Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive 15

Not being one who wants to coopt Einstein

I'm just a copyeditor....BUT... this is one of the most confusing articles I've read in a long time. It wasn't until I got to the picture of the eclipse that I understood part of what was going on. These sorts of illustrations of what he discovered, explained, etc., will be very helpful for the non-scientist. Some suggestions. First, the "list" in the overview might be used as a way of organizing what he accomplished in the scientific realm, rather than going through "he published this, and then he published that, and then he published something else." If that list can be used to show how he built on what he learned, and what he learned from and through others, so much the better. and if there are other pictures like the eclipse that can show graphically what all this scientific stuff means, so much the better.

It might be practical for each of the three-four-five parties most interested in this to use their sandbox and write a section. Don't worry that they sound like different people wrote them, I can help you fix that in the copy edit stage.

His views on religion, politics, etc.: This is mostly original research, taking his words and stringing them together in an explanation. That is first a violation of wiki regs, and second, confusing to say the least. Someone who knows what he thought about religion, etc., should rewrite those sections with proper citations. I suggest starting out that big super section with some text about how people wanted him to explain other things as well as science, and that is why they came to him about religious determinism, and other ideas.

This article should summarize more what Einstein did, because there are separate articles on the specifics of his theories. If those separate articles don't make sense, then they need work, and this becomes a project in and of itself. (the wikiproject Einstein) I tried to cut down the size, got it down to about 91 and then the rewrite of the overview/reversion of the overview pushed it up again.

Another point: pictures are really good to use, with captions that don't just say, Einstein age 14, but Einstein, at age 14 when he taught himself Euclidian geometry and deductive reasoning.

Finally, cut the multiple, complicated verb stuff. Use simpler verb tenses, not subjectives. The subject matter is complicated, so keep the grammar and verb tense simple.

when you are ready, again, for another third party/copy editor, someone drop a note on my page and I'll come back. Otherwise, I've done what I can. Cheers to you all. This should be a featured article, and it is not ready yet. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The introduction just serves to link to free standing articles on subjects which Einstein had a founding role. It should not be replaced by a link to "relativity", and a link to "zionism" because this doesn't provide the reader with a good Einstein index. The list does: it gives an overview of his research interests, and his major works. If the terms are unfamiliar to the reader, they can be clicked for more information or skipped. There is no need to remove a term just because some readers don't automatically know what it is.Likebox (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition, if FA status means that the science gets deleted, I don't think this should be a FA.Likebox (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'm not opposed to the list, nor to the text, and I'm not suggesting remove the science, just contextualize it -- why were these discoveries and hypotheses important, and explain them generally at a couple of levels. It's a general encyclopedia, not a scientific text book. Einstein's nobel prize is for his contributions, not for a specific discovery. There should be a section on that, it seems, that pulls all these contributions together into a broadly analytical framework and explanation of his notability.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll give it a shot.Likebox (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That covers most of the bases.Likebox (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Why was this Censored?

Why was this link removed ? Put it back please. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.169.90.98 (talk) 04:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The link was removed by someone, it should be restored. It was always right there right next to where it says: "See also: History of general relativity" right there in the section about General Relativity. Please there restore the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute It should not have been deleted by someone. Please restore it . 173.169.90.98 (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The link to the Relativity Priority Dispute concerns both Special and General relativity and should therefore be placed higher in the article, where Special relativity is first discussed. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This wasn't "censored". I removed it because that page is awful. I read it a while back, and tried to fix it, but it was difficult. The whole page is entirely written with the following very minority point of view:

• Einstein stole special relativity from Poincare
• Einstein stole general relativity from Hilbert

Both of these small minority POV's are so ridiculous to anyone who actually reads the literature, that I prefer if that page is not linked until it is fixed.

The fix is simple: acknowledge that the real dispute is only over kinematics for special relativity, and for a small correction in the final form of the field equations in GR. For calculating all the physical consequences of both SR and GR, Einstein did 100% of the work, not the mathematicians, and this was acknowledged by everybody.

For GR, the dispute is a fabrication. Hilbert was just plain trying to steal general relativity, because he thought that Einstein was a buffoon who had stumbled onto some beautiful mathematics due to Riemann. He learned his lesson when Einstein got there fist. Hilbert never claimed priority for GR past 1916, and his one original contribution, the action, is duly acknowledged as the "Einstein Hilbert action" within physics.

For SR it's not a fabrication that there was a dispute. Poincare didn't like Einstein's position that the symmetry was fundamental. He never renounced the ether, or Lorentz's special frame point of view. Because of this he wasn't able to make the leap to fix mechanics or identify mass and energy. This dispute is real, but still everybody credits Einstein, and with good reason.Likebox (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You are dead wrong on all counts. Hilbert did call it "meine theorie" a number of times right into the 1920's. Also Einstein in 1920 insisted ether was real, don't you know that ? Also, Hilbert completed GR by a variational principle, a masterpiece, Einstein couldn't finish it now could he! The link must be restored from Einstein's page to the Relativity priority dispute. Sir Whittaker and others are not lightweights at all, they said it was Poincaré not Einstein. Do not censor Sir Whittaker and the others. Restore the link ! 173.169.90.98 (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Assuming your argument is true, there's a missing piece: Where did those guys steal there ideas from? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Who publishes first gets the credit: Poincaré for Special relativity, and Hilbert for general relativity. Einstein was a shameless plagiarist all his life, from the patent office right to his death. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who is involved in science knows these emotional problems. You have a truly brilliant insight only a handful of times in a lifetime, and it is demoralizing to find out that someone else was there too. This often leads to some sniping and bad feelings. Einstein and Hilbert made peace in 1916, and Hilbert never again claimed priority for the theory.

Einstein not only found the vacuum field equations, he solved them to find the post Newtonian approximation, and predict the perihelion advance of mercury and the deflection of light by the sun, all before Hilbert even took a variation on R to find his equations. That's not a slight on Hilbert's skills--- he just was coming in late to the game. Einstein had played with these equations for years, and had already calculated the perihelion advance in the Entwurf theory, both huge advantages to calculations.

Now, Einstein's vacuum equations R_uv=0, which Einstein had way before Hilbert did anything, are not the whole story. You still need to know that R_uv-1/2g_uv R = T_uv. So the whole dispute is in the trace term. Let's look at that term.

Hilbert suggested the action R. If you vary R, you find R_uv. That's the first part of the field equations. If you vary R\sqrt{g} where g is the determinant of the metric, you find the correction -1/2g_uv R. In the letters sent by Hilbert, and in the proofs of his 1915 paper, it is never established that he differentiated the action correctly. It is easy to slip up and miss a term.

Einstein showed how to find the extra term from physical reasoning easily in his 1915 paper--- if you differentiate D_u T_uv you get zero, that's energy momentum conservation. He could see that D_u R_uv was not zero, so the equation needed a correction. But the Bianchi identity made the correction all but obvious, and this gives the ( R_uv - 1/2 g_uv R). He also realizes that an extra cosmological constant is allowed, but sets this to zero to reproduce Newton's laws.

Hilbert was much slower with these calculations, trying to catch up to years of research. He was able to guess the action before Einstein, and this is why it is called the Einstein Hilbert action, but he was not able to show that the result reproduces Newton's laws, let alone calculating the corrections to Newton's laws to reproduce the deflection of light.

To anyone who has read Hilbert and Einstein, the notion that Hilbert used conservation of energy to fix the field equation is ridiculous. In fact, the original equations Hilbert puts in his 1915 paper get modified after he recieves a correspondence from Einstein about the final form of the field equations. It is equally nonsensical to claim that Einstein came up with the R action first. Einstein found the action after Hilbert, working backwards from the field equations, and with the benefit of Hilbert's insight.

It is natural that Hilbert would call it "meine theorie" a few times, just as it is natural that Leibnitz and Newton got annoyed with each other. The history is clear though. Hilbert came in late to the game, made a lot of progress, but didn't quite make it before Einstein solved the whole thing.

The people who have claimed Einstein plagiarized are people who have never read his papers', and are usually motivated by other considerations.Likebox (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) That's that for GR, but for special relativity, the dispute is more substantive. Poincare does give the correct special relativistic kinematics in 1902. Why should he not be credited with the theory?

He is, to some extent. The symmetry group of special relativity is called the "Poicare group" in his honor, just as the subgroup without translations is called the "Lorentz group". But the full theory required a physical insight.

The physical insight is that all frames are equally valid when formulating physical laws. This means that the symmetry is more fundamental than the electromagnetic laws that were used to find the symmetry. Poincare never acknowledges this, because he feels that using the symmetry as a fundamental principle is "assuming what needs to be proved". Lorentz does acknowledge this, and Lorentz gives Einstein credit for SR.

Einstein did much much more than either Poincare or Lorentz. He formulates the laws of motion in a relativistic way, and Max Planck puts these laws of motion in Lagrangian form a few months later. He also deduces the E=mc2, which neither Lorentz or Poincare could do, because their point of view was no good.

All physicists of the 1920s acknowledged that Einstein's point of view denying the ether was of foundational importance. The SR priority dispute came up when writing Britannica articles, and Wolfgang Pauli led the group that made it established dogma that Einstein alone should be credited. The reason is simple--- Einstein understood it, the others didn't. That should end the argument.

Whittaker and others were always in the minority on this issue, at least among people who know anything about relativity, and should not be made to look like authoritative sources. These are nitwits you are talking about.Likebox (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You are dead wrong. Hilbert called it his theory in his famous 1924 paper, Read it in German and you will see, not the phoney translations people throw around. Second you can hem and haw, but "He Who Publishes First gets the credit." - Hilbert for GR. - Poincaré for both SR and E=mc2, a formula which Einstein never ever correctly derived. This is why Einstein never got a Nobel prize for relativity, he didn't finish it, he couldn't do it. It took Hilbert. You are violating Wikipedia rules, Wikipedia operates by sources, and you are censoring the top sources in that link because you don't like what they say. Restore the censored link. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, dude, you are dead wrong. And you are also in a minority. First, Einstein did not get a nobel prize for General Relativity because so very few people believed it back then. It was sort of like string theory today. Don't hold your breath on Green and Schwartz's nobel prize.

I agree that "He who published first gets credit". Einstein published the vacuum field equations first (in a series of published lecture notes from October 1915) and the calculations of the Newtonian limit first. The formal Einstein and Hilbert papers with the final field equations are simultaneous, meaning that Einstein's version was recieved for review before Hilbert's actually came out, so any "plagiarism" would have to have been through private correspondence.

The private correspondence undisputably shows to anyone who can read it that any plagiarism would have flowed the other way, from Einstein to Hilbert. Einstein understood the physics a hundred times better, and the mathematics significantly better than Hilbert. The only advantage Hilbert has was that he could guess the action, because he didn't worry about trivial minor things like "causality" or "Newton's laws" or "conservation of energy".

The Hilbert action would have been very hard to guess for a physicist, because it is fourth order in derivatives, and looks cockamamie at first. It looks like it will give equations of motion of the wrong order. It doesn't, but only because the fourth order parts are perfect derivatives, and this is related to the pseudotensor nature of energy in gravity. Hilbert didn't care about any of these subtleties, he just guessed the simplest possible thing (which turns out to be right). Einstein did care, and this is why his papers are more detailed, longer, and actually bother to sort out the physics. That they were simultaneous with Hilbert's much simpler musings show how far ahead Einstein was at the time.Likebox (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You are as usual dead wrong. Hilbert published GR exactly 5 days before Einstein then ran off to publish it after Hilbert in a different town.. Secondly, "Vacuum equations" are for no mass ! What kind of a gravity theory is that ! ha ha ! Finally, you are violating wikipedia rules, Wikipedia operates by SOURCES and NOT BY YOU ! Restore the link ! 173.169.90.98 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC).

What is this craziness? They were in correspondence with each other the whole time, the letters are available. Einstein and Hilbert published simultaneously very different papers. Why would you say something so silly?

The vacuum equations describe the gravitational field in empty space. Not everywhere empty, just empty where you solve the equation. They are used to describe the gravitational field outside of any mass, In particular, they describe the gravitational field of the sun.

To calculate the predictions of General Relativity in the solar system, you don't need anything more than the vacuum equations, and this is what Einstein does in 1915, before Hilbert does anything. This is about 70% of the physics of General Relativity. The rest is the trace part of the source term, which is only important for describing the interior of a star or a planet, and this is the only disputed part.

Again, I must repeat this, there is no evidence that Hilbert got the right trace term. There are two possible easy mistakes to make:

• R_uv = T_uv
• R_uv - 1/4 g_uv R = T_uv

These are stupid algebra or thinking errors, but they all look OK if you don't have physical guidance. The first ignores the volume part of the metric, and this can easily happen if you choose to make det g constant as Einstein sometimes did back then. The second subtracts out the trace of R_uv instead of negating it, and might look more elegant to a mathematician.

Einstein rejected both possibilities by requiring conservation of energy. Hilbert would have had to check his algebra carefully to make sure he was right, and there is no evidence that he did. The galley proofs of his paper tell a different story, he rearranges the crucial formula after recieving a correspondence from Einstein.Likebox (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong again. Einstein showed the same equation, the same result, the famous Field Equation, 5 days after Hilbert. Secondly, Friedwardt Winterberg in 2004 showed that Hilbert without any question had the correct trace term. Those phoney printer's proofs you are referring to were debunked in Winterberg's 2004 paper and Corry never published a rebuttal. It is all in the Relativity priority dispute article which you are censoring in violation of wikipedia rules ! 173.169.90.98 (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not censoring anything--- I am just not linking to an article that I think is badly written. Again, I have no evidence that Hilbert got the trace term wrong, I just know that if he got it right or wrong, he couldn't be absolutely sure because he had no physical intuition about the vacuum solutions, the perihelion advance, or the deflection of light. Einstein's 1915 argument for the trace term is both different from Hilbert's, and completely conclusive, because local conservation of energy is required by the equivalence principle.

Even if Einstein had dropped dead in october 1915, and Hilbert went on to publish everything else that Einstein published from this point on, it would still be mostly Einstein's theory. The physical point of view was developed from 1909-1913, the gauge difficulties were surmounted between 1913-1915, and the vaccuum equation was developed in 1915 without any input from Hilbert, while Hilbert was still playing around with Entwurf stuff. Hilbert only had the action. That's it.Likebox (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't like how it is written so you simply delete the link with all the contents ? It was written by Professor Macrossan who writes often for wikipedia. He wrote it very well and you have no right to censor it because you don't like Macrossan's content. Restore the link right now. Prof.Winterberg proved Hilbert had the correct and complete equation, you need read Winterberg's 2004 article which Prof. Macrossan includes in the link which you are censoring. Also, Einstein never correctly proved the perihelion of mercury because he did not have the trace term, he fudged the result to match the 1914 eclipse data which was indeed observed by a team from Spain. Restore the link which you are censoring. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't need the trace term to do mercury perihelion, or deflection of light. The trace term is only for interior solutions. Einstein never fudged anything, because all the experimental data in his time was incorrect.Likebox (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong again. The only proper solution to mercury comes from the trace term, which Einstein only much later copied from Hilbert who published it first. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The calculations of mercury's perihelion precession are done entirely without the trace term, because mercury is orbiting in empty space. These calculations are the same as for planets orbiting around a black hole, which is a vacuum solution, with no source at all. The only use of the trace term is to describe the interior of the sun, or the interior of planets, when this needs to be done better than Newton's theory. This is not a matter of dispute--- I have done this calculation, seen this calculation done by others, understand the calculation, and millions of others have done this calculation too. You have probably not bothered to do the calculation.Likebox (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) In addition, your source, Friedwardt Winterberg is suggesting that someone maliciously tore out the equations out of the printers proof of Hilbert's paper so as to disguise that Hilbert had the right equations. Besides requiring a vast zionist conspiracy, it also ignores a crucial point--- NOBODY UNDERSTOOD THIS STUFF BACK THEN EXCEPT EINSTEIN AND HILBERT. For anybody else, it would look like hieroglyphics. They wouldn't know what to rip out! Not only that, only Einstein and Hilbert appreciated the significance of the theory. Everyone else (even within physics) thought Einstein, after some promising early work, had gone on a crazy wild goose chase.

Theoretically, the zionist conspirator at the journal could have contacted Einstein in the middle of the night. I imagine the conversation went something like this:

• Conspirator: Hail to the Elders of Zion.
• Einstein: Hail. Have you carried out the orders of the protocol, approved by Ben Gurion and Kipperstein, to tamper with the draft of this mathematics paper?
• Conspirator: So which paper was it again?
• Einstein: HILBERT. DAVID HILBERT.
• Conspirator: Found it. Oy vey. I can't make heads or tails of this thing.
• Einstein: Never mind. Do you see a "1/2" anywhere?
• Conspirator: Where would it be?
• Einstein: It would be multiplying something which he probably calls "R", and there should be a two index object next to it, probably called gee mu nu.
• Conspirator: Gee Mu what?
• Einstein: Never mind. Does he have anything which says "field equation" next to it?
• Conspirator: Oops, I dropped some lox on this thing, let me clean it up. (pause) He says field equations somewhere on page three.
• Einstein: Ok, just tear out that part, and we'll hope for the best. I'm off to the next town to send off my draft.

Hilbert does deserve enormous credit for realizing that the theory was important enough to steal. The much more plausible explanation for the galley proofs having a missing section is that Hilbert sent a correction to his paper. This correction is in the crucial disputed part.Likebox (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If you can prove Winterberg's 2004 paper to be wrong, then why don't you submit a scientific article to a journal ? - this is not about YOUR THEORIES - This is about published sources, which you are censoring. Restore the link. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If you can prove Winterberg's 2004 paper to be accepted by anyone except a few wackos, you are welcome to cite it. Otherwise, it should be excluded by undue weight.Likebox (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You are not following wikipedia rules, which go by published sources, with no source to contradict Winterberg (2004) then you have nothing but your own personal hot air. Walter Issacson the president of CNN footnoted Winterberg in his recent biography of Einstein, is your Issacson a Wacko ? Restore the link which you are censoring in blatant violation of the rules. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I read Isaacson's book. He might footnote Winterberg, but that doesn't mean he agrees with him. Isaacson points out that Hilbert sent a correction after Einstein derived the field equation.

Wikipedia's rules are clear: a source which is a fringe minority is only mentioned as a fringe source, not as a mainstream opinion. Here, it doesn't need to be mentioned at all. These disputes are only caused by the fact that there are still people too ignorant to read the original papers. Hopefully these people will die out, and the new generation will be mathematically literate.Likebox (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Dr.Macrossan's link which you are censoring contains many highly reputed sources: the famous Sir Edmund Whittaker, Dr.Keswani in the highly respected British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Professor Winterberg, etc etc are anything but fringe sources, you just don't like what they all say. Restore the link which you are censoring ! 173.169.90.98 (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but any sources which are mathematically illiterate (and that includes all the sources you mention) are worthless when discussing this issue. The mathematically literate literature (including David Hilbert) is in 100% agreement that Einstein deserves 95% of the credit.Likebox (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please Restore Dr.Macrossan's Link

Professor Macrossan wrote a lengthy Wikipedia article on the Relativity priority dispute, this link has been for two years on Einstein's Wikipedia article there where it says See History of Relativity. A week ago someone removed the link, please restore Dr. Macrossan's link to his article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.104.5 (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems User:Licorne is back ;-). BTW: The "Priority" page is indeed a catastrophe... --D.H (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph order in lead

Don't move the science in the lead, don't remove the science from the lead. The continuity is from the nobel prize for "contributions to theoretical physics", to a list of these contributions. The only point of moving these contributions to the end is so that they can be deleted.

The scientifically uninterested reader should have no trouble skipping the parts that are not interesting.Likebox (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Einstein's mistakes

The second error about the wing not generating lift seems misleading. A plank of wood will generate lift if you give it an angle of attack. The Benoulli effect isn't the main factor in what keeps planes in the air. I think it should be reworded to say something like that because it's not true that it won't generate lift but rather it's addressing the wrong principle of lift. Anywho, just a suggestion to the moderators since this can't be editted by me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mymiridon (talk • contribs) 02:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That's right, but Einstein gives an example of a wing at zero angle of attack which will not generate lift (it's a planck with a bump on top), and says that the Bernoulli effect means that it will lift. This is the error. It's in an expository paper, and it's a small trifle, but the point of this section is to give a complete guide for people who want to read the collected papers a heads up about the few well-known mistakes.Likebox (talk) 03:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems

The passage on Einstein's mistakes does not refer to his endorsement of Stalin's 1936 and 1937 phony trials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.170.8 (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC) All the mistakes mentioned so far in the passage are scientific mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.34.162 (talk) 07:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Einstein never endorsed Marxism/Leninism or soviet style socialism, and did not endorse the show trials of the 1930s.Likebox (talk) 02:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

See Albert Einstein Max Born Briefwechsel 1916-1955. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.33.219 (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess the important point is that Wikipedia doesn't call someone's political opinions at a particular moment in history 'mistakes'. Maybe the article would benefit from a bit more about his political views with respect to socialism and the USSR (which were hardly unusual in those days) and a bit less about his religious views which it seems to me have undue weight in the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Einstein never supported Marxism/Leninism. If you read the letters, he is intrigued by the 1917 revolution, and he admires the Bolshevik politicians, "despite the stupidity of thier theories", because he felt that they were skilled at defusing western propaganda. Here is the quote from Einstein to Born about the show-trials:

... There are increasing signs that the Russian trials are not faked, but that there is a plot by those that look upon Stalin as a stupid reactionary who has betrayed the ideas of the revolution. Though we find it difficult to imagine this kind of internal thing those who know Russia best are more or less of the same opinion. I was firmly convinced to begin with that it was the case of a dictators despotic acts, based on lies and deception, but this was a delusion...

This ambivalent quote from a private letter shows a person who is suspicious giving the communists the benefit of the doubt. The communists are all saying that the statement "show trials are fake" is due to a massive conspiracy. Einstein doesn't find this plausible, but gives them the benefit of the doubt, because all of them say it. This ambivalent sentiment is not echoed in public comments of the same period, it never is asserted with any certainty, so like countless other momentary considerations, Einstein probably repudiated it a week later. To read it as an endorsement of the show trials is an inconsiderate extrapolation.Likebox (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sentence

This sentence was added to the list of documented mistakes in the published papers:

• According to a 2008 book, Einstein published seven different derivations of E = m c², and all of them have mistakes.

This book is completely wrong. The mistakes section is pretty exhaustive, Everything else Einstein wrote is well accepted and the arguments are OK in all their details. If you want to add this unfortunate book, I think it should be introduced with a disclaimer saying that all the "mistakes" it claims to find are just Ohanian's personal misunderstandings.Likebox (talk) 02:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Who says this book is wrong? Your original research? This is a reputable book and a reliable source. Roger (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it's garbage. The counter-sources begin with the original papers by Einstein. The particular claim that Einstein's 1905 derivation of E=mc2 is wrong is refuted in a couple of recent academic papers (one is on arxiv, there's also Terrance Tao's blog), but most importantly, by the fact that the actual argument, reproduced in mass-energy equivalence is SELF EVIDENTLY correct.

Ohanian's infantile nonsense should not be promoted.Likebox (talk) 04:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is Einstein's argument of 1905:

Consider a mass M at rest. It then emits two pulses of light each with energy E/2 (so that the two pulses together have energy E) one to the left and one to the right. The two pulses are equal and opposite, so that the object is at rest after the emission.

Now consider the same system when you are moving with a nonrelativistic velocity v to the left. The right-moving light now looks blueshifted to you (because you are moving towards it), and has more energy, by an amount Ev/2. The left moving light is redshifted (because you are moving away), and has less energy by the same amount, Ev/2. The momentum of light is exactly proportional to the energy, so the momentum is not balanced in this frame, and the object lost momentum after the emission.

So the object lost momentum without losing velocity. How could that happen? It must be that the object lost mass. The amount of mass can be easily calculated to be the total energy emitted divided by c^2.

This argument is self-evident. It is OBVIOUSLY correct. I can't understand the controversy, because it is as clearly right as "1+1=2". However, there have been criticism over the years. Here are the complaints:

• How come he uses nonrelativistic formulas?

Because he felt like it! He uses a nonrelativistic value of v. There's no problem with that.

• How come he uses Maxwell's equations?

The only reason Einstein uses Maxwell's equations is to establish that the momentum and energy of light are exactly proportional. This is also true for a particle that is moving very close to the speed of light, and he could have used nearly massless particle emission to make an identical argument. The point of the light pulses is that you can emit pulses of light just by shaking a charge, that is, just by doing work.

The debate on the correctness of this argument is so insufferably stupid, and it ended with Einstein vindicated a long long time ago. The argument is so self-evident that the debate should never have begun. I really think that Ohanian should be excluded on undue weight grounds.Likebox (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight? The Einstein article has a section on his mistakes. Someone recently wrote a book cataloguing those mistakes. The article should reference the book. The book does not deny E=mc2. Roger (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This section serves as a counterbalance to that crappy book. The book "Einstein's mistakes" is insidious, precisely because it does not deny E=mc2. It only denies Einstein's original arguments. Most people don't want to waste time debating it, because the alleged "mistakes" revolves around one minor niggling points or another. This is why this line of attack is easier.

Books such as this have the effect of throwing Einstein's original papers into doubt. This prevents people from reading them, and that is a form of intellectual cruelty, because Einstein's papers are so lucid that reading them is like listening to music.

Einstein's 1905 E=mc2 paper is absolutely 100% correct. This is supported by the literature, by consensus of scientists, and it also mind bogglingly obvious if you read and understand the argument. Aside from very minor slip ups here and there, there are NO major mistakes in Einstein's most famous papers. Period. That's the whole point of the section.

This holds for other famous papers of the past. They are all attacked as establishing a correct result by "wrong" reasoning. Sorry. If the reasoning were wrong, the result would not have come out right. In all of physics history, there is only one case I know of where a not so great argument establishes a correct result. This is Maxwell's 1870s argument for the Maxwell Boltzmann distribution. This mistake is hardly ever commented on by commentators, who somehow have a knack for picking only on papers that are correct.Likebox (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the book? It is not denying the entire arguments. You might say that it is nitpicking, but it is still seems like a useful source on Einstein's mistakes. Roger (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I read every single argument in that book first with disappointment and later with anger. Every single one of the "mistakes" he finds is his own personal misunderstanding. For example, with the 1905 relativity paper, he claims that the synchronization method is wrong. BULLSHIT. He then claims that the 1905 E=mc2 paper is wrong, because it uses nonrelativistic formulas and Maxwell's equations. BULLSHIT. This just shows that Ohanian doesn't understand how to take the nonrelativistic limit. There's a good reason Einstein is more authoritative than Ohanian.Likebox (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool off. Wikipedia has a policy on Wikipedia:No original research. Roger (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not angry, it's just that that book is garbage. That's not original research, its an observation that any physicist can easily make. Original research would be if I was attacking Einstein with a new crackpot theory of my own. Besides, I don't care about policy very much.Likebox (talk) 02:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The book is not garbage. You say that there are no major mistakes in Einstein's papers, but there are mistakes. Does anyone else want to comment on this? Roger (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the book is worthless. I could go through it argument by argument if you like. What point of Ohanian's do you think should be included?Likebox (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Biography

I can’t edit this myself as I am not yet autocomfirmed, but in marriages and children his second wife is twice referenced as Elsa Löwenthal (née Einstein). That is incorrect, as née refers to the name she was born with, which is Löwenthal. Correct would be: Elsa Einstein (née Löwenthal) or just Elsa Löwenthal, the latter being consistent with his first wife being described as Mileva Marić. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betekenis (talk • contribs) 14:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

She was born Elsa Einstein. It's the Löwenthal née Einstein - Einstein paradox, a lesser known paradox. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. Shortsighted. Betekenis (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Lieserl?

Einstein's first daughter with Maric (out of wedlock) is mentioned on Maric's page, but not on this one. Hans is referred to as his "first son," which, while technically correct, suggests he was his first child. Can we rectify this? See the Isaacson biography, chapter 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.182.39 (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In former versions of the article "Lieserl" is mentioned - however, someone deleted the information. I also found some information about Lieserl in Fölsing's authoritative Einstein-biography in sections 2 and 3 - so I re-included that section with reference to Fölsing. --D.H (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

So much about politics and trivia and so little about his work in his later years

Very long chapter title - but it says the major idea behind. I miss something in the structure of the article

I came to find out what was the famous institution, where he was later working and I couldnt find it for some 5-10 min, even with fullsearch tool of Firefox!! Where he was working when he came to in USA? I found one sentence in paragraph dedicated to politics. And what he was working on, what was he teaching?

There is chapter named - "Scientific career". Its layout is given by Einstein's principal discoveries. That may be fine, by itself.

And there is chapter named - "Early life and education". It is nicely written end it ends about year 1901.

Later on, throughout the subsequent chapters including mentioned "Scientific carrier" we can follow his path through some of the institution where he was working, to find out, that his curriculum becomes even more hazy after the year 1919!

I miss some chapter dedicated to his professional itinerary, some concise description which would complete the chapter "Early life and Education" as synopsis of later life and late scientific proceedings. Not only his political views. Reo ^ON | +++ 11:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

sigh, sorry, I stopped copy editing after early life and career....got too confused about the science at that point. Will start up again. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

High. So, how do you guys see that progress as potentially starting again? Reo ^ON | +++ 16:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don’t know what else you would put in the article about his later years. He principal research then was a search for a unified field theory, which was a doomed effort because nuclear forces were not well understood during his lifetime; it may also have been doomed by his rejection of modern quantum mechanics. As for teaching: I understand he did little if any teaching in Berlin and Princeton. So in covering his later years, the article is correct to talk about his politics; that is what was most notable about that period. —teb728 t c 20:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

So thank You very much for the reply. But exactly what You said is excellent information, the one I was looking for. I thought he was still teaching or searching for something, if not or if he was not successful at it (the unified field theory, though I like the sentence in that article: "led to a great deal of progress in modern theoretical physics and continues to motivate research" ), then it is also very valuable information. Even when he picked up the topic which he was unable to solve, still it is also of interest on which of the institutes of the world he spent his later years. (that was, what I was originally searching for). The information in your reply should be included in article as such and on some place, where it would be be reasonable easy to find.

Thank you for your interest to reply, even though you visibly didn't see it as interesting contribution for the topic. But for me that is quite interesting and I didn't know the answer, so I see it as possibly required part of the article. Even if he had been noticeable in that time only by his political contribution, the notion on his formal position and institute where he did work at that time gives him place at the context. The context oh how he was for example addressed, if in some interview and so on. Reo ^ON | +++ 13:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

In his last years Einstein worked at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, NJ. Before its recent massive rewrite the article, which used to be organized chronologically, mentioned that in the appropriate place. (It would be best of the article were restored to that configuration and then more carefully edited. There are currently a large number of errors.) The main reason for the lack of information past about 1919 is that mainstream physics became preoccupied with the new quantum theory, but Einstein did not agree with much of the methodology being used for that and pursued his own notions, primarily unified field theory, so that to most physicists his later work became irrelevant. It also did not progress very well, although he did make some interesting discoveries in that area. (Notably: with Infeld, he studied the evolution of spacetime singularities; he found that related affine fields, not just the most common one, could be used for such theories; he discovered displacement-field duality, which is less restrictive than zero-torsion and may be a fundamental discrete "internal" symmetry; he characterized the strength of field theories in terms of asymptotic degrees of freedom.) The Unified field theory article is not a good reference for Einstein's own work; for that you should refer to the Classical unified field theories article. — DAGwyn (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Did Einstein really mistake gravitational free-fall for a uniformly accelerated motion ?

In its section on the Principle of Equivalence, the article currently claims

"He [Einstein] thought about the case of a uniformly accelerated box, and noted that it would be indistinguishable from a box in a gravitational field."

But as stated, whatever Einstein thought, the substantive claim here is clearly false inasmuch as the motion of a uniformly accelerated box would be clearly distinguishable from the free-fall motion of a box in a gravitational field. For in Newtonian classical mechanics bodies in free-fall in gravitational fields are not uniformly accelerated, but rather exponentially increasingly accelerated as the strength of gravity increases in accordance with the inverse-square law. Thus to take the notorious Galileo case, using his radically mistaken law of gravitational fall, a law of uniformly accelerated motion, Galileo notoriously predicted it would take less than four hours for a canonball to fall to Earth from the altitude of the Moon, whereas it would take some 4 days 18 hours according to Newtonian classical mechanics. [See p218f in Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems tr. Stillman Drake, University of California Press, 1967] Thus uniformly accelerated motion and free-fall motion in a gravitational field are very grossly distinguishable in this key historical example.

So the question arises of whether Einstein actually did make any such blunder as claiming uniformly accelerated motion is indistinguishable from gravitational free-fall motion, and if so, where ?

To focus the issue here, perhaps it would be helpful to pose the question of how long it would take Einstein to reach the Earth according to GR if he got into a lift released from rest into gravitational free-fall in the Earth's gravitational field at the altitude of the Moon ?

Meanwhile I flag this claim for both clarification and also a justifying citation. --Logicus (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You misundestood in a very silly way: a uniformly accelerated box in empty space is indistinguishable from a stationary box in a time-independent gravitational field.Likebox (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This fact is so well known it would be ridiculous to cite anybody. If you demand a cite, I will just copy the relevant Einstein paper from the list.Likebox (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Logicus to Likebox: I suggest Likebox should adopt good faith and civility and consider whether it is not Logicus who is silly and ridiculous and misunderstands here, but rather perhaps Likebox who is insufficiently English-literate to understand the problems with this passage. For as it stands the now revised principle is still vulnerable to an elementary counterexample. For it now states: "He thought about the case of a uniformly accelerated box, and noted that it would be indistinguishable from a box sitting still in an unchanging gravitational field." But a uniformly accelerated box is clearly distinguishable from a box at rest - the former is moving but the latter is not.

Is the principle this sentence is unsuccessfully trying to articulate maybe something like the following principle ?:

'A person inside a windowless lift who dropped a ball would be unable to tell from the ball's accelerated fall to the floor whether the lift was at rest at some location in a gravitational field or rather in a completely matter-free space not in any gravitational field but moving 'upwards' with the same acceleration as that prevailing at the resting lift's location in the gravitational field.'

And is it maybe something like this principle Einstein proclaimed, rather than the mistaken principle that a gravitationally accelerated motion is indistinguishable from a uniformly accelerated motion ?

This article is pedagogically appalling ! --Logicus (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

To me, it is hard to say which version is more appalling - after parsing the suggested revised sentence, I do not see a factual difference, and the suggested revised sentence is far longer and more convoluted. As to "the former is moving but the latter is not" - I suggest a contemplation on the principle of relativity - if there is no absolute frame of reference, how can you tell? --Alvestrand (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Alvestrand that Logicus’s proposal is no improvement. Although some improvement might still be possible, IMO the present text is adequate for its task of explaining the principal of equivalence briefly to non-scientific readers. But I also agree with the implication of Logicus’s post that Likebox should show greater patience with Logicus and assume that he actually may not understand. So assuming he doesn’t understand, let me elaborate on Alvestrand’s last sentence: By the principal of relativity, a uniformly accelerated observer who sees surroundings in relative motion (through a window), cannot distinguish that situation from being at rest in a uniform gravitational field with surroundings in the same motion relative to him. Or perhaps more to the point, if he sees surroundings with no relative motion, he cannot tell if they are accelerated with him or at rest with him. This last is our condition on the surface of the earth: Are we really at rest, or is the surface accelerating outward? —teb728 t c 22:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Logicus I think you miss the point that the observer is inside the box in Einstein's original thought experiment. Indeed there is no experiment that can be performed inside the box that could distinguish whether the box is stationary in a gravitational field or undergoing constand accelration in free space. --LiamE (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Logicus to all: Thanks for these comments, but note that I did not propose any alternative text, but just offered a possible articulation of the principle intended. I did not miss any point here. Rather the problem with the current text remains.--Logicus (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Also see http://actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedcorrespondence/sc-einstein.htm - SridharRatnakumar (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Einstein's Principle of Equivalence was meant to be applied purely locally, not over an extended region. It's equivalent to the notion that particles subject only to gravitation will follow geodesic paths in spacetime. — DAGwyn (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Physics in 1900 etc.

The rewriting that emphasizes one person's opinion that Einstein's early work was all oriented at proving atomicity is debatable, but worse it added a lot of unnecessary exposition about physics in general. The Einstein article has always been excessively long, but when I was a more active editor we worked to shorten it. I suggest removing most of the added verbiage, integrating into a shorter summary specifically of Einstein's own work any clarifying comments about context or relevance.

It's not debatable--- it's the focus of his PhD and his early papers. Establishing atomicity was the first priority. Once this was done, he noted the atomicity of light, and realized Maxwell's equations were not universally true (they would have to be replaced by a quantum thing). So he starts to ponder thought experiments and general principles of symmetry, and uses this type of a-priori knowledge to remake science.

This can be fixed by a long section on the uniquely Einsteinian physical ideas: the notion that principles of invariance are fundamental, and come before equations of motion. The notion that laws are derived from basic postulates by deduction, and the basic postulates are free inventions which are justified afterwars by comparing their deductions with experience. His de-emphasis of experimental results, and emphasis on those principles which can be inducted from experience itself, and his advocacy of formal mathematical tools of a higher sophistication than any previously used in science. These additions would describe his work from 1905 onward. But before 1905, he was just interested in showing atoms exist.Likebox (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I added a section explaining the broadening of focus in 1905.Likebox (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologies about the "physics in 1900" section--- it's too long. The point was that someone earlier asked for a context which explains why Einstein's work is considered so important. For relativity, it's self evident, but for the work on phonons, fluctuation/dissipation, and photons, the context is the 19th century debate about atomism. This debate was closed forever by Einstein (and Smoulochowsky/Planck/Millikan and probably others I don't know about) so this part of Einstein's work looks sort of unmotivated to a modern reader. But Einstein set out to show right from the beginning that atomic theory is quantitatively correct in condensed materials too, not just in gasses: that Avogadro's number is a large finite number, not infinity. This is taken for granted today, but it was questioned by Mach.

I also added a section on his transformation in 1905. This was his first conceptual leap--- the physical principles come first, and the mathematics is built on top of these. But there is a second transformation in 1911-1914 where he decides that the mathematical formalism itself can be used to suggest new physical principles. This second transformation is not as popular with the general public, maybe because it requires more mathematical sophistication, but it is foundational especially for Dirac and Heisenberg, and everyone after.

This second type of thinking--- formal relations suggested from an abstract mathematical formalism--- was used by Einstein to guide both the development of General Relativity and the unified field theory. While the particular unified theories he came up with are not very memorable, some of the mathematical principles involved survive. The Einstein/Cartan notion of a physical nonpropagating torsion is now standard, the notion of an antisymmetric field contributing like an antisymmetric part of the metric tensor is fundamental to string formulations of string theory (but these of course are much more tightly constrained). The notion of vielbein and "bivectors" (spinors) later became foundational in General Relativity, and nowadays the vielbein is the preferred formulation. And of course there's the great granddaddy of all formal physical principles, gauge invariance, which began with Weyl's unified theory. So the formal type of thinking has been essential.

But the a-priori physical principles, especially symmetry principles, and thought experiments are important too. It might also be mentioned that Einstein's a-priori principle of local realism based on local variables was firmly disproved experimentally. Another a-priori principle which wasn't Einstein but folklore, left-right reflection symmetry, is now known to be completely wrong in the fundamental theory. So these "a-priori" principles can be disproven by experiment. So maybe calling them "guesses" (like Feynman used to do) is more appropriate. But they are more than guesses, and less than imperatives. I guess they just are what they are.Likebox (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hide categories

If it's possible, I suggest that the categories be automatically hidden. Even if it is the bottom of the page, it's still too large. It can even make scrolling difficult. - Cyborg Ninja 00:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don’t believe it is possible to hide the category list. I inquired here at the Help desk, and the only reply said, “The list could certainly be pared down. There are clearly quite a few redundant categories there.” —teb728 t c 06:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ethnicity in Lead

Einstein's Jewish ethnicity is important, because it was a defining trait, more than his nationality or politics. He was always active with all sorts of Jewish and Zionist causes. He renounces his Germanness after the Nazi era, becoming a U.S. citizen. So perhaps one should say "American theoretical physicist"? That's a bit of a joke, but it could say "German for most of his life, but American since 1938, or whenever it was.Likebox (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

But, from the point of view of producing a well-constructed article, is it important enough to countermand this specific injunction from MOS:BIO: "Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability"? Surely his notability lies elsewhere. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

His Jewishness is a part of his notability, and a pretty significant one. I mean, he played a role in the founding the Hebrew university in Jerusalem, he was an active zionist, and he was offered the presidency of Israel. Einstein's Jewishness is certainly nowhere near as important as his physics, but his ethnic group was the target of vicious hatred in his lifetime, and this informs his life and his work, and also influences his career. It's inconceivable today, but back then, Einsteinian type theory, grounded as it was in a-priori principles (like the principle of equivalence or Mach's principle), was considered "Jewish" by some Germans and therefore inferior to "Aryan" science directly grounded in experiments. Note that it was the science itself which was considered "Jewish", even if the scientist was not. Heisenberg's theoretical formalism for quantum mechanics, for example, was also "Jewish" because it relied on a-priori stuff, and Dirac's science, and Schrodinger's, and these guys had no Jewish ancestry (as far as I know).

Einstein himself believed that the Jewish traditions informed this type of work. He said something to the effect that the Jewish style of academic work is somewhat different, because it is subtly informed by the Jewish religious and philosophical tradition, which emphasizes a-priori knowledge. Nowadays, of course, all physicists use Einstein's methods, so by 19th century European standards they would all be doing "Jewish" physics. But it's also Kantian physics to some extent, because Kant was also all about the a-priori, and Einstein admits he owes a debt to Kant just as much.

All I'm saying is that the amount of emphasis in the article seems just right to me--- a quick mention of the ethnic bit and then on to the physics. But I can't say it's not important at all. I mean, look at how many Jewish physicists there are today, and compare to before Einstein's time.Likebox (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your considerable contribution to this discussion. I agree that his heritage should be mentioned, especially given its significance to the subject. However, does it belong in the lede, and so prominently? I am currently suggesting over on the talk page for the fraudster Bernard Madoff that his Jewish ethnicity features in the lede due to his use of influence as a member of the Jewish community to solicit funds from Jewish charities who were later defrauded. The reason Madoff is notable is that he pulled of a very large fraud- in this fraud a large proportion of the victims were Jewish, and this was made possible by Madoff himself being Jewish. Einstein is noted for his contribution to physics, and while he may have approached it according to Jewish tradition, he is not notable as a Jew but as a physicist. Does it belong in the lede? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beganlocal (talk • contribs) 01:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a slur, it's just a part of his identity. I don't think it's as prominent as you are saying, but I understand that it could be dubious. I can make it less prominent by moving the citations to the end of the sentence, is that OK?Likebox (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting. We have his ethnicity, agnosticism, family heritage, etc prominently in the main article where relevant. I know it is part of his identity but is it the first thing we should say about him? Contrast with J. Robert Oppenheimer, another Jewish physicist of the same era. His Jewishness isn't the first thing said about him. I think it belongs in the first section under "Early life". If it is to be included in the lede at all, shouldn't it be further down? Beganlocal (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a big difference--- Oppenheimer didn't make a big deal about being Jewish, nor was he politically active on behalf of Jews. The declaration here is just a boilerplate, like saying "Gandhi was a Hindu Politician" or "Constantine was a Christian emperor". Admittedly, Einstein's religious and ethnic background is not as important as Constantine's or Gandhi's, but it is much more important than Oppenheimer's. I didn't even know Oppenheimer was Jewish.

I worry more about the claim here that Einstein was agnostic. His religious belief is not easy to write about, but agnostic implies that he didn't care about religion, which isn't true, or that he doesn't have an opinion about spiritual matters, which isn't true either. He did not believe in miracles, or in divine intervention with the physical world, but he does believe that religious thinking is a primary source for ethical teaching, and that these are informed by a spiritual realm which is mysterious. His writings on this are nuanced, and interesting, and not agnostic or atheistic in any usual sense. They are a sort of nontraditional monotheistic leaning spirituality, rejecting supernatural divinity. But it's sort of silly to call that "agnostic". I don't think it has a good name.Likebox (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

outdent] The claim that AE was an agnostic is extremely well referenced, I would say irrefutably so, in the "Religious views" section. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a horrible mischaracterization, and it can be well referenced, but you could also reference the claim that he was religious. Neither characterization is completely accurate. Saying he was agnostic is certainly better than saying that he was a religious Jew in a traditional sense, or a traditional theist, or even an atheist. Agnosticism is certainly closer. But I don't think the term "agnostic" captures the right spirit. If you read his essay on judeo-christian morals, you can see that he has a deep understanding and respect for religious faith, and he strives to extract the moral core in the Christian and Jewish tradition (he purposely garbles them together) and separate the ethical teachings from supernatural beliefs in physical miracles. I don't know how to give a name for that sort of miracle-denying spiritual awareness, but if "agnostic" is the best term, then that's that.Likebox (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the closest term is Deist. That's not sourced though.Likebox (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Deism minus afterlife.Likebox (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Deism does not have a belief in the afterlife (though many Deists do believe in one). 98.198.83.12 (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed n times. See the beginning of this pqge ("additional comments") where user User:AuntieRuth55 makes a comment that I second.

There are several things that have to be disaggregated here:

(a) the fact that his life was affected by his being classified as a Jew by the Nazis, and, before, by plenty of earlier antisemites. The effect on his life was very real and should be mentioned, but whatever the Nazis thought of people cannot, in general, be taken as a defining characteristic by us.

(b) His support for a (non-political and arguably somewhat unreal) form of Zionism. This can in principle be mentioned in the lead, and should certainly be mentioned later; however, Einstein was not (like Chaim Weizmann) a prominent politician who was also a scientist, but, rather, a famous scientist who also took strong political positions in public (not by any means confined to Zionism; his (somewhat flexible) pacifism is, if anything, better known than his Zinoism, whereas his socialism is probably somewhat less known).

(c) His lack of belief in Judaism.

(d) His lack of a religious Jewish background.

(e) His cultural background, namely, a fairly average German-language middle class one, with little or nothing that was specifically Judaic, and little or no relation to whatever goes through the Anglo-Saxon (Jewish or not) collective consciousness when it uses the term "Jewish". Einstein had no documented special relation to bagels, New York or other (partially self-inflicted) stereotypes.

Note that I am *not* making a case for calling Einstein "a German". He was undoubtedly *culturally* German, but he was also quite explicit in his rejection of a German national identity, and in fact, renounced his German citizenship for reasons that were clearly at least in part ideological. This attitude and these actions should be respected. Einstein should not be called be a German any more than any (or, rather, any other) German-Swiss person should be. Feketekave (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I know that Einstein did not follow the tenets of Judaism any more than he followed the tenets of Christianity, but he respected these two religious traditions which he was aware of. He was somewhat more aware of the jewish tradition than the christian one.

about the cultural issue, you are neglecting the assimilationist/separatist element. When there is oppression, there are two schools of thought. One says that one should assimilate with the majority, the other says "screw the majority, lets separate". For jews, there was assimilation, and there was zionism. Einstein accepted his jewishness and explicitly rejected assimilation by supporting zionism. To call him a cultural german is to endorse the view that he was an assimilationist.

The influence of jewish culture on Einstein, while not profound, is greater than what you say. Einstein does recieve a little bit of training in religious jewish thought and in jewish philosophy in the course of growing up. It's not incredibly influential, but his admiration of what he like to say is the jewish tradition of european scholarship, Spinoza Freud, etc, is significant.

In particular, I think the statement that he is culturally German would be OK, as long as it would be accompanied with the statement that he is ethnically Jewish.Likebox (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

He was Jewish, we are sure - However, I do not understand why it is in the lead-in. It is repeated in the article many times. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

His Jewishness is not just incidental, like many others, but notable, because he was outspoken in support of Jewish causes.Likebox (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The recent addition of the term "ethnically Jewish" to the lead sentence makes it awkward. It would never stand in a well-edited encyclopedia entry. It read fine as "German-born" or something along that line and it is hoped that it will read that way again.Jack B108 (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The religion of Albert Einstein is of relatively low importance to his notability and to his life's work. Therefore I don't think it necessarily warrants mention in the lede. But other people can and should weigh in on this. Why do some see Einstein's Jewishness as sufficiently important to warrant mention in the lede? Bus stop (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Einstein's religion should be in the lede. Normally I'm against putting religion in a lede, but in this case, there are notable aspects of Einstein's life that make his religion relevant. Since the lede is a synopsis of the important/notable parts of the subject's life, it's appropriate for it to be mentioned there in this case. -shirulashem^(talk) 16:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

His religion was not Judaism but something akin to deism or pantheism. His Jewish ethnicity is notable enough for a brief mention in the lead as explained by Likebox. His religion was not that notable. —teb728 t c 00:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we listen to what Einstein, himself, said: "As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew ..." If he was only "ethnically Jewish," then why didn't he say so??[2] -shirulashem^(talk) 17:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Unlike his ethnicity, his religion (whatever it was) is not notable enough to mention in the lead. Incidentally his Swiss and American citizenship is also not notable enough to mention in the lead. —teb728 t c 23:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Jack B108! I hope that it will read "German-born" in the lede again because this is a historical fact and we shouldn't argue about it in wikipedia. Eurystheus 16:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Addition of interesting anagram

Albert Einstein has an anagram of: "Ten elite brains" Should this be added to his page as a trivia of sorts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotomio (talk • contribs) 10:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If all possible anagrams were added, the articles would get very long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.237.236 (talk) 09:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Trivia is discouraged at the best of times. And that is very trivial trivia. However it is fun. I'm sure there is a forum somewhere that will appreciate it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction to this page is terrible (IMO). Someone make a better one, instead of listing bullet points of discoveries.Jatlas2 (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Jatlas2's suggestion is too vague to be acted on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.170.8 (talk) 12:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Suggestions should refer to points of fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.170.8 (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the introduction is simply horrible. We should use lengthy bulleted lists in introductions. The introduction is supposed to be a short summary of the article's most important contents. I think one or two contributions should be mentioned in prose, instead of the list. Offliner (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I tried to fix this. A lede should never be a list of bullet points. --John (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Was Albert Einstein an Albanian Citizen?

According to the WIKI article on Statelessness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statelessness

" In April 1931 he was issued an Albanian passport from Albanian King Zog which he used to travel to USA and a year later he received a Swiss passport.
" If this is true shoulnd his list of nations as citizen have Albania too?

Citizenship
Württemberg/Germany (1879–96)
Stateless (1896-1901)
Switzerland (1901–55)
Austria (1911–12)
Germany (1914–33)
United States (1940–55)[1]

I have never heard this and I have grave doubts that he ever had this citizenship. However, if you can find adequate refernce outside wikipedia which support this assertion than you may also add it to the infobox here.--Gilisa (talk) 08:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Even taking this unreferenced statement at face value, it does not say or imply that he was ever an Albanian citizen. The point of the statement seems to be that the Albanian government issued him a passport as a stateless person. —teb728 t c 08:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Teb728, I think that at face value the statement asserted that Einstein actually used Albenian passport to travel from Europe to USA. I have never heard it before but if he/she could source it than it may be included in the article infobox. However, it's realy hypothetical discussion, Einstein never had Albenian citizenship.--Gilisa (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

→ vandalism: the albanian king's passport in the statelessness-article, and its quotation above are obvious nonsense going back to undetected IP-vandalism of 19 January 2009 which i have just fixed. please please check before you take vandalism seriously. --Ajnem (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think otherwise, but sometimes it's very refershing to find harmless nonesense on wikipedia articles. After all, many of them include nonsense that is treated seriously and with respect. I'm quite sure that if humanity will survive even 200 years from now, historians will consider the time from ~1970s as the modern middle ages. But I'm sweeping away, my ideological grievances don't belong here.. --Gilisa (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Jewish 'ethnicity'

Judaism is a religion, not an ethnic group, please remove it from the panel that contains in brief facts about his life that appears to the right of the article

It's important to say that he comes from a Jewish family in the bio, but having this in the infobox under ethnicity is a bit strange and unnecessary. Ethnicity is uncommon in the infoboxes of scientists, so I removed it.AndreasBWagner (talk)

Please see the above discussion, and realize it is not as "clear cut" as that. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

AndreasBWagner, you ignored the discussion on the talk page and removed it without any justification. It will be returned.--Gilisa (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Judaism is a religion, first and foremost. Einstein's religion was Jewish. "Ethnicity" is not really even applicable to someone like Einstein. There is really not any "ethnicity" to cite for Einstein. The info-box should say that Einstein's religion was Jewish. If there is sufficient opposition to including Einstein's religion in the info-box then it should be left out. But of course in the main body of the article his religion should be mentioned. It is not that he is notable for his religion. But the reader is understandably interested in knowing about the man. Religion among other things should be noted. Bus stop (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, I'm well familiar with your opinions, also from other talk pages, and you know mine as well. As you already know that many users do see Jewishness as ethnicity (even if many others don't) and as you know that to list Einstein as Jewish by religion would be very contreversial here (even if many secular Jews, un observent and even assimilated do see their religion as Jewish)-you can understand the problematic nature of your suggestion. Second, who sad that Jewishness is a religion first and foremost? there are much more Jews who are only ethnically Jewish (Amos Oz for instance) than Jewish people who are Jewish only by religion (Ethiopians, converts to Judaism and etc). --Gilisa (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Early life and education additions

Recently someone has added details about Max Talmud dining with the Einsteins and speculation on why Einstein did not become a bar mitzvah. They even added to the Early life and education section information about what happened decades later. These details, no matter how accurate, no matter how well sourced, are not important enough to be added to this overlong article. Max Talmud’s relevant importance is that he introduced the young Albert to key texts in science, mathematics and philosophy. I am reverting the site of these additions to the August 9 September 14 text. Perhaps there would be a place for the additions in a separate subarticle. —teb728 t c 06:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

teb728 we don't know whether he had or not a Bar Mitzva. Most of his biographers are not conclusive about this issue. Anyway, there is no room for speculations and original research on both sides here. Besides, can you elaborate what were the "no matter how well sourced, are not important enough to be added to this overlong article" sentences you removed from the article?

I think that the acquaintanceship of Max Talmud with Einstein should be discussed in the article as he is credited in many of Einstein's autobiographis as the one who introduced Einstein the scientific world and ignited his curiosity. In all of Einstein's biographis there is always a place for Talmud, so I think that we shouldn't have different scale here, and that even if briefly, the article should refer him.--Gilisa (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Gilisa, I agree that Max Talmud needs to be mentioned. I restored to the old text about him: "In 1889, a family friend Max Talmud introduced the ten-year old Einstein to key texts in science, mathematics and philosophy, including Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and Euclid's Elements (which Einstein called the "holy little geometry book")." Do you think more is needed about him? If so, what? —teb728 t c 22:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC) (It's not worth mentioning in the article, but Pais's Subtile is the Lord..., p 38, says, "He did not become bar mitzvah. He never mastered Hebrew.") —teb728 t c 22:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Teb, I'm not sure that the wording "a family friend Max Talmud" is correctly applied to Talmud, as from what we know he was a student that they accommodated once in a week and not a friend in the usual meaning (even if he pobably was a firend as well). As for Pais book, you don't have to know Hebrew at all to become Bar Mitzva (even it may help). Besides, as I wrote, others refering to this issue as one which can't be answered with confidence. For example, Galison's book (Einstein for the 21 century) mention another possibile scenario according which after Einstein abandoned the personal form of Judaism he adopted before thirteen, he refused to celebrate Bar Mitzva. But it's not clear whather it eventually occured inspite of his refusal. I think that each biography suggest different story when it come to this kind of foggy personal life events, it's not only about new data or different sources of data -after all the authoress must compete on their potential market with other existing biographies --Gilisa (talk) 08:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. it's amazing that we don't have an English Wikipedia article on Max Talmud.--Gilisa (talk) 09:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"Ethnically Jewish"

Since the location of Einstein's religion/ethnicity and the dispute over the term "ethnically Jewish" are two different (albeit related) topics, I have started this new section to talk about the terminology. I think we should keep the discussions separate. -shirulashem^(talk) 16:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Can someone provide a source that states that Einstein was "ethnically Jewish"? -shirulashem^(talk) 16:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Albert Einstein is also Jewish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.22.39 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The source is provided in the paragraph: "I am a Jew by Ethnicity, a Swiss by nationality..." He was considered ethnically Jewish (not religiously Jewish, just ethnically Jewish) by the standards of his era.Likebox (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the following what it says, "By heritage I am a Jew, by nationality Swiss, by conviction a human being and only a human being with no particular penchant for a state or national entity."

I find that here. Bus stop (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was conflating "heritage" with ethnicity. Maybe it would be better to say "Jewish by heritage?" but it sounds awkward.Likebox (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Why must we label him as Jewish so prominently? Is he known for his involvement with or contributions to Judaism? No. WP:MOSBIO says ethnicity should generally not be emphasised in the lede unless relevant to the subject's notability. I recall a European country which thought that all Jews should be singled out and marked as well... Beganlocal (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that if Jewishness is at all mentioned in the lede it should be limited to simply Jewish, with no modifying terms placed before it. I think that for use within the article there are terms that accurately spell out Einstein's variety of Jewishness. He was a "secular" Jew. He was a "nonobservant" Jew. He was a "nonreligious" Jew. In my opinion Einstein's religion was not essential for his notability or accomplishments, and therefore can be left out of the lede. Bus stop (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In Einstein's case, while his MOST notable achievements were in the field of science, he was also notable for issues relating to Judaism and Israel. The policy states that content in the lede should be relevant to the subject's nobility - not only to his most notable attribute. As far as "ethnically Jewish", I agree with the first part of Bus stop's comment above. Simply "Jewish" in the lede is most appropriate. -shirulashem^(talk) 20:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a slur to say he's Jewish: Einstein identified himself as Jewish, and associated himself prominently with Jewish causes. His Jewishness is a minor part of his notability-- I'd say 5%. I agree that it is wrong in general to identify jews by their jewishness: it is distasteful. But if you look at Jewish people, he is listed prominently as an example. Perhaps because of he didn't observe the Jewish religion, this identification might rub some Jewish people the wrong way. But Judaism in Europe was traditionally more of a culture/ethnicity than a religion. That might not be true anymore in the U.S., since people convert in and out of Judaism freely all the time. But you shouldn't use modern categories for people long dead.

If you leave out the Jewish and just say "German", that's no good, because Einstein was strongly against being identified with the German culture of his era, which he considered overly militaristic. He identified himself as "Swiss" in that quote for a reason: he didn't like German culture very much. So I guess you could say he was a "self-hating German" (although German culture became unpopular with nearly all Jews after 1933). Einstein renounced his German identity entirely after 1945, so if you are going to say "German born", you should also say "Ethnically Jewish" or "Jewish by tradition".

This is especially true because everyone wants to "own" Einstein nowadays. There is a funny quote by him which is apropos:

"Today in Germany I am called a German man of science and in England I am represented as a Swiss Jew. If I come to be regarded as a bete-noire the descriptions will be reversed, and I shall become a Swiss Jew for the Germans and a German man of science for the English!"

I think that Einstein's own statements need to be the guide on how to deal with this. He identified himself as a Jew, and even as a Zionist, even though he hated all forms of nationalism. I think that this contradiction can be resolved by noting that Zionism is a response to anti-semitism, so this is a stand to protect the persecuted. I sincerely believe that Einstein would have liked to be identified as a Jew, but not too prominently. That's what I tried to do in the article.Likebox (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Likebox Zionism is not a form of nationalism, it's the idea that as a nation Jews have the right to return to their historical homeland and to have national home there. Even though I know that you had no bad intention it's still impalpable and unaccepted to see here so many times users who are not neutral toward Zionism or even consider it racism-while if you check you will find that many Zionism opposers are very well known racists. As for the Jewishness of Einstein playing about 5% in his notability-first, 5% of Einstein is still very very much. Second, if we consider the role it played in his life than you will found that it's much more than 5%. If he was born ethnic German he most probably would not flee Germany and revoke his German citizenship. He would never call Roosevelt to launch Manhattan project, he might not meet Nathan Rosen and formalizing with him and with Boris Podolsky the EPR paradox and etc. So, it realy had much influence on his life and on history.--Gilisa (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

What is so wrong here is that some users have the nerve to tell that identify someone as Jewish is to slur him/her and not only that but then they will also preach you that you are a rasict. While of course, they will never tell, for instance, that writing that someone was German is to slur him/her...--Gilisa (talk) 11:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that Einstein was Jewish, and this fact played an important role in his life. Period. If people want the article to discuss exactly how he conceptualized God or about how many times he went to synagogue or whether or not he was Swiss, or German, or American, or whatever, that's fine for the body of the article. But that doesn't change two defining facts: He was Jewish, and some of his notability is because of it. -shirulashem^(talk) 21:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) A small part of his notability was because he was Jewish. The lede should say he was Jewish or not mention that he was Jewish. The body of the article should accurately describe the man, using more rather than fewer words if necessary, to rule out ambiguity and to rule in the degree of accuracy deemed appropriate. Bus stop (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I prefer “ethnically Jewish” and frankly don’t understand why anyone would want to remove “ethnically.” I strongly oppose “Jewish” without a qualifier, because it would give many readers the false impression that he was religiously Jewish. My experience is that American gentiles understand Jewishness as a religion, not as an ethnicity. This seems to be connected with an American ideology that accepts religious pluralism but not ethnic pluralism. —teb728 t c 00:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

For starters, the term "ethnically Jewish" is foreign to Judaism. According to ancient Jewish law that is still in force today, you're either Jewish or you're not. You can be a socialist, a capitalist, an athiest, an agnostic, a rabbi, or a devout secularist. In Judaism, you're either Jewish or you're not. -shirulashem^(talk) 00:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are a race first and foremost. Also, Zionism is not a response to antisemitism. Beganlocal (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting you say that. First, Zionism IS a response to antisemitism. There's a source that says, "Zionism, the national movement to return Jews to their homeland in Israel, was founded as a response to anti-Semitism in western Europe and to violent persecution of Jews in Eastern Europe." This comes from a book called, coincidentally, nothing less than The EINSTEIN Almanac. Second, Judaism is NOT a race. It's interesting to note, however, that the infamous virulent anti-Semites all say Judaism is a race, like [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=401560 Stormfront - White Nationalist Community], Henry Ford, Lydston, Richard Hayes McCartney, Hitler, etc. -shirulashem^(talk) 17:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Shirulashem Before you give your POV a free paltform here you may want to make yourself familiar with facts. First, while anti Zionist ultraorthodox Jewish groups didn't play any important role in Jewish history or in present Jewish life what so ever they are clearly loudly against the idea of national home for Jewish people. Therefor these Yiddish speaking anti-Zionist groups even sent representatives to Iran, to the Holocaust denial committee. That is, like Anti Semities they believe that the justification for the existence of Israel and the force behind Zionism is Anti Semitism and espcially the memory of the holocaust. However they ignore the Jewish history of Israel, the history of the Jewish people and the aspirations of many of them during most of the history to return to Israel and to build there a national home. This is because they strangely believe that the state of Israel represent Jewish rebel against God. Sure, there are sources who frevently claim that Zionism is a response for Anti Semitsm, and other sources which argue for the other way around-the nature of this dispute is easy for understanding. More, to exclude any stronger grasp of Jewish people on Israel (and pardone me that I'm getting into it, but eventually it have to do with a direct answer to his arguments) many Anti Semities claim that Jews are not an ethnic group and most basically-that Jews have no blood relations and so they can't claim to have rights for national home. Zionism is not the issue here, only the relevance of your arguments for the article. So, fortunately there are genetical methods today to determine whether there are blood relations between people from differenct places/communities. The results that these studies yield were found to fit well with known history of Jewish people. While several Jewish sub ethnical groups (i.e., Yemans, communities from the Caucasus region, Indians and Libyans) were found to have different rates of admixture with non Jewish local populations (in line with historical accounts for locals conversion to Judaism that occur in these places in early times) and one was found to be a group of whom members are all converted to Judaism about 600yr ago (i.e., Ethiopian Jews)-both Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jewish populations were found to have stricking genetical similarities and to be well distinguished from the local populations among which they lived. I'm talking about dozens of studies that were preformed by top research groups around the world and were published in A journals. Also, these studies have covered all genetical profiles aspects and few research groups even studied the similarities in mandible formation among Jewish groups. Again, both Sephardim and Ashkenazim were found to be clustered with other Middle eastern groups. Espcially with Tunisians and Syrians who are known to be descendent from the Phoenician people who share much in common with Hebrews (including language). Not only that, but there are also stentorian historical and cultural relations between different Jewish communities (not including the modern Ultra Orthdox groups which also don't accept Jews who were not born to Ashkenazi Ultra Orthdox as equal members in their communities, no wonder they are against the idea of Jewish ethnicity) and to claim that German are "more" race than Jewish people are is just ridiculous for one who is armed with honesty and knowledge. Maybe you are not ethnically Jewish yourself, but you can't generalize from yourself to all Jewish people.--Gilisa (talk) 08:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) "Ethnically Jewish" has no applicability to Jews. The terms that I have suggested have a long history of applicability to describing Jews who do not practice the Jewish religion. I think it is standard usage to refer to those Jews who are not punctilious in the observance of all of the minutia of the Jewish religion as "non-religious," "non-practicing," "non-observant," and "secular."

Jews are known to be Jewish whether they involve themselves in the more esoteric aspects of the religion or not. Absence of arcane knowledge and/or practice of the Jewish religion does not result in an individual that is no longer Jewish. That has never been the case, and that probably never will be the case.

Einstein was a person steeped in the rational world of science, far removed from the world of religion. That does not make him less a Jew. One can be a complete atheist, which Einstein probably was not, and still be completely Jewish. The standard terminology which I've suggested conveys accurately that Einstein was Jewish sans the religious practice. Bus stop (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are a race first and foremost... An interesting "race", then, unlike any other "race" on the planet. Hint: even if the concept of "race" is valid, and, say, "Negroid" and "Mongoloid" and such are races as was often accepted as fact in earlier days, one cannot wake up one morning and decide it's time to become a Negroid, a Mongoloid, an Aboriginoid, or any of those; what "race" one is is determined entirely by one's genetics. On the other hand, anyone here who isn't a Jew can become one if they want; and anyone who is a Jew can become a non-Jew if they want (depending, of course, on which "who is a Jew" definition is being used.) "Ethnicity" is bad enough -- I don't like the "ethnically Jewish" tag at all; Einstein was a Jew, end of discussion. But "Jews are a race" is basically nonsense. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is something this discussion shows unambiguously, it is that this is a controversial subject and that we have no consensus in any direction.

It would seem to me that there are three factors at play here.

(a) The terms "Jewish" and "Jew" have got many overlapping meanings; this is certainly so in practice, even if you or I or that man over there may have very firm ideas as to what "Jew" or "Jewish" means. The very use of "Jew" or "Jewish" in an unqualified fashion thus becomes problematic - at least if what we are trying to write is an encyclopedia.

(b) The popularity of the term "ethnic" as a part of public discourse mostly postdates Einstein. As we can see above, a supposed quote of Einstein using the term "ethnically" turned out to be a loose paraphrase. We have to be careful here - terms carry their own baggage.

(c) Lastly - whether this is their intention - some users are currently coming through as being more interested in cataloguing and claiming Einstein rather than describing him. (This goes not just for "Jewish" or "Jew", but also for "German".) Some of the comments about "race" above may be understood in this light: of course there is no such thing as a Jewish race, and of course "races" are a social construct, not a scientific concept; nevertheless, what affected Einstein's life was precisely that Jews were defined as a race by Hitler and by plenty of earlier antisemites - that is, the "Jewish race" existed as a social construct. There is the challenge of accepting this without playing into the Nazi terminology. There is also the challenge of not thinking in race-like terms.

The effect of Nazism on people's lives has to be discussed. At the same time, a categorisation of individuals into Aryans and Jews (presented as something objective) is simply not encyclopaedic. It is my humble opinion that a categorisation of individuals into Jews and Gentiles does not belong in a non-confessional encyclopaedia either.

Many of these disputes will disappear if we attempt to describe rather than name. Thus: Einstein was a theoretical physicist, known largely for his work, but also as a public figure; he was born in Germany in such and such a year; he emigrated after the Nazi takeover; his political views were diametrically opposed to those of the regime; he was also subject to the racial laws; by his own description, he belonged to no religion; he renounced German nationality early on, and, while from a German cultural background, was strongly opposed to German nationalism and disavowed German national identity; his public political stances included pacifism (details and nuance given), Zionism (details and nuance given) and nuclear disarmament (details, again, given); and so on, and so on. All of these things, and many more, can be mentioned wherever they would fit in the body of the article. Feketekave (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

So what changes are you proposing? -shirulashem^(talk) 17:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

a categorisation of individuals into Aryans and Jews (presented as something objective) is simply not encyclopaedic. Who (other than the occasionally Hitlerophile) is making such a categorization? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't find where is the categorziation for Aryans and Jews. I realy find it to be weak argument. In Germany it was made out of completely other reasons and I can't realy find what it have to do with Einstein categorization as Jewish, and he realy was one. We can't and we shouldn't change the facts.--Gilisa (talk) 09:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I press you all to make the right thing and to remove once and for all the German from his ethnicity entry. It's clear that he was only cultural German and never identified himself as being ethnically German. Also, it clearly give reader the impression that he was a mix of German and Jewish (needless to say -he wasn't). He renounced his German citizenship and never return to live in Germany. I find it outrages and dishonest to count him as ethnically German, espcially because this entry was created to make the difference between his heritage and place of birth clear. For more than a year this entry only contain the word "Jewish", now it was changed to "Ashkenazi Jewish", and I can't believe that it was done inadvertently-instead I suspect that some users wished to give the impression that he was of non Jewish German ansectry (because there are who by mistake believe that Ashkenazis are of European and even German non Jewish heritage). In fact, there is a clear definition for German Jews as a separated ethnicall group, very well distinguished from the non Jewish German one (whether religious or not). No one would tell that a non Jewish German who live in Israel is both German and Jewish or even Israeli by his/her ethnicity. So should be for Einstein who was only Jewish by ethnicity and certainly not German. From the first place this entry meant to make it clear that his ethnicity was not German even if he was culturaly one. Even if someone insist that he was ethnically German becuase he grew up and lived large part of his life in Germany than it's nothing more than his own original commentary of "ethnicity" and anyone who think like can't possibly miss all the information that is given in the infobox and in the article about that Einstein was born, lived, worked and was German citizen for part of his life. I can't even tell how rude is it to claim that he was ethnically German while he flee Germany because in his life time most Germans didn't accept him as one (nor did he ever express himself as being German, in fact we all know his famous saying that if he would be found to be right the Germans will claim that he is German, but if not than they will claim that he is Jewish).--Gilisa (talk) 07:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Another point that I want to make is that Ashkenazim are considered as sub ethnic group and the ethnic group they belong to is Jewish. So it's realy inappropriate to describe Einstein as Ashkenazi Jewish in the ethnic section while the most parsimonious and straight forward way to describe his ethnicity is just Jewish. The entry can't include two different ethnicities at the same time while there is no factually basis for this--Gilisa (talk) 09:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, this totally helps the Copernicus article. It's impossible for a person to have more than one ethnic group, after all, since ethnicity is totally scientific, and not rooted in the silly racist claptrap of the 20th century, after thousands of years of being codified by prior religious and social conventions of people who hate "others". Yeah, gonna revert. Ronabop (talk) 10:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Great demonstration of civility, I must tell. I'm the last person you can blame for racism and I would suggest you to carefully choose your words. Copernicus father was Polish and his mother German so please, for the next time aviod distorting the facts. If you don't believe that there is a good definition for ethnicity and that any definition exist is not in agreement with yours it have nothing to do here. You may ask for the ethnicity entry to be deleted-I've no problem with that. But if it's not scientific, so how did you decide that he was both German and Ashkenazi Jewish-after all it's racist to tell that, doesn't it? It seems like you blame me for racism you undoubtly have your own POV. The article provide more than enough information about the life of Einstein in Germany and I can't see any need for inclusion of "German" in this entry. He was German citizen of Jewish ethnicity, now what problem do you have with that? Or that he must to be ethnically German for his life in Germany to have meaning? Who is the racist now? A person can have two ethnicities if his/her parents are of different ethnicities and this is not the case of Einstein. Or that you didn't know it?--Gilisa (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Gilisa - you are seeing ethnicity as something oddly separate from culture, as your posts above clearly show. It would seem fair to say that you use "ethnicity" as a black-or-white marker of descent, in such a way that you come to define a person by his or her descent. This is bound to be seen by some people as bordering on racialism at the least. Feketekave (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, honestly some of the people who were "shocked" wanted Einstein ethnicity to be mentioned as German only and also excused it that he was German born, lived in Germany and hence he is first and formost German and his Jewishness have no relevance as it's, as can be deduced, of only marginal importance and it's, of course, highly racist to consider him as ethnichally Jewish or only ethnically Jewish. I am not suspecting these people intention was to glorify the German people or stupid ideas about the 'superiority' of the Nordic race, but I do think that they overdoing it for their own interests. A racist is not unavoidably one who believe that there are races or that ethnic groups also share in most cases genetical similarities, you know it well. There is no reason at all to support the existence of an ethnicall entry if it's not dealing with his Jewish heritage. Of course, genetical studies and many other field of science do consider overall blood relations as what defined ethnic group-and I believe it's true (along with other elements that make people to an ethnic group)is incorrect It doesn't mean that someone of Indian origin can't be fully Australian (as long as other Australians don't declaring him as inferior, not part of their ethnic group and throw him out of Australia or trying to kill him) but he can still be considered as ethnnically Indian (meaning that the same society can be ethnically diveresed -like in many countries). What's the problem with that? I also deeply believe that common history and culture is important for the crystallization and conservation of any ethnic group and that ethnicall identity is not being created in one generation. In this essence Einstein had different ethnical history than other Germans. You can defined him as German Jew, even it will reduce his ethnicity to the level to the sub-sub ethnicall group he was belonged to (Jewish->Ashkenazi Jewish->German Jewish). Many German Jews were fully immersed in German society and still made unique group with special characteristics of its own (I'm not meaning to the racial ones). And anyway, what can be seen "racially at the least" by defining someone ethnicity by his/her descent? There is nothing racist by defining someone as bellong to any ethnicity. As I wrote he/she can be practically of Pakistani descent and to live in Iran as fully Iranin of Pakistnian ethnicity (actually there are)-where does it get to rasicm? I found the other way much closer and sorry, I don't buy the "rasict" argument and I found that you use it here too fast and without no basis-nothing more than silencing everyone who claim that Einstien, the one who define himself as Jewish, who was born to Jewish parents and who flee Germany becuase of his ethnicall origin (including the cultural one, Nazi ideology conidered all aspects of Judaism unwanted) was ethnically Jewish. Sorry for that but it remind me the phr: Have you killed and also taken possession? You should thank me for even replying after you had the nerve to imply I'm a racist. When you use this allegations to make your point of view sound stronger you only make this discussion to look worthless. And anyway, I faced users who use hard words against the "racist" "frevent Zionist" who claim that Einstein was Jewish. Surely, if you have to blame someone of being racist-start with them --Gilisa (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Your conclusions are wrong. I'm fully aware for the importance of culture in ethnicall identity-your undestanding of what I wrote above is fault. Ethiopian Jews are not Jewish by their genetics but they are still ethnically Jewish. This is totaly different from the case of Einstein as Ethiopian Jews converted to Judaism and identified themselves as Jews for 600 years at least, with all of its meanings. Einstein never denied his being Jewish and was born into a Jewish family and even parcticed Judaism until age of 14 years. He was nothing more than German Jew. You can't tell that the experinces and the identity of those who were born to Jewish parents in Germany were the same as German ones. There are actually historical studies on assimilated German Jews and it's clear that even they adopted the modern German culture and were part of the German elite (and only rarely were part of the simple people or familiar with their culture)they were still culturally different. Also, as they lived in a society in which Anti Semitism was not rare -they had different expereinces and exertions about their identity. I strongly recommend you to read "The pity of it all".--Gilisa (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I will leave it for others to analyse User:Gilisa's use of language, which is based on an entire system of interesting preconceptions. As for "even parcticed [sic] Judaism until age of 14 years" - this is both besides the point and misleading. Einstein did not even do a Bar Mitzvah (Pais, pages 38-39) - the rough equivalent would be to state that somebody practiced Catholicism until 14 but did not do a first communion. Rather, as a child, Einstein went through a brief version during which he engaged in his own imagined version of Judaism, as a response to adult labelling. This is a mildly interesting fact that might eventually be mentioned in the page on his religious beliefs as an adult.

(By the way, as chance would have it, I have read and enjoyed part of The Pity of It All, which is a detailed and nuanced study.) Feketekave (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, it is my opinion that the field "Ethnicity: Jewish and German" is slightly awkward, as it uses "ethnicity" in what seem to be two different senses at the same time. The "ethnicity" field is very far from being universal to all biographical articles; we'd do fine without it. Feketekave (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You are not telling me where America is. I know well that Einstein particed his own version of Judaism, that's much more than enouge-I want to ask you, what would you say if he was praciticing his own version of Teutonic rituals until age of 14? I think that it by no doubt tell much about his identity, in the middle of non Jewish sociey, until the age of 14. Anyway, thanks for acknowledging that at least there is no agreement in scientific literature about what ethnicity is (even if most of it do consider the ethnicall aspect)-now you probably understand that the geneticall aspect is important one. Whether he had Bar Mitzva or not is not known for sure nor it's important (The Jew in the American World page 417) it realy mean nothing, there are so many Jews who didn't have Bar Mitzva and are not observent at all but identifiy themselvs as Jews. Needless to say that Jwishness is not only about religion. Later, as an adult, he considerd his relation with Jewish people as the strongest form of bond. Never did he express himself in the same way toward German people, not to mention that after the Nazis raised to power he declare "If this is Grmany, I'm not German any more" revoked his citizenship and moved to USA, never did he say "I'm a German again" or returned to Germany. He identified himself with Zionsim since 1920' and BTW, Einstein was circumcised according to the traditional Jewish custom. He did make voluntary contributions for the Jewish community in Berlin. Here are some important quotes of Einstein on his Jewish identity:

"The pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, an almost fanatical love of justice and the desire for personal independence-these are the features of the Jewish tradition which make me thank my stars that I belong to it.

Have he ever said something even close about his belonging to the German people? It's clear that Einstein was an ethnicall secular Jew who was born in German surround and was affected by the German culture but he didn't ever express that he see himself as an ethnic German.

Einstein also attributed significant aspects of his personal views for his being Jewish. For example he refered his being pacifistic to his Jewish roots . Einstein didn't see the Jewish people as chosen but he thought they should be the exemplary people and pointed that "Jewry has proved that intellect is best weapon in history". not to mention that he supported Zionism as he believed that this is the only solution for anti Semitism and as it represnt no less than "Reawackening corporate spirit of the whole Jewish people"(The Jew in the American World page 419). On the other hand he saw himself as citizen of the world, German was his native tounge -like almost all Jewish people in Germany, whether observent or not. And he was educated in German schoold and even workd in Germany, but he wasn't an ethnicall one.

As for my "preconceptions" they are not more "pre" than yours so make me a favor and aviod this kind of pointless accusations and this insincere attempt to null and viod all of my arguments without even getting into discussion. Refering to Einstein as an ethnicall German is at the least very odd, and endless assertions and flase allegations of "rasicm" won't change it and I'm not necessarily meaning that the thief doth fear each bush an officer after you wrote something that may look as it imply that I'm a racist, because I don't even think you realy mean it. However I'm much more worried about users who consistently delete any reference for Einstein Jewishness or try to put these references in a place where no one would see them.

One thing that I want to make clear, so you won't take it out of context: Ethnicity is not only about genetics as there are Jews, rare as they may be, who are Germans or Scandinavians by their genetic profile but are ethnically Jewish. There are middle eastren and Mediterranean non Jewish populations who are almost Jewish by their genetic profile but they are not ethnically Jewish. For instance, new study revealed that about 30% of Spanish people are descendent from the Anusim but they are not ethnically Jewish even if 100% of their heritage is from the Anusim as they and others didn't know it. --Gilisa (talk) 09:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Gilisa,

your from Israel and therefore you see it from there. German jews had a great part in the development of the German culture. It was their own culture. Marcel Reich-Ranicki, survivor of the Warshaw Ghetto and the "pope" of German literature shortly told on television that never before such a common cultural development between jews and goys had occured in a country before. (The nazis just in Germany was in this sense a smaller tragedy too.) He said, maybe in America something similar could develop over the time too. Recently I've read a book of the German Jew Ralph Giordano ("Israel, um Himmels willen, Israel.") of a formerly visit to Israel and in it about the incomprehension he met there, when he always clearly told, he is a German and as a Jew feels close connections to Israel too. This just for additional common information and independant of the issue about Einstein.

--Henrig (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Henrig, what's that that I'm from Israel have to do with it? It's uncivil that you even mention it. But it make no difference, my family came from Germany to Israel, I'm Jewish and I don't think that if I was German from Germany I could understand it any better than anyone else. Not to mention that from the Jews who lived at the 1930's in Germany only very few are now live in Germany. Most of them immigrated to USA, or made an Aliya to Israel or killed in the holocaust or died out of old age. Out of 300,000 Jews who were born in Germany and survived the holocaust, the large part made an Aliya to Israel and I know many of them very well to tell that they, and many of those are highly educated retired university professors who were even educated in Germany in some cases, would not agree with mr Marcel Reich-Ranicki who wasn't even born in Germany and spent most of his early life in Poland (not that it mean anything, I just using the same line of arguments you used). Only few thousends choosed to return to Germany after the war. Nazi Germany was not a "smaller tragedy" than the cultural one, this definition is of bad taste , at the least. Your using the term "Goy" instead of non Jewish or at most "gentile" is also uncivil and of a bad taste. More, none of the arguments you raised is valid. With all do the respect to Marcel Reich-Ranicki (who ones defined himself as "Half German, Half Polish and complete Jew), he is not an historian, he still live in Germany and have his on views (in answer to your suggestion that things look different from Israel), it's his own opinion and anyway-this kind of cultural cooperations between Jews and non Jews did occur in the past and occuring in present: In Spain until 1492, during these days and starting from 1943 in USA (and like many Israeli Jewish people I've family relatives in USA). It doesn't mean that those Jewish people who lived in Germany were Germans more than the Germans themselves were Jewish (even if Jews affect the German culture to the same extent they were affected by it, at the least). As for Ralph Giordano-he's half Jewish and Half Italian (making a signficant ethnical difference), unlike most Jewish people who descendent from Jewish communities in Germany he still live in Germany, represent his own views only. Again, I found your comment to be highly offensive --Gilisa (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You write: "Nazi Germany was not a "smaller tragedy" than the cultural one, this definition is of bad taste"

The meaning was: Considering the role German Jews played in the development of German culture, the case, that the nazis came especially from Germany, could be called a smaller tragedy of its own within the giant tragedy. Sorry for my mistakable bad English.

My comments were only some additional information and show, that Jews see such issues quite controversial and indeed some German Jews with German roots for centuries have very close ties. Paul Spiegel, the former leader of the Central Council of Jews in Germany on German television often told examples about the long close connection of his family within the regional cultural surroundings in Germany, and that it was Hitler's intention, to tell them, they were no Germans and one would confirm the nazis by telling the same. Einstein's family also lived in Germany for centuries. He himself felt basically independant with close connection to the Zionist movement. This all should be taken into consideration.

--Henrig (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I misunderstood you. As for Germans Jews, they mostly don't have Germans roots in the essence of being descendent from non Jewish Germans. They do lived in Germany for centuries, as for Albert Einstein I'm quite sure that his family moved to Germany from eastern Europe century or two before he was born and may even have Sephardic heritage. I heard this from a well known American professor of genetics who spoke on CNN few years ago, but I don't know what his sources are. Paul Spiegel is again one person with his own opinions who live in Germany and was born much after Einstein already left Germany. However, I may interpret his words as refering to the rights of the Jewish people in the German society, like Turks who live in Germany and like members of any other minority group who live in foreign country, Jews who live in Germany today want to be regarded as equal in all meanings to other German citizens, meaning that they want to be considerd as fully German citizens. It doesn't meant that they consider their ethnicity as German. Only in dark times and in dark palces you had to be of certain ethnicity to be regarded as equal. The vast majority of German Jews choosed not to return to Germany after the war and consider themselvs Jews/ American Jews and not Germans and they also have their own opinions-so he can't speak for them. Also, there is a differentiation: The reason why there is an ethnic entry here is because Einstein Jewishness even if played improtant role in his life, even when he didn't want it to happen, is refused from the lead and most readers considerd ethnicity as what was the identity of your ancestors rather than what was your personal identity. Obviously, mentioning Ashkenazi Jewish and German, as was mentioned in this entry before, is highly misleading.--Gilisa (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's clear, that a people directly in the middle of a continent was influenced and is a mixture and symbiosis from all sides. (German nationalists said, a mixtture often of the best, like the French Hugenottin, who were especially skilled and busy craftsmen for instance.) (The nordic ideology was a special case.) It's interesting to see the different influences of thousends of years. But a ethnicity is the result of the product of them. For instance my mother had a French name and an ancestor's - born about 1800 - first and middle name were "Charles Napoleon". Shall I consider myself as French therefore?

It's also interesting that a greater part of people with names like Cohn, Cohen, Kohen, said to have its origin in ancient Jewish nobility, have a special, seldom genetic commonness, which inherits in the male line or if Einstein had some Sephardic ancestors in Spain several hundred years ago. But it has nothing to do with the ethnicity.

--Henrig (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Your mother French name mean nothing in the same way that a Jew who have German name is not ethnically German. As for the genetic aspects, not only the Jewish Cohanim share genetic similarities (specific Y chromosom of Haplogroup J1 that virtually all Cohanim carry), but all Jewish people do (aside for Ethiopians)-to an extenet that define an ethnic group at the least from the genetic prespective. If your mother was of French ansectry than you were partially French. Genetics have a lot with one ethnicity and only in special cases it doesn't, but not mostly or regulary. Mostly, ethnic groups also share different levels of genetic similarities. But thats not all, Einstein was active in the Jewish community, attribute his desire for knowledge and his love of justice to his being Jewish. He was deeply involved in Jewish life, was major supporter of Zionism, affected by anti semiti. So German was the only language he spoke fluently, even after he spent more than 20 years in USA. But he wasn't ethnically German. I don't see ethnicity in the view of one generation. Einstein ancestors were probably all, members of Jewish communities, large part of them likely parciticed Judaism and his family history were by most parts not different from any other Jewish family in Europe or Germany. He was very well aware of it. He had Jewish traditional circumcision. His parents, even if were not observent, objected his marrige with his first wife who wasn't Jewish and were barried in a Jewish cemetery with their Hebrew names written on their gravestones in Hebrew, they had Jewish traditional burial. You actually claming that because he was assimilated Jew who spoke German (like all other Jews in Germany and Austria, and also many others in different European countries. Probably because of Yiddish as major language and business relations many eastern European Jew knew German and in different places even spoke it on daily basis)and was born and lived significant part of his life in Germany his ethnicity was German. However, this is reduction of ethnicity definition to one person and to the culture in which he lived without refering to the overall context. A secular Arabic immigrant who live in French and is fully immersed in French society is in most cases still Arabic by his ethnicity and French by his nationality. It's obvious that Einstein was ethnically Jewish.--Gilisa (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

His parents, even if were not observent, objected his marrige with his first wife who wasn't Jewish.

Hehe. For religious Jews such a thing was a scandal, likely even in Germany. Possible, they were not very friendly to Einstein afterwards. But I could tell you also a story, where in the time of WW1 it was a little scandal in a certain protestant village, as a Lutheran girl married a Catholic man. But times changed. Sorry, but I can't share your view of ethnicity. There are much more components.

--Henrig (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There are several "components" to at least two of the terms that are used in this and related discussions. "Ethnicity" is a commonly misused term. Ditto for "culturally," which is also composed of a multitude of potential components. "Nationality" cannot be misused, because it is precisely defined, usually by sovereign nations. "Language" cannot be misused, because languages too are fairly strictly defined. Genetics should not be vulnerable to being misused in discussions such as these. Genetics is a science. It is precisely defined. Its results are fairly objective. A machine can analyze biological tissue and produce a genetic profile. Contrast that with a concept such as "ethnicity," which contains a hodgepodge of potential components. Our article "Ethnic group" lists these potential components: "...cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioural traits..."

Acceptable writing requires careful use of those terms which may be more vague in their meaning — such as ethnicity and culture. They lend themselves easily to misuse. "Ethnic" and "cultural" are useful terms under some circumstances. But they are inherently imprecise when compared to concepts such as nationality, language, and that information which can be provided by the science of genetics. It may be better to use more words than fewer words when describing a person's "ethnicity" or "culture."

Communication, not terseness, should be our aim. In spaces where terseness matters, "ethnicity" probably has little place. "Info-boxes" are cramped spaces that do not allow for a multitude of words. In the case of Albert Einstein it may be asking a bit much to portray his "ethnicity" in an "info-box." Even within the main body of the article, a term such as "ethnicity" may not have much applicability to Einstein. Bus stop (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, I agree with you; I believe you may have misunderstood my latest edit. Feketekave (talk) 10:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Herig, you argue that not only Einstein ethnicity is german, but that he wasn't ethnically Jewish. It seem like you are very well minded to me and I can't see why to continue this discussion.

Bus stop, Wikipedia article on ethnicity was changed many times during the last few years and represent only part of the opinions on it. There are many anthropologists, almost all of them, who believe that a minority group of people who live in specific palce and have its nationality, speak in local language and etc can still make with no much effort different ethnicity. It's valid for example for Indians who live in Argentina and whose language tounge is Spanish, even if they didn't originate in Argentina. Ethnicity is very apliciable for Einstein if you accept that there is Jewish ethnicity that is not only determined by one religion. There are many different ethnic groups that share the same religion, it's valid especially for christianity and to Islam (for example, Iraninas do not consider themselves as Arabs even if they are Shiite Muslims). The same is true for culture, there are many ethnical groups whose members are scattered around the world and speak in different languges and have different cultures but see themselves as being part of the same ethnic group. No one forced the definition of ethnicity to be valid only in one place -even the article you refer us to demonstrate this problematic character of ethnicity in modern life (and even diffretiate between macro and micro ethnicity). Anyway, and seriously: citing wikipedia is a very bad idea. You won't cite wikipedia for an academic work and there is not reason to use circular line and to cite wikipedia for the purpose of this discussion. To sum: Einstein saw himself as Jewish, was born to Jewish family and descendent from Jews (and that's was systimaticly ignored here: A Jew who see himself as Jewish, not to mention his bad relations with germany, and everybody talk about his culture-which was not even necessarily more German than European) and as citizen of the world. Not to mention that German Jews are sub ethnic group within the Jewish ethnic group (and for your question, do share same genetic cluster with Ashkenazim and Sepahrdim) I'm basically against ethnic entry in autobiographic articles but this one is in the info box for more than three years, it survived endless edit wars and passionate debates on the article's talk page, and for a reason -as long as it's not in the lead that he was born to Jewish parents and/or was German born Jewish scientist, and there is no real commemoration of his deep comitment and involvment in Jewish life and in the Zionist movement in this article-there is no place to discuss the deletion of this entry.--Gilisa (talk) 06:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that Einstein being Jewish is at least as important a fact as being German-born. His fame is primarily that of being a physicist and a genius, but he was from a Jewish family, he identified with being a Jew, he expressed opinions on such matters, and those opinions are of interest to a lot of people. I would drop "ethnically", and just say "Jewish". Roger (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of one or the other. He was Jewish and German. His religion was Jewish; his nationality was German, at birth. Einstein does not happen to have a strongly "ethnic" component to his identity. Therefore the "Ethnicity" entry should probably be removed from the info-box. That entry is not particularly applicable to the subject of this biography. "Religious stance" is also not correct in reference to Einstein. His religion was Jewish. "Religious stance" is not an identity category that has relevance in the instance of Einstein. "Religious stance" should be replaced by "Religion." "Religion" is a category that does happen to capture one aspect of Einstein's identity. We should not be forcing categories on subjects of biographies. The layout of an info-box should not require a individual to conform to presumptions that may prove to be not perfectly applicable. Bus stop (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, we are not realy asking how strong was or wasn't his ethnic component, not to mention that I don't agree with you-Einstein wasn't a nationalist but it doesn't mean that his ethnical identity was any weaker than this any other ethnicall Jew. We can't quantities it but we do have his statements which strongly support his being very well awared for his Jewishness. If you mean by "perfectly" to 100% agreement, than this idea is not applicable and not the entry itself. We know that he identified himself as Jewish and we know that he wasn't religious. The special history of the Jews and the equivocal nature of European hospitality then and before and the fact that Jewishness is realy far from being only a religion make it clear that one can remain an ethnic Jew even when he is not devouted. So, we know that Einstein was born to Jewish parents and that's enough to make him Jewish, I totaly negate, at the least, any arguement that will consider such statement as racist(while totaly ignoring the fact he was born to Jewish family is of course very enlightened as his family have nothing to do with his ethnicity, of course. Not to mention that the best way to compensate the crimes of Nazi Germany is to refer to Einstein as German, as few users almost directly suggested... )-it's at best lame and out of context argument. We also know that he identify himself with warmth and many times as Jewish and even pushed notable scientist to make an Aliya to Israel. We can't find any similar expression of feelings toward the German people in his biography and he even the one who lead Roosvelt to start Manhattan project with the original target of the bomb: Germany. Besides, nothing of his deep emotional and practical involvment with Jewish life is mentioned in the article-and that's much bothering me than a samll entry that tell something you can't deny: that he was Jewish. The all issue is quite fishy, I must tell. Only in his "early life" section it is mentioned in foreshortening, not in the first line that his parents were Jewish. Immediately after it there is the specific remark that they were not religious and sent him to catholic day school ("...The Einsteins, though Jewish, were non-observant, and their son attended a Catholic elementary school.."). The article do not seem neutral about his Jewishness and this enttry is even less than the needed minimum. If you want to reply pleae refer to thesr arguments because you havn't done it so far. I found this needless edit war and the refusal to accept his being ethnicaly Jewish to be disgracing for wikipedia, no less.

As for your suggestion to replace "Religious stance" with "Religion", I afraid it soon will be found out to be no more than a honeypot as if there is (unjust) debate about his ethnicity, which is strongly sourced, regarding him as Jewish by religion would be realy much more problematic to implement here. So here is another reason for you why to stay with ethnicity: Jewish--Gilisa (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Gilisa, I didn't use the word "nationalist." I used the word "nationality." The two words have different meanings. Bus stop (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, How did you deduce that I confused between nationality and nationalist? The point I was trying to make is that one don't have to be nationalist, or anything close to it, to recognize his/her ethnicity. I'm realy trying to figure out how did you get to the conclusion that I can't make the difference between two basic words in English....--Gilisa (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Gilisa, I stand corrected. I thought you were saying that you didn't agree with an assertion of mine that Einstein was a "nationalist." Of course I never made such an assertion, just for the record. I got that impression upon reading this comment of yours, in the post above:

"...I don't agree with you-Einstein wasn't a nationalist..."

If that is not what you were saying, then it is my misunderstanding. Please accept my apology. Bus stop (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, no need for apology! I should understand that I was the one who confused you...Thanks for the explenation and cheers ;)--Gilisa (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that if two people - like Einstein's parents - do not observe the Jewish religion, do not send their children to associated educational institutions, and so on, we are more neutral and on safe ground by saying that they are of Jewish origin - if at all relevant - rather than by saying simply that they are "Jewish". I am not implying that the latter would or would not hold; it is just that there is a multiplicity of ways in which reasonable people would read the latter, some of which would not apply. Feketekave (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop introducing un-sourced material. You are making an assertion that you probably cannot support by sources. Can you tell me anything about the "origin" of Einstein's parents being Jewish? Do you have a source pertaining to the origin of Einstein's parents being Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Er, there is an entire page on Wikipedia listing Einstein's genealogy. Einstein's parents were of Jewish origin, at least genealogically speaking; I do not know whether they had any sort of Jewish background themselves, but their parents likely did. Of course, the further you go back, the less relevant this matter is to Einstein. Feketekave (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No, Feketekave, "of Jewish origin" usually means that the parents were non-Jews, born of Jewish ancestors who converted. The Einsteins were Jews who did not practice Judaism. -- Avi (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That is an oddly exclusive take on it. At any rate - the Pope might think that every person who was baptised into the Catholic Church and has not officially apostasised is a Catholic, but most people other than the Pope would not call every such person a Catholic; there may be something similar going on here, mutatis mutandis. Feketekave (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Feketekave, The comparison you made between ex Catholic and non observent Jews is farfetched. First, seeing Judaism as religion only is clearly your own point of view and it may be an extreme one. What more that according to the data we have Einstein always considered himself Jewish, even if not from the religious aspect. Catholics don't share the same history, culture or origin as most parts of Jewish people do. But I don't feel like it realy need elaboration.

BTW amd just for your knowledge, my personal impression is that most people even in the west do consider as Jewish anyone who was born one. Actually it's a very known theme in sociology according which many times Jews who converted to Chritianity of any kind named "Chrisitan Jews" "Catholic Jews" and etc. During Einstein life time it's more than obvious that no one was interested whether one Jew renounced his/her Judaism to consider him/her as Jewish. --Gilisa (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

We know that, during Einstein's lifetime, the Nazis were voted into power in his country of birth, and that a majority of the local population shared their worldview to some extent. No disagreement there. Feketekave (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Avi. --John (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

woundn't ashkenazim more correct ???14:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)14:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)14:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)14:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.89.205 (talk)

Actually not, Ashkenazim are sub ethnic group within the Jewish people. It's much like to distinguish between Northen Italians and Soutern Italians in an info box of Italian scientist. The differences between those may be sometimes even more notable on some aspects and yet no one will get to this level.--Gilisa (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The Einsteins had their children (Albert) circumcized. They accommodated Jewish students at their house-one of them, Max Talmud, introduced Einstein advanced math. One of the main reasons they objected his marrige with Mileva was her being from non Jewish origin (and the prohibition for marrige with non Jewish person who didn't convert to Judaism is a religious one). So, they were not religious but they were certainly Jewish.--Gilisa (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Gilisa - thanks, you don't need to instruct me. A parallel is not an equality; my point was that membership may be defined more broadly by (the people who write the rules for) insiders of a group than for the general population (minus Nazis, say). On the last matter you've raised - can any one come up with a source (preferably an actual quotation from Einstein or his parents at the time, rather than somebody's opinion) on the Einstein's reasons for objecting to his marriage with Mileva Maric? I'm not taking any sides on this - I am simply interested. Feketekave (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Feketekave, I realy can't understand your complains-I never tried to instruct you, try to keep it human. Anyway, as for Einstein parents: as you may know Einstein impoverished his writings to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Most of these writings remained unpublished until 2006. I saw an compheransive interview with the curator of Einstein archive in the Hebrew university on Israeli channel 2. It was there that he quote Einstein on the response of his parents when he annuanced them about his intention to marry Mileva. Also, I think that Mileva herself wrote on this matter in letters to her friends. I guess that it's sourceable, but it realy change nothing. Interesting enough, in 1929, several years after his marrige to Mileva ended, he was asked whether Jewish people should assimilated, in reply, Einstein spoke out that "We Jews have been too eager to sacrifice our idiosyncrasies in order to conform". --Gilisa (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Gilesa, i've never given any direct statement about Einsteins ethnicity. Just some additional information for the discussion. Really, I doubt, that Jewish alone is complete. He didn't grew up in China. His parents likely spoke the Swabian dialect of southwest Germany, which has a relation to the spoken language of northern Switzerland, where he also lived. There are also some common regional simmilarities originating from the common Allemanic routs as the Swabian/Allemanic carnival, which divers totally from the carnival in the Rhineland. It was a special surrounding where the Einsteins were integrated and their Jewisness was an important part in it. So my imagination. (In Munich Einstein likely spoke High German or maybe Bavarian dialect and at home he heard likely Swabian dialect.)

--Henrig (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Henrig, I never told that members of an ethnic group who live among other people are not influenced by them. However, it realy doesn't mean that they also transform to the same ethnicity. Ethnicity as most people understand it, espcially in this context, do not refer to the kind of music (which was not ethnical music btw) or to the language that one heard or spoke. If we consider ethnicity this way than almost all Jewish people are to be considerd to have dual ethnicity or different ethnicity than Jewish. It also refer to other ethnic groups who are minorities in their place of residence. You had to be ethnic German to count as German only in derk times. Today the law in Germany is different and it's known by the authorities very well that you don't have to be ethnically German to be German. If it wasn't like that, almost none of the millions of Turks who live today in Germany would have equal rights. As for your statements, I'm not looking for direct ones here. Einstein remained Jewish also after he left Germany, had his citizenship revoked and declare that he is not longer German (and there are no indications that he saw himself as one from the ethnical aspect ever before or after). Besides, I realy think that Jewish is more than enough. On the contrary, not only German would not be sufficient, but it would also be misleading. --Gilisa (talk) 05:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Turks The comparison doesn't fit, for they or their parents were born in Turkey and partly have a very small knowledge of German language, whereas a smaller part of the second generation is fully integrated in Germany, speaks German better than Turkish and sees themselves predominantly as German. A part of the second generation is torn between the western German European lifestyle, they consider as their own and the traditions of their parents. The Jewish German writer Ralph Giordano warns from a parallel society and sees a mosque different from a synagogue. [3] A better comparison might be, to mention immigrants to Germany a longer time ago, for instance Polish, who came during the industrial development of the 19th century. The trace are the many Polish family names in the west of Germany. Or the many French Hugenottin, who came as religious refugees into the bled German lands in the times after the Thirty Years' War. (By the way, in protestant aereas they soon get full rights in opposite to Christian(!) Catholics and Jews. In catholic aereas likely reverse.)

The "Age of Enlightenment" made Jews in traditional German aereas fully parts of society, apart from, that not all Christian Germans liked this. The Jews in the aerea of former Western Prussia, where Reich-Ranicki came from, are to consider different. There was a great difference between integrated western Jews and the many Jews in Poland, who mostly lived their own culture in their surroundigs. After WW2 German Jews were ashamed of the way, they conidered Jewish refugees from the former Russian Empire after the pogroms there, whom they often considered strange formerly. There are a number of books about. The nazis made all equal.

--Henrig (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The comparison you made between Polish and Jewish immigrants is simply baseless. The history of Polish people in germany is nothing similar to the history of Jewish people there. They were not persecuted, their religious rituals and believes shared much with those of Germans. Jews obtained emancipation (de facto parital emancipation) only at the second half of the 19 CE, less than 25 years before the birth of Albert Einstein while there were never restrictions on Polish people in Germany. Even during WWII when germans argued that Polish people are racially inferior and killed thousends of them because of this "inferiority" (most were killed in war and due to war crimes against civilians and not in any kind of planned holocaust)-ethnical Poles were enlisted to the Varmacht and to the SS and they were generally far from being treated as Jews were. In fact, many Jews survived because they impersonated to ethnical Polish. Not to mention that for centuries connections of Jews and non Jews in Germany were very limited and most Jewish people in Germany didn't know the language untill the 18 CE. So at the least the comparison you made is away too general. Interestingly enough, if I'm not wrong about it ethnographes argues that German people originated from Slavic as well as from Nordic tribes. As for the Turks, indeed they are in Germany for only 3-4 generations, with equal rights from the beginning (starting from the 50's; a bit more than 50 years have passed since the Jews were given emancipation to Nazi Germany )but even a fully immersed Tukish is still ethnically Turkish many times. Anyway, I can't see where this all discussion with you goes to, you are keep quoting Ralph Giordano as an authority and as an expert for Jewish and German ethnicall identities and you keep waving with his being ethnical Jewish (and he is not btw). You use the "Ost Yuden" issue as a "proof" that Jews in Germany were basically Germans while you forogt that for centuries Jews from eastern Europe streamed to Germany and that basically many German Jews have their origins in eastern European Jewish families and the all issue of "Ost Yuden" started roughly after WWI, when anti Semiti broke open on one hand and there was still emanciapation on the other hand. German Jews where then ashamed and afraid that the non Jewish Germans will identify them with the Jewish from Eastern Europe who were poor and etc and will hate them for that-I realy get tired here and I have no intention to elaborate nor to explain-the principle is well understood and your'e taking facts out of context. The Nazis made all equal? Yes, but the Nazis were not an abstract entity that came out of the blue -they were Germans at most and most Germans supported them willingly. Even today 50% of the German people who were randomly sampled answerd in a survey that the Jews are behind the global recession-so to claim that Jew can become so naturaly ethnical German is realy disrespectful --Gilisa (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like to know my opinion of any single statement you made, I can clearly tell you. On some points I would confirm you partly on other points not and sometimes I could tell you more about, which makes a issue more clearly or widens the view. But I think, you don't like it.

Even today 50% of the German people who were randomly sampled answerd in a survey that the Jews are behind the global recession-so to claim that Jew can become so naturaly ethnical German is realy disrespectful

I know, in some heads are certain imaginations. (In my younger days I never heard in my surroundings anything like it and was fully surprised by hearing once for the first time. I was not so surprised after the Madoff case, hearing someone talking in this direction by mentoning his Jewesness and others, who repeated by naming some non-jewish financial cheaters.) But about 50% I really can't imagine. But if you have a sure source (from an acknowledged institution) with the exact question about, I'd like you to tell me. I would be interested in it.

--Henrig (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Henrig, this is one link I found (it's about entire Europe, not only Germany)-the detailed survey [4] is probably some where in the Anti-Defamation League website. I read it on the Hebrew version of Ynet. As for the short living emancipation of Jews in Germany, I just wanted to correct myself it was finally given at 1869, 10 years before the birth of Einstein.--Gilisa (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Gilisa, thank you for the surprisingly result of the European survey.

--Henrig (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Henrig You wellcome, but I'm not responsible for the result ;) I hope that some day it will changed.--Gilisa (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

But the average people blame the banks! In Germany especially some greater German banks. I can't imagine, that the average people in western countrys - already democratic in the developments since the sixties - on the simple question "Do you think the Jews are to blame for the economic crisis?" answer "Yes." They would first question "Why?" and wait for a explanation before answering. So my only personal opinion for the western part of Europe. But maybe I'm wrong. I'm not sure. Such dullness seems really surprising for me.

--Henrig (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Gilisa and Henrig may find [this interesting. Bus stop (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Henrig,To avoid "wikipedia is not a forum", please see my reply on your talk page.--Gilisa (talk) 11:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Einstein's "ethnicity" is Jewish?

We don't have a reliable source for Einstein's "Ethnicity" being "Jewish." Such an assertion (in the "info-box) would constitute original research.

Please note the following, found here:

"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, along with "Verifiability" and "No original research." Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.

Also note the following excerpt, found in the same location, here:

Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.

Without a reliable source for Einstein's "Ethnicity" being "Jewish" that assertion should not be found in the info-box as it would be original research. Bus stop (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, what you are doing now is original research . Don't open this edit war again. On the page of who is a jew? [5]you wrote that the wording "ethnical Jew" is not accepted as you couldn't find it in several Americal daily newspapres. Then it was seem by me and by others as pure original research and you do it all over again. Your demand to "reliable sources" is only derivative of baseless POV according which Jewish people constitute no ethnic group, because we do have endless sources available for that a.) Einstein was born Jewish b.)he saw himself as Jewish. Needless to say, Jewishness include also the ethnical component (I see myself as ethnical Jewish) and this entire impressive statement of claim you just post here won't change it. You already reverted without agreement and I ask you not to take this disruptive action again. We been through endless discussions here, there is a reason for why we have this ethnicity entry (to remind you, becuase few editors didn't agree to refer it in the lead or in the first line of the early life paragraph) and it's going to stay. Opening this discussion over and over again is much more disruptive than what you refer to as "original research".--Gilisa (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Glisa, excerpted from my above post:

"The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."

and

"This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

A reliable source would be needed for the assertion that Einstein's ethnicity is Jewish.

My editing history at some other article is totally irrelevant. Your self-identification as an ethnic Jew is also totally irrelevant, as you and Einstein are two different people.

Of relevance is whether a source says that Einstein's ethnicity was Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In the mean while and just to cool it down, here are few fast sources that refer to Jewish people in ethnical context [6][7][8][9]. Please mind that Einstein has never said, well I'm an ethnical Jew -Just refer to himself in many occasions as Jewish while in the religious aspect he didn't consider himself as such.--Gilisa (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Glisa, those sources merely relate to ethnicity. Some or all of them may even mention the word "Jewish." But they don't assert anything about Einstein's ethnicity being Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well Bus stop, it took me no more than 2-3 minutes to find and choose almost randomly these among many others. You are right that most don't have direct relevance for this discussion-this one [10] however seem to be relatd, at least at first glance. As I wrote you before, your request for reference that specificaly define Einstein as ethnical Jew is realy meaningless for wikipedia and your assertions for original reaserch are...original research by themselvs.--Gilisa (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You must read this! I took up the gantlet and googled Einstein+ethnic Jew. In no more than few dozens of seconds I get to this [11]. So you see, you just didn't look enough (I run google search after the penny dropped..)..However, I'm still holding tight to my previous posts: we don't need source that specifically say that Einstein was ethnical Jew.--Gilisa (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to set my position clear: I see no need for "ethnicity" entries in infoboxes. This is less of an issue for Einstein than for other subjects, since he was a supporter of some (fairly pacifist and apparently non-political) form of Zionism during at least part of his life. Still, the construction of "ethnicity" is something that partly postdates him.

The same goes for labels at the bottom of the page. In one phrase: when in doubt, describe rather than label. Feketekave (talk) 11:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not only about his involvment in the Zionist movement, which last at the least 34 years (from 1921) and was of 2ed notability for his scientific work then. The form of Zionism he supported realy change nothing, there are many forms of Zionism, including in Israel today, the form of Zionism that Einstein supported was nothing different than this of many Zionist left wing movements in Israel. Also, his Jewishness is not only related to his interest in Zionism but also to much earlier stages in his life and the reasons that lead him to support Zionism at first place was his feelings through his Jewish identity. Infact, you may inclue Einstein as one of first Zionist activists, he played major role in the estblishment of the Hebrew University, pushed many notable Jewish scientists to immigrate to Israel much before the establishment of the state and was involved in money collecting for the Zionist movement. What more that he donated in many different occasions money to the Jewish community of Berlin even he was not registered as a member since he didn't like the idea of organised religion. There are no real questions as for his Jewish identity. The ethnicity entry is not the best option, but at present it's the least worse.--Gilisa (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Biography of Einstein

It's a bit odd that there is no refernce for the reason for which Einstein flee Germany to USA.--Gilisa (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have read from a few sources that he was accused of treason by the Third Reich http://azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/51_folder/51_articles/51_einstein.html AndreasBWagner (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Educational background?

This article does a very poor job of explaining his educational background, especially his Ph.D. The information about his doctorate is almost entirely in image boxes and the "Einstein's mistakes" section. Someone who wants to find out if, where, and when he got his doctorate has to do a lot of hunting. Since the marriages section breaks the chronological flow of the article already, I suggest creating a section entirely about his education. --JHP (talk) 10:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

the guy who introduced einstein to science and math books is max talmay, not max talmud. i'm related to talmay, so i know. unsigned contribution by User:205.222.248.142

If you look at the references cited you will find that Max Talmud changed his name to Max Talmey after he taught Einstein. Naming someone someone as they were named at the time is most usual. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I've made a note in the article of the later name. Bus stop (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Cancelling template per the above. Tim Song (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Further Reading

Suggestion for "Further Reading" section of the Einstein Wikipedia page: there is now an excellent biography written in 2007 that contains primary Einstein material (e.g., letters) unsealed and released for the first time to the public in 2006. It is: Isaacson, Walter (2007): Einstein: His Life and Universe. Simon & Schuster. ISBN-13: 978-0-7432-6473-0 For someone with access to editing this Wiki page, this would be a fine book to include in the "Further Reading" section.

                                                                                David Graham, 18 October 2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.107.49.97 (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC) 

I will add it in. While we are on the topic of further reading, I would also like to point people to [12] which hopefuly might be useful to anyone that wants additional info re: Einstein and non scientific aspects about him.Calaka (talk) 05:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Lieserl Einstein

Concern has been expressed that the article on Lieserl Einstein does not pass our notability guidelines (it is overly reliant on primary source materials... and notablility is not inherited). It has been suggested that the article be redirected to this one, with any relevant material merged into this article. Please comment at that article's talk page and let us know what materials should be merged. Blueboar (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Agnostic

he wasn't a agnostic, Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.18.39 (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that he wasn't agnostic as indeed he believe in God (no matter whether personall or not), so by definition he couldn't be one.--Gilisa (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You can have beliefs and still be agnostic, I'm not sure that you comprehend the term quite right. Agnosticism only refers to knowledge, and many of his quotes fall in line with agnosticism (not to mention that he described himself as one.) He did not definitively have a belief in a deity, as his use of the word "god" was technical, not a personal belief, similar to Stephen Hawking's use of the word. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 03:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Agonism is closely related to atheism but unlike atheist who decisively argue that there is no divinity an agonist would state that we have no way to infer whether there is or isn't and that in any case we can't know anything about it. Einstein explicitly belived in Gcd, so he expressed himself manytimes. However, as I wrote, he adopted the ideas of Spinoza and even composed a kind of admiring song for him when he was 40 years old...--Gilisa (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

His religion is hard to label. See however Religious views of Albert Einstein#Agnosticism. —teb728 t c 23:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

His religion was jewish. That isn't even in question. Bus stop (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, it was his religion by birth but Iguess that in this entries they ask one self identified himself. However, I realy don't think that based on one letter he wrote it's reasonable to define him as agonist as in many other he clearly expressed a believe in the ideas of Spinoza --Gilisa (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

After reading his many comments about God, religion and the nature of the universe, I would classify him as one who embraces the ideas of Pantheism, much in the same way as Spinoza. That he was Jewish is beside the point. So was Spinoza, though his views did get him excommunicated from Orthodox Judaism. EditorASC (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. I think he could also be described as being a deist, but it's too difficult to put a label on someone long dead who was never perfectly clear. I've read that he often used the word "god" in the sense that Stephen Hawking uses it, which also makes it somewhat more difficult. This quote leads me to find him to not be a theist, but closer to deism: "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his [sic] creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious ourselves." He was certainly agnostic, though, many of his quotes back that up - and he called himself one. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 03:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

if god created everything, who or what created god? I rest my case. Dave 01:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davesilvan (talk • contribs)

Scattered ashes

In the article it says "Einstein’s remains were cremated and his ashes were scattered around the grounds of the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey."

There is disagreement here throughout the web. I've found things like: "Ashes scattered in an undisclosed place." "Ashes scattered in a nearby river."

You might want to have a look. DarkLightA (talk) 08:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense sentence within article

The following sentence:

Direct current (DC) lost the War of Currents to alternating current (AC).

appears to be nonsense, which should be removed.

99.251.204.40 (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

What is nonsensical about it? Read it in the context of the description of the company. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Common Myths about Al

Would it be appropriate to have a section in this article regarding common myths about Einstein? I often hear people say that Al flunked math, got Ds or Cs in science, thought that education wasn’t important, and so on. I don’t have the research to add this on my own. But If some one wanted to take this up that would be great. Redmander (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That could be a good idea, but I suggest we make a draft version on the talk page, and then transpose it to the front page. That way we can avoid having an unfinished, and likely problematic, section displayed while we're working on it. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Aspergers and Einstein

I noticed that not one word in the article mentioned that Albert had Aspergers or even ASD. Though it is common knowledge that he does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.240.27 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That's only a myth that people tell to their autistic children to boost their self esteem... 24.7.32.178 (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's not. My personal belief is that he had social anxiety or something similar. It's certainly not a myth that he had AS, more of a theory. And Aspergers>Autism are not the same thing. AS is part of the autistic spectrum but is considered somewhat different, people with Autism generally have lower than average IQ's, people with AS tend to have average or higher, sometimes exceptionally so. AS is like autism but without the mental retardation attached someone once told me…--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

He was not diagnosed with any such disease. The only connection is that it is claimed that as a child he didn't speak until he was several years old, and had problems with early education, which led them to believe he had mental disabilities.

Personal belief does not a diagnosis make. ^________________________________^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.207.167 (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless it is not proven in any way, why should it be mentioned? I think it's probably just a new urban legend, because as far as I can remember it came up together with the recent interest in Asperger's Syndrome of the last couple of years. I've never heard about Einstein being an Autist before. But since Asperger's in the media suddenly a lot of famous dead people are being diagnosed with this disability. 188.193.154.110 (talk) 12:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Poll: Greatest Physicist Ever

An important accolade is missing: In 1999, 100 leading physicists voted Einstein "greatest physicist ever." Gimmemoretime (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is the reference to the statement above: BBC news, Monday, 29 November, 1999, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/541840.stm Gimmemoretime (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, one should delete the embarrassing link from Einstein to The_100 (and maybe even delete the entire The_100 article which describes one guy's personal opinions shared by few others). In fact, one should delete all the links from Wikipedia articles about truly notable personalities to this rather ridiculous list by a rather irrelevant author, who seems to be the only person profiting from those links. Lots of people made wildly varying lists of the most influential people ever - should we create Wikipedia articles for all? For example, here is another top 10 list http://www.faqs.org/shareranks/1338,Most-Influential-People-of-All-Time which puts Einstein 2nd: Manu (shanker mishra), Einstein, Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Newton, Lao Tzu, Moses, Darwin, Franklin. Here is a Japanese top 10 list http://www.japanprobe.com/2007/04/01/historys-100-most-influencial-people-hero-edition-video/ which puts Einstein 8th: Sakamoto Ryoma, Napoleon I, Oda Nobunaga, Saigo Takamori, Miyamoto no Yoshitsune, Jean of Arc, Hideyoshi Toyotomi, Albert Einstein, Yutaka Ozaki, Akechi Mitsuhide. Yet another list http://www.rateitall.com/t-1283-most-influential-people-in-world-history.aspx puts Einstein 5th: 1 Jesus Christ, 2 Muhammad, 3 Adolf Hitler, 4 Ronald Reagan, 5 Albert Einstein, 6 Buddha, 7 Johann Gutenberg. A US top 10 list http://www.smccd.edu/accounts/goth/MainPages/100_most_important_people.pdf by LIFE magazine puts an American first: Edison, Columbus, Luther, Galileo, Leonardo, Newton, Magellan, Pasteur, Darwin, Jefferson. Yet another list has Gutenberg first: http://www.falls.igs.net/~dphillips/biography3.htm Yet another top 10 list http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=173626 goes like this: Mohammed, Aristotle, Tsai Lun, Johann Gutenberg, Jesus of Nazareth, Paul of Tarsus, Shih Huang Ti, Louis Pasteur, Plato, Siddhartha Guatama. Yet another list I found goes like this: 1 Mitochondria Eve, 2 Jesus, 3 Mohammed, 4 Columbus, 5 Confucius, 6 Darwin, 7 Sun Yat-sen, 8 Karl Marx, 9 Buddha, 10 Rousseau. And here is another list http://www.the-top-tens.com/lists/most-influential-person-of-all-time.asp and another http://www.worldtop.org/Culture/People/Most+influential+people+ever/ and another http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_are_the_25_most_important_people_in_history and another http://www.historum.com/showthread.php?t=2971 ... I guess most people would agree that most of these lists are ridiculous. What I am trying to say is: either insert links to all those different personal opinions, or remove all those links, unless they are backed by some sort of authority such as the Physics World Poll above. Gimmemoretime (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:TLDR, but I agree that Einstein's appearance in some list in some book by some author is by no means an award, so therefore it definitely does not belong in the "Awards" section. I have edited it out. Good catch.

By the way, I have some reservations about mentioning the Gallup poll thing as well, but I'll leave the removal to someone else.

By another way, as can be seen in the complete article Physicsworld.com - Physics: past, present, future - Dec 6, 1999, that accolade should sound more like

• In 1999, 119 out of 250 leading physicists voted Einstein "greatest physicist ever".

DVdm (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

DVdm, sorry for being too verbose. Sure, do insert the accolade In 1999, 119 out of 250 leading physicists voted Einstein "greatest physicist ever". Maybe add that he got more votes than others (not obvious from this statement). Thanks for removing the link to Hart's personal opinion. You may want to remove a similar link in Isaac Newton's intro. Gimmemoretime (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Gimme. Well, I don't really feel inclined to insert the accolade to begin with, as it's not really an award either. I.m.o. it belongs in some trivia list, together with the Gallup poll result. But by all means, be wp:bold and go ahead. It might survive.

I had a look at Newton. I think it can survive in that context, as the book is merely listed in a section "Further reading", which is of course where it belongs. Cheers. DVdm (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Did Einstein copy relativity from Poincaré?

Resolved

 – See Relativity priority dispute

(Moved out of above section)

Most physicists don't ever bother to research the historical record, to find that Einstein copied relativity from Henri Poincaré. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

(personal attack deleted.)

Their math is identical and Einstein presented no new physical interpretations. Poincaré published it first all in detail on June 5,1905, well before Einstein then plagiarized it. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 13:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

(personal attack deleted.)

There is no difference. Einstein copied Poincaré's theory of relativity with NO changes. Compare Poincaré's June 5,1905 paper with Einstein's september paper of the same year. There is NO difference in equations nor interpretations. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

(off-topic discussion deleted.)

This is an interesting claim. Would you have a link to a copy of the Poincaré paper, Number 173? Of course, we're not supposed to do original research here, but I'd like to see it. If you want this claim to be included in the article, you would need a reliable source stating it. I found http://web.ihep.su/library/pubs/tconf05/ps/c5-1.pdf, but I don't know how reliable that is; it doesn't seem to be a paper in a peer-reviewed publication. — Sebastian 19:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Amended 19:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC).

No, it is not an interesting claim. Has been raised and endlessly debunked since 1905. The reasons are those that you deemed a "personal attack". --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the boring tirades of name calling, which I removed? Those posts contained no facts or reasonable argument, but relied only on the claim "you're an outsider, and I'm an insider". That attitude rather reminds of the opposition Einstein himself faced. If 173's claim has been "endlessly debunked", why don't you just show us a few excellent references, so that we can work them together into the article? That's Wikipedia's noble task - inform the public with facts. — Sebastian 00:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sebastian, that "tirade" contained no names, so how can it be called "name calling"? Your assertion that it contained no facts is incorrect; it contained a rather astute observation, which goes to the heart of these crankish claims, which was evidently beyond you. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

By "fact", I meant {{fact}}. As we now know, it would have been very easy to point to the all the relevant facts with one simple link - see below. — Sebastian 18:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sebastian, you might be stepping into a bit of a minefield here, in that the unsourced, boring tirades of the unregistered contributor correlate well with material found in such websites as this one. I'll let people search for themelves, but sites like that and self-published attack pieces, not peer-reviewed academic journals, are the main venues for promoting these plagiarism claims. Similar activity has been going on for nearly a century, see e.g. the article Deutsche Physik.

As far as recent quality references, a good start might be this AJP article from 2006. Nevertheless, this entire line of discussion would be better suited for the talk page of Relativity priority dispute instead of here. Tim Shuba (talk) 04:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right! I had a hunch that it was a minefield, which is why I stepped in. But I had no idea that the minefield was already so meticulously charted, as it is with the dedicated article. It even has a link to the Poincaré paper of 1905 – both in French and English! It’s now apparent that the drama could have been avoided with the simple reply “See Relativity priority dispute”. But I, too, probably didn’t go about this perfectly; if anyone has an idea how I could have handled this better, I would appreciate your feedback at User talk:SebastianHelm/NVC. — Sebastian 18:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Mahmoud Hesabi

Where is the evidence that Mahmoud Hesabi was a PhD student of Einstein? This nonsense should be deleted.129.127.28.3 (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless it's a carefully planned hoax, here perhaps? On the other hand, a strict search in Google books produces nothing, whereas this one produces just some tiny circumstantial "evidence". Questionable. I have removed it. Let's see what happens. DVdm (talk) 09:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

good info!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.161.13 (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Einstein's Mistakes: Derivation of E=mc2

The correctness of Einstein's 1905 derivation of E=mc2 was criticized by Max Planck (1907), and also by Herbert Ives (1952), and also in a recent book (2008) by Hans Ohanian see http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/01-einstein.s-23-biggest-mistakes This info should be added to the section on Einstein's Mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.169.90.98 (talk) 15:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Planck had no problem with E=mc2, as Poincaré had already published the formula in 1900. Planck however did not consider Einstein's derivation to be correct, neither do Ives nor Ohanian consider Einstein's derivation to be correct. In fact, it is impossible to prove E=mc2 for real mass, no one has ever rigourously done it. The formula can only be rigourously proved for the effective mass of radiation, as Poincaré had done. Einstein tried all his life to prove the formula for real mass but never did, as Ohanian writes in his book, all of Einstein's subsequent derivations of E=mc2 were false. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

For others--- Poincare did not publish anything resembling E=mc^2 for matter and energy in general. He published "E=mc^2" for light, which was known to Poynting and others in the 1880s. The history, including Einstein's argument, is covered with completeness on Mass-energy equivalence. Poincare deserves some credit for special relativity, but absolutely no credit for E=mc^2.Likebox (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I previously put in a reference to Ohanian's book, but someone took it out. It is a reliable source and he documents what he says. The book should be put back in. Poincare's E=mc2 was not so general, but neither was Einstein's. Roger (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Einstein's "E=mc^2" is as general as the last sentence: "Since the transformations of energy can be achieved in a two step process... we conclude that the entire mass of a body is a measure of its energy content". Sound general enough?Likebox (talk) 10:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No. Planck wrote a paper on the subject the next year, and is credited with a more general understanding. So did others. See History of special relativity#Mass_and_energy.

Einstein's paper gives a completely general form of the argument, and the argument is self-evidently correct. This is the mainstream understanding. Planck criticized Einstein, and others did too, but their criticisms are off base and have dissolved into the mists of history.Likebox (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal history after 1930

The article does not say anything about Einstein's personal history after his appointment to the University of Leiden. It does not even mention his move to the United States! He just magically appears in Princeton in later parts of the article. Also, there should be some mention of his letter to Roosevelt that prompted the Manhattan Project (cf Wikipedia entry on "Einstein–Szilárd letter"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.99.93.219 (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I once wrote a biography of Einstein, and I would agree with the above comment that the letter to Roosevelt warning of the possibility of a bomb -- which was jointly drafted by Einstein and Szilard, and signed by Einstein -- is an important element of his life. So, too, was his fleeing from the Nazis and move to America in 1933. There are also a few points in the article that I do not think are fully accurate. For example, in the very long and rather odd section on his "mistakes," there is mention of a 1905 paper, supposedly in error, explaining how airplanes fly; I have never seen such a 1905 paper, and I think it would be good (if such a paper actually exists) to cite it. The article says that his ashes were scattered at the Institute for Advanced Study, when in fact hey were scattered in the Delaware River. The article says he supported the creation of a Jewish national homeland, which I don't believe is exactly accurate; though he was a cultural Zionist who long supported Jewish settlements in Palestine, he was an anti-nationalist and was against the creation of a nation-state until after Israel was founded, at which point he revised his outlook. I am not sure it is correct to say that in 1905 Einstein had come to believe that "Maxwell's equations were only an approximation"; that seems an odd assertion, and it would be useful to have a source for it. javascript:insertTags('WalterIsaacson (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)',,)

I've started a new section to begin to address this serious gap in his bio. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Maxwell's equations

The statement that "Maxwell's equations are only an approximation" refers to photons, which are covered later. Einstein took photons seriously, and believed that Maxwell's equations were like a continuum dynamics description of a bunch of point particles. This had a deep influence on his thinking. The best reference is the 1905 photon paper, and something or other in the collected works of 1905 where he lays out the photon concept. I am sorry for not being more precise--- I am sure this is correct, but my memory is hazy about where I read it.

The wing example appears in the collected works in 1905 or 1906 (maybe 1907, but I doubt it), and it is a short note responding to question about airplane lift. I was surprised to find the example of the wing in the paper, and doubly surprised to see that Einstein mis-analyzes it. It stuck in my mind. I don't have the collected works handy, but someone who does should be able to find it in two minutes.Likebox (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I stumbled on a relevant quote regarding Einstein's position on Maxwell's equation being approximate, and this transforming his point of view regarding symmetry principles (from History of Special Relativity):

A further new result was that the "Lorentz invariance" is a general condition for any physical theory. This was for me of particular importance because I had already previously found that Maxwell's theory did not account for the micro-structure of radiation and could therefore have no general validity (Einstein 1953)

This quote shows that photons preceded relativity. So Einstein realized that photons are real, so that Maxwell's equations are only approximate, they needed to be turned into something quantum. So Lorentz invariance wasn't just an accidental symmetry of the Maxwell equations, it had to be a general property of physical law in general. This is the transformation in thinking I wanted to explain in "thought experiments" section.Likebox (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Einstein knew of several problems with Maxwell's Equations at the atomic level, for example the infinite self-energy of a charged point particle and the lack of radiation from atomic orbital electrons (which if they move as particles would be accelerating and thus radiate according to Maxwell). He was not disputing the accuracy of Maxwell's equations in free space, for example. The universality of Lorentz invariance came directly from Einstein's analysis of the geometric consequences of the invariance of the speed of light, although these days we could recast the analysis in different terms. — DAGwyn (talk) 03:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate

Jewish is not an ethnicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.148.227 (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.35.193 (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those things that gets easily confused because being Jewish is also a religious affiliation. However, the description of being "Jewish" as an ethnicity is handled pretty well in Wikipedia:

The Jewish ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.[5][6][7]

Geeman (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This issue keeps coming up, and unfortunately there has been no clear consensus. Some think that it is racist to classify people by their accidental "ethnicity". The article (at least when I retired a year and a half ago) was much clearer about Einstein's relationship to Jewishness than a simple "ethnicity" label could convey. — DAGwyn (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Henri Poincaré

Something needs to be mentioned about Henri Poincaré's matter and energy paper published in 1900 with his E/c2 equation. {Cmguy777 (talk) 00:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)}

Why? It is appropriate for the article on Poincaré, but this is an article about Einstein. Einstein gets the credit because he appreciated the generality of the result and understood its significance. The article is already way too long to be adding notes about minutiae. — DAGwyn (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Poincaré can be brought up in both articles, in my opinion. This would not be unprecedented. Newton and Leibniz are in the their respective articles over who invented Calculus. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Enrico Fermi and Niels Bohr's emigration

The paragraph on Einstein's emigration to the US seems to imply that Enrico Fermi and Nils Bohr were among the physicists that left Germany following the Nazi rise to power. Fermi left Italy, not Germany, because of the anti-Semitic laws enacted in 1938, his wife being Jewish. Nils Bohr flew from occupied Denmark in 1943, during the war. See the pages on Fermi and Bohr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.43.110 (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Merger of subsections?

Should Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox be subsumed under Bohr versus Einstein? Clarityfiend (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, because it has had much broader relevance than just philosophical arguments between Bohr and Einstein (Bell's theorem), and stuff has been experimentally verified. ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 10:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Novaresident95, 11 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

The discussion of Einstein's political views is sophomoric in relation to Israel. He was strongly opposed to the Israeli right wing of Begin/Sharon/Netanyahu (which he called fascist). The following is from his letter to the New York Time protesting Menachem Begin's visit to the US in 1948 (New York Times, December 4, 1948).

"Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.

The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Beginâs political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents. Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Beginâs behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement.

The public avowals of Beginâs party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.

Attack on Arab Village A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants÷240 men, women, and children÷and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin.

The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party.

Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model."

Novaresident95 (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Tim Pierce (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The letter is covered in the Albert Einstein's political views article with a link to the letter in wikisource. Of more concern, at least to me, is that the current statement "He was a socialist Zionist who supported the creation of a Jewish national homeland in the British mandate of Palestine." in both this article and the political views article is sourced to Zionism & Israel Information Center. Is there any evidence that this source is an RS ? I don't think it has been taken to WP:RS/N, their about page doesn't convince me that they are an RS and I can't find instances of the site being used as a source by other RS. I assume a replacement source wouldn't be difficult to find though. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I posted a question about the source at RSN Sean.hoyland - talk 18:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I would modify the Wikipedia statement as

He was a socialist Zionist who, however, criticized and characterized the Israeli right wing led by Menachem Begin as a fascist movement that "preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority."

I believe Einstein's record shows his support for both socialism and zionism but no evidence one way or the other for exclusive Zionism, i.e. the creation of Israel as an exlusive homeland for Jews. Novaresident95 (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, Einstein opposed the idea of a Jewish state and favoured what he described as "a solution on the basis of an honestly bi-national character" so the current statement is misleading but I haven't had time to do anything about it. This is a good source on these issues. See pages 343-344 for example. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Here are some of his own writings on the subject of Zionism. Primary sources - his own statements - are sometimes clearer than the opinions and interpretations of others. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair-use images

I am concerned about non-free copyrighted images of Einstein used in this article. I just added more details to File:Einstein in UK.jpg and I then noticed File:Einstein and ben gurion.jpg has an unsupported claim that it is in the public domain. The problem with the latter is that Getty Images sells several licenses for the use of that image (see file page description) at various resolutions, purposes and limited durations. Examples are: 49 Euros per three months to promote educational material only, or 59 Euros for one year for editorial use on the Web and mobile only. The price is the same for United States only as for two or three countries, but more than about four requires the license user to contact Getty directly. Would a better alternative to including fair-use images be to link to the external sites (such as Life, or Getty Images themselves) that are hosting them? -84user (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a reasonable assumption that an image from a Life magazine website, with many related images of the same subject, some with a "Life" indicia on the image itself, would have been taken from their own magazine. The name of an agency source with a photo, for older photos, usually refers to the company which stores and supplies higher and lower quality images to third party buyers. They act as middlemen and convenient source of photos, like most stock photo agencies. In 1951, the publication in Life would begin the copyright period and a copyright insignia would not have any effect on its renewal status, which must be filed separately. All we can go by are "reasonable" assumptions and copyright searches, which can usually be done online.

Corbis, like other photo agencies, will usually put a copyright notice on everything for their web site so images don't get clipped, although a large % of their older vintage photos are PD. A copyright search for this image during the period during which a renewal would have been filed came up with nothing. Adding a "non-free" license would not seem useful to anyone, and would imply ownership rights to a photo where there was none. Hope this helps. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead section/TOC/Infobox juggling

To the major contributors to the main page – I would like to propose that the Lead section be placed between the TOC and the top Infobox. As it stands, prime space in this prime article is wasted, indeed worse than wasted, by this conventional layout flaw. The modification has been unopposedly trialed at Robert Hooke and others, resulting in more compact, more easily scanned pages. I'll keep an eye on your responses, and demonstrate the effect if no reasonable objections in a few days. Trev M  ~  01:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't like the long skinny column of text in Robert Hooke, and given how much longer Einstein's TOC is, the problem would be even worse here. Also, unless the section titles are shortened, there is very little space to work with. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't move the ToC around either, but there must be a way to shorten it. Several sections are only one or two paragraphs long: do we need headers for them? ― A._di_M.^{3rd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 07:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What we may be experiencing here is different depending on our screen sizes and settings. I'm wiewing the site on a fairly common modern 1280x854 screen (sometimes a larger one) but if I reduce my screen size to the older 1024x768 resolution, the one-third screen-width strip of whitespace I have down the middle of my screen between the infobox and the TOC almost closes up. Here's a screenshot of what I and thus, presumeably other (Mac Firefox) users with similar width screens will be seeing: File:WP_Einstein_whitespace1284screenshot.png. If I now scroll down to the bottom of the TOC, almost half of my browser's useable screen area is empty: File:WP_Einstein_whitespace1284screensho2.png. As a web designer, I feel it is my duty to try to assist Wikipedia fix such a glaring layout flaw. I'm afraid I can't do "Emperors new clothes" here. Clearly, whatever the fix, it has to be such that it does not compromise the experience of users whose screensize or browsing habits is such that the existing layout is not a problem for them.

A more sophisticated possibility may be one that would leave the layout as is for lower-resolution viewers, but where the white space approaches 1/3 of page width, as at higher resolutions, it fixes it. I'm working on some solutions with this in mind at the moment and will report back. Trev M  ~  13:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

User:A. di M.: This may be a way to deal with the very long TOC for now, if you feel like trying it: {{TOC limit|limit=2}} I've demonstrated it on my user pages at User:Trev_M/Towards_a_page-width-sensitive_leader. Also looking for a way to put smaller TOCs at top of level II sections, but not found it yet.... Best, Trev M  ~  22:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but I would prefer {{TOC limit|limit=3}} and merging some subsections into one (e.g. merging current subsections 2.17-2.22 into one called "Later scientific work"), with the subdivisions moving one level up. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

American Albert Einstein

Why does the article not mention that Albert Einstein was an American in the first sentence? He became an American. He should be listed as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.38.33 (talk) 01:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Because he was German. Understand why no ones bothered answering this in almost a month, out of courtesy i will. He was a German-Swiss Nobel Laureate (though German was his mother tongue). Its all about notability. Citizenship he acquired in the late part of his life (with the Nazis having kicked the Jews out of Germany) after he had long established himself. Notability is key.Rise before Zod, Kneel before Zod 11:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Mental

Two mental break-downs are not mentioned in the current text clearly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.132.245 (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If you have reputable sources, feel free to edit the article to mention them. Otherwise, don't. — DAGwyn (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity again

The "ethnicity" entry was entered twice in the same info box. I removed one, The whole issue of ethnicity in the info-box was discussed for years and once and again it was decided that Jewish is the only word that need to be there. I will not start soap boxing here, just mentioning that from the first place this entry of ethnicity, which is not commonly to be found, was entered since nobody agreed to have his Jewishness in the lead or to refer fully to its meaning for his life in the right proportion. --Gilisa (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well no Jewish isn't an ethnicity it's a religion, hes ethnically German.Davido488 (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Early Life and Education

I have substantially amended the final paragraph of this section. I have omitted the quotation from one of Einstein's letters, because it is not evidence one way or the other about Marić's academic capabilities. The sentence was written in early October 1900 in a context in which Einstein was reassuring his sweetheart of his continuing love, not long after she had failed the final teaching diploma examination with a very poor grade in mathematics. Selectively quoting out of context does not provide good evidence; one can easily provide contradictory evidence, including Einstein's words to Marić written the following year when he was looking forward to her joining him in Switzerland: "Soon you'll be my 'student' again, like in Zurich" (19 December 1901).

The replaced paragraph had it that "historians have debated whether Marić influenced Einstein's work," but in fact none of the main proponents for the collaboration claims are historians. On the other hand, there have been several historians of physics who have looked closely at the claims and found them to be without foundation. (See the references I have supplied.) Esterson (talk) 10:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Einstein's mistakes

I find this a very peculiar section. One could easily (if desired) construct a similar section Newton's Mistakes, or Bernhard Riemann's mistakes (to give two examples of people well accepted as geniuses who also made some famous mistakes). For that matter, Poincare's mistakes are rather famous. No such sections exist, nor should they. Such mistakes are better covered in the presentation of the person's evolving thought over time (as the hole argument is). I am not planning to do anything about this, but I ask what is the rationale for such a section uniquely about Einstein and no one else? Pallen (talk) 04:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Those other geniuses are not quoted on bumper stickers as if they have infinite wisdom on all subjects. Some of the mistakes are obscure, but some of them are quite frequently mentioned and are more notable than a lot of other things in the article. Roger (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This section has always been (sort of) a venting place for some of our notable "anti-Einsteinians" -- see Usenet. Indeed, there aren't many "anti-Newtonians", "anti-Riemannians", or "anti-Poincarenians". It looks like this section serves a sociological purpose, keeping the "anti-Einsteinians" off-the-street, so to speak. DVdm (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Many of the items in this section are unreferenced, and some smack of WP:OR for example:

1905: An expository paper explaining how airplanes fly includes an example which is incorrect. There is a wing which he claims will generate lift. This wing is flat on the bottom, and flat on the top, with a small bump at the center. It is designed to generate lift by Bernoulli’s principle, and Einstein claims that it will. Simple action reaction considerations, though, show that the wing will not generate lift, at least if it is long enough.

Quasihuman (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, this looks suspicious, and other entries surely look silly, or at least not notable. By all means, go ahead, be wp:BOLD, remove what you find silly, suspect and unsourced. Provide a clear edit summary. Anyone who feels you removed something essential will show up on the talk page to discuss it in a proper wp:BRD session. DVdm (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this section is rather bogus. Some of the items (like the first) are simply typos, others (like the hole argument and the 1911 light deflction) are discussed elsewhere, and in any case were corrected by Einstein himself (like Avagadro's number), so they are more accurately characterized as steps along the path to his final results. I'll make an attempt to trim out the silly entries, and just leave the genuine "mistakes" (although even these are of questionable relevance).Urgent01 (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that the first item (Einstein's "transverse mass") is simply a typo. See Miller (Einstein's special theory, Chap. 12.2.1), where he at length discusses Einsteins "poor choice" for the force acting upon the electron. Than he wrote (p. 329): "he [Einstein] had erred on the one hand in demonstrating the velocity dependence of mass, and on the other in defining force as "mass x acceleration", instead of as the rate of change of momentum, as he should have done in a system whose mass was variable." --D.H (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I mis-read that one. I agree it's not a typo, although I would describe it somewhat differently. It's true that Einstein's choice for the definition of the word "force" in the EMB paper was "not felicitous", as he himself soon acknowledged, but it is after all a definition. The formulation of Planck and Tolman and Lewis is much more satisfactory, but it's naive to say that the expression in Einstein's paper is "wrong". We are free to define "force" in any way we like. Einstein's expression is exactly what it says it is. It just happens to be not as significant or meaningful or useful a quantity as the one based on the Planck/Lewis/Tolman definitions. So I would classify this as a failure to immediately arrive at all the most felicitous definitions for a relativistic mechanics in the first paper on the subject. It's not "wrong", and he certainly never disputed the correctness of the alternative formulations.Urgent01 (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The point is that even if you take Einstein's definition, the transverse mass should be ${\frac {m_{0}}{\sqrt {1-v^{2}/c^{2}}}}$, not ${\frac {m_{0}}{1-v^{2}/c^{2}}}$. The second expression is not the transverse mass, not the longitudinal mass (which has a 3/2 power), it's just a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.66.128 (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This section must be called EINSTEIN'S MISTAKES not "Einstein's controversial beliefs", because these are universally acknowledged stupid mistakes, most of them repudiated by Einstein later. His actual controversial beliefs (quantum theory can be a statistical approximation to a deterministic theory, Mach's principle holds, non-tensorial gravitational stress-energy makes sense, particles/anti-particles are ends of charged classical wormholes, teleparallel theories can describe gravity, unified field theory equation-counting numerology etc) are not included in the list, because they are self-consistent controversial beliefs, not stupid mistakes. The section used to be a complete list of every single one of the outright mistakes, so that a modern reader could read the collected papers without worrying about whether the thing is out of date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.66.128 (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the name of the section, items in it must be verifiable, as it is, there are only two citations in it. I have added templates to the items that need citations, as I think that these are desperately needed. Quasihuman (talk) 11:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. These items definitely need to be properly sourced. DVdm (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that the relabeling of "Einstein's mistakes" to "Einstein’s controversial beliefs in physics" has been for the worse. His controversial beliefs were relativity, light particles, Mach's principle, determinism, and unified field theory. His transverse mass formula was a mistake, not a belief. Roger (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed Greggydude (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed as soon as all the items are properly sourced and checked for notability. If the section must be renamed now, I propose we delete the currently -tagged items. DVdm (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If it is to be a section on Einstein's mistakes, then it ought to cite the recent book by Ohanian. That book is very thorough and claims to have catalogued all the mistakes, altho some of the mistakes are debatable. Roger (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ohanian's book is a peice of shit, it is a worthless source. Ohanian cites a bunch of perfectly fine arguments in very famous papers and claims that there are subtle logical flaws in them, which are just subtle logical flaws in Ohanian's thinking. The articles that are classics are perfectly fine, there are well proofread, with the exception of the transverse mass error in the relativity paper.

On the other hand, the mistakes catalogued here were correct, well known, and complete. Each can be easily cited to tons of literature, with the possible exception of the airplane wing (although that can be cited to the original Einstein paper and some engineering textbook which discusses the same example wing--- this wing is discussed often in debates on how to best teach the principles of wing lift).

Einstein himself repudiated the 1922 superconductivity paper, and said he would not have submitted it for publication if it wasn't for the enthusiasm of one of his colleagues for the idea. The paper is not precise enough to refute--- it's just stupid (in hindsight). He's discussing shared electron orbits in old quantum theory, which, given what we know now, is a pre-quantum mechanical explanation of the shared-orbital thing that leads to ordinary conductivity, not superconductivity. The statement somebody tacked on that superconductivity is still mysterious is absolutely laughable--- BCS theory has been around for 50 years, paired electron condensates explain all superconductivity, even high-Tc, and the only mystery in high Tc is what exactly accounts for the purely electronic strong pairing forces.

The 1939 "black holes can't form" paper was a pile of garbage, and everyone knew it, even at the time. These things are discussed ad nauseum. The "citation needed" tags refer to the stupid additions tacked to the end of what used to be well written descriptions, not to the items themselves, which are well known.69.86.66.128 (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that the citation needed tags only apply to additions to the items, these items are not trivial, not obvious, and not verifiable as it stands. Being "well known" is not the threshold for inclusion in wikipedia: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" as per WP:V. As a non-physicist, these items are not well known to me; If the items are well known amongst physicists, I'm sure some reliable source must have published something about them. Quasihuman (talk) 10:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite. And if no reliable sources can be found for an item, then by wikidefinition the item is probably insufficiently notable. DVdm (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Ohanian's book is an excellent source. I will agree that some of his "mistakes" are not what I would call mistakes. In some cases, the mistake is just an opinion that Einstein used an inferior argument in a particular paper, or that Einstein failed to have some insight. But the book should be cited in any list of Einstein's mistakes because it is the best authority on the subject. The reader can decide for himself how serious the mistakes are. Roger (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This section is completely silly and inappropriate in an encyclopedia article. Certainly discussion of the cosmological constant and his differences with Bohr, but a line-by-line going through of things is ridiculous. It looks petty and only half a jump away from the anti-Semitic "Einstein is a plagiarist" nonsense that fills the web. At the very least it violates NPOV's "undue weight" clause. It seems pretty clear that this section has been created, maintained, and dominated by a single POV-pusher, one who I am sure would admit that he has a thoroughly non-consensus, fringe view on Einstein. What happened here, people? This article used to be not awful, now it's pretty much a wasteland. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Link author???

Hi I was reading the article and noticed that Einstein is credited for being an author, but author does not link to the Wikipedia page for Author. I was thinking it should. I tried to edit it but his page is locked. I was curious about author and had to type it in the search bar myself instead of just clicking the link (I know, i'm lazy). I was wondering if there is a reason why it does not link to the author page and if not, could somebody of higher authority please add it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skcin7 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"author" is a common word and would not normally be linked within an article. Linking "author" would not really enhance the article. If a reader does not know what "author" means then they should be looking in a dictionary, not wikipedia, for the meaning. HumphreyW (talk) 08:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

bomb phrasing

From the intro:

On the eve of World War II in 1939, he personally alerted President Franklin D. Roosevelt that Germany might be developing an atomic weapon. As a result, Roosevelt quickly established the top secret Manhattan Project, leading the U.S. to become the only country to possess nuclear weapons during the war.

And later:

British columnist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard notes, however, that Washington at first "brushed off with disbelief" the fears they expressed. He then describes how quickly Roosevelt changed his mind:

"Albert Einstein interceded through the Belgian queen mother, eventually getting a personal envoy into the Oval Office. Roosevelt initially fobbed him off. He listened more closely at a second meeting over breakfast the next day, then made up his mind within minutes. 'This needs action,' he told his military aide. It was the birth of the Manhattan Project."[44]

Other weapons historians agree that the letter was "arguably the key stimulus for the U.S. adoption of serious investigations into nuclear weapons on the eve of the U.S. entry into World War II". As a result of Einstein's letter, and his meetings with Roosevelt, the U.S. entered the "race" to develop the bomb first, drawing on its "immense material, financial, and scientific resources". It became the only country to develop an atomic bomb during World War II as a result of its Manhattan Project.

All of this greatly overstates things. Take a look at Timeline of the Manhattan Project. The Einstein letter resulted in a small "Uranium Committee" being funded with a small amount of money. It essentially did almost nothing. The whole bomb project was nothing more than laboratory work and preliminary investigation until December 1941, when it was decided to accelerate it into a real bomb effort, largely as a result of pressure from the British. It was not until mid-1942 that it became the Manhattan Project under control of the U.S. Army. The Einstein-Szilard letter got the ball rolling, and got Roosevelt's initial interest, but to say that FDR "quickly established ... the Manhattan Project" is a fair exaggeration, and to give Einstein total credit for the Manhattan Project is quite silly anyway. He played a role in the very early days of it, but that was it. It is pretty clear that even if he had done nothing, the history would look pretty similar, since the British would still have come over and lit a fire under Ernest Lawrence, James Conant, and Vannevar Bush, the people who really made it into the Manhattan Project.

The Ambrose Evans-Pritchard bit is historically wrong and extremely confusing. Einstein did not ever meet with FDR about the uranium project. FDR did not "fob him off". The man who met with FDR and passed on Einstein's letter was Alexander Sachs. This is well known amongst anyone who has read any biography of either Einstein or the bomb and is plainly stated on the Einstein–Szilárd letter page. I don't know why the columnist said something patently false, but it really should be removed, and frankly never should have been added in the first place — it was just a fobbed off anecdote at the end of an article on a totally different subject.

In general this section is very poorly sourced. The Gosling bits are fine but the rest are not very good sources, especially when a lot of really excellent sources exist on the bomb project (e.g. Richard Rhodes' The Making of the Atomic Bomb) and Einstein's involvement (e.g. Walter Isaacson's biography). Why such an important section is relying on newspaper columnists and oddball encyclopedia entries or "nonproliferation handbooks" is beyond me when there are so many dedicated and well-respected sources by historians easily available. My overall impression of this section is that it has been written by people with very little understanding of the history in question!

I recommend: 1. toning down the causality a bit in regards to Einstein's letter and the Manhattan Project. It didn't start the Manhattan Project. It started the initial sponsorship of uranium research by the federal government, which itself eventually led to what became the Manhattan Project. 2. Someone going over the bit about the letter with a fine-toothed comb and a good book and actually making it clear who did what. I don't have it all on the tip of my tongue but I recall it being somewhat complicated — multiple letters, some not sent, some eventually delivered, then a follow-up, and so forth. Whatever the case we need to have it sourced to something reliable and dedicated to the issue, not something where the letter is incidental to the main story. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. There are primary sources and books that probably cover the subject more accurately. Naturally, it's easier to find and add quotes when they're from "free" online sources, like news articles. Books cost money and take a lot more time to summarize for inclusion. But for bios like this one, it's worth some more time and effort to state details correctly. Thanks for pointing out these problems. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Spockian paragraph

The 2nd paragraph in the lead will be an absolute barrier to anyone trying to read the article. Not only is it all one massive sentence, but it includes so many highly technical terms - with links - that even Spock would have a hard time. Can someone try to simplify it for us mere Earthlings? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of is either 1) putting full stops now and again then start a sentence with "also..." and 2) split up the list based on how those theories and acheivements actually relate to eachother, if they can be catagorised. I don't know if that is possible, so we'll have to wait and see what editors with more knowledge of the subject say. Best wishes, ValenShephard (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

IMO, we should just list special and general relativity and cosmology, and append the sentence to the first paragraph. The prior mention of the photoelectric effect covers the wave-particle duality, and the rest aren't important enough to cite in the intro (I think). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I kinda like the sound of that. Afterall, we list the most notable things in the lead, and try to give a good summary, not list everything notable in a list. So I support your idea. ValenShephard (talk) 02:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Draft (open for improvement) So remember to fix this if wanted

Near the beginning of his career, Einstein felt that Newtonian mechanics was no longer enough to reconcile the laws of classical mechanics with the laws of the electromagnetic field. This led to the development of his special theory of relativity. He realized, however, that the principle of relativity could also be extended to gravitational fields, and with his subsequent theory of gravitation in 1916, he published a paper on the general theory of relativity.

He continued to deal with problems of statistical mechanics and quantum theory, which led to his explanations of particle theory and the motion of molecules. He also investigated the thermal properties of light which laid the foundation of the photon theory of light. In 1917, Einstein applied the "general theory" of relativity to model the structure of the universe as a whole. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me, content wise. While there is no strict requirement for sourcing in WP:LEAD, we could use ref named Bio to support this wording. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I await seeing it becoming part of the lead. ValenShephard (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Partial counter proposal

I feel the context is being shortchanged. The ending's unsatisfactory, a bit "up in the air", which is why I call this "partial".

Working in total obscurity as a Swiss patent examiner, in 1905, Einstein astounded the world by publishing four landmark papers in a single year. One in particular, unveiling his special theory of relativity, shattered the long-established Newtonian view of the universe as a giant machine governed by deterministic laws. Another, explaining the photoelectric effect, helped establish the second great foundation of twentieth century physics: quantum mechanics. Einstein would go on to develop the general theory of relativity (explaining gravity as a geometric property of space-time) and make many more valuable contributions, but he became increasingly disenchanted with the direction in which quantum theory was progressing. He expended much effort trying unsuccessfully to refute its generally accepted interpretation and, in the end, became more and more isolated from the mainstream of physics. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The key points you added are already included in the first draft but phrased differently. The last sentence could be included in the final paragraph in the lead, as it discusses his later years, but could include a few more facts for balance. I'll add the first one for para 2 with a source for some of the phrasing. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the current version conveys to the average layman reader the significance of what Einstein accomplished - a bit too much "trees", not enough "forest". Clarityfiend (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

With the extensive TOC included with the summary, it seems there's a good overview of his career highlights. It's always hard to guess who the "layman reader" is, but with physics an elective in most high schools, it's probably safe to assume they didn't have it. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Einstein's regrets about the Nuclear Bomb

I noticed a strange absence in the section on the development of the Nuclear bomb. No mention of his regrets, which became one of the things he felt most strongly about in his later years.

Anyway, I'll probably forget, so when this article becomes unlocked, or if someone who has the power to do so could add, in the 1.6.1 World War II and the Manhattan Project section the following, that would be very good.

After the bombing of Japan, Einstein came to regret urging the development of the bomb, describing the original letter he wrote as “the single greatest mistake” of his life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.114.158 (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for Einstein describing it as “the single greatest mistake” with a page number if it comes from a book ? I thought it might be in Rhodes' The Making of the Atomic Bomb but I can't find in there or elsewhere. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Reference found ;) Einstein said to his old friend, in 1954, the last year of his life: I made one great mistake in my life - when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification - the danger that the Germans would make them per "Albert Einstein: Shmoop Biography" By Shmoop. page 6, available via Google books. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah thanks, that helps and the old friend was apparently Linus Pauling. According to this it's on page 752 of Einstein: The Life and Times by Ronald Clark but I can't see that. It's also here in A world destroyed: Hiroshima and its legacies By Martin J. Sherwin and here in Einstein and Oppenheimer: the meaning of genius By Silvan S. Schweber which contains a bit more context with a later quote. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem with the quote but I just removed the link, as per MOS:QUOTE. It's very likely he meant the Nazis and not the country or German people, but in war such distinctions are much less clear and so should be left for the reader to interpret.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Original poster here - Sorry I didn't give a source, and thanks for the edit :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.114.158 (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Religious Views

This quote I came across seems to put his agnosticism later in his life under question:

"When staring death in its eyes, faced with the subtle elegance and order that fills the universe, I cannot but conclude that these laws of nature I so admire could not have produced their greatest creation, humanity, on their own. It seems to me that for an intelligent person to then deny the great cosmic purpose of our species is an exercise of bigotry. [...] It is with reluctance that I approach this topic, for I have for years vigorously denied the existence of these higher realms that the enlightened among us have chosen to call God. Yet it now seems self-evident that mere science, without the guiding hand of religion, cannot grasp the vastness of the unobservable universe."

Did he believe in religion and our cosmic purpose?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.92.240.223 (talk) 10:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Source ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't sound at all right to me. Two "sources" I've found: [13] and [14], neither of which seem to give too much credibility. Thincat (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

And I've just deleted it from wikiquote. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I remember reading this somewhere else... It was a book somewhere, just mentioned this in passing as an excerpt from one of Al's writings. If I remember the book I will post it.

I am wondering why there is a mid-size section here on his religious views when there is an entire article on such. Its no big deal but I am surprised by it; I suppose my preference would be for 2 sentences here at the most since the subject is covered specifically and extensively elsewhere in Wikipedia. Seems a but distractive and tangential plus he himself seemed to not put much importance on his religious views and almost seems to have been annoyed at the ongoing questioning he encountered on the subject. I think this is a similar phenomenon to the public and media fascination with the political views of actors. However, there are many RS articles which connect science with religion, but as I say, there is already this. I might dramatically trim the subject on this BLP unless anyone objects? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please do dramatically trim the content of that section in this article per Wikipedia:Summary_style#Keeping_summary_articles_and_detailed_articles_synchronised. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

www.zionism-israel.com

I noticed this edit and its summary. I had the same reflex, but decided not to delete it, since (1) an earlier sentence ("He flouted the ascendant Nazi movement...") in the paragraph is drawn from the same source, and has been here since a while, and (2) I BookGoogled Ami Isseroff, the author of the source of the now removed statement, and the author seems well cited in the literature. It could of course be that the website itself is not a wp:RS, but then I guess we should remove the other statement and its source as well. In any case, I have removed the blunt opening line "Einstein was a socialist", as it is not to be found in the source. It says that he had ideals of pacifism and socialism, but that does not imply that he was a socialist in the political sense. DVdm (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I notice that Thundera m117 (talk · contribs) re-inserted the statement with a source which according to Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs) is unreliable, and another source which does not work. I have no opinion about the reliability of these sources, but per wp:BRD perhaps you guys should discuss this first? DVdm (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

DVdm sugest we discuss before we take any further action and the Zionism and Israel Info center site is not down Please click http://www.zionism-israel.com/ezine/Einstein_and_Zionism.htm however i couldn't access the Jewish Tribune. I guess the site is down. In regard to Einstein statement his support for Israel was'nt just publish in Zionist and Israel Center. It was publish by Jamie Sayen in her ook Einstein in America which contained many letters Einstein wrote and his speech, while Fred Jerome only presented half the facts--Thundera m117 (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thundera, can you please replace the source zionism-israel.com in this article and the other articles you keep adding it to ? Ami Isseroff is indeed well known but the site is a self published advocacy site "imaintained by a group of volunteers" who subscribe to certain political principles. We know nothing about those volunteers, we know nothing about the reliability of the information and importantly we need to avoid repeating Isseroff's personal commentary on and evaluation/interpretation of sources in Wikipedia's neutral narrative voice without attribution. When it comes to Einstein there's no need to use questionable web sites as sources because there are plenty of unambiguously reliable high quality sources with editorial oversight published by reputable publishers avaiable. If something about Einstein is verifiably the case, it will be found in many other sources some of which may have been written by Isseroff and published by a reputable publishers. If zionism-israel.com are citing other sources we should use those sources directly rather than go via a questionable, random web site on the internet. Also, can you not add info from sites that don't work ? There is no rush or deadline and no problem waiting until the info can be verified by other editors/readers and again, if the information is verifiably the case it will be available elsewhere. Wikipedia is meant to be based on the highest quality sources available and in Einstein's case it's easy to find high quality sources.Sean.hoyland - talk 04:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I see that Ami Isseroff's article on the self-published advocacy site zionism-israel.com is still being used as a source for statements about Einstein's political views. Ami Isseroff is a behavioral biologist by background, not a historian. The source needs to be replaced with an WP:RS-compliant source. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's okay to remove the statement and the source now. Go ahead. - DVdm (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)