Talk:Albert Einstein

Re. "non-defining categories"

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

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

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

Removed categories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended content

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

Or, all listed in one place for convenience:

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

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

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

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

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

Correcting some erronous peceptions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uff. Uff.

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

Really, I am serious about it!

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

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

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

Thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have restored the categories per WP:BRD because no proper justification has been provided. It is not hard to check that Einstein was awarded the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society in 1926.[1] Similarly Einstein's connection with the Lorentz Institute in Leiden is easy to check with very little difficulty.[2] Likewise being a member of the United States National Academy of Sciences is a distinction and easy to verify.[3] And so on. This article on biography and science should be handled with much greater care than is happening at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 07:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/* Einstein's influences */ new section

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Awards

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

For the National Academy of Sciences, I used the official membership directory (see pdf link above). For deceased members, there are biographical memoirs[4]: in this case it was written by the physicist John Archibald Wheeler. Mathsci (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Thanks, I've commented there. The recent edits to Member of the National Academy of Sciences (on my watchlist) were not helpful.[5][6] Mathsci (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

External links

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

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

Einstein and Jewishness, revisited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2022

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2022

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

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

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

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