einstein's friend and colleague Philipp Frank: "When he wanted to discuss his ideas, which came to him in great abundance, her response was so slight that he was often unable to decide whether or not she was interested." (Einstein: His Life and Ideas, 1948, pp. 34-35.) Esterson (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC) I think that we have a pretty good idea of the influences on Einstein's 1905 relativity paper, but Einstein denied having read Poincare, denied knowing about Michelson-Morley, and denied having read Lorentz except for Lorentz's 1895 paper. And Einstein did not cite any sources in that paper. I am not saying that Maric deserves more credit than Einstein. But there is a myth that Einstein did it all by himself just because he did not cite any sources, and that is false. He surely read some of those papers by Lorentz and Poincare, and he surely got help from his wife. Roger (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC) First let's focus on the subject of this section, Mileva Maric, rather than on what Einstein later said about the 1905 special relativity paper. You write: "I am not saying Maric deserves more credit than Einstein" in relation to that paper. But where does anything you write provide a scintilla of evidence that Maric deserves any credit for contributing to the paper? You say that there is a myth that Einstein did it all by himself just because he did not cite any sources, but no informed person believes any such thing, and that's what matters. Anyway, what has that to do with claims of Maric's contributing to the paper? You write: "He surely read some of those papers by Lorentz and Poincare, and he surely got help from his wife." I'll come to Lorentz and Poincaré in a moment, but what evidence do you have for your assertion that Einstein surely got help from Maric? (And why would he have needed it, given he "surely" read relevant papers by Lorentz and Poincaré?!) When Einstein wrote excitedly about his ideas on the electrodynamics of moving bodies in August 1899, including I am more and more convinced that the electrodynamics of moving bodies, as presented today, is not correct, and that it should be possible to present it in a simpler way. The introduction of the term 'ether' into the theories of electricity led to the notion of a medium of whose motion one can speak without being able, I believe, to associate a physical meaning with this statement… in her reply Maric didn't show any interest in these comments, remarkable in 1899 for a young man of twenty who had yet to graduate. As for sources, I have already cited above the extraordinarily wide extracurricular reading Einstein sought out in the latter years of his time as a student and just after. More specifically, in September 1899 he wrote to Maric that he had just read Wien's 1898 paper that [John Stachel reports] discussed Hertz's and Lorentz's concepts of the ether. [Stachel 2002, p. 173]. Several letters in this period testify to Einstein's continuing involvement with the subject: see Stachel again: http://www.esterson.org/Stachel_Einsteins_letters.htm So again I must ask, where is there a single piece of evidence that Maric had any ideas on, or indeed any particular interest in, the electrodynamics of moving bodies? Esterson (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Roger: Your comments about Einstein's sources have no bearing on the actual issue in question, but since you raise the topic, I'll add a few brief comments. First I'd just make the observation that Einstein cited Lorentz twice in the 1905 special relativity paper (though not in relation to his most recent papers). It is perfectly feasible that he hadn't read beyond Lorentz's 1895 work. See Holton's discussion of this issue in Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought, 1988, pp. 198-201. For instance, Holton writes that "four items of internal evidence indicate he had not read Lorentz's [paper] of 1904" – not to mention that Einstein was outside the University fold and wouldn't have had the access to papers that an academic would have had. (For example, Lorentz's 1904 paper was published in Proceedings of the Amsterdam Academy.) Is it the case that Einstein denied having read any of Poincaré's writings prior to 1905? We know that the "Olympia Academy" avidly read Poincaré's book Science and Hypothesis (1902). Of this book Abraham Pais writes: "It cannot be said that Einstein's June 1905 paper depends in any technical sense on these important remarks [on motion relative to the ether and insightful comments on simultaneity] by Poincaré." (Pais, Subtle is the Lord., 1982, p. 166). In this context it is worth noting these remarks by Lorentz in 1927: I considered my time transformation only as a heuristic working hypothesis. So the theory of relativity is really solely Einstein's work. And there can be no doubt that he would have conceived it even if the work of all his predecessors in the theory of this field had not been done at all. His work is in this respect independent of the previous theories. [Ref. given here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute#cite_ref-18] On this whole issue of the relative contributions of Lorentz, Poincaré and Einstein I strongly recommend this 2005 article "On the genesis of the theory of relativity": http://www.bourbaphy.fr/darrigol2.pdf On the Michelson-Morley experiment it would be more accurate to say that Einstein's recollections were inconsistent. (See Pais, 1982, pp. 116-117.) But it is important to recognise that, as I understand it, his taking as an axiom that the velocity of light was invariant relative to the observer was based on theoretical principles rather than any experimental result. All this has no relation to the issue of Maric's alleged contributions to Einstein's 1905 relativity paper, so I shall say nothing more, other than that I claim no expertise on the origins of special relativity beyond my reading of historians of physics such as, e.g., Holton (1988, pp. 191-236), Pais (1982, pp. 111-174) and Stachel (2002, pp. 157-214). Esterson (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Should all this actually be discussed here? I don't see any proposal to change or add something to the article, so, although quite interesting, this really looks quite off-topic on this article talk page. Can we close and collapse this? - DVdm (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC) I agree entirely! We've certainly exhausted the topic of the section, and I only pursued the off-topic items out of a propensity to not let undemonstrated assertions go unchallenged. :-) Esterson (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC) OK, thanks. Assuming that Roger and others agree, I have collapsed the section. DVdm (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Early life and education: Notes 1 and 2

The Notes [fn] at the end of the third paragraph in this section, pertaining to Max Talmud, contains some repetition. [See "Notes" above "References" section.] For instance, the main text already tells us that Talmud was a Jewish medical student from Poland, and visited the Einsteins for six years. Note 2 just repeats material already given, other than the ages of Talmud and Einstein when they started studying together, and this can easily be incorporated either in the main text or Note 1.

I intend to modify Note 1 accordingly, and delete Note 2. (In any case, a Time magazine article is hardly an authoritative source.) Esterson (talk) 08:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Albanian citizenship

Albert Einstein had Albanian citizenship of Albanian Kingdom. said Queen Géraldine Apponyi de Nagyappony. some time ago and reconfirmed by Leka, Crown Prince of Albania. [22] [23] Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs) 02:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

This issue has already been thoroughly discussed. Please see talk page archives. Try "Albanian citizenship" for a search term. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Irvi Hyka might be interested to see Einstein's 1933 Entry Card for Britain showing clearly he had retained the Swiss citizenship he acquired in 1901. [24] Esterson (talk) 09:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Birth nationality in lede

This has been well discussed before, but has now come up again. 14Adrian has replaced "German-born" with "Jewish-German-born".

I see no good reason for the change. Einstein's Jewish heritage is well-discussed in the main text, and in my view the brief lede should merely refer to his original nationality. Esterson (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and have undone the change. Good-faith, but not helpful. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there was no need for the change. We have a consensus lede already. Also, we don't need to squeeze every fact into the first sentence of the article (or first few sentences). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"German-born" in the lede has now been changed to "German-born Swiss" theoretical scientist. Is the addition appropriate for the lede? After all, Einstein was a United States citizen for some 15 years. Are we therefore going to have "German-born Swiss American theoretical scientist" to cover everything about his citizenship in the lede? Esterson (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The introduction already mentions that Einstein became a U.S. citizen (third paragraph) so I don't think it is necessary to have "German-born Swiss American" in the first sentence, especially since he became famous as a German-Swiss physicist (although I don't really mind, both definitions are correct). mgeo talk 17:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that "American" should be added, rather querying the adding of "Swiss" after "German-born" in the lede. Esterson (talk) 10:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

According to the the manual of style (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Opening paragraph), the opening paragraph should indicate the nationality or citizenship of the person when they became notable. Einstein became a US citizen near the end of his life, but he became a Swiss citizen before he became a famous physicist, hence the description "German-born Swiss physicist". mgeo talk 13:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

He first attained notability as a German-born physicist ("born" as is wiki standard when a person later renounces citizenship). His Swiss citizenship appears in the infobox. German-born Swiss is false (implys he wasn't German), German born is first notablility. German-Swiss nobel laureate can be incorporated later.KiwiRyan (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how "German-born Swiss" implies that he was not German, see for example the definition in Nobel laureates and twentieth-century physics, p. 49, where he is referred as a "German-born Swiss physicist". And the MOS guideline I mentioned above applies to the lead not the infobox ("The opening paragraph should have...the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable."). mgeo talk 15:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but of course it does (example, Kiefer Sutherland is an English-born Canadian actor. ie.not English). Einstein was a German national when he was awarded his Nobel Prize. JasonSoleil (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

But he lived in Switzerland was a Swiss national since the beginning of his career, and this should be mentioned in the introduction (according to MOS). mgeo talk 11:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This is getting all too complicated :-) Maybe we should let it go, in spite of my initial querying of the change.

On a factual point: "Einstein was a German national when he was awarded his Nobel Prize."

As mgeo observes, he retained his Swiss citizenship as well, and he only regained German citizenship at that time by default, as a consequence of the post he held in Berlin. Esterson (talk) 11:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

mgeo’s paraphrase of the MOS omits an important part: “In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable.” (emphasis added) I would say that Einstein was sufficiently atypical with regard to nationality that this guideline, which applies “in most … cases”, should not be applied to him.

I was suprised though to see what the MOS says next: “… previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.” From this perhaps “German-born” should come out. —teb728 t c 13:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this helps sort out this knotty problem: "I am by heritage a Jew, by citizenship a Swiss, and by disposition a human being, without any special attachment to any state or national entity whatsoever." Einstein, Letter, 17 June 1918, The New Quotable Einstein, p. 4.

"The question of whether Einstein was a Swiss or German citizen surfaced when he won the 1921 Nobel Prize and both countries claimed him. Einstein considered himself a Swiss citizen, but he eventually acknowledged that he had 'acquired' German citizenship because of his job at a state institution. He used his German passport on several trips in the early 1930s, including to the United States in 1930 and 1931 and Belgium in 1931."

Albert Einstein Archives, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/global/popups/german.php Esterson (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

He was a German and Swiss citizen when he became president of the German Physical Society, became world famous in 1919, and then awarded the nobel prize. German born is the most succint. I do agree with mgeo though that Swiss should be mentioned somewhere, perhaps in the second para. MusoForde (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Please don't mess around with the "lede". It has all been hotly debated before, and what we ended up with was a delicate compromise. (The problem is basically that everybody wants to claim Einstein as a member of their particular tribe.) For most people, "German-born physicist" immediately calls to mind "Einstein", so it is a good condensation. All the other details of nationality, ethnicity, etc. are covered elsewhere in the article. You shouldn't try to cram everything, or even just your favorite things, into the introduction. — DAGwyn (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Photo of Einstein's matriculation certificate

The heading reads "The Education Committee of the Canton of Aargau." His scores were German 5, French 3, Italian 5, History 6, Geography 4, Algebra 6, Geometry 6, Descriptive Geometry 6, Physics 6, Chemistry 5, Natural History 5, Art Drawing 4, Technical Drawing 4. The scores are 6 = excellent, 5 = good, 4 = sufficient, 3 = poor, 2 = very poor, 1 = unusable.

Can someone find a way to work this info into the article without looking too obtrusive? BhangraGirl (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted my own comment on the certificate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Einstein-matura.jpg, the mistake was mine! On magnifying the facsimile I can see that the grades are indeed for the Matura examination (Maturitätsprüfung), not the Aargau Kantonsschule Final Grades leaving certificate that all students received as I mistakenly stated. Closer inspection of Einstein's leaving certificate in the Collected Papers (vol. 1, doc. 19) shows it differs for two of the subjects from the Matura grades as shown on the facsimile. Apologies for my error. Esterson (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I've included information on Einstein's Matura grades in a revamped paragraph. 18:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esterson (talk • contribs)

Einstein and music

Einstein played Violin. His interest in music is very well know. There are many reliable sources available on this topic. We could mention about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viswesr (talk • contribs) 16:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This has been brought up before on this talk page (search the archive if you are interested) and has been rejected because it is such a minor aspect of Einstein's life. See WP:TRIVIA for a more details. meshach (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I had to jump in because, although I see the rationale for excluding too much trivia, Einstein as musician is not trivial. It was solace, inspiration and nourishment for him - and he was just plain fond of playing both violin and piano (see Ronald W. Clark). I do agree that some mention of his accomplished status as a musician should be mentioned someplace. One sentence couldn't hurt! Djathinkimacowboy 09:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Religion Muslim according to...

http://qiyamah-is-getting-closer.blogspot.com/2011/06/subahanallah-albert-einstein-was-muslim.html

This needs expert attention to set things straight correctly, thank you with blessings! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.191.16 (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Fails wp:RS. - DVdm (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Letter to FDR

Rather than stating he was responsible for alerting FDR to the possibility of an atomic bomb, it should read something like: Because of his fame and gravitas, Albert Einstein was enlisted by Leo Szilard, Edward Teller, and Eugene Wigner as a suitable messenger to FDR on the possibility of an atomic bomb, and the possibility that Hitler could gain access to one before the United States.

Indeed, this is an important point to include since Einstein, by his own words, had not yet considered the possibility for a chain reaction and was startled by the news of the ongoing experiments toward that end. He of course immediately understood the implications of such a possibility. This is described in a little more detail (although not entirely well) in a later paragraph, but that is no reason to be sloppy in the introduction section. The way it is written will imply to the casual reader that it was Einstein's insight. Indeed, this is the perception most people who are aware of this issue have of Einstein warning FDR, reinforced by such sloppy writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.126.8.113 (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A very good point. AvocadosTheorem (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Einstein's summer house in Caputh

During his time in Berlin Einstein lived in Haberlandstraße 5. From 1929 to 1932, however, he spent the summer months in his summer house in Caputh, Brandenburg (built for Einstein by the architect Konrad Wachsmann). Could this be mentioned? Gebe7 (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Jewish

The article should say in the first line that Einstein was a Jew. Calling someone who lived through the Holocaust era German-born and not mentioning their Jewishness is really odd. The Germans certainly didn't include Jews in their "German-ness". One could instead say he was a Jew born in Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.115.11 (talk) 06:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

We have been through this issue exhaustively before. The fact that Einstein was Jewish is dealt with later in the article and the consensus was that his citizenship at birth sufficed for the lede.

Quote: "The Germans certainly didn't include Jews in their "German-ness"." The constitutional position of Jews in Germany in 1879 was such that they were full citizens at the time when Einstein was born.Esterson (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

E=MC2

He is best known by the general populace for mass–energy equivalence (which is best known as E=MC2), this should be mentioned in the header. --208.38.59.162 (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It's a prominent equation from his life. Something as «He also wrote the famous mass–energy equivalence E=MC2.» at the very end of the header would suffice. I leave it to experienced Einstein editors to choose more adequate phrasing. RicardoFachada (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, from E=mc2 However the association between E = mc2 and nuclear energy has since stuck, and because of this association, and its simple expression of the ideas of Albert Einstein himself, it has become "the world's most famous equation".[61] — Preceding unsigned comment added by AvocadosTheorem (talk • contribs) 16:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Sasse photo

A couple of people have tried to add the Sasse tongue photo to this article. This photo cannot be used here because NFCC#10c requires a non-free use rationale for each article where a non-free image is used.

So could a rationale be created for this article? No, WP:CSD#F7, WP:NFCC#2, WP:NFCC#8, and WP:NFC#UUI#8 allow use of a UPI image only if it is the subject of sourced commentary.

So could the commentary be copied from Albert Einstein in popular culture? Not a good idea: The popular culture article actually was split off as a home for the tongue photo as a result of comments at a WP:GA discussion on the biography. Besides that, at 94,130 bytes the biography is already too long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TEB728 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I find it a distasteful photo, so just don't bother, please. - DVdm (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

from http://lalitkumar.in/blog/einsteins-tongue-famous-photograph/ "Einstein liked this photo a lot and requested UPI to give him nine copies for personal use. Only one of these nine photos is known to be signed by the great scientist. Einstein gave this signed copy to his reporter friend Howard K. Smith. On this photo Einstein wrote an inscription in German whose English translation is: “This gesture you will like, because it is aimed at all of humanity. A civilian can afford to do what no diplomat would dare.” ... That was the time, when in America, there was a fear that communists forces are trying to take America’s freedom away. In response the USA had begun anti-communist pursuits. In such troublesome times Einstein’s message and gesture in this photo carried a strong message of non-conformity. The signed photograph was auctioned on June 19, 2009 for $74,324. Out of nine, this is the only photograph that has ever been sold." AvocadosTheorem (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

His opinion of the photo has no bearing on it's inclusion here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Residence

I refer to the recent additions by Wester to Einstein's places of residence: Belgium, England, Austria. It is in my opinion rather pedantic (if not inaccurate) to so describe Einstein's two very short stays in England in 1933 while he was sorting out the post he would be taking up in the States later that year. I'm inclined to say much the same thing about Belgium, where he spent a few months when he returned to Europe in early 1933 but could not go back to his home in Germany. As for Austria, I'm hard put to find any time he spent in that country.

The trouble with putting in such fine details is that they present Belgium, England and Austria(?) as places of residence on a par with Germany, Switzerland and the United States, which is simply not the case. Esterson (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I've just checked the date for the purported residence in Austria, and see that it is 1911-1912, which is the period of Einstein's stay in Prague. So Austria is definitely wrong, and should be replaced by Czechoslovakia. I see also that Austria is also given for Einstein's citizenship in the years 1911-1912, which is definitely wrong.Esterson (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Correction on Austria: Czechoslovakia was not formed until 1918, so I should have written Bohemia. While the latter was in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, I'm not sure that Austria correctly describes Einstein's place of residence in that period. Possibly it does, though it would be misleading for modern readers. I think Bohemia would be better.Esterson (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Why is there an "American pronunciation" of Albert Einstein after his name? There is only one correct way to pronounce his name, the German way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.174.38 (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Einstein in Italy 1895

DAGwyn has deleted the statement that in the period from January to September 1895 Einstein did not have formal schooling, with the explanation that "Einstein did have formal schooling". As any major biography will confirm, Einstein left Munich at the end of 1894 to join his parents who had emigrated to Italy, and he did not attend school until after he had taken the Zurich Polytechnic entrance examinations in October. See, for instance, Fölsing 1997, pp. 32-36: During this period "Einstein seems to have done various jobs in the factory [of his father and uncle] and occasionally even to have helped in his Uncl Jakob's design office." He did not attend school in Italy. I shall revert the change. Esterson (talk) 06:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

But there is a problem with the wording, which makes it sound as if Einstein had had no formal schooling anywhere, not limited to schooling only within Italy. Actually the sentence in question is better without any mention of schooling, which is not really relevant anyway. — DAGwyn (talk) 10:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Quote: "which makes it sound as if Einstein had had no formal schooling anywhere."

Only if you read the sentence in isolation. Just above is written:

Albert attended a Catholic elementary school from the age of five for three years. Later, at the age of eight, Einstein was transferred to the Luitpold Gymnasium where he received advanced primary and secondary school education until he left Germany seven years later.

That he had no schooling for some eight months in Italy is, I suggest, relevant to the very next passage which reports his failure to pass the Zurich Polytechnic entrance examinations. Esterson (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Correction: Given that his school history before 1895 is spelled out in the article, clearly I've misunderstood what DAGwyn has written above. Anyway, I've just checked the phrase deleted. It comprises the italicized words here: "It was during his time in Italy in 1895 without formal schooling that he wrote...". The sentence clearly refers to his time in Italy, so I'm at a loss to understand how this could be misinterpreted. (The next paragraph goes on to describe his education after he failed the Polytechnic entrance exams and attended school in Switzerland in 1895-96.) Esterson (talk) 10:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

1905 - Annus Mirabilis papers

DAGwyn has modified a paragraph in the "1905 - Annus Mirabilis papers" section, in the process changing

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. Hypothesized the speed of light as being independent of the frame of reference and an "upper limit" on velocity and information transmission in non-esoteric situations,

to

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, resulting from analysis based on empirical evidence that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer.

The statement that Einstein's analysis in the 1905 paper was based on empirical evidence that the speed of light is independent of the observer is not consistent with the contents of that paper. Einstein makes no mention of the Michelson-Morley experiment. His analysis, for reasons he gives, has as a premise that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer, as the original wording above indicates. See the Collected Papers, volume 2 (English language), p. 143, where Einstein states that the independence of the velocity of light is one of two principles on which he is basing the analysis that follows. There is no mention of empirical evidence. Esterson (talk) 07:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Einstein, like other theoretical physicists of the time, was aware of the experimental evidence that the observed speed of light did not depend on the motion of the observer. That is why he was justified in adopting that premise for the paper. It wasn't a "hypothesis" in the usual sense of a yet-to-be-tested assumption. Also, the upper limit results from the theory and is not hypothesized at all. Also, the upper limit is on speed, not velocity (which is a vector, not a scalar), and the "non-esoteric stiuations" remark was not expressed by Einstein and is not clear. — DAGwyn (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

That is not the place to put presumptions about Einstein's awareness. The description should be cut to half the size, and stick to a simple and uncontroversial statement of fact.

The Significance column should just have very short 1-sentence descriptions, leaving the reader to find more info at Annus Mirabilis papers. But it refers to "unsolved puzzle", "empirical evidence", "gravity", and other matters that are not explained. As the above discussion shows, some of the terms are questionable. Roger (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Table looks good to me, specially the significance column. The other matters are explained elsewhere and properly sourced. - DVdm (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 April 2012

See Also

• Einstein

Shubhammangal (talk) 08:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but Facebook is not an appropriate external link. See WP:FACEBOOK. —teb728 t c 10:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 May 2012

I think where ever it is written emigrate to United states or any other country should be changed to immigrated, because there is slight difference between immigrate and emigrate. Immigrate is when to move to a country and emigrate is when you leave a country or where you move from.

Patel nigam (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you about the distinction between emigration and immigration, and I went to the article with the intention of making your recommended change. But I found that each use was really about leaving Germany rather than entering the US (even though the US was mentioned and Germany only implied). So IMO emigrate is correct. —teb728 t c 00:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

This article needs more cowbells categories

Are 59 cowbells categories enough? Can't we find even more? Regards, RJH (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Be careful what you wish for, you may get it. --Mirokado (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we remove the newly added engineer- and writer-cats please? Good grief. - DVdm (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Escape via Albania

Someone has reinstated this section, though this mythical story circulating among Albanians has been rejected several times, the most recent being here: [25] and in great detail here: [26]

The very first sentence ("In 1935, Einstein traveled to the United States via Albania") is easily refuted, as Einstein left Britain for the United States in October 1933 and never returned to Europe. The citation for "Equipped with an Albanian passport" is a link[27] to a tourist clip for Parmoor House, Buckinghamshire, England. King Zog of Albania lived there from 1941-1945. The clip shows that there was also an entry in the visitor's book prior to this period showing that at some time prior to the residence of the Albanian royal family Einstein stayed there on one of his several visits to England from 1921 to 1933. This provides no evidence that Einstein had an Albanian passport! In fact he travelled to England in 1933 as a Swiss citizen [28]

None of the other citations constitute reliable evidence in the light of well documented evidence to the contrary in numerous biographies of Einstein, as demonstrated in the second Archive link above.Esterson (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Einstein & Marilyn Monroe had a tryst

In Shelly Winters' autobiography, she related how she & Marilyn Monroe had been roommates in Hollywood as young, struggling actresses in 1947. They discussed men that they would like to 'sleep' with. "I want to sleep with Albert Einstein", said Marilyn and she did! As they both were single at the time, it would best be described as a tryst. But 'the math was all wrong' as Einstein was 47 years older than her. There are letters between the two that still exist and are part of the Einstein Archives housed at The Hebrew University in Jerusalem. This tryst between the most famous man and woman of the 20th century was presented and discussed in-depth at the 2004 Einstein Conference at the Aspen Institute. This article should include, Albert Einstein & Marilyn Monroe had a tryst. - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any specific citation here on the claim that Einstein slept with Marilyn Monroe. In any case, the Einstein page is long enough without including such details of alleged incidents in Einstein's private life. Esterson (talk) 07:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, if assertions like this are to be included in the encyclopedia article, they will need some really good sourcing, or they'll be removed very quickly--and rightfully so. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 12:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Even if it were true and reliably documented, which I doubt, this is an encyclopedia, not a gossip rag. — DAGwyn (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but if it were true and reliably documented, it wouldn't be gossip, would it? Not that it's gonna happen or anything... — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 02:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Typo: memento, not memeento

Plinskey (talk) 06:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks for letting us know. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 06:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Ref. 36

Is not clear. Dwt2004 (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC

I thought it was clear, but I expanded it. — DAGwyn (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Einstein was involved in the Manhattan Project

"Albert Einstein was a crucial part of the Manhattan Project." However, the page "Manhattan Project People" [29] does not include his name. The category Manhattan Project People has not been added. I propose Category:Manhattan Project people be added to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BytesOfBinary (talk • contribs) 06:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No, Not Really:

[30]: "Einstein's influence on atomic bomb research is now considered slight. Often regarded as the "father of the atomic bomb" for signing the letters to Roosevelt, recent studies suggest that the Manhattan Project originated elsewhere...".

[31]: "Einstein was not privy to any further developments and, lacking security clearance, did not participate in the Manhattan Project that built the American bomb."

Etc... - DVdm (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Bounty

The Nazis put a bounty on his head in American dollars? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It is quite silly of you to question this. Whatever amount it was in Reichmarks has simply been expressed in American dollars at whatever the rate of exchange was during the 1930s under the Nazi Regime. This makes sense for an encyclopedia published in English in the United States.

Other editions could express the amount in French or Swiss francs, British pounds sterling, Italian lira, Austrian schillings, Mexican pesos, Japanese yen, Soviet rubles, Swedish crowns, Australian or Canadian dollars, or whatever you like, depending on the language and the geography. Given some historical calculations, you could probably express it in euros, too.98.81.0.222 (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Traveling

The word TRAVELING is spelled just like this.
See the article Travelling wave tube, for example.
The word is misspelled in the article on Einstein. 98.81.0.222 (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

One is the British spelling, and one the American. See MOS:SPELL. KTC (talk) 09:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Religious views

Why is the section on religion and politics together? Why hasn't this section been developed at all, especially his religious views? There are YouTube videos out there, with a million views taken, that falsely suggest Einstein was a traditional theist. Shouldn't the facts on Einstein's views be included here and developed? I tried to add about Einstein's letters on religion and this was quickly removed by a user (Steve Quinn). Should I bother doing work sourcing the material properly or will it just be removed by people who don't want facts about his religious views? (Allisgod (talk) 06:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC))

FWIW - Seems that there are separate articles on Albert Einstein's political views and Albert Einstein's religious views in the Wikipedia - A Brief Paragraph In The Main Albert Einstein Article (and wikilinking to these separate articles) Seems Sufficient - In Any Case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that link, now I see it. (Allisgod (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC))

Einstein's religious views are just as important as those of the first person you see in the street. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siberian Patriot (talk • contribs) 16:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Lone genius myth?

It should be pointed out that einstein is the prime example of the lone genius myth. All of the parts of the relativity theories were actually thought up by others, einstein was just bold enough to call it his. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.182.243 (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source for that, we could add it. However, no competent biographer has described Einstein as a "lone genius," and generally speaking, physicists would disagree with your assertions about the ideas. — DAGwyn (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

German ??

Einstein wasn't German. He was Swiss and since 1940 Swiss-American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.62.142.253 (talk • contribs)

He was born in Ulm, Kingdom of Württemberg. Have a look at the infobox to see his different citizenship during his lifetime. KTC (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

He was German but became notable as a Swiss physicist ("German, Swiss by choice" - Einstein: the life and times, Ronald William Clark). I can't see why this shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. mgeo talk 21:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

There's been quite a few discussions on this topic in the past... KTC (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

And the article reflected the consensus outcome of the discussion. Einstein had several nationalities at different times, sometimes overlapping in time. The article covers all this. He was German-born, and that is enough for the lead. — DAGwyn (talk) 09:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

He was , as you say, German born, then apatride (?) and asked his father to get the Swiss nationality that he has always kept till the end of his life. His nationality is not correct. He was Swiss and later Swiss and American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.12.189 (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Einstein was not just German-born. He grew up in Germany, and spoke German as his first language. Einstein went to elementary and high school in Germany. Einstein did become a Swiss citizen, but then he moved back to Germany, and he became a German citizen again. Einstein resided in and worked in Berlin from 1914 through 1932 -- 18 important years (!). Yes, he was also Jewish (by blood), Swiss (by adopting that country), and American (by adopting that country). Roger (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

From what I can recall reading, I don't think he choose to regain his German citizenship. It was simply a byproduct of his membership of the Prussian Academy. Having said that, his giving it up (the second time) had less to do with him not considering himself German, and more to do with rejecting Nazism. Without going through with all the arguments again, I'll be happy with "German born". KTC (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The issue I spotted was that calling Einstein plain "German" was not accurate, since he had various nationalities over time. "German-born" is sufficiently accurate, and Einstein's German origin colors how most people think of him. — DAGwyn (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Einstein was not a German!!! He was a jewish man, later jewish/american. Please correction this in this article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.232.23.55 (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing to correct: Einstein was born a German Jew. Later in life, he renounced his German citizenship, and acquired Swiss and American citizenship. The article gives details. — DAGwyn (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Lperez2029 has changed Einstein's birth nationality to "Hebrew", which is not a descriptiom (as far as I know) that anyone uses now as a synonym for Jew. As DAGwyn notes, he was born a German citizen, and German-born seems the best introductory description. (His Jewish heritage is mentioned where appropriate later in the article, as are his changes of citizenship in adulthood.) I shall revert "Hebrew" to "German-born" which exactly covers his birth citizenship, and his first language, while indicating later changes. Esterson (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Overcategorization

This is the worst case of overcategorization that I have ever seen. It seems that people are trying to apply every permutation of "19th/20th century American/German/Swiss/Stateless agnostic/Jewish philosophers/physicists/humanists/socialists/pacifists/inventors/writers who are Fellows/Recipients/Laureates of X". Categorization is less useful if it is overdone. I have removed a few of the sillier categories, but a lot more could be taken away by considering which categories really define Einstein and how many permutations are really necessary. For example, surely Einstein is big enough to go in Category:Physicists without being divided into parts for various subcategories. RockMagnetist (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree! In my view categories should only be noted if the person has played a prominent role in, or has made a major contribution to, the field in question. Esterson (talk) 07:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I am going to list the remaining categories here and describe my reasoning for deleting some of them:

• Category:1879 births
  
• Category:1955 deaths
  
• Category:19th-century German people
  
• Category:19th-century Jews
  
• Category:19th-century Swiss people
  
• Category:20th-century Swiss people
  
• Category:Academics of Charles University in Prague
  
• Category:Albert Einstein
  
• Category:American Jews
  
• Category:American pacifists
  
• Category:American philosophers
  
• Category:American physicists
  
• Category:Cosmologists
  
• Category:Deaths from abdominal aortic aneurysm
  
• Category:Einstein family
  
• Category:ETH Zurich alumni
  
• Category:ETH Zurich faculty
  
• Category:Fellows of the German Academy of Sciences Leopoldina
  
• Category:Foreign Members of the Royal Society
  
• Category:German emigrants to Switzerland
  
• Category:German Jews who emigrated to the United States to escape Nazism
  
• Category:German Nobel laureates
  
• Category:German pacifists
  
• Category:German physicists
  
• Category:Institute for Advanced Study faculty
  
• Category:Jewish agnostics
  
• Category:Jewish American scientists
  
• Category:Jewish pacifists
  
• Category:Jewish physicists
  
• Category:Leiden University faculty
  
• Category:Members of the Prussian Academy of Sciences
  
• Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States
  
• Category:Nobel laureates in Physics
  
• Category:Patent examiners
  
• Category:People associated with the University of Zurich
  
• Category:People from the Kingdom of Württemberg
  
• Category:People from Ulm
  
• Category:Recipients of the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society
  
• Category:Recipients of the Pour le Mérite (civil class)
  
• Category:Stateless persons
  
• Category:Swiss emigrants to the United States
  
• Category:Swiss Jews
  
• Category:Swiss Nobel laureates
  
• Category:Swiss pacifists
  
• Category:Swiss physicists
  
• Category:Theoretical physicists
  
• Category:University of Zurich alumni
  
• Category:University of Zurich faculty
  
• Category:Philosophers of science
  

First, remove all the redundant references to the University of Zurich, leaving the two ETH Zurich ones. Remove Württemberg because it is a supercategory of Ulm. Remove all the 19th century citizenships (he doesn't do anything notable until the 20th century). Remove all the philosophers except philosophers of science (he wouldn't really be notable for philosophy if he weren't such a famous physicist). Remove all Nobel laureates except Nobel laureates in physics. Remove lesser scientific medals and memberships in science societies (he lends distinction to the societies, not the other way round). Replace all the pacifist categories by the general Pacifists. Remove a few redundant citizenship/emigrant categories. That's a start. RockMagnetist (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I also deleted the citizenship/Jew categories because their are a lot of Jew subcategories and these are the least pertinent. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)