Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive 17

Omissions

Anything that puts Einstein in a bad light has been left out. He endorsed the 1936 and 1937 phoney trials of Stalin, for instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siberian Patriot (talk • contribs) 16:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source for that, we could add it. — DAGwyn (talk) 04:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

See Einstein's letter to Born, mentioned in the Archives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siberian Patriot (talk • contribs) 16:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

From The Born-Einstein Letters 1916-1955, Macmillan, 2005:

On 24 January 1937 Born had written in a letter to Einstein: "I can well understand that no one gladly gets involved in Russian affairs. The new trial against Radek and associates seems to me extremely disgusting." In his letter of reply [undated] Einstein wrote:

"By the way, there are increasing signs that the Russian trials are not faked, but that there is a plot among those who 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 all more or less of the same opinion. I was firmly convinced to begin with that it was a case of a dictator's despotic acts, based on lies and deception, but this was a delusion." [p. 127]. Esterson (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That's hardly an endorsement. At most, it shows a tendency to believe too uncritically what supposed experts were saying. — DAGwyn (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that is letting Einstein off the hook a little too easily. Who does Einstein mean by "those who know Russia best"? Clearly not the same people who Born was influenced by. A decade or so earlier Einstein had written a preface to Letters from Russian Prisons (1925) in which he denounced "this tragedy of frightfulness in Russia… and it is the best, most altruistic individuals who are being slaughtered" (Einstein and the Generations of Science, Lewis Samuel Feuer, 1982, p. xxi. [Google Books search]), yet by the mid-1930s he was inclined to construe Soviet repressions in the best possible light (which is not, or course, to suggest he supported them). I think the following quotation has considerable validity: "Einstein was never shy about judging capitalism or Nazism by their deeds and actions instead of their rhetoric. He did not apply this standard to the Soviet Union." See "The Myth of Consistent Skepticism: The Cautionary Case of Albert Einstein." Todd C. Riniolo and Lee Nisbet, Skeptical Enquirer, Volume 31.3, May/June 2007. [[1]] Esterson (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Einstein not left-handed

A recent addition to "Early life and education" is the following

"He was right handed;[12][13] there appears to be no evidence for the widespread popular belief[14] that he was left handed."

Do we really need to clutter up an already long Wiki page with such trivialities, in this case an unimportant contention that is (correctly) presented as refuted! Anyway, is it a "widespread popular belief" that he was left handed? I doubt whether the great majority of people either know or care whether or not Einstein was left handed. If there are no objections I shall revert this sentence. Esterson (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Talk:Albert Einstein in popular culture#Handedness section where the idea for this sentence originated. That article had a "handedness" section, slanted toward left-handedness, and I noticed that the evidence cited for his left-handedness consisted of non-reliable sources like a palmistry website. (Yes, really!) So I did some research and found that there appears to be no reliable evidence that Einstein was left handed -- and yet that it is widely believed, and commonly stated as fact, that he was.[2][3][4][5] Basically every list of famous lefties and every article about left-handedness cites him as an example. When even the New York Times states as a fact that he was left handed, there is a problem! I rewrote that section based on Reliable Sources.
Having done that, I decided to add a sentence to this article as well, because of the frequency with which this question comes up. A Google search suggested that this is one of the most frequently asked questions about Einstein[6][7][8][9], and in many cases the "answer" just consists of someone's erroneous opinion. This Wikipedia article is viewed by ten thousand people a day, and it is reasonable to suppose that some of them are coming here specifically looking for an answer to this Frequently Asked Question about Einstein. I believe they should be able to find a sourced, accurate sentence here, rather than rely on some ignoramus at answers.com. --MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

MelanieN: Thanks for your response. I note you write "I noticed that the evidence cited for his left-handedness consisted of non-reliable sources like a palmistry website." Similarly the five sources for the claim that you cite are of the same order of unreliability. If we were to include even a small number of other erroneous statements about Einstein that circulate (e.g, a long list of inauthentic "quotations") the Wiki page would grow immensely. The fact that Google includes it among "Frequently asked questions" about Einstein doesn't of itself make it worthy of inclusion. A Google search for >"Frequently asked questions" + Einstein< brings up over 800,000 items. Should we search through these and add dozens more items to the Wiki page?

My main objection is that, given the extraordinary range of Einstein's activities, the inclusion of a myth about his handedness is of insufficient importance to include it on his Wiki page. I hope other editors will contribute their view. Esterson (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Certainly all the sources that claim that he was left handed are unreliable sources - since he wasn't! My point in citing them was to illustrate how widespread this false belief is. Thanks for your interest. I too hope to hear from other people on this subject. --MelanieN (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with User:Esterson that this isn't a detail of great importance. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There are some famous pictures of Einstein writing on a blackboard or playing the violin. These show him to be right-handed. Perhaps one could be included in the article. Roger (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but probably too subtle and irrelevant for the "believers." They already know he wrote with his right hand. They mostly claim that he was a natural leftie but was forced by his teachers to write with his right hand - which is actually quite possible given educational practice at the time (except for the lack of any evidence that it was true in his case). Then there's my favorite answer that I found on the web: He was left-handed. The photos showing him writing with his right hand were laterally reversed so that it would look like he belonged to the "right", the "majority". [10]. Nothing we can do here will counteract this kind of conspiracy theory! Anyhow, I am new to this article and am perfectly willing to go with whatever turns out to be the consensus of established users here. --MelanieN (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, you convinced me. There is a whole article on Handedness of Presidents of the United States. Maybe there could be a whole section on myths about Einstein, such as him being dyslexic or having an Albanian passport. One sentence on being right-handed seems reasonable. Roger (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"Anyhow, I am new to this article and am perfectly willing to go with whatever turns out to be the consensus of established users here." Good to see such a mature attitude, MelanieN. Likewise, I'm happy to leave the item as it currently stands. Esterson (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

There's Talk:Albert_Einstein/Archive_16#Sinister too if that helps. I think the article should probably talk about this briefly since people will come here to check. Hopefully people won't want to discuss the categorization of the nationality, ethnicity or vegitarianess (not a word) of his hands individually... Sean.hoyland - talk 10:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 July 2012

The first line of the wikipedia entry on Einstein is wrong.

It is the "General Theory of Relativity", not the "Theory of General Relativity". It is the Theory that has become General not the relativity; the relativity was already general in Special Relativity.

The wikipedia entry on the law itself gets it right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

Tomsutcliffe (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. "General relativity" is a shorthand for "General theory of relativity", so "theory of general relativity" is equivalent to "theory of the general theory of relativity." RockMagnetist (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Citizenship in the box

I thought citizenship had to do with the official bond with a "country" (that gives one ID and passport, documents of citizenship) and should not be written like Württemberg/Germany... --E4024 (talk) 09:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

When Einstein was born, the states had separate citizenships similar to the European Union today. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

When Einstein learned about Jewish treatment.

There is a glaring error on this article and a citation is definitely required. It says:

"While visiting American universities in April, 1933, he learned that the new German government had passed a law barring Jews..."

On April 1, 1933 Einstein was in Belgium AND had already known about the Jewish situation in Germany. See these two articles by the Associated Press: this one and this one. Now it could be that the reporters obtained incorrect information, which is why I feel a citation is required in the article here, but two articles that discuss Einstein's location and knowledge seem to tip the scales in the direction that the Wikipedia's article is wrong. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 22:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikiwatcher has amended MagnoliaSouth's correction to read: "In December 1932 [sic], Einstein decided to emigrate to the United States due to the rise to power of the Nazis under Germany's new chancellor, Adolf Hitler.[54]" Hitler did not attain the Chancellorship of Germany until 31 January 1933 and the Nazis did not achieve full power until the Reichstag passed the Enabling Act on 23 March 1933. (M. Burleigh, The Third Reich: A New History, 2000, pp. 151-154.) The first indication that Einstein had decided not to return to Germany occurred in a letter Einstein wrote to an Austrian friend Margarete Lenbach on 27 February 1933: "In view of Hitler I don't dare step on German soil." (Biographies: Fölsing, 1997, p. 659; Isaacson, 2007, p. 404.)

Incidentally, when Einstein left England for the United States in October 1933 it was to fulfil a contracted regular six month position at Princeton Institute for Advanced Study, and he was still undecided on his future (he had offers from European Universities, including Oxford). It was only in 1935 that he arrived at the decision to remain permanently in the United States and apply for American citizenship. (Clark, 1971, pp. 619, 629, 642; Brian,1996, pp. 255, 278; Fölsing, 1997, pp. 686-87: Isaacson, 2007, pp. 424, 437.) Esterson (talk) 09:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the article in response to your feedback. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I have made some amendments in line with what I have written above. Esterson (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"Marriages"?

This title sounds strange. There are many people who are married more than once, but we never write "marriages" to discuss their history in an encyclopedia. It just sounds grammatically out of context. I'd suggest we rename it to "Marriage, relationships, and children". MrsCaptcha (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Mistakes

Einstein when his parents were in Italy finished his secondary studies in Switzerland in Aarau and not in Germany. He asked his father the Swiss nationality and got it in 1901. So ince 1901 to his departure to the United States he had only one nationality: Swiss. Then he was Swiss-American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.62.42.160 (talk) 10:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't say to which passage this comment alludes. If you're referring to the opening paragraph (lede) we have been through this before, and a consensus was achieved. Einstein was German-born, and details of his changes of citizenship are given where appropriate. There is no reason to change the lede. Esterson (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it is not correct not to mention in the first paragraph that he was Swiss-American. This is not correct and fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.4.107.70 (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how important it is to mention this in the first paragraph (he only acquired American citizenship to add to his Swiss citizenship quite late in life - he applied for it in 1935), which correctly states he was German-born. However, on checking I was surprised to find that the Einstein page does not have the date on which Einstein acquired Swiss citizenship. I have now remedied that. Esterson (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Was he a deist?

According to Creation-evolution_controversy#Religion_and_historical_scientists at the end of the section, he was a deist. From what the wiki article here and the main article on his religious views contain, that is not so. I'm not sure what to change it to, as there are several labels on this article and the article concerning his religious views. Acoma Magic (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. I have removed that unsourced speculative parapgraph. Moreover, surely Einstein's views are highly off-topic in Creation-evolution controversy. - DVdm (talk) 07:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Israel?

Someone has added "Israel" to his list of residences in the Infobox. Is that true? I don't find anything in the body of the article about him being a resident of Israel, but I may have missed it. I do see that he was offered, and refused, the post of President of Israel, and I suppose he had Israeli citizenship as a matter of course, but was he ever a "resident" there? --MelanieN (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You are right to challenge this. Einstein never resided in Israel. "Residencies" should not be a box into which every country Einstein ever visited is placed. Esterson (talk) 06:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

On an incidental point, I'm not sure if Einstein had Israeli citizenship. As I understand it, Israel grants the right of any Jew to live in Israel and thereby take up Israeli citizenship, but that is very different from saying any Jew has Israeli citizenship. Of course Einstein may have been a special case, but I don't recall his biographies stating he had Israeli citizenship alongside his Swiss and American citizenship. Esterson (talk) 06:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I was basing my assumption on the Law of Return. Also, since they offered him the presidency of Israel, it seems they must have considered him an Israeli citizen or at least eligible. But if you agree he never lived there, I am going to delete "Israel" from his residences. --MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see someone already did. --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced claims about string theory

Mainstream physics, in turn, largely ignored Einstein's approaches to unification. Einstein's dream of unifying other laws of physics with gravity motivates modern quests for a theory of everything and in particular string theory, where geometrical fields emerge in a unified quantum-mechanical setting.

This section is 1. unsourced and 2. not true as far as I know. I don't recall that Einstein ever worked on string theory or that string theory was even relevant during his lifetime. 91.49.253.169 (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Marriages and children "main article"

"Main article: Einstein family"
How is that the "main article"? The section has more information about his marriages and children than the article it refers to. Ssscienccce (talk)He was a scencine and had 3 kids

Easily fixed. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

German-born? No, just German

He was German. Maybe he lived in different places, or even got residences, but never renounced to his nationality. Its so typical seeing stuff like: "Polish-born American scientist" and "Russian-born British writer". Well, Einstein was a "German-born German", i.e. just a German. Please change it or correct me. Ps. I'm not German, if you are thinking that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.5.250 (talk) 09:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times and a consensus was reached. It is not true that he never renounced his German nationality. In fact he did so twice, the first time after he left Germany when he was sixteen. Later he became a German citizen (in tandem with his Swiss citizenship that he acquired when he was 21) by default when he was appointed to the Prussian Academy of Sciences at the time he took up his post at Berlin University in 1914, and renounced it after the accession of Hitler to power in 1933. So please let the issue rest. Esterson (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't know about that. So the article should say "German-Swiss" or something, it reads like he is a German-born with no nationality. But if you guys reached consensus I suppose that it for Einstein's nationality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.5.245 (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I would say it reads that he was born into German citizenship (which is a fact). The information about taking Swiss citizenship later is given in the appopropriate place in the article, and does not need to be given in the lead section. Esterson (talk) 11:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

At the age of 17 Einstein was a stateless person. He became Swiss at the age of 22 (he asked for this nationality) and kept this nationality till the end of his life. So it is not correct that the introduction of the article doesn't say it immediately and clearly. Obviously there is a negative will in the introduction and I don't understand its reason. See the French article which is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.2.163.186 (talk) 10:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I fail to understand what you mean when you say that there is a "negative will" in the introduction. It states correctly his citizenship when he was born, and the details you cite about his becoming a stateless person at 17 and taking up Swiss citizenship at 22 are given at the appropriate place in the article, which is as it should be. I do not understand what the problem is. Esterson (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Einstein and vegetarianism

The lede (lead) contains a summary of Einstein's immense scientific achievements. Now Dhsahlin has added a final paragraph about Einstein's attitude to vegetarianism. I'm not sure this belongs on the Einstein page at all, but it certainly is out of place in the lede. I intend to revert it. Esterson (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with you that it doesn't belong in the lead paragraph; possibly a sentence in the "biography" section, and without the quote (WP:UNDUE). According to this source he was a practicing vegetarian only for the last year of his life. --MelanieN (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on India

This new section on the Einstein page reads:

One of his prominent quotes on India was :"We owe a lot to the Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made."."

Now Einstein may well have said this, but none of the citations is a reliable source, and none of them supply an original source, i.e., where Eistein said or wrote these words. I have done an extensive search on this quotation on the internet and no source is ever provided. In view of the many spurious or misattributed statements purportedly made by Einstein, if no original source is forthcoming I shall revert this section. Esterson (talk) 08:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The passage on infant Lieserl

I have reverted the amendments made by Cam04 to the passage on Lieserl for the following reasons. First note that the reference for the additional information is http://www.einstein-website.de/. This may look "official", but it is the website of a single individual, Hans-Josef Küpper.

Quote from Cam04 version: "Lieserl was thought to be born mentally challenged." There is no serious evidence that this was the case. It is speculation by the author of Einstein's Daughter: The Search for Lieserl, Michele Zackheim, prefaced by the words "Ultimately, I came to believe…" It is based on some underscoring in a passage relating to mentally retarded or sick children in a book that had belonged to Mileva Maric. In other words, it is entirely circumstantial, without direct evidence. (Maric also underlined a passage on female homosexual love. Does that mean we should speculate she was gay?) (Zackheim 1999, pp. 242, 243, 250-251.)

Quote: "Some believed Lieserl died in September 1903 as a result of an infection due to scarlet fever, although private letters between Einstein and Marić that surfaced in the 1980s make it seem that she was given up for adoption shortly after birth."

The construction of this sentence reads as if there was information before the discovery of the correspondence between Einstein and Maric in 1986, and then the discovery provided fresh information indicating that she was given up for adoption, whereas the letters are our only source of information. (The phrase "shortly after birth" is also inaccurate.) While one sentence of Einstein's, in a letter in September 1903, suggests they were considering adoption he is also concerned about "what has befallen Lieserl", going on to refer to scarlet fever. Many infants in those days would have died from this disease, so in the absence of further evidence there is no way of knowing if Lieserl died at around 18 months old, or was adopted.

I propose the following amended version of the current passage:

At the end of January 1902, Einstein and Marić had a daughter they named Lieserl, born in Novi Sad where Marić was staying with her parents. Her fate is unknown, but the contents of a letter Einstein wrote to Marić in September 1903 suggest that she was either adopted or died of scarlet fever in infancy. (Ref: J. Renn & R. Schulmann, Albert Einstein/Mileva Marić: The Love Letters., 1992, pp. 73-74, 78; A. Calaprice & T. Lipscombe, Albert Einstein: A Biography, 2005, pp. 22-23.)

Esterson (talk) 09:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Numerology of Einstein's Birth Date

Many people note with delight that Einstein's birthday, March 14, is also "Pi Day", because of its similarity with an approximation of π (3.14). It is also the birthday of the fictional character Jake Harper in the TV series Two and a Half Men.

Also, the year of Einstein's birth, 1879, is a prime number. Einstein was born on the 73^rd day of that year, 73 also being a prime number. According to the Jewish Calendar, he was born in the year 5639 A.M. — again, a prime number. Josh-Levin@ieee.org (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The Pi Day connection is already noted at Pi Day. If you have Reliable Source citations showing significance for the other information, I suppose it could be added to Albert Einstein in popular culture. Not this article, though. --MelanieN (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Him and 1/365 of the world's population. So what? He had no special connection to pi or prime numbers. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead image

Does anyone besides me think File:Einstein-formal portrait-35.jpg would be a better lead image? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Should I be bold? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thats not a nice pic at all - we should use File:Albert Einstein (Nobel).png if its to be changed.Moxy (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

OK with me - you can feel free to switch them. A portrait is better for a lead. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Data of something close to the Einstein's brain

I heard that in the beginning, the brain of Einstein was contained in a jar of candies, is it true?--Paritto (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

No, in the beginning, Einstein's brain was contained in Einstein's skull.

Even if the candy-jar thing were true, it wouldn't merit mention in the article. — DAGwyn (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Obvious answer, but thanks because your opinion. According to I, it is otherwise in order that the article look more interesting for the common reader, perhaps a kid.--Paritto (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Swiss American nationality

Einstein asked his father for the Swiss nationality when ha was very young because he was "apatrid". He has kept it all his life. I don't understand why it doesn't appear clearly in the introduction of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.185.151 (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Einstein obtained Swiss citizenship in 1901 when he was 21, and there was no question of asking his father for permission. The information about this is in the article at the appropriate place. Esterson (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I have a question about this. The "Citizenship" section of the {{infobox}} contains an explicit entry for "Stateless", and there are two ranges of years listed for "Stateless": "(1896–1901; 1933–1940)". The first one sounds right to me, but the second one ("1933–1940") does not seem consistent with the entry for "Switzerland" going all the way from 1901 to 1955. Perhaps that entry for "Switzerland (1901–1955)" was added later? (and perhaps someone forgot to "update" the entry for "Stateless"?) Just an idea... --Mike Schwartz (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Well spotted. The "Stateless" entry 1933-1940 is surely erroneous, as he never gave up his Swiss citizenship. It should be deleted.

Einstein's possession of Swiss citizenship in 1933 after he had renounced his German citizenship is shown here (though for some reason the photograph itself no longer shows up on the webpage).

http://www.immigrationmatters.co.uk/albert-einsteins-1933-uk-immigration-landing-card-found-but-would-he-have-been-allowed-entry-in-2011.html

Esterson (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for answering that question, AND for fixing the dates in the "infobox" (very promptly! I might add).  :-)

You are correct that there is a problem at the web page you linked to in regard to the photo of the landing card. However, I did a little bit of snooping around, and it appears that the photo of the landing card does still exist on a web site that is later linked to... -- but at a different URL. I now think that the explicit link from http://www.immigrationmatters.co.uk/albert-einsteins-1933-uk-immigration-landing-card-found-but-would-he-have-been-allowed-entry-in-2011.html to (the older URL?) : http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/einstein (with a prefix or "header" saying "More details of the landing card:") should instead point to (the newer URL) : http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/maritime/visit/floor-plan/seized/objects/einstein/ . Perhaps the problem with the photo showing up, can also be remedied by simply causing some "image" tag, to also point to [the image which can be seen at] the newer URL! (but the image's new URL is: http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/maritime/visit/floor-plan/seized/graphics/large/einstein-landing-card.jpg -- which is a different new URL, from the one for the web page that "contains" the photo of the landing card.) (right?)

I might be a little bit confused here, myself. The above explanation assumes that there is an "image" tag, somewhere, that points to "some" older URL, and that just did not get updated when the change (some kind of web-address change) occurred -- causing the displaying of the photo to stop working.

In reality, there are probably (at least!) 2 changes needed, to the HTML for the web page you linked to. "One": the dead link that points to the older URL, needs to be updated to point to the newer URL; and "two": the URL in the image tag, that is broken, probably needs to be updated, to point instead to the image's new URL.

(See?) Now, since the web site http://www.immigrationmatters.co.uk/ is probably not a wiki, -- (and I am not suggesting that it should be), -- we probably cannot edit it ourselves. But maybe if someone is willing to contact the website maintainer person[s], for that web site, then perhaps they would consider updating the HTML to resume showing the photo correctly -- especially if it turns out that the fix can be applied fairly simply, such as by using an updated URL, in an "image" tag. I hope so. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for tracking down the photo of Einstein's Landing Card for May 1933 confirming he had retained his Swiss citizenship at that time: [11] Esterson (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Bruria

Bruria Kaufman is said to be a "renowned" physicist. Peacock wording could be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.1.208 (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This is in "Emigration to U.S. in 1933".

Quotes

Why have you not added a quote section in the page?! Rehty77 (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That is the function of Wikiquote. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

On the subject of Einstein quotes on God and religion, the most complete compendium can be found in this list of quotes "Einstein the atheist on religion and God" by Coel Hellier, a Professor of Astrophysics at Keele University in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ROO BOOKAROO (talk • contribs) 21:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Your link to that list was deleted from the article, however, because Wikipedia avoids external links to blogs. —teb728 t c 01:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Myths section?

Due to the large volume of false stories attributed to Einstein, do you think either a myths section or page would be appropriate. Off the top of my head I can think of several myths ex: left handedness, bad student stories, the "Einstein disproves atheist professor" story. Relevant or not? --76.118.78.127 (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree this would be appropriate, as long as there's a source. NaturaNaturans (talk) 08:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Dyxlxia

He had it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.4.223 (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Although the claim that Einstein was dyslexic can be found on many websites (dyslexia organisations often list him among famous dyslexics), there is not a scrap of evidence that he was. I once tried to track down the origins of the story and found "Dyslexia: To Read or Not To Read", Essays of an Information Scientist, 10 March 1980: "A psychiatrist Lloyd Thompson… also suggests that Einstein may have been dyslexic, though Einstein's biographer, Ronald W. Clark, disagrees." [Refs. Given] So the original source is nothing but a suggestion from a psychiatrist: Thompson, L. J., "Language disability in men of eminence", Bull. Orton Soc. 19:113-20, 1969.

See: Einstein's Alleged Handicaps: The Legend of the Dull-Witted Child Who Grew Up to Be a Genius [12]

"The strongest argument that Einstein was not dyslexic is that he mastered the German language perfectly and his ability to express himself in writing and speech showed high skills of comprehension, discrimination and precision." Esterson (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 May 2013

there are two place that Max Planck's name needs to be linked into his page.

Photons and energy quanta & Theory of relativity and E = mc²

108.131.15.199 (talk) 03:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Partly done: Moved link to first mention (in "Theory of relativity and E = mc²") from two linked mentions later in article. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

The title of Einstein's paper published in "Annalen der Physik" 1901 was "Folgerungen aus den Capillaritätserscheinungen" not Folgerungen aus den Kapillarität Erscheinungen". Thank you!

cf. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/andp.v309:3/issuetoc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.139.104.93 (talk) 05:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's fixed. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Poly, ETH and more

Hi. There is a bit of confusion about the Swiss schools Einstein went to in the article. Furthermore, his Swiss citizenship is imo treated a little bit too casually. It was the only citizenship he had before becoming an American citizen and he kept it until his death. The Swiss did not realize what they were missing when they did not claim the Nobel Prize for him leaving the honour to the Germans instead. I'm going to make the corrections. I also think that the annus mirabilis should be in the lead, and Liesel was not the first child's name, that was just what Maric and Einstein called the unborn child in their correspondence, Einstein preferring a Hans, i.e. a boy. Both Liesel and Hans are very common German first names. --Ajnem (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Einstein's name

Please remove "pron.: /ˈælbərt ˈaɪnstaɪn/" from the article. There is only one correct way to pronounce Albert Einstein's name and it is "German: [ˈalbɐt ˈaɪnʃtaɪn]". Anything else is simply ignorance toward the pronunciation of a person's name. I do not think Wikipedia should endorse such ignorance, but instead educate about the correct one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.174.49 (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a large number of German dialects. You seem to be using to the Berlin version of High German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.253.30 (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The one you object to is the General American English spelling version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.253.30 (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The first pronunciation shown is the accepted, and widely used, Anglicised pronunciation of his name amongst native speakers of English. I think it's valid to include both this and the German pronunication. MFlet1 (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is any problem with the English pronunciation, and there is no significant meaning to remove the English pronunciation. IMHO the English pronunciation should stay where it it, because everyone is not capable of understanding the German IPA. — ITeachThem (talk) 06:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Nationality

Please correct as the following: Einstein was Swiss American And German born .... I don't understand why this doesn't come first ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.2.150.152 (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC) He was educated in Switzerland before the age of 16. Einstein's biography has a lot of intentional mistakes. Why ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.2.150.152 (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

einstein

he declared himself as a zionist, scientist, socialist, pacifist and a vegetarian ... note it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.77.86.236 (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Toward the end of his life, he said he believed in the "pantheistic" God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized

First, "towards the end of his life"—well according to the Albert Einstein's religious views article it was in 1929, so it was actually 26 years before the end of his life.

Then "a belief he criticized"—this gives the impression that he criticized his own belief. It doesn't make sense. Why would he criticize his own belief?

He *actually* said in 1929 (again according to the Albert Einstein's religious views article) that he believed in Spinoza's God. This implies a "pantheistic" God, but he didn't say "pantheistic" at that point. This sentence gives a false impression about what he actually said.

But then in 1930 (according to the Albert Einstein's religious views article) he explained, in response to a question about whether or not he believed in God: "Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist."

Seems to go against what he said in 1929. On the face of it, it seems like he changed his mind. I'm going on what's written there. If he held this belief in God for only 1 year, seems like this sentence written on the main Albert Einstein article gives the wrong impression.

The "belief in God" also goes against his agnosticism.

Thus I'm deleting the sentence until a better one can be written. Alice already in wonderland (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You better not keep deleting the sentence before there is a wp:consensus for doing so. Unless of course you want to get blocked for edit warring :-) - DVdm (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

OK excuse me, I didn't know this rule. Alice already in wonderland (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Earlier in the edit summary of this edit you quoted a sentence that could i.m.o. perhaps be put in the article. Where exactly did he say this? - DVdm (talk) 20:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

That's from the section **Personal God and the afterlife** in the Albert Einstein's religious views article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice already in wonderland (talk • contribs) 20:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are 3 things to summarize:

• he was an agnostic
• he did not believe in a personal God
• he was fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, although he didn't necessarily define himself as a pantheist

I propose we just insert the following three quotes:

From 1929: Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order... This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as "pantheistic" (Spinoza).

From 1930: Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds.

But in the same interview from 1930: I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism.

From 1950: My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment. Alice already in wonderland (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You are correct that "Toward the end of his life" is inappropriate, so I have removed that phrase. However, Einstein said his views were aligned with Spinoza on several occasions. He even wrote the introduction for "Spinoza. Portrait of a Spiritual Hero" in 1946. Spinoza's philosophy is considered pantheism. Einstein's views are undoubtedly agnostic and "pantheistic" (those are not mutually exclusive and *they are his own words*). Einstein saying he was not sure if he could flat out define himself as a "Pantheist" is not the same as stating that his views are "pantheistic". Nevertheless, scholars have called Einstein a pantheist anyway, but that is beside the point here. NaturaNaturans (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request

I was hoping to add into the article the fact that Einstein's confiscated home had been repurposed to be an aryan youth camp and that his sailboat was not just confiscated but sold as well. This was brought up in the documentary How I See the World by PBS. While it is a trivial detail I feel it remarks on the disregard and disrespect of Einstein by the Nazis. The video is available on youtube with the remark in question at 20:50. The URL for the video is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZ_W3EAfp6I — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.75.93 (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done--Light show (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Religious views of Albert Einstein possibly needs semi-protection

This page seems to be carefully monitored for abuse and is semi-protected. Can we extend that semi-protection WP:SPP to the associated Religious views of Albert Einstein page? NaturaNaturans (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Einstein and Conscription Switzerland 1901

The episode of Einstein having to attend a medical for conscription to the Swiss army when he obtained citizenship in 1901 has been amended to read:

He acquired Swiss citizenship in February 1901,[36] but was not conscripted into the military for medical reasons, instead serving as a noncombatant. [Ref: McPhee, John (1983-10-31). "La Place de la Concorde Suisse-I". The New Yorker. p. 50. Retrieved 22 July 2013]

The referenced article can only be accessed by subscription, so it is not possible to read what McPhee writes. However, McPhee has no expertise in this area, and the statement that Einstein served as a noncombatant is erroneous. No biography of Einstein has that he served in a non-military capacity as described. According to Fölsing (1997, p. 82), as a result of failing the medical test he was directed to perform only "auxiliary services, local service", but was not called upon to do so. Esterson (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

What exactly does that mean?

'failed to reach the required standard in several subjects'. Does this mean he failed? Or that he failed to get in Swiss Federal Polytechnic because although he passed his marks weren't high enough? Or that he failed to get in because he had failed altogether because he failed in French,etc? Or that though he failed in French,etc he had still passed? 117.216.24.56 (talk) 09:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

According to the article it means that "He failed to reach the required standard in several subjects, mainly in French, but obtained exceptional grades in physics and mathematics", so indeed he failed altogether. - DVdm (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

So he did pass French,etc but failed to get in and therefore failed right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.24.56 (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

As far as I can see, he did not pass French. - DVdm (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

In that case then could I change the euphemistic "He failed to reach the required standard in several subjects, mainly in French" to "he failed several subjects, mainly French"? 61.3.184.173 (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Huwa

Quote: "He failed to reach the required standard in several subjects, mainly in French,…"

This does not make much sense – failed to reach required standard in several subjects, mainly in French.

According to the Einstein Collected Papers, Vol. 1 (1987, eds. J. Stachel et al), p. 11, he failed to reach the required standard "in the general part of the examination". Judging by the wording in the Einstein biographies, not much is known about the specific subjects he failed, only that he did exceptionally well in mathematics and physics, as a result of which the physics professor Heinrich Weber invited him to sit in on his second year physics classes. Esterson (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Difficulties?

This page needs a section on difficulties and hardships, I don't have time to read the whole page and there's nothing much about his hardships and difficulties. 58.168.213.33 (talk) 06:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't think "Hardships and difficulties" is a standard or necessary section in biographies. Difficulties are usually dealt with in context. --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: where albert Einstein was Buried

172.0.106.95 posted this comment on 3 December 2013 (view all feedback).

where albert Einstein was Buried

Any thoughts?

Erobinson55 (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Not buried. Erobinson55 (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

As said and sourced in the article, "Einstein's remains were cremated and his ashes were scattered at an undisclosed location." Samwalton9 (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Small typo in "US Citizenship" section

Towards the end of the first paragraph it says, "and as result". It should say, "and as a result". 128.138.65.212 (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Que

 Done. Thanks for pointing that out! Mr. Granger (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Citation Broken Link

The citation "127. The New Yorker April 1939 pg 69" url leads to a search page with no search results — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDPC557 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done Fixed the link. Mr. Granger (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Einstein, Bermann unification

Ed Witten has a recent historical note on arXiv:

"A Note On Einstein, Bergmann, and the Fifth Dimension"

I can't edit the article for some reason. AntiqueReader (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

"God does not play dice with the universe."

Did Einstein actually say this, and if so, where (and can we cite it?), or is it paraphrasing of something else he said e.g. letter to Max Born ? Clearly he said something along these lines several times during his life but I suppose we should pick something with a source. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Already mentioned in section Albert Einstein#Modern quantum theory. - DVdm (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

That'll be me not being clear. The context of my question is this edit. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Right, sorry . - DVdm (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

According to this it's in Pais' Subtle is the Lord. Can't look it up as I have don't have my copy at hand. Someone else perhaps? - DVdm (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure Pais clears it up though (see [13] or search for dice if the page doesn't come up for you). Perhaps the oft quoted phrase is an amalgam of several variations. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've added a citation that quotes him verbatim, and modified the quote accordingly - feel free to change it if you find a different source that quotes it differently. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a wp:tertiary source, but it looks good and it has some extra information. I have templated it, so to speak. - DVdm (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Marvelous. Thanks to both of you. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Einstein is violinist

File:Albert Einstein violin.jpg

Albert Einstein playing violin

@Mr. Granger: IMO Einstein is violinist, see Albert Einstein#Love of music. He performed many concerts and once said:

“ I live my daydreams in music. I see my life in terms of music... I get most joy in life out of music. ”

--Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 09:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Einstein was never a professinal musician, and is not known for his musicianship. His music interest can be mentioned in the artcle, but it is not sufficiently significant to be placed in the lead.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

mass-equivalence disproof

WP:OR
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Disproof of mass-energy equivalence - due to difference in potential energy between the nucleus and the particles E = mc^2 is not appropriate the speed and force of the photons exiting the atom would be different therefore the total energy E = mc^2 is not accurate. Disproof of Speed of Light - due the difference in potential energy the between the nucleus and the particle the speed of light is different for each type of atom state and composition therefore the speed of light is not constant and not to be used in equation, a more accurate version based on the emitter would be appropriate Disproof of Plankc constant - due the increase of potential energy the constant is not a appropriate again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starkm (talk • contribs) 22:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC) 3/7/2014 Marshall Stark - Lakewood WA - 253 584 4939 11614 Gravelly Lk Dr Lakewood WA 98499 marshalljstark@hotmail.com Marshall Stark - B.S. in Computer and Software Systems University of Washinton, Tacoma Assciates of Science Peirce College Assciate of Aplied Technology Computernetworking and Information Assurance Disproof of e=mc^2 and proof Stark Hypothesis of the engergy of an atom, chemical bond, and system. considering that the mass of a proton the lengength and strength of the enegery between the proton and neutron and electron produces a different frequency of electromagnetic energy therofore the the use fo the speed of light constant is not the truth because it is at a different frequeny and not at the same frequancy and wavelength a one a smaller and lager electron shell or chemical bond Stark Theorums (1,2,3) Stark Hypothesis 1 - energy of single atom e = SUM(boundofprotonandNuetron*number) SUM(electornshellEnergy*number[opfeachlevel]) SUM(OfIONBound*number) Stark Hypothesis 2 - energy of single molecule e = SUM(boundofprotonandNuetron*number) SUM(electornshellEnergy*number) + SUM(OfIONBound*number) + SUM(ChemicalBondEnergy*numberOf) Stark Hypothesis 3 - energy of system e = SUM(boundofprotonandNuetron*number) SUM(electornshellEnergy*number) + SUM(OfIONBound*number) + SUM(ChemicalBondEnergy*numberOf) SUM(OfIntermoleculeBounds) + SUM(OfChemicalPotential[disequalibrum]) + SUM(OfKenetical[movment]) + SUM(OfElectromagneticWaveOfSystem) + SUM(OfPotential[gravity,magnetical]) to calculate the energy of the electron shell for the calculation of the total energy then you need to excite and read the frequncy and ampiltube and wavelength of the electron shell and and same with the each release of energy of a chemical bound that is possible with molecule. And calculation of Ion, Intermolucule, Chemical Potential, Kenetic, and Potential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starkm (talk • contribs) 19:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Sorry, but this is in the "not even wrong" category. Please also see WP:OR. Do you have a concrete proposal for the improvement of the article? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Deism/Agnosticism not Atheism/pantheism

The intro to this page is very misleading. Einstein not rejected both the idea and the label of atheism as well as pantheism in this quote:

From Einstein and Religion, by Max Jammer "Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. "

Much of this confusion comes from Dawkin's God Delusion which cherry picks quotes where Einstein criticizes the idea of a personal god but never mentions any of the quotes where he rejects atheism and criticizes anti-theists. Unfortunately this has lead to a lot of mislabeling for the sake of supporting ones own views rather than what he actually believed. Walter Issacson wrote a biography called "Einstein his Life and Universe" states that he was more of a deist and agnostic. I recommend watching this short video of Issacson explaining his beliefs in detail. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7r57oCT2cU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekhawaja (talk • contribs) 13:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

In any case, Einstein's opinions on this point are just as important as those of the first person you meet in the street. Einstein's scientific work did not authorise him to speak on non-scientific points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.0.17.8 (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting, but easy to get wrong. Like Isaac Newton, Einstein respected the Creator. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk)

Early work

Some of Einstein's early work can be seen in his article "On the investigation of the state of the ether in a magnetic field", of 1894 or 1895. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.54.41.158 (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a contradiction

How could Einstein have Swiss citizenship from 1901-1955 yet be listed as stateless from 1933-1940? 108.207.32.91 (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It is a contradiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.166.89.116 (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• I have removed the invalid part. Einstein was still a Swiss citizen from 1933 to 1940; he just did not have the other ones as well, having renounced them.

Nutster (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

the ridiculous myth that Einstein failed mathematics in basic school

I do not know the origin of this myth. I suspect that it is a lie repeated again and again by those motivational trainers often hired by big companies to indoctrinate their sales personnel and in self-enhancement books.

This myth seems to be very popular in Mexico.

Do you feel the necessity to add a section about unfounded and ridiculous myths?

That could add a touch of humor to the article, but is irrelevant to the real biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.178.77.57 (talk) 07:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The article contains this sentence: "Contrary to popular suggestions that he had struggled with early speech difficulties, the Albert Einstein Archives indicate he excelled at the first school that he attended." That's probably enough. Any further exposition about the "failed math" story and other myths might fit in the article Albert Einstein in popular culture. --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: Contains no source, could this IP addressed visitor just trying to make a point? Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk 22:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Travel to US, 1930 -31 - Chaplin Story

I appreciate that this borders on OR, but I have a problem with the (no doubt properly sourced) Chaplin story - this one:

Chaplin also remembers Elsa telling him about the time Einstein conceived his theory of relativity: During breakfast one morning, he seemed lost in thought and ignored his food. She asked him if something was bothering him. "Darling," he said, "I have a wonderful idea." He next sat down at his piano and started playing. "Now and again he would stop, making a few notes, then repeat, 'I've got a wonderful idea, a marvelous idea!'" He continued playing and writing notes for half an hour, then went upstairs to his study, where he remained for two weeks, with Elsa bringing up his food:

"Eventually," she said, "he came down from his study looking very pale. 'That's it,' he told me, wearily putting two sheets of paper on the table. And that was his theory of relativity.'"

Elsa didn't properly meet Einstein (according to text elsewhere in the entry) until 1912: at the time of annus mirabilis papers (1905) he was married to his first wife, Mileva: he and Mileva had been close friends since 1896 and he married her in 1903 (apparently after she gave birth to his illegitimate child). They were divorced in 1919, and although Einstein appears to have started seeing and corresponding with Elsa in 1912 (at which time the marriage to Mileva began to break down), the Chaplin story would hardly fit with Einstein's initial conception of relativity, as Elsa was not then living with him, and wouldn't be until nearly a decade later.

It's a nice story, and no doubt Chaplin really does have it in his autobiography, but most likely it isn't true. Might it best be deleted? Thomas Peardew (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Whole section is a problem....need to take the time and not copy and paste ...but summarizes. Dont take the lazy way out as it affects the readability of the article. -- Moxy (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Quote farm growing !!!

I will try and fix the quote farm added recently. Last thing we want is too loss the GA level because of lots of copy and pasting over writing in own words. Are these quotes so important that we cant take the time to summarizes them...we sure these are the most important quotes thus should be here...I think not. --Moxy (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I gave it a short back and sides. See what you think. --John (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

LOL we had an edit conflict....I was doing the same type of clean up....I like what you have done. We have to be careful not to fill article(s) with useless quotes - as we are an encyclopaedia ...not a publisher of low level autobiographies. -- Moxy (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I've recommended the other editor who is adding this material look at WP:SUMMARY; it is usually preferable to summarise than to quote. --John (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think Wikipedia:Quotations is what I was thinking of there. --John (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Correct! Per Quotations: Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia. Quotations—often informally called 'quotes'—provide information directly; quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words.

I have no idea why adding a few extra words in order to get a 1st person quote rather than a term-paperish paraphrase is such a big deal. I'll restore the direct quote, but will be willing to go by further consensus if you both insist on depersonalizing such already-brief text. --Light show (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking of While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Long quotations crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information. Many direct quotations can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text. A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. Consider minimizing the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working smaller portions of quotation into the article text, or both. Provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified there is no need for an arbitrary limit. Overuse happens when: a quotation is used without pertinence. This means that a quotation is visually on the page, but its relevance is not explained anywhere. --John (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Put this simply we dont need to quote non important statements. Need editors to use their writing skills over copy and pasting. The quotes are not in the realm of Ich bin ein Berliner or express a view that cant be summarized. Academic writing style relies on summaries rather than quotations.. as per Derek Soles (2009). The Essentials of Academic Writing. Cengage Learning. p. 45. ISBN 0-547-18133-7. See Paraphrase and Summary for some ideas on how to do this. Having article(s) filled with quotes is what bad bibliographers do and this is not what we want for an encyclopaedia. -- Moxy (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, which was why I summarised the quotes. --John (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Quotations

Text below moved here from User talk:Light show to maintain continuity with original discussion above.--Light show (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I am sure you have heard this before but I will try to explain in more details. Don't over use quotes its not academic...why? Quotations should be rare because too many of them break up the flow for our readers. Quotation after quotation will start to eat away at what readers call the authorial voice. Thus readers trust that the article was written by an expert will be diminished. In other words over use of quotes can give the impression that the articles writer(s) are unsophisticated, or even an amateurs on the topic at hand. Should only use quotations if the language means something, and the meaning would be lost if you paraphrased. We should keep quoted material down to the desirable level of around 10 percent - as this is what is the norm in the academic community. We have an essay Wikipedia:Don't overuse quotes that explains more. I hope this all makes sense. All the best -- Moxy (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm no longer in school, nor do I believe school standards are the norm for articles. I prefer to go by suggested guidelines for quotations: Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia. Quotations—often informally called 'quotes'—provide information directly; quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words.

As you know, I already try to minimize the length of a quotation by paraphrasing and working smaller portions of quotation into the article text, unless the full quotation is necessary. There is no 10% limit for quotations: Provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified there is no need for an arbitrary limit. --Light show (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Its good to hear your copy and pasting less - as for the 10 percent rule this is the norm for people that have attended collage or university. We tell university students quotes are advisable only in the following three instances:

• The fact or idea you cite is so surprising and/or little known that the reader will want to know where you got it.
• The words quoted are from a primary source critical to proving your argument.
• Whether primary or secondary (i.e., some other historian) the quoted phrase expresses so eloquently the point you wish to make that to paraphrase it would be a shame (i.e., I couldn't have said it better myself).

Last thing we want is our articles to look like they were written by uneducated people....because those that have gone on to formal education know that quotes are not a good thing...they learn how to paraphrase or they dont get degrees

So how can we do this i.e... Copyright 2014 Kent State University   ":Source -

• Students frequently overuse direct quotation in taking notes, and as a result they overuse quotations in the final [research] paper. Probably only about 10% of your final manuscript should appear as directly quoted matter. Therefore, you should strive to limit the amount of exact transcribing of source materials while taking notes.--Lester, James D. Writing Research Papers. 2nd ed. (1976(: 46-47.

Plagiarized Version

• Students often use too many direct quotations when they take notes, resulting in too many of them in the final research paper. In fact, probably only about 10% of the final copy should consist of directly quoted material. So, it is important to limit the amount of source material quoted while taking notes.

Paraphrase Version

• When taking notes, many students often use too many direct quotes. This excessive use of quotation commonly carries over into the research paper itself. James D. Lester recommends that only 10% of a research paper should consist of quotes. In order to help limit the number of direct quotations used in a paper, he suggests that students limit the amount of quotations they include in their notes (Lester 46-47)."

-- Moxy (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why this was moved here as its a personal message to Light show to not use quotes all over - that is to not plagiarize - instead use his own words. But its a good message for others to read as-well as the last thing we what is this article to look like Stanley Kubrick quote farm. -- Moxy (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's recommended to add quotation marks when quoting lengthy material, so readers can separate your opinions from the sources. Would you mind? Thanks. --Light show (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a very famous academic person so we are looking for academic contributions. Why cant your summarizes in your own words? As has been explained to you many times... useless quotes dont help the article or our reader's - in fact quotes make it look like the article is written by an amateur. --Moxy (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The quote marks aren't clear. If you're quoting his text, please mark that accurately. I'm sure he would appreciate it also. And since you're relying on "academic" criteria, you might want to check your other punctuation and spelling (i.e. "collage").--Light show (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. Light show, nobody is trying to make this personal and we appreciate your diligence in hunting out these sources but it is better if we write the articles in our own words and note where the material can be verified, than to just quote. Moxy is right. --John (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem, and as you know from the guidelines, quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words. Please show how you could improve another direct quote placed in context, but which you deleted. If you can't, then please restore it:

Carl Laemmle, head of Universal Studios, gave Einstein a tour of his studio and introduced him to numerous film stars, including Chaplin. Before leaving for California, Einstein said Chaplin was the only man he wanted to meet. Magazine editor Harry Lang observed the event: "It was funny to see the greatest names in moviedom, hanging around Einstein's heels exactly like a crowd of fans hang around the heels of a film star." --Light show (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Would be a good idea if you tried to do this yourself...but lets give you an i.e. Carl Laemmle, a German immigrant founder and head of Universal Studios, invited Einstein on a tour of the studios grounds while introducing him to numerous film stars, including Chaplin. Einstein had stated previously that Chaplin was the only man he wanted to meet. Harry Lang editor of Photoplay magazine observed that it was peculiar to witness Hollywood's elite huddled around Einstein as if he was the movie star. This quote in not important to history and can easily be summarised with a link to the actual quote. Summarizing: Advice & Tips. -- Moxy (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Quotation example

Good job. Here's the before and after phrasing:

• Magazine editor Harry Lang observed the event: "It was funny to see the greatest names in moviedom, hanging around Einstein's heels exactly like a crowd of fans hang around the heels of a film star."
• Harry Lang editor of Photoplay magazine observed that it was peculiar to witness Hollywood's elite huddled around Einstein as if he was the movie star.

However, in trying so hard to paraphrase a brief quote, the very general facts are there but some of the meaning is changed:

• "Peculiar" is not the same as "funny;"
• "Hollywood's elite" is not the same as "greatest names in moviedom;"
• "Huddled around" is not the same as "hanging around."

IMO, it's more accurate to not change the meaning when a quote is well presented, especially if it doesn't save but a few words. In addition, the reader is reading your words instead of the source's, who was there, which always has more veracity than an unknown WP editor's. Nor can links usually be given instead, especially from books or old magazines. Not everything is on the web. And for simple quotes, it would be poor judgement to expect a reader to take the time to read a full article in a link such as Photoplay's, so that we can meet Dr. Lester's recommendations to students when writing college research papers. In this case, he might even agree. It's not "cut-and-paste" and certainly not "plagiarism," which you constantly claim. --Light show (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Why dont you try and do this see what you come up with. So lets go over the problem you have raised and lets look at the meanings of the words you have a problem with, - pe·cu·liar synonyms: strange, unusual, odd, funny. - Hollywood elite meaning the best of the best in the movie industry. hud·dle synonyms: come together, flock, hang around, gather. From what I can see the words you have a problem with do have the same meaning as the quoted text. Summarizing is something your going to have to learn to get by on the academic articles here. No one can add quotes (copy and paste) for all there edits - all should take the time and use their own words. This is why we have Wikiquote because quotes are not the norm in academic writing. As for your assertion that readers need to see the quotes without having to reading the sources why not put them in the ref as per WP:LONGQUOTE. To put this simply "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited" see WP:COPYQUOTE for more info. -- Moxy (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Put simply, I disagree that all synonyms have the same meaning, as you imply, or that Wikipedia articles are equivalent to "academic articles." And again making a ridiculous statement like, No one can add quotes (copy and paste) for all there edits, implies a tendency to exaggerate in the extreme. BTW, when copying and pasting text from other sources, like a thesaurus, using quotation marks is a good idea. --Light show (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

So you disagree with the meaning of words OK? - not much I can say there. As for the quality of pages... We want the best possible articles because this is not Simple English Wikipedia. Lets get someone else's opinion here - I invite anyone to look at 2 article that are of 2 very different quality levels - First we have Stanley Kubrick that is overloaded with quotes by many random people thus is very hard to follow VS Adolf Hitler a GA article of a person famous for their speaking ability that has very few quotes. As mentioned before - when you quote too much, you risk losing the readers attention and it gives the impression that the article is written by an armature. Famous quotes are ok but to quote everything is simply not encyclopaedic.-- Moxy (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Moxy. Quotes interrupt the article`s flow, and should be used sparingly. Alex2006 (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Reverted edits

(Article comment moved here from personal page to comply with talk page guidelines for articles.)

Hi. I am not sure why you excised encyclopedic material and replaced it with quotes. Could you take care not to make edits which degrade the quality of aritcles, please? Einstein was a scientist so I am keen to keep as much of the sourced science material as possible in the article. Also, please don't gratuitously add quotations to articles. It is terrible writing and leads to awful articles. Thanks. --John (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with John's assessment and revert. An authoritative voice is what we are looking for. That is text written in a clear and direct way to avoid confusing the reader. Quotes are simply not conducive to this style. That said where do you think this text should be if not where it was? -- Moxy (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The rationale for deleting the material was clearly stated: Not chronological; cut post-death details which should be placed in some other section. The section the deleted text was in is Academic career, with chronological career details, excluding the sudden jump to the sentence beginning "Much later, questions were raised . . ." Adding observations and critiques made by others about a few of Einstein's theories decades after he died, obviously does not belong in this section and should be relocated to later sections covering those theories.

Your deletion of multiple edits, here and here, that included new sourced material relevant to another section is unexplained. --Light show (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

But I'll paraphrase and limit the quotes for any added material. --Light show (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Death quote in citation

I don't believe footnote references are as useful with large quotes, as the cite should mainly provide a source for the cited commentary. The 160-word quote describing his final moments alive should be left for readers to get on their own with the link already there. If an editor feels that the material is important as commentary, a separate notes group for commentary could be used instead of "References," hopefully with a rationale. --Light show (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Date Format

There seems to be some misunderstanding of what type of date format should be used in the article. Why some feel that the format should be DMY I can only really guess. The arguments used in favor for DMY have been that its been that way for a while and that he was German so WP:STRONGNAT does not apply. Well of course it applies. Its actually the strongest argument for changing it to MDY. Although he was born in Germany, he obtained United States citizenship later in life which gives him a strong national tie to the United States over any other English speaking country. And per WP:STRONGNAT Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the United States, this is month before day. That says ENGLISH speaking country, not German speaking country. Since his only English speaking tie is the United States the guidelines say that MDY should be used. So we can put that argument to rest right now because there is no argument against it.

Then there is the matter of the fact that the article has been using DMY, although incorrectly, for a few years now. In many cases that would be a strong argument, but WP:STRONGNAT and Einsteins US citizenship trump that every time. Articles on US citizens should use the common date format MDY because of the Strong ties to this particular English speaking country. Even if the fact the date has been in the article as DMY for a few years now is an equal argument to STRONGNAT, there is WP:DATERET. The first dates inserted into the article were MDY and had been so until they were changed in the lead and then completely changed by User:Ohconfucius.

So unless anyone can come up with a good reason why an article on a US citizen, the only English speaking country he was a citizen of, should not use MDY, the article dates should be changed. And his German citizenship is not an argument against it because this is the English Wikipedia, not the German one.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• I don't particularly care what date format is used in this article. I never made any claim for STRONGNAT in making the alignment. The only criteria were the disposition of dates in the article in the version immediately prior to it. It's true that I didn't check for the format of the first date inserted nor did I look too closely at his nationality. What you seem to imply in you above statement that I first changed the date in the lead and [then again implied] that I may have used it as a pretext to make the article follow monochromatic dmy dates is therefore false and I found a wee bit offensive. That's why I removed the ending to the above post. I like the refactored version only marginally more. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • It wasn't you in the lead, it was someone else, but this was several years ago so its hardly appropriate to hold someone accountable now for an edit made several years ago. Anyway, my original argument for MDY still stands.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the clarification. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that it's more logical to use MDY. --Light show (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• I don't agree. The five papers written in 1905, the theories of relativity, and the reason for his Nobel Prize, together constitute the essence—and the bulk—of Einstein's notability, and none of that happened under citizenship in MDY-space. The only thing he did there was dying, so to speak, and that's hardly notable. - DVdm (talk) 06:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • But this is the English Wikipedia. The article should reflect the subjects strongest ties to an English speaking country. Like it or not, he was a US citizen. That is the deciding factor on the English Wikipedia.JOJ ^Hutton 11:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

In Wikipedia the deciding factor is consensus on this talk page. - DVdm (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

And consensus is determined by the argument of the guidelines not a vote. The Guidelines say Strongest ties to an English speaking country, not what they did in non English speaking countries.--JOJ ^Hutton 12:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• So unless anyone has a policy or guideline based objection that trumps WP:STRONGNAT, then I believe that the guidelines are clear that the national ties to The only English speaking country, in this case the United States, should be respected and the dates changed to MDY.JOJ ^Hutton 19:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you have established wp:consensus to make the change, so wp:RETAIN and WP:DATERET trump strongnat . - DVdm (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course you don't. First off RETAIN and DATERET do not trump STRONGNAT. RETAIN is for English variety so I'm not even sure why you mentioned it because it has nothing to do with dates. DATERET clearly says The date format should be kept unless there is reason for changing it based on Strong National Ties to the topic. So clearly STRONGNAT trumps DATERET. Also if you want to bring up DATERET, let's not forget that the article was created with MDY and those are the dates that should be retained. JOJ ^Hutton 20:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

wp:Consensus trumps everything, and I don't think you have established it to warrant the change. - DVdm (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

And consensus is based on the weight of the guidelines, not on a vote. You got nothing that trumps STRONGNAT. All you are doing is stalling the inevitable. JOJ ^Hutton 21:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It all depends on whether others show up here, and/or whether others would revert the (4th) change you might decide to make. Remember 3RR, for which you were already warned here. - DVdm (talk) 06:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that Einstein's ties to the US are so strong that the current date format must be changed to the US one. Einstein's nationality is multi-faceted and being a US citizen during the last 15 years or so of his life doesn't look to me as qualifying as "strong" ties. It isn't as if Einstein's ties to the US are as strong as John Wayne's for example. The existence of ties is undeniable. But that doesn't necessarily make them "strong". It's all relative, I suppose. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Well US citizenship is pretty darn strong. I can't imagine how it could get any stronger than US citizenship. In fact its the strongest tie to any English speaking country there is. Yes he was a citizen of other countries, BUT only his citizenship to an ENGLISH speaking country matters on the ENGLISH Wikipedia. And STRONGNAT doesn't weigh nationality, it only says "Strong Ties to a particular English speaking country". His citizenship to non English speaking countries is irrelevant on the date format used, only his nationality to an English speaking country. In this case its the United States and in the United States the date format is MDY. You all may have your opinion, but its the guidelines that we adhere to on Wikipedia and not personal opinions. Can anyone cite a guideline that trumps this? I think not.--JOJ ^Hutton 10:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

A mere 15 years in MDY-space, versus 60 years in DMY-space is what I would call a pretty darn weak case. - DVdm (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure living his last years there qualifies for STRONGNAT. --John (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@DVdm, the guideline doesn't say how long one must be a citizen, only that there is a national tie to an ENGLISH speaking country. His citizenship to a German speaking country is irrelevant to the date discussion because this is the English Wikipedia and not the German one.

@John, he did a lot more than just live his last few years in the US, 22 to be exact, but he was a US citizen. His citizenship to an English speaking country takes precedence over any other matter. That's what the guideline says and your personal opinion does not override it. JOJ ^Hutton 12:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Citizen for 15 years I think. Does the guideline actually say "citizenship to an English speaking country takes precedence over any other matter"? I don't think it does. The date format isn't that important a matter to be honest and needs to be resolved by editorial consensus. --John (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jojhutton: The guideline does not say that "there is a national tie to an ENGLISH speaking country". It says that there is must be "strong ties to a particular English-speaking country." The consensus seems to be that this particular tie is not sufficiently strong. So please just drop it now. - DVdm (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@John, No there is no requirement that the subject of an article has to be a citizen of a country, only that there is a strong National tie to a specific English speaking country. But actual citizenship strengthens the tie to a country. The only national tie that the English Wikipedia is concerned with is the tie to the English speaking country.

@DVdm, there is no such wording as "must be strong...", as if there is some sort of scale as to gauge the weight of citizenship. It only says that "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation." Since the United States is the only English speaking country that this article has a strong tie to, that is the date format that the article should adhere to.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be no consensus that the tie to the United States is sufficiently strong to make the change. You seem to approach the point of talk page disruption by refusing to get the point—see wp:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. - DVdm (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with DVdm and John. As I said before, the mere existence of national ties does not automatically make them "strong". Einstein's ties to the US are nowhere near as strong as those of John Wayne, Marilyn Monroe or Clark Gable, for example. Einstein's ties to the US are on the weak side of the spectrum while John Wayne's, Marilyn Monroe's and Clark Gable's are on the strong side. There is a good reason the policy says "strong" national ties as opposed to just "national ties". This distinction of strength is not met by Einstein. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Where does it say or even imply that one subjects strong ties are compared to another? All it implies is that the article should use the date format to the English speaking country that the subject has the strongest ties to.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

... which, according to de-facto consensus here, is not the US. So, time to move on. - DVdm (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You mean that you feel that the Einstein article doesn't have the Strongest English speaking country ties to the United States over another English speaking country, being as he was a US citizen? Which other English speaking country would he have stronger ties to, in your opinion?--JOJ ^Hutton 19:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You mean that you feel that the Einstein article doesn't have the Strongest English speaking country ties to the United States over another English speaking country...: That's not what the policy says. The policy just mentions "strong national ties" not "comparison of ties to find the strongest". Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The examples I provided were for the sake of illustrating the concepts of "national ties" as opposed to "strong national ties". When you say Where does it say or even imply that one subjects strong ties are compared to another? you imply that Einstein's national ties to the US are automatically "strong". They are not. They are just "national ties" but not "strong national ties". In short, the mere existence of national ties does not automatically make them "strong". In Einstein's case they are not strong. And your comment: Where does it say or even imply... misses the mark. "It" (the policy) does not say or imply anything. I just gave examples of the relative strength of ties to demonstrate that not all national ties are automatically "strong". Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It was not I who first used comparisons. It was yourself and others who compared Einstein's US citizenship to his German nationality. I'm just saying that it is his citizenship (his tie, and citizenship implies a strong tie) to the English speaking country of the United States that is used for date formats on Wikipedia. No other citizenship matters unless it is citizenship to an English speaking country.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggest some of you simply bite the bullet on this. Einstein was almost accepted by Oxford and UK pols debated fiercely about that and whether to give him citizenship. After he waited two weeks in a secluded location, protected by armed guards from some who didn't like refugees, the decision was "no" to Oxford and "no" to citizenship. So he then went to the U.S. instead, where he was met with parades, open arms and multiple offers. So it makes sense to use American date formatting, and even he might have approved ;) --Light show (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Speculation, and of course entirely irrevevant, since UK citizenship would not have resulted in a period longer than these mere 15 unproductive and unnotable last years. - DVdm (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Not speculation. Need more support? --Light show (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

What part of the guideline mentions the length or merit if the national tie? What part of the guideline allows for comparisons to non English speaking countries? Downplaying his citizenship is getting you nowhere. All it says is Strong Tie to a particular English speaking country. There is no calculations involved to determine the weight of the national tie. All that matters is that he has a tie, his citizenship, to the United States.JOJ ^Hutton 21:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Downplaying his citizenship is getting you nowhere. False, noone is downplaying his US citizeship. Except US citizeship is not equal to "strong national ties". There is no calculations involved to determine the weight of the national tie. All that matters is that he has a tie, his citizenship, to the United States. False. According to policy, there is an estimation involved to determine how "strong" the national tie is. Otherwise the policy would just say simply: "a national tie". There is absolutely no indication, and no consensus for that matter, that the US citizenship amounts to a "strong national tie". Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

If national citizenship does not equal a national tie, then please tell us what you consider enough to determine that tie. You must have a definition in mind if you say that citizenship doesn't establish a strong national tie. JOJ ^Hutton<

If national citizenship does not equal a national tie... This is the wrong premise. I never said that. In fact I said that Einstein has an "undeniable" tie to the US. Just not a "strong" one. The keyword here is "strong". It has been all along. Just getting the citizenship of a country does not amount to "strong" national ties. There are many more parameters which define the strength and quality of the national ties of an individual with a particular nation. A mere citizenship-granting bureaucratic act does not confer "strong" national ties to an emigrant. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

If citizenship isn't a strong tie, I don't know what is. You seem to be misinterpreting the guideline simply because its worded poorly. That is not the spirit of the guideline. The spirit is that, when it comes to people, US citizen articles use MDY, British and Common Wealth articles use DMY. Those are the English speaking countries and those national ties take precedent over non English speaking national ties, at all times. The only time that we should ever have an issue is when their is strong ties to two separate English speaking countries. Its common, but the guidelines cover this too.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Please stop pulling your guideline about date formats. There is a policy about consensus. There is no consensus for your change. Period. Consider this a formal warning for tak page disruption. - DVdm (talk) 06:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

And per consensus: Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. Simply put, the guidelines and arguments in favor of STRONGNAT are a much more quality arguments than the non guideline opinions given by some here. Consensus is not a vote so its no I who is being disruptive. But if you feel that I am doing something wrong then please feel free to make a report at an appropriate message board. Of course doing so usually brings in several more people into the debate. Do you think that your non guideline based opinions are strong enough to survive that? That said, what exactly is the criteria for making a US citizen's article have a strong enough tie to an English speaking country in order to use the MDY date format? What is the cut off? If its not 15 years, then how many, in your opinion?--JOJ ^Hutton 12:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Many of the other names mentioned in the article also use the m-d-y format: John von Neumann, Kurt Gödel, Leó Szilárd, Edward Teller, Eugene Wigner, and even Einstein's 1st wife, Mileva Marić. --Light show (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: "Other stuff sometimes exist according to consensus or Policies and guidelines, sometimes in violation of them." - DVdm (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yet, FWIW, the same OSE guideline also states, the overarching concept remains, that of precedent and consistency throughout the Wikipedia project. --Light show (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

And is this case there is no consensus for going to MDY. - DVdm (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

And consensus isn't based on a vote, but its based on the strength of the guideline arguments, not on someone's opinions. And be careful Light Show, you're bound to get warned and then BOLDLY WARNED for being disruptive. Some people don't know when to drop the stick.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Not only there is no consensus to change to MDY in Einstein's case but Einstein's circumstances are very different from those of the other MDY examples. There is no reason to lump Einstein's article together with those of the other examples. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

No reason? Why is that you think? What is your opinion on that?--JOJ ^Hutton 19:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where you are driving at. My reasons have been clearly explained in a multitude of comments on this thread. I am not going to repeat them. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You made the comment There is no reason to lump Einstein's article together with those of the other examples. I was just wondering why you think this. If other US articles about US citizens use MDY, why shouldn't this one? What is the exact "policy and guideline" based reasoning? Or do you have a reason at all and you just don't like it?--JOJ ^Hutton 19:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

LOL, resorting to slogans like WP:IDLI is a sign that this discussion has deteriorated to an unsalvageable level. But I will try one last time to make this clear for you. I repeat: My reasons for not including Einstein's article in the MDY format are explained in detail in this thread. If, after all my explanations, you understood from all that that WP:IDLI applies to my arguments, then you should seriously consider whether WP:IDHT applies to you. Also the articles of other US citizens are not my concern. Their circumstances are different from those of Einstein's and I am not here to debate them. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

LOL? What is this Twitter? Its fairly clear that you don't like it, its also clear that you seem to be stalling. You won't say, or even say again, why you think that an article about a US citizen should not us MDY as other articles about US citizens do. Also you don't have any policy or guideline reasoning behind your opinions. You are right about one thing, the discussion has deteriorated. Unfortunately the "no policy based opinions" of three individuals do not override the long standing guidelines that have been used fairly and equally for years. Perhaps its time for formal mediation. Some unbiased and policy driven perspective might just be what this article needs right now.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

LOL, obviously, you are past the state of useful discussion and have advanced to silly personal attacks and other sillier comments about Twitter etc. It is obvious that I'm just wasting my time talking to you, especially after such an onslaught of PAs. I'm just going to remind you what DVdm has already told you: You have no consensus for this change. Other than that, you are free to pursue any avenue you may deem fit to resolve this dispute. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually there is consensus to change. Its based on the guidelines not on a vote, but if we need to count it up for you, its 3-3 according to what you would consider a vote. Not sure where you are going to go with that logic. And if you see personal attacks in my posts, I apologize. I'l try to word my phrases batter.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You seem to totally misunderstand what consensus means on Wikipedia. When you want to make a change to an article, and you clearly fail to get consensus for it on the talk page, the change does not happen. See wp:NOCONSENSUS: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." - DVdm (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

No I know what consensus is. If it was a vote, which it's not, there wouldn't be a consensus for MDY. But consensus is not a vote, it's based on the strength of the guidelines based arguments. You failed to provide a guideline that would trump STRONGNAT. And I asked a question earlier about how strong a tie the subject needs in order for STRONGNAT to apply. In other words, you and two others feel that STRONGNAT does not apply to this article because Einstein was only a US citizen for 15 years and that, in your opinion, does not establish a strong enough tie. So how many years as a US citizen would be strong enough for STRONGNAT to apply? If not 15, then how many? In your opinion.JOJ ^Hutton 21:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

As many years as it takes to get consensus. - DVdm (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

That's lovely. That actually made me laugh. In the good way, not in the "OMG I can't believe he said that" way. Anywho, what's important to realize is that his US citizenship is all that is required to establish a strong national tie. Even if it was one year. It's a strong tie. I'll see about getting some more opinions on a notice board very soon. Most likely the dispute resolution notice board. JOJ ^Hutton 22:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Glad to see that you find the most basic policy of Wikipedia lovely and funny. - DVdm (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay. :| I'm not sure where that tone came from all of a sudden. Consensus is important, but it's also not a vote. But you can count it up and find that 6 people have commented on this thread and 3 prefer DMY, and 3 are in favor of MDY. Where is the consensus for DMY?JOJ ^Hutton 00:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• Per WP, The overarching concept remains, that of precedent and consistency throughout the Wikipedia project. Can editors simply override an "overarching concept" by consensus? Einstein had a number of contemporaries, also immigrants who became U.S. citizens, all mentioned in the article, and all use the same American format. Certainly such precedence and consistency in formatting has some value. --Light show (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jojhutton: You are not sure where that tone came from all of a sudden? That should be simple. Consensus on this particular article talk page de-facto determines how many years as a US citizen would be strong enough for STRONGNAT to apply in this particular article. Rather than being glad that you find our core policy of consensus funny, we should perhaps be worried.
And, yes consensus is indeed not a vote, but you are the one who is doing the counting. And oh yes, while at it, you seem to forget to "count" the two reverts by user Wolbo (talk · contribs):

• "Rvt dateformat change, format was stable for many years and stongnat does not apply."
• "No encyclopedic justification for changing dateformat that was stable for 5 years. Furthermore he was citizen of many countries which all use MDY except US so no strongnat."

I don't know whether user Wolbo has seen this discussion, and perhaps he has chosen to refrain from commenting here, but if you insist on counting, you might consider taking the edit summary arguments at least into account. - DVdm (talk) 07:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

"the article should use the date format to the English speaking country that the subject has the strongest ties to" I think you're misinterpreting WP:STRONGNAT, which says "strong", not "strongest". The idea is to use language appropriate to the topic, not to prescribe English varieties based on more or less accidental associations. If one followed your line of reasoning, Thomas Gottschalk would have to use MDY dates because he has been living in California for more than 20 years. Paradoctor (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• DRN comment I think the spirit of wp:strongnat is ties to notability, not personal ties (and perhaps this should be clarified in MOS). The encyclopedic topic "Einstein" has strong ties to physics, not the US. ^walk victor falk ^talk 13:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

  Actually the point of STRONGNAT is to which English speaking country does the subject have a strong tie to, not which field of science or even which non-English speaking country the subject also has a strong tie to. Since this is the English wikipedia, the subject article should use the date format of the English speaking country the subject has a strong tie to. Since he was a US citizen, that denotes strong ties to the United States over non-English speaking countries.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

If I interpret Victor correctly, he said that "Einstein" does not have a strong connection to the US. How does citizenship imply strong ties? What does WP:TIES mean by "strong"? Paradoctor (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. The mere bureaucratic act of granting citizenship to an individual does not automatically confer "strong national ties" to that person. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• @Victor falk: I agree with your interpretation of the guideline regarding "national ties". If someone has "strong national ties" to any country, the first thing people do is associate him with that country. This is how the concept of "strong national ties" manifests itself in the minds of people. I don't think people view Einstein as an "American", unlike, say, John Wayne or Thomas Jefferson. The reason is that Einstein's national ties to the US are not strong. If "any national ties" or "citizenship-based national ties" were ok, the guideline would just say so. But it doesn't. It says "strong". The guideline also doesn't say "stronger", so no comparison is implied with another English-speaking nation. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Note - User Jjohutton has opened a DRN thread at "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Albert Einstein". Feel free to comment. - DVdm (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm waiting for a volunteer to open the discussion. Paradoctor (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: this is a strange debate. Please note that WP:STRONGNAT says: "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation." (my emphasis) It does not introduce any concept of "DMY-space" vs. "MDY-space". One side of this debate is saying that Einstein has strong national ties, therefore the article should use MDY. The other side is saying that he doesn't, on which view he has no strong ties to any English-speaking country, therefore WP:DATERET applies. Here is the first version of the article, and it plainly uses MDY. Hence MDY is correct in either case. @DVdm: it is almost* true, as you said, that "wp:Consensus trumps everything", but please remember WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. A consensus made on this page cannot overrule policies and guidelines, as those have the status of community-wide consensus.

(*)"almost true", because consensus made by Wikipedians doesn't trump foundation policies, though that isn't an issue here.

--Stfg (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that, as you suggest, MDY is correct because the first version was MDY. Since the article has been DMY for a very long time, I think it should, per WP:DATERET, remain DMY, as it was during the past years. WP:DATERET does not prescribe or even suggest to go back to the very first format. Perhaps a mistake was made there in the beginning, and at some point it was, per de-facto consensus rectified to the proper DMY. And yesyesyes, consensus can change. That's what Jjohutton is trying to force, and what we are discussing here.
The "DMY-space" expression was just a shortcut for "English-speaking country".
And of course WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot overrule policies and guidelines. This is—of course—entirely about local consensus. - DVdm (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

(Note - typo here: that should have been: "The "MDY-space" expression was just a shortcut for "English-speaking country"." - DVdm (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC))

WP:RETAIN points in the same direction: "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary. " The first-contributor rule is to be applied when all else fails. I haven't scrutinized the artcile's edit history, but from what has been said, it seems clear that DMY has been used for years now. According to WP:DATERET, you'll need to show strong ties or get consensus. So far, neither seems forthcoming. Paradoctor (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Since this is an English-language article, not a German one, isn't the key question whether a British or American date format should be used? He only visited England for a few weeks, but made the U.S. his long-term home, so why is there a debate at all? Is there some other basis for giving his article a British standard? --Light show (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is not about giving it a "British standard", it is about switching to a "US standard". Paradoctor (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:DATERET does suggest that: it's what the second bullet implies. You surely aren't saying that the editor who created that first version of this article wasn't a major contributor to it? "DMY-space" can't equate to "English-speaking country" unless you're excluding the US. And if you meant "English-speaking country", why did you say "60 years in DMY-space"? On what grounds do you say "the proper DMY"? I see a couple of arguments here that MDY might be the proper one, but none saying that DMY may be "proper", only that it's the hole we somehow fell into a long time ago. The change was actually made in this edit on 31 August 2008, almost half the life of the article, so I understand the claim that by now the current state has become the new de facto consensus ... understand it, but am agnostic about it. Well, I suppose, after all, that it could be forced to become a decision on whether his US 15 years of US citizenship amount to a "strong" national tie. Sounds to me like a semantic quibble, though, and I must say that I find the statement "The only thing he did [in MDY-space] was dying, so to speak" to be quite appalling. --Stfg (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I find your removal of essential context in my statement a bit disturbing. I wrote "... constitute the essence—and the bulk—of Einstein's notability, and none of that happened under citizenship in MDY-space. The only thing he did there was dying, so to speak, and that's hardly notable." (emphasis added)

Similarly, when I said "60 years in DMY-space", I meant "60 years in English-speaking country", not just "English-speaking country" as you asked. I already said that I used it as a shortcut. - DVdm (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Although some others found it notable. --Light show (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the article was written because he died, not because he died in the USA. Paradoctor (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Whether the topic of an article has strong national ties is quite separate from what constitutes his notability. And the opinion that his dying there is "hardly notable" doesn't change the fact that you said that dying was the only thing he did there, "so to speak". As to the other, the whole of that particular post was "A mere 15 years in MDY-space, versus 60 years in DMY-space is what I would call a pretty darn weak case." The 15 years in MDY-space I can see. So, what is the English-speaking country that constitutes the "DMY-space" in which he spent 60 years? --Stfg (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

To find out "what is the English-speaking country that constitutes the "DMY-space" in which he spent 60 years", see our article Albert Einstein . - DVdm (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Please clarify, as the infobox states: Residence: Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, United States. --Light show (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, you'll have to sort that out with Stfg, who was the one who asked about "the English-speaking country that constitutes the "DMY-space"". When someone asks silly questions, I tend to give silly answers. - DVdm (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You said, "A mere 15 years in MDY-space, versus 60 years in DMY-space is what I would call a pretty darn weak case." And later you said, 'The "DMY-space" expression was just a shortcut for "English-speaking country".' Please clarify what two English speaking countries or sets of countries you are contrasting with that versus. --Stfg (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

A typo. That should have been "The "MDY-space" expression was just a shortcut for "English-speaking country"". Hadn't you figured that out? Sorry for having caused such a panic - DVdm (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Just wondering when you'd figure out your mistake . I'll leave you to your DRN discussion now. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• reply to @Dr.K.: As to the national ties of A. Einstein, he didn't have them with any country; he is a "rootless cosmopolitan", in the most positive sense possible of the term. But again, his principal claim to notability is not that he was an ur-example of an international world citizen, but his achievements as a physicist. Those are not especially tied to a particular country (if anything that would be Switzerland and Germany). ^walk victor falk ^talk 22:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support the proposal to change the date format to Month Day, Year. (This has gone on at such ridiculous length, I had to dig to find out what the actual proposal is here, so that I could say "support" or "oppose".) I hadn't chimed in on this discussion previously because it seemed like such a trivial, angels-dancing -on-the-heads-of-pins discussion. I thought it would be obvious to everyone that MDY is the format that should be used, based on the clear and commendably good-humored arguments below about his "strongest ties to an English speaking country". But since it appears that some people want to invent other rationales, such as where he was when he did his most notable work, or what (non-English-speaking) country he was born in, or the claim that he was a "rootless cosmopolitan", I figured I had better chime in here on the side that is obviously correct per MOS. --MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

  I also thought that this would be obvious to everyone too. It seems that a few people feel the need to reinterpret and sometimes even reword the MOS in order to come to the wrong conclusion. I'm confident that in the end this will be corrected to the correct MDY date format.JOJ ^Hutton 00:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-whimsy proposal

As he is such an iconic international scientist, it would be fitting to have an as international and scientific date format as possible, and use yyyymmdd.

Albert Einstein (/ˈælbərt ˈaɪnstaɪn/; German: [ˈalbɐt ˈaɪnʃtaɪn] ^ⓘ; 18790314 – 19550418) was a German-born theoretical physicist. He developed the general theory of relativity, one of the two pillars of modern physics (alongside quantum mechanics). He is best known for his mass–energy equivalence formula E = mc² (which has been dubbed "the world's most famous equation"). He received the [...]

It would have great educational value to the reader as a reminder of how important his theories are for the understanding of time and our perception of it. (a pop-up footnote explaining the choice of format and the absence of Universal Time could serve as a didactic way of introducing the subject) ^walk victor falk ^talk 01:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we could try to invoke WP:IAR here. But we'd need consensus to do that. As far as "international" goes, that would seem to be DMY: Date format by country. For the full "international and scientific", there seems to be exactly one choice: ISO 8601

IMO, the best solution would be to mark-up all dates, and let the audience decide for itself. Accounts can do that, but only for the skin, not for the content. Probably too bold for some, though. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 10:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

In terms of date formats, only MDY and DMY are acceptable in the body of articles. Opening it up to a third based on WP:IAR wouldn't really be prudent because IAR is about making changes to an article that improves the article, but would otherwise beagianst a particular guideline. I don't see how using a scientific date format would improve the article, other than making it a fitting compromise. But I don't think that IAR is used for compromises.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

IAR is expressly about not conforming to guidelines, it wouldn't make any sense if "a particular guideline" could block it. If a compromise could end an interminable discussion, that would clearly be an improvement. I don't think that the discussion will go on long enough to justify IAR, though. Let's see how dispute resolution goes, shall we?

BTW, what do you think about letting user preferences determine date rendering? Paradoctor (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

There actually is an ISO date format standard, designed for maximal convenience in collation. Rounded to days, one would write 1879-03-14 – 1955-04-18 (the en-dash is not part of the format). — DAGwyn (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Simple Question

Does Albert Einstein have a strong tie to a particular English-speaking country? Yes or no, and then explain please.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, Australia. Young Einstein is an Australian film based loosely on the life of Einstein, which relocated Einstein to Australia, where he split the atom with a chisel and invented rock and roll and surfing. Seems like a pretty strong tie. --Light show (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Well I guess that settles it then. It's obviously Australia according to that film. Go figure. Notice that the film also has Charles Darwin still living in 1905, despite the fact that he died in 1882. We should change the Darwin article too. JOJ ^Hutton 16:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Not so fast, mate! Germany has thrice as many English speakers as the Aussies do. And our Einstein film is not by some Yahoo. Paradoctor (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Or this one, I guess. --Light show (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I think I liked Walter Matthau's Einstein better. Paradoctor (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

As it is the definition of "strong tie" that is under discussion, this question looks a teensy bit facetious. Paradoctor (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually my question was serious. Does he have a strong tie to a particular English speaking country?--JOJ ^Hutton 22:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, non-native speaker, my bad. I believe "disingenuous" is the word I was looking for. It's somewhat like asking "Did you stop beating your wife, yes or no?". Paradoctor (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Since the question mirrors the exact wording of the MOS, I am being very sincere and its a very pertinent question for the topic. --JOJ ^Hutton 22:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you really need to see the diffs that prove it has been pointed out to you that your interpretation of the wording is at issue, not the wording as such? Paradoctor (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Well if you don't want to answer the question I can understand. If you already answered this previously then just provide the diff of your answer. And it's not about interpretation, it's about the wording. It says "Strong National ties to a particular English speaking country." So anyone who disagrees must obviously feel that Einstein does not have a strong national tie to the US. JOJ ^Hutton 01:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

As you prefer simple stuff: What are the criteria that determine whether a national tie is "strong"? Please quote from Wikipedia policy and guidelines. 01:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradoctor (talk • contribs)

The criteria is STRONG NATIONAL TIE. And the question is "does he have a strong national tie to the US?" Yes or no. I think that you are ducking the question.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• This really isn't that "simple" a question. After extensive research, I discovered that he spent time in only two English-speaking countries, England and America. Next, I used some sophisticated advanced math program to calculate whether the 8 weeks spent in England (approx) was more or less than the 22 years in America. It's a close call, but I think his American ties are slightly stronger. --Light show (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

  Yep, I came to the same conclusion, but I think I spent a bit less time on the research and I didn't have a math algorithm. 22 years living in the United States with 15 of that as an actual US citizen denotes a strong national tie to the United States, which is all the MOS says is needed. A strong National Tie. It doesn't imply that the National tie has to be stronger than a national tie to a non English speaking country. Pretty clear to me how this should end.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

22 years vs. 8 weeks -- it's all relative. 22 years during which he held a visiting professorship at Caltech, held a position at the Institute for Advanced Study, applied for (i.e. made an active choice) and was granted US citizenship, co-signed a very significant letter to the President during WWII, served as a consultant to the US Navy during WWII, campaigned for the civil rights of African Americans, and continued to work until the day before his death. As for his ties to "DMY-space", he relinquished his passport, his books were burned, and even as he regretted the letter to the President he said, "... but there was some justification—the danger that the Germans would make them ...". Yes, I would say he had cut his ties with "DMY-space" and actively built ties with the United States. Much as I prefer DMY myself, because it doesn't invite people to mispunctuate it, in this case it's pretty clear also to me how this should end. --Stfg (talk) 10:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that this should end as no consensus for change, so we stay with DMY. - DVdm (talk) 10:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@DVdm: you can contribute to the formation or non-formation of a consensus, but you don't get to issue a ruling. If the DRN discussion fails to reach a consensus, an RFC is always an option. --Stfg (talk) 10:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

What we do have here in this subsection, is just 3 people chatting among themselves and repeating what they have said many dozens of times before, trying (but failing) to change the long standing consensus that was responsible for the current date format. While these 3 keep repeating their arguments, the others got tired of doing that, as the burden of convincing is of course upon the former. The relative silence of the latter is of course not to be taken as a sign of approval of the change. There is no such approval, and consensus has not changed - as can be seen at the DRN, and then you are free to make an RFC. - DVdm (talk) 10:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

If all you are saying is that we don't make the change unless and until there is a consensus to do so, then I agree with that. --Stfg (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course that's all I am saying. Actually, it's pretty much all the wp:CONSENSUS policy is saying. - DVdm (talk) 11:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

You left out the part about consensus not being a vote, but based on the strength of the policy and guideline arguments. Since STRONGNAT is very clear, the argument against MDY is very weak. But I'll ask again, Does Einstein have a strong national tie to a particular English speaking country? Yes or no and please explain. JOJ ^Hutton 12:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

You left out the part where you were exposed as the one who started counting votes. - DVdm (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

My response above was only in response to other comments about what constitutes consensus and the so called " declaration" of no consensus. Also I ask you to comment on the content and not the editor in general because your personal attack comment makes me seriously consider opening up a thread at ANI. Personal attacks or even slight comments about another editor are uncalled for right now. I simply ask that you give your opinion on whether or not you think that Einstein has a strong national tie to a particular English speaking country. Yes or no and then explain. JOJ ^Hutton 12:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI is this way. Watch out for wp:BOOMERANG and getting warned or sanctioned for talk page disruption through wp:NOTGETTINGIT. - DVdm (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jojhutton: Procedurally speaking, he's right. Nobody in this whole major section is in a position to declare that a consensus has been reached in either direction, and this discussion is merely going round and round. Let's see what the DRN discussion can come up with. After that, if we need to ask the wider community with an RFC, we can, and an admin can close it, assessing the arguments "through the lens of Wikipedia policy". No need to rush things. --Stfg (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Procedurally I wasn't aware that there was a right or wrong way to "declare" consensus. But I haven't edited the article to reflect what I consider the overall consensus in favor of MDY. That should infer my good faith attempt at clean and honest discussion.

@DVdm, since this is a content dispute among several editors of about equal number, I doubt very seriously that I will personally get warned for disruption sanctioned for talk page disruption. But personal attacks, like the one you made previously, do come with warnings. So I ask you one last time to stay on topic. And please give your opinion on my previous inquiry. JOJ ^Hutton 13:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

See User talk:DVdm#English Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that answers the current topic question. All you did was link to your talk page. Was your answer there? I didn't notice it? Yes or no, Does Einstein have a strong national tie to a particular English speaking country?--JOJ ^Hutton 14:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

No. You asked for simple so that's what you get.TMCk (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

So no then. Could you please explain why you think no?--JOJ ^Hutton 14:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Let me say it this way: Strong ties he would have with Germany even so mostly on the negative side. To the US there were certainly ties just like to other countries, I.E. Switzerland. And yes, those outside the US were less strong one can argue but neither-the-less there is quite a difference between stronger ties and strong ties ---> wp:STRONGNAT's using the latter wording for a reason.TMCk (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

So you believe that there are ties to an English speaking country, but not strong ties? Did you come to this conclusion based on stronger ties to Germany? Which is not an English speaking country. How is it that a US citizen is not considered to have a strong tie to the United States? In your opinion of course.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)}

Citizenship is a legal tie and doesn't automatically make strong national ties. What about dual citizenship? Or think about Cuban immigrants who usually have stronger national ties to their Cuban heritage as compared to their inherited or applied for American citizenship. An opposite example would be Schwarzenegger who does indeed have strong American ties since going into politics and being elected governor.TMCk (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Did Einstein actually have any national ties to the U.K.? Wasn't he just a visiting lecturer or temporary refugee during his brief stays? Focusing on relative and subjective terms like "strong" and "stronger" is therefore going way off topic, when he only had English-language ties to America. It's sort of like asking who "won" a political vote when there was only one name on the ballot. --Light show (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, one could even win with only one single vote. Doesn't give the candidate a strong support thou... :)) TMCk (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

So US citizenship, in your opinion, is not a strong national tie? Why not? If its because you think that he was also a citizen of non English speaking countries, well can you please point out the part of STRONGNAT that allows for non English Speaking countries to determine the date format over the date format of English speaking countries? It just says Strong National tie to a particular English speaking country. Either US citizenship is a strong tie or it is not, I'm just trying to figure out why people think that a US citizen does not have a strong national tie to the United States.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I've already answered your question and repeating it doesn't change my answer. If you wish to discuss in circles you'll have to find someone else.TMCk (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

What I wish is that I had thought of saying this. I applaud you, sir. Paradoctor (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Well its obvious that the two of you both think that national citizenship to an English speaking country does not equal a strong national tie to that country. But actually it does equal a strong national tie. Its black or white, yes or no. Its not whether or not his citizenship was stronger in another non English speaking country, all that matters is that he has a strong tie to an English speaking country, which is the exact wording of the MOS. I don't need to change any words in the MOS to come to that conclusion. Its also obvious that you can't come to your conclusion with rewriting STRONGNAT to fit your opinion. As US citizenship BY ITSELF constitutes a strong national tie to the United States, there is nothing in STRONGNAT that says that the ties has to be stronger than a national tie to a non English speaking country. So it matters very little how long he lived in "DMY space", as if that mattered on the English Wikipedia at all. Nor does it matter if it is "Not Strong Enough." All the MOS says is "STRONG TIE." So either Citizenship does or does not constitute a strong national tie. If you both still think it doesn't constitute a Strong National Tie, then I haven't really read the MOS explanation as to why. All I read is how he was a German citizen and how his ties were "less strong" and some other very odd wikilawyering rhetoric. Thats not what STRONGNAT says so just stick to the wording of the MOS and stop stalling.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Saying, above, that he had "strong" ties to Germany and ties to Switzerland, isn't relevant as they're not English-speaking countries. Nor is your example of Cuba. And Einstein wasn't a "dual citizen," having "renounced" his other citizenship, so that example is not helpful.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, a clear example you gave for someone with strong ties, moved to the U.S. when he was 21. You also wrote, Citizenship is a legal tie and doesn't automatically make strong national ties. If true, that might be a good reason to open another STRONGNAT discussion for Charlie Chaplin, who, BTW, also moved to the U.S. when he was 21. --Light show (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Only the strong tie to an English speaking country is what is considered. As for Chaplin, he was never a citizen so I suppose the line has to be drawn somewhere. I'm willing to make that concession.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Not to digress again, but citizenship for Chaplin was less important overall. Not only is he "one of the most important figures in the history of the film industry," according to everyone's favorite encyclopedia, but he helped establish the industry. His national ties to the U.S. were probably among the strongest in the 20th century. And coincidentally, they became friends. --Light show (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem with that logic and if a discussion was to be presented at that article I would probably agree with your reasoning and explanation. You made a very good argument for MDY on that article and made a valid point that I hadn't thought of before.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Worth to read

• Look what I found: WP:STRONGNATSUCKS. Wonderful essay that fits this discussion :) TMCk (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

  Well that is a very interesting opinion essay from what is most likely a diatribe from a user who is currently indefinitely blocked for disruption. I don't think it helped your cause.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Cause? What cause? + if you don't think it's somehow funny it's your loss :) Cheers, TMCk (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

  Its not funny, its a one sided rant from an obvious bitter person, in favor of using DMY for all articles on Wikipedia. The now banned editor uses fuzzy logic and unsubstantiated claims in order to push an obvious incorrect agenda. In fact, there is pretty clear evidence that the entire essay should be deleted based on the fact that the account was a sock puppet.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree on all points. It was a totally biased essay ("Americans are monolithic in their choice of styles or formats") with a clear agenda. But his suggestion that we first ask ourselves, "Is the world going to fall apart if an article . . . uses DMY?" is worth pondering, however, since no one wants to get blamed for something like that. --Light show (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Issues worth resolving again

Off-topic guideline chat
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It seems that STRONGNAT has not considered biographies for its explanation and examples, so questions should again be answered to gain some consensus. Are the person's ties to non-English countries relevant for STRONGNAT? No, as the MOS is referring to the English WP and the English-language styles. --Light show (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC) Does STRONGNAT really mean "stronger ties," when a person had strong ties to more than one English-language country? Yes: Since it's obvious that a person can have "strong" ties to more than one country. --Light show (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)o Should citizenship be a major or minor factor for STRONGNAT? Minor. --Light show (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC) Should their career notability and place where they became most notable be a major or minor factor for STRONGNAT? Major, but only when English-speaking countries are involved or compared. --Light show (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

This is very off-topic here—see our wp:Talk page guidelines. Here we discuss the content and format of the Albert Einstein article. Surely this kind of guideline discussion is welcome at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. - DVdm (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done - I moved the questions there, and hopefully they'll help here. --Light show (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting comment applicable to this discussion: "WP:RETAIN says that once a variety has been chosen then we should stick to it unless there is consensus to change. STRONGNAT would have to overwhelming (ie not a 50/50 case) to override RETAIN." So far I still don't see an overwhelming consensus to change. - DVdm (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Also applicable to this discussion: "Ties to non-English speaking countries are therefore irrelevant." So much for Germany and Switzerland. So much for "DMY space." MelanieN (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Arguably meaning that wp:STRONGNAT is irrelevant in this discussion, apart from the question whether the last 15 years establish a sufficiently strong tie—which, per lack of consensus, they clearly don't. Going round in circles revisited again once more. - DVdm (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Per DATERET, If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on article talk (emphasis added). As yet, no one is suggesting he had strong, or any, national ties to any English country besides the U.S. (8 weeks in the U.K. vs. 22 years, plus citizenship, in America.) Therefore, STRONGNAT is not irrelevant. In any case, per Consensus, The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. Where is the "argument?" --Light show (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Since Consensus is based on the strength of the argument and not on a straight up and down vote, which Dvdm keeps implying, then there is no reason to continue this charade. Its obvious from the guidelines presented that the article should use MDY because he had Strong Ties to the United States. That is an inexplicable fact.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It is clear that there is no consensus that The Tie Is Sufficiently Strong To Make The Change. Circles, circles, circles... - DVdm (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

No it's not clear. Especially since consensus is not based on a vote but is based on the guidelines. You may still choose to not follow the guideline, but the guideline says it all. In fact there is already a discussion to fix this issue with the wording of the guideline. So that it is more clear that English speaking national citizenship denotes a strong national tie over non English speaking countries. JOJ ^Hutton 19:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Clear as this - DVdm (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Then it's up to you to come up with a better reason without literally changing the wording of the guideline in order to fit your opinion. It says Strong National Tie. He was a citizen. That's a strong national tie. It doesn't matter if it's your opinion that it wasn't a strong enough national tie. All that matters is that there is a strong national tie. JOJ ^Hutton 19:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Apparently not strong enough to get consensus to change it, as I think it was said before a few dozens of times in a few dozens of places. Boring, this is... - DVdm (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

And are you under the false impression that Consensus is based on a vote? Because it's not. And you keep repeating no consensus, but I don't think you know what consensus is and it's you you seems to not hear it. if you don't want to keep going around in circles then basically you need to cone up with a better argument.JOJ ^Hutton 21:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, remember that you are the one who was exposed as the one who started counting votes. - DVdm (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes or no. Let's get this on record. Do you or do you not think that consensus is based on a vote? Just pick an answer. And as I explained before when I said that it was in response to someone claiming consensus. JOJ ^Hutton 21:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

By now you should know that you'll get nowhere with your "black-and-white" questions. They just keep the discussion going and wasting time.TMCk (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You mean that you can't answer a yes or no question about personal opinion? There's no reason not to answer the question and give your opinion. JOJ ^Hutton 23:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You're asking a question about policy that is already answered at the according page. So no, I won't give you my "opinion" on it since this talkpage is the wrong venue for such. In case you want to have a real personal opinion of mine: Since I do not think that there is a "strong national tie" based simply on citizenship he held at some point in his life the article could go either way in use of dates and I would prefer MDY since I'm used to it. But this personal opinion of mine is of no consequence in regards to the article which started with MDY but somewhere down the Wiki-road changed to DMY and stayed that way w/o challenge for years. So now the simple and honest question is what to do if anything. I'd say just leave it as is and stop making a big fuss about it. I can go either way but a change now would be just a personal POV change which to me begs some questions as to why it seems to some sooooooo important to make a change and wasting sooooo much time over it. So here you go... you got my real personal opinion about this silly non-real-important-issue. Happy now?TMCk (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
BTW, from your history as far as I remember I'd expect a higher standard from you. Would be nice if you'd find your way back to it.TMCk (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, there's already a more relevant consensus on the DRN and suggest we focus on resolving it there. Since we're excluding the relevance of non-English countries, his citizenship is but icing on the cake and not the only factor (ie. Chaplin). In any case, I think we should get this issue resolved so we can move on to dating Hedy Lamarr, (she moved to US when she was 24, lived to 85), and especially because she was a h*l of a lot better looking than Einstein, who no doubt would have also wanted to date her if he had the chance. --Light show (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Women might disagree with you there... :P TMCk (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of not blowing this out if proportion, I'll ignore the personal attack about the quality of my editing. And since you pointed to the policy on consensus, I will assume that you know that consensus is not a vote, although I'm not sure that everyone on this thread is aware of that. That's why I asked. And since consensus is not a vote then how can someone claim that there is no consensus? Just making a point. JOJ ^Hutton 00:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

What you're calling a "personal attack" was nothing more than a compliment on your past that seems to have vanished in this discussion.
And you don't have to ask if consensus is a vote. You can just point out that it isn't and pointing to the relevant page. making it a question is more like trying to make a point.
So what about my personal view? Did you like it? :) TMCk (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and if you think there is a consensus please point it out. I don't see one either way.TMCk (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• DRN: A link to the discussion would be a nice courtesy.TMCk (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

BTW, unlike someone here is suggesting, the discussion over there is irrelevant at least as long as there is no arbitrator taking on the case.TMCk (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, User:Bejnar, as neutral party, would try to resolve it unless any editors said they wouldn't accept the decision. --Light show (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. The DRN was shut down for good reasons. Joj of course reopened it and now Bejnar is taking it on. Good for you? Strike since actually you seem to be open minded thus it wouldn't be fair to make that statement/question in regards to you. Anyway, the DRN is flawed as the closing editor pointed out + not all involved parties where made aware of it. I myself refuse to sign (now) up over there since I wasn't deemed an important party to the case, having to find out about it just yesterday by coincidence. Thus I'm (like some others) not obligated to adhere to any possible outcome. The only consensus I accept is one reached here on this talkpage. Cheers, TMCk (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The DRN was begun far before you came into the discussion. Those who joined the discussion after the DRN was started decided to add themselves. Nobody was trying to hide the DRN from you. In fact it was linked here for anyone to see. DRN is only voluntary and it's not binding. If you choose not abide by the DRN that is your decision, but DRN is one of the agreed upon boards for dispute resolution. JOJ ^Hutton 20:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

DRN was started way too early and the editor who shut it down was clearly in his and WP-standards right. I found out about the DRN filing yesterday when user:Light show mentioned it in this subthread. I sure looked then if I had missed mention and a link and found some other editor than the filing one (so not you) mentioned it:
"Note - User Jjohutton has opened a DRN thread at "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Albert Einstein". Feel free to comment. - DVdm (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)"
So you didn't let us know about your filing and according to the filing page you didn't inform all involved parties either. Should I go on?
I'm really disappointed about the way you handled your rejected edit including the initial edit warring over it.TMCk (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I just took a look at the DRN page and see that it was closed again. So consensus for change which is so far not in reach has to be established here for the time being. If you can achieve such I sure won't be in the way for a change in date format.TMCk (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

That's the third personal attack. So I guess we know where this is headed. Furthermore, I opened the thread at DRN Before you joined the discussion. It's not my job to notify every person who joins the discussion afterward. In the initial filing, those involved were given an automatic notice from a Bot. Some editors who joined afterward decided to add themselves to the DRN. Your very personal attack on my character is noted and will be discussed further. JOJ ^Hutton 22:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Whatever you perceive as a personal attack, feel free to bring it up at ANI. Since by your count I made 3 of the kind I sure get some abolishment at ANI if you're right. But by WP and my standards I'm sure I didn't do such at all what makes me think you're just trying to undermine my arguments instead of engaging. Since you by now only showed bad faith towards me I can only take your past and future comments as simple and plain bad faith from your side (as long as I disagree with you) unless you detract any bad faith posting of yours or get strong support for your view at the appropriate noticeboard. Best to you and hopefully you'll find your way back to good faith editing.TMCk (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
BTW, what is actually the perceived "personal attack" in my post?"TMCk (talk)

Consensus from above and the DRN

By my count, there were five fairly clear statements above to change back to MDY: Light show, Stgf, JOJ, Melanie, and OhConfucious. I counted only two clear statements to keep DMY: DVdm and Dr. K. The comments by Paradoctor, TMCk, John, and Victor Falk, seemed to be non-committal. Those who chose to take part in the now closed DRN, were four wanting MDY and two DMY. --Light show (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Your self serving misleading and thus wrong conclusion is not helping. Please don't do that. It's not helping your case nor improvement of the article.(Guess I was wrong when I assumed you're open minded.)TMCk (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
There is no fucking consensus so far! Acknowledge and deal with it.TMCk (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You said above, So consensus for change which is so far not in reach has to be established here for the time being. If you can achieve such I sure won't be in the way for a change in date format. I think it was very open-minded and warranting a "thank you," to go back and review the comments. --Light show (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You're quite dishonest or ignorant since I said I could go either way but have a preference which is to retain. Clear now?TMCk (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

"Non-committal"? Did you actually read my comments? Furthermore, WP:VOTE. What your count does establish is that there is currently no consensus. Paradoctor (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I read them all. If there was a clear committal-type comment, maybe you can point it out, since I didn't see one, and naturally apologize if I missed it and will change my estimate above. Plus, you can can simply add your preference to the RfC to clarify. --Light show (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Origins of the IAS at Princeton

The article currently states, and I quote: "The Institute was established in 1930 for the express purpose of employing German Jews who had escaped Nazism."

This is hogwash. Hitler didn't even come to power until 1933.

There is nothing in the Wikipedia article about the IAS being funded to help refugees from Naziism (correctly so, as it wasn't). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.185.177.193 (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The source for that topic as shown in the related paragraph is this one. --Light show (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I have fixed this as the IP is correct. The Nazis purge of the universities started in April 1933. Yes the institute would welcome and help European mathematicians/scientists like Albert Einstein, Kurt Gödel and John von Neumann (in 1933 and 1934). The institute was founded to help those not accepted into the normal American system this included women, blacks and of course Jews. To be frank they got lucky...because so many were leaving Europe after 1933. Source: Linda G. Arntzenius (2011). Institute for Advanced Study. Arcadia Publishing. p. 19. ISBN 978-0-7385-7409-7. -- Moxy (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Charlie Chaplin and Einstein

Are these 2 guys best friends - did they greatly influences each-other? We currently talk about Chaplin in 3 paragraphs 11 times. We even go so far as to mention what they are wearing (dont we have an image for this?). There is some great info there like Elsa telling him about the time Einstein conceived his theory of relativity. But as of right now it seems a bit odd to have a section titled "Travel to U.S., 1930-1931" that has 6 paragraphs covering only one year of time 3 devoted to Chaplin (undue weight)? We could move Elsa story to the section on this topic so there is more room for actual info on the travels to the USA or just to trim down a bloated section. To be honest I think the same way about the section "Travels abroad, 1921-1922" lots here for very little time. What do others think here is 7 paragraphs and a big quote a bit much to cover only 2 years? Can we move some of the interesting points to other sections so there does not seem to be an unbalance towards American interests.-- Moxy (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the added text involving Chaplin is factual. Anyway, it doesn't seem to contribute anything worthwhile. — DAGwyn (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I will work on the section in a few days. Also need to trim back all the Jew quotes...hes not famous for hes religious beliefs. We really need to cut back on all the useless quotes...the article is starting to look non academic. Do people care he was wearing black at some event or that ? . -- Moxy (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

"Not famous for his religious beliefs," you feel? J. B. S. Haldane called him "the greatest Jew since Jesus." --Light show (talk) 06:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes he did, but that sampled part of Haldane's statement only tells you that for Haldane, Jesus and Einstein were first and second in a list of all Jewish people sorted by greatness. It doesn't tell you why and it doesn't contain any information about religious beliefs. In fact, he was talking about Einstein in the context of his contribution to physics. See his Daedalus; or, Science and the Future lecture - "I will only touch very briefly on the future of physics, as the subject is inevitably technical. At present physical theory is in a state of profound suspense. This is primarily due to Einstein --- the greatest Jew since Jesus. I have no doubt that Einstein's name will still be remembered and revered when Lloyd George, Foch, and William Hohenzollern share with Charlie Chaplin that ineluctable oblivion which awaits the uncreative mind. I trust that I may be excused if I trespass from the strict subject of my theme to add my quota to the rather numerous misstatements of Einstein's views which have appeared during the last few years." Sean.hoyland - talk 08:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Alot of the edits are a concern... we have the removal of academic material as seen here replaced with things like what he was wearing at a movies. Some of the info is interesting like what Elsa had to say. However overall things have gone downhill here recently... this is just my opinion as some seem think quotes and trivia are good thing...I dont.-- Moxy (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I share your concern. This article certainly isn't currently worthy of its GA status. We should be trying to improve it, not degrade its quality further. --John (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

German-born vs. German-Jewish born

I'm pretty amused that I was reverted here. I don't understand why German-born would be better than German-Jewish born, which was backlinked to the German-Jew article, where Einstein is prominently featured as a famous example.

The first point is obviously that there is a lot of undue emphasis on his first nationality. I have no idea why this is relevant in any biography. It's more relevant what his last nationality was.

The second point is, of course this is a special case, because he left Nazi Europe and their Anti-Semite policies. It's thus most relevant to mention his ethnicity rather than nationality, German-Jew, to clarify the case right in the brginning.

Third point, of course nowadays there is a great sympathy towards Einstein, but I'm not sure whether Einstein himself would hsve been happy with suvh an intro. I sense a deep unneutral nationalistic agenda behind this wording.

Fourth point, there are many reliable sources which describe him as German-Jew, which hence can't be factually worse than the present version. I hereby reject the provided rev edit summary in its entirety and demsnd a re-revert.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 12:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I personally don't care whether it should be German-born or German-Jewish born, but please note that—here on Wikipedia—demands and sensing deep unneutral nationalistic agendas tend to bring you nowhere—fast. - DVdm (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Because "German" is a nationality, while "Jewish" is an ethnicity. Per WP:BIO, articles don't normally mention the subjects ethnicity, especially in the lead. JOJ ^Hutton 12:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't intend to sound some kind of rude. My apologies. MOS:BIO is clearly stating, "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." This supports my 2nd point directly. Also, "Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." doesn't support the addition of earlier nationalities as he's not some sportsman, where nationalities might be indeed relevant in case of medals.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@ThaThin, please understand that there have been years' worth of discussion here, about how to describe Einstein's nationality in the lead. YEARS. The current description of him ("German-born") is the result of extensive discussion and strong consensus. It meets Wikipedia policy and style, and it has been stable for years. You have changed it twice. Don't change it again, unless you get consensus here first. --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I checked the archive til 2008 or so. Going by the archive people have regularly criticized the nationality part. There was no serious discussion on the issue and all sides were completely unaware of actual manual of style as demonstrated by me earlier. I'm no pretty convinced that there is no real interest to go the wikipedia ways. Instead we see a pathetic and not less obvious attempt to "re-germanize" Einstein who took his American citizenship with him to grave. And the cleansing of his Jewish identity in the lead sentence is completely crazy. He ran away because of this shit only. Macabre, disrespectful and disgusting. I write emotionally, because I have great respect for this Jewish man.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

He might have run away from this shit even without that ethnicity. But our speculations are off-topic here—see our wp:talk page guidelines. - DVdm (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

First see MOS please then tell others what to do.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

MOS, as you quoted it above, states "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." (my bolding) This seems like a pretty clear statement NOT to mention his ethnicity in the opening sentence; the fact that he was of Jewish ethnicity is not one of the reasons he is so notable. He would have been equally notable if he had been of any other extraction. Thus, we do not include it, per MOS. --MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

^{(edit conflict)}The consensus seems to be that the ethnicity is not relevant to this particular subject's notability, so according to MOS:BIO it should not be emphasised. First see wp:consensus before telling others what to do. - DVdm (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. to ThaThin: If you check any random dozen articles from Category:Jewish physicists or Category:Jewish scientists, I think you will find that their Jewishness is overwhelmingly NOT mentioned in the lead sentence. The typical lead sentence reads "(Subject) is a (nationality) (profession)..." --MelanieN (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

His actual last citizenship was Swiss-American. It's against MOS to use earlier citizenships.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I quick checked some of them. Found plenty of "Jews". Unnecessary exercise.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

In the lead sentence? I doubt it. I just randomly checked a dozen entries from the category "Jewish physicists". One said the subject was French from a Polish-Jewish family. The other eleven did not mention "Jewish" in the lead. --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

German-born is fine. There seems to be an obsessive need in some ethno-nationalist quarters to "claim" famous people as Jewish. AntiqueReader (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, let's not question the motives of other editors. This is not a case of "claiming" him as Jewish; he WAS from a Jewish family, and it says so in the text of the article. The issue here is an attempt to EMPHASIZE that aspect of him by putting it into the lead sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Let's drop. - DVdm (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

He was Jew first. Nazis wanted his head. --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 08:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

You need to get consensus or walk away from the article. Start an RfC, use dispute resolution or whatever, but do not try to short-circuit due process because it will cause conflict and disruption. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Conflict and disruption is caused by semi-literate Pro-Germans like you who can't follow MOS:BIO. "walk away" LOL --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 08:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-literate pro-German ? hmmm, semi-literate maybe, but pro-German, nope. Do you have any idea how much disruption is caused in Wikipedia by profoundly arrogant fuckwits edit warring over issues like nationality and ethnicity ? It's astonishing how dumb some people can be and how desperately they cling to their precious simplistic social constructs. You should follow due process or you will end up blocked. That is how it works. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The section has been closed. Please follow RFC if you have anything topic-related to say according to your revert.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Look how loaded your question is "violate MOS:BIO" and "be violated by censoring". Rewrite it neutrally. Jeez. If you want to change content that people have been pointlessly arguing about for years, have the common fucking decency and good sense to do it properly. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's rare for nationality and ethnicity to be combined in a lead sentence along with the person's notability, and does seem to over-emphasize them. On the other hand, if you feel that his ethnicity and its relevance to his life is de-emphasized in the article, you're probably right. It's not even mentioned in the lead, and its relevance to his moving to the U.S. is only implied. The Holocaust is not even mentioned in the article, but its connection to Einstein's life is inferred in the 2nd paragraph of the Emigration section. I'd suggest mentioning his clearly-relevant ethnicity in the lead somewhere else. --Light show (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I just added him being jewish as his reason for staying in the US.TMCk (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Request For Comment

MOS:BLPLEAD problems related to Einstein's nationality and ethnicity--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The lead paragraph says "German-born" theoretical physicist. While it's not disputed, that he was a citizen of a German country, it doesn't describe his latest nationality, which is the doubled Swiss-American. According to MOS:BLPLEAD section 3.1. the nationality should be presented in the lead paragraph, and only if his work was primarily notable for a particular nationality, an earlier nationality should be used. Einstein however made notable contributions throughout his entire life and not just for the period where he was a German citizen. Similarily he was not just a German citizen, but also a Swiss citizen, when he got the Noble prize (as argued by an internal note). According to MOS:BLPLEAD section 3.2. the ethnicity of Einstein, German-Jew, should be included, if this fact is notable for this person. It is argued by opponents of the inclusion, that his Jewish ethnicity had no relevance to the topic Albert Einstein. However there is a very large amount of content in this article related to his Jewish ethnicity and he defined himself as "Jewish person with Swiss nationality". It is thus argued, that the "German-born" wording should be replaced. --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

No one is saying that his "Jewish ethnicity has no relevance to the topic." That is a phony argument. The information about his heritage is already given in the text of the article, and could be expanded if Reliable Source support is available. Please stay focused: we are talking about the LEAD SENTENCE, not the article as a whole. WP:MOS which you keep citing says a person's ethnicity should be included in the lead sentence only if it is a significant contributor to their notability. Einstein was a Jew, but that is not why he was notable, and thus it should not go in the lead sentence, per MOS. Also, please note the warning on your talk page against edit warring. (I went there to warn you about it, but I saw that you had already been warned.) If you keep changing the article based on your own opinion/interpretation/conviction that you are right, you are edit warring, which is not allowed here and can lead to a block. --MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. @ThaThinThaKiThaTha:Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Statement should be neutral and brief and rephrase accordingly.TMCk (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• Stop No more nationality/ethnicity wars please. The article is factually correct and is fine. Use another website to promote stuff. Johnuniq (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - This is a poorly formed RfC. I suggest you start a new, dedicated thread and make a neutral statement that gives participants a clear choice A or B. Support or Oppose. If your goal is to invite uninvolved editors to the page then a posting at BLPN or the BLP project would be more appropriate than an RfC.Good luck. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: This RfC was the result of a clear minority view. It should never have existed. The article is not only fine the way it stands, but if an admin were to read the comments above the RfC, bans would be handed out on the spot. This subject needs nothing more than to be dropped, and quickly. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: This has been argued about for many years. The problem is that everybody wants to claim a piece of Einstein, but that isn't necessary for the lede. The fact that Einstein was German-born is mentioned in the lede solely to maintain parallelism with other comparable biographical articles. Additional information is provided in the main text. This was as close to a consensus as we were able to come up with, and if you start changing it an editing war is likely to ensue. — DAGwyn (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oh please no. There are easily a dozen relevant quotes on the subject from the man himself. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein My favorite is "If my theory of relativity is proven successful, Germany will claim me as a German and France will declare that I am a citizen of the world. Should my theory prove untrue, France will say that I am a German and Germany will declare that I am a Jew." But his national identity - if there is such a thing - was highly controversial during his lifetime. This is not something we can simplify to a few words in the lede. --GRuban (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2014

                     Albert Einstien was born in Germany

92.4.47.9 (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done, not a specific edit request. - DVdm (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Birtherism

Please change "X-born" to German-American.--98.88.150.47 (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

See talk archives. - DVdm (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)