Talk:Mileva Marić

Tesla acquaintance

I have removed the phrase "During her early years at university, she became an aquaitance of Nikola Tesla as a mathematics student." As Tesla was living and working in the United States since 1884, when Mileva was only 9 years old, I find it unlikely that she was his acquaintance. Perhaps she was simply acquainted with his work? I suppose it is possible she met him while he returned to Serbia to visit family but I cannot find any evidence this is so. If I am wrong, please correct me and attribute this information.

Mileva Maric and historians

The following amended sentence was posted on the Mileva Maric page on 19 December 2009:

A few historians, outside the consensus, have argued that she may have played some role.[33]

The full context is as follows:

The question whether (and if so, to what extent) Marić contributed to Einstein's early work, and to the Annus Mirabilis Papers in particular, is controversial. However, the overwelming consensus among professional historians of physics is that she did not.[32]. A few historians, outside the consensus, have argued that she may have played some role.[33]

Reference 33 cites Margarete Maurer, Senta Troemel-Ploetz and Evan Harris Walker. However, none of these are historians of physics, historians of science, or indeed historians at all.

Margarete Maurer is a lecturer for theoretical aspects in the Life Sciences at the universities of Innsbruck and Vienna, especially "nature", "gender" and philosophy/sociology of science. http://www.epws.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=283&Itemid=4652

Senta Troemel-Ploetz is a linguist and writer on feminist themes. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senta_Tr%C3%B6mel-Pl%C3%B6tz

Evan Harris Walker was a physicist, but at the time when he wrote about Maric and Einstein he was the Director of the Walker Cancer Research Institute which he founded. He also published books on the nature of consciousness. http://www.pdonovan.com/blog_face_reviews/evan_walker.php

I therefore propose that the sentence in question be amended to:

However other academics argue that she may have played some role.

[Open to suggestions]

Esterson (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If they're not historians, then we can amend it writing ("A few academics, outside the consensus among historians, have argued that... ") 86.26.0.25 (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

One of the first women to study mathematics and physics in Europe?

Like much iformation about M M, the first sentence is certainly wrong. Given that women had beem graduating with degrees in mathematics from Cambridge, Oxford, and London, since the 1870s and 1880s. Moreover some of the advances in the education of women in mathematics and science came earlier in the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.195.112 (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It would help if you gave some citations for the information about British Universities. It is certainly the case that women were admitted to study science and mathematics at the University of London (University College) in 1878, and in 1881 two women obtained a BSc. [1] [2]

A few women studied physics and mathematics just prior, and during, Mileva Maric's time (1896-1901) at Zurich Polytechnic (later ETH). (J. Stachel, Einstein From 'B' to 'Z', 2002, p. 30.) Information about women studying mathematics and physics in continental European universities prior to 1900 probably requires a non-English-speaker to provide. However it is likely to be the case that Maric was one of the first women to study both mathematics and physics in Europe. Esterson (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Notes and references

There is an enormous amount of notes and references that point to a few resources. A quick scan shows 15 of 47 in the notes section that refer to different pages of a reference pointing to Highfield, at least 4 out of 47 to Trbuhovic-Gjuric (1988), at least 4 out of 47 to Stachel. Surely these can be consolidated to show three references or notes that would result in the See also, Notes, References, and External links sections not being a major portion of the article. Otr500 (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Find a Grave is listed as a reference. Otr500 (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Biography section: end of first marriage

A recent change has a new passage that starts: "In July [1914] Marić had found out that Einstein had an affair..." However, the reference citation (Isaacson, 2007, pp. 185-186) does not say anything about Maric discovering Einstein's affair with his cousin Elsa, with whom he had been corresponding since 1912. In fact, neither in this biography, nor in any other, can I find any statement that she discovered the affair in 1914, though she may have had an inkling of what was going on. The reason for the separation was, at root, because the marriage had reached breaking point. It had been in difficulties since 1911-12 (Isaacson, pp. 172, 174), and especially since Einstein became reacquainted with Elsa during a visit to Berlin at Easter 1912, after which they regularly corresponded. I have modified the paragraph in question, and made a few other changes. Esterson (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Joffe again

Hi, I just read the article with great interest. Now I have a question: could it be that Abram Joffe saw (or heard of) the original papers being signed "Einstein-Marity" and thought it was one person, although the papers were signed with two names? Could it be that it was Mileva herself who wrote the papers, signing with her name and the name of her husband? I see the point concerning Joffe, but I think it is a rather weak argument to say he explicitly referred to Einstein as the author. Maybe he just didn't understand what "Einstein-Marity" really meant because he thought it was Swiss custom? Sorry for bad English, I hope you understand what I mean.--79.239.227.179 (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay! I’ve only just seen this.

There is no evidence that Joffe ever saw the original manuscripts (or would have heard information about them). The story that he did comes entirely from Trbuhovic-Gjuric’s biography of Maric, and she does not provide a single piece of evidence for her account of Joffe’s seeing them. In any case, in addition to the complete lack of evidence, there is strong evidence that he did not see them.

Trbuhovic-Gjuric bases her claim on the fact that Joffe was an assistant to Wilhelm Röntgen, and Röntgen was on the board of Annalen der Physik at the time. But, as Stachel points out, Röntgen was an experimentalist, and the two editors Drude and Planck were theoretical physicists, so it is highly unlikely they would ask Röntgen to look at theoretical papers outside his subject area, such as the special relativity paper. More specifically, in his book “Meetings with Scientists” Joffe writes that when he was assistant to Röntgen the latter advised him, in preparation for defending his Ph.D. thesis in 1905 (prior to the publication of Einstein’s relativity paper), to study what we would now call the prehistory of Special Relativity theory. Had Röntgen refereed Einstein’s original manuscript a few months later, as Trbuhović-Gjurić asserts, Joffe could hardly have failed to have mentioned such an historic event. But he makes no mention of any such occurrence, and we may conclude that the whole basis of Trbuhović-Gjurić’s claims about Joffe is without foundation. (A. F. Joffe, Begegnungen Mit Physikern, 1967, pp. 23-24)

I disagree that the fact that the paragraph in question in which Joffe writes “Einstein-Marity” is entirely about Einstein is a weak argument. If there were joint authors of the three 1905 papers in question, why would only Einstein be celebrated in the paragraph? And if the paper had the name Einstein-Marity on it, that is a single name, so even if that were the case (and Joffe does not say that the papers were signed Einstein-Marity as is so often reported) it would mean that either Einstein or Maric was the author, not joint authorship. But, as I say, there is no evidence that Joffe saw the original manuscripts, nor that they had the name Einstein-Marity on them. The whole story is a myth. 86.167.249.198 (talk) 08:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to log on for the above comment.

Additional comment, on the question “Could it be that it was Mileva herself who wrote the papers, signing with her name and the name of her husband?”

That this notion can even be suggested shows how widespread is the erroneous information about Mileva Maric. From the time that she was required to take the Zurich Polytechnic mathematics entrance examination in 1896 (in which she achieved a moderate grade average of 4.25 on a scale 1-6), through her intermediate teaching diploma exam result (fifth out of six candidates) and her 1900 final diploma exam which she failed (grade average 4.0), Maric’s higher education achievements were moderate or worse. Her grade in the mathematics component (theory of functions) in the final examinations was a very poor 2.5 on scale 1-6 (no other candidate in their small group scored less than 5.5). She failed the final diploma exam again in 1901 (this time under the adverse circumstance of being some three months pregnant), without improving her overall grade average (4.0). This might not be significant if there was any evidence that she had done any work in physics beyond the teaching diploma level, but there is none. There is not a single piece of writing (including in her letters to Einstein during their student days) in which she expresses any ideas on physics, nor is there even any hearsay evidence of any specific ideas on postgraduate physics that she expressed. In her letters to her closest friend Helene Kaufler Savic she always ascribed the published papers solely to Einstein, and never so much as hinted she played any role in them. Yet such is the propagation of mythical stories about Maric’s academic prowess that we are supposed to take seriously that she was partly (or, as suggested above, wholly) responsible for the epoch-making 1905 special relativity paper!

V. Alexander Stefan, a Serbian physicist who has closely examined the main claims, has written: "There is no point, whatsoever, in all of this. Just take this controversial hoax as an annoying intellectual exercise, and as an assault on the intelligence of every decent human being." [[3]]Esterson (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Esterson, after more than a year, having read your comment again, I feel obliged to thank you for answering my question as well as putting so much effort into discussing the extent of Maric's contributions (or rather non-contributions) to Einstein's work in general. It is very informative to read what you say. Best regards--91.17.192.194 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like to ask this question then. What do you have to say about this quote? (The author unfortunately "prefers to be anonymous") It is interesting that Joffe would remember the name as "Einstein-Marity" since "Marity" was the Hungarianized version of Maric. Mileva Maric rarely wrote her name as "Marity" except on important formal documents, such as her wedding certificate. That Joffe would remember the name specifically as "Marity" lends credence to his having seen the original Special Relativity manuscript. It is extremely unlikely that Joffe could have made a mistake. What do you make of this?

Thanks for your comment and question. I am familiar with the article by the anonymous author from which this quotation comes. [4] The author credits "for the information and ideas contained in this article" Evan Harris Walker, whose words on the above topic are as follows:

If Joffe remembered that form of her name, it would have had to be because he had seen something that Mileva had signed herself, something that she signed "Einstein-Marity"… This, taken with all the rest, is compelling evidence that Joffe did see the original 1905 papers, and that the name there was "Einstein-Marity"!

This argument is erroneous. Joffe could well have seen the form "Marity" in Carl Seelig's biography Albert Einstein: Eine dokumentarische Biographie, p. 29, published in 1954, i.e., prior to Joffe's 1955 memorial article to Einstein. (See English translation: Carl Seelig, Albert Einstein, 1956, p. 24.) Incidentally, in his book Begegnungen mit Physikern ("Meetings with Physicists"), pp. 88-89, Joffe mentions becoming acquainted with Mileva Marić on a visit he made to the Einstein residence in Zurich in 1909 when Einstein happened to be absent, so it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that he gained the information directly from Marić herself.

The anonymous author writes that "Abram Joffe, a summa cum laude Russian physics graduate of the ETH is quoted as having seen the original 1905 manuscript and said it was signed, 'Einstein-Marity'." But an examination of the original article shows that Joffe did not say he saw the original article, nor that it was signed "Einstein-Marity". This is one of numerous erroneous statements this author has recycled from Walker's deeply flawed article, a transcript of his talk at a session of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1990 – see "Role in Physics (2)" below for just a few of his blunders.

For a full repudiation of the claims about Joffe, see John Stachel, Einstein's Miraculous Year: Five Papers that Changed the Face of Physics, 1905 edition, pp. liv-lxxii, scanned here: [5]

Incidentally, in a passage in his book Begegnungen mit Physikern Joffe describes his experience as a graduate student with Wilhelm Röntgen, and reports that the latter suggested to him that when he defended his doctoral dissertation in May 1905 he should discuss what one could describe as the prehistory of the theory of special relativity (Joffe 1967, p. 23). Significantly, there is no mention of Röntgen showing him Einstein's 1905 relativity paper shortly afterwards. Had he had the opportunity to see Einstein's original manuscript at this time it is inconceivable that he would not have mentioned such a momentous experience in this context. Esterson (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. Since you seem to be more of an expert than me, who's only an amateur in comparison, I'll have to take your word for it. And in the end, it doesn't matter whether Mileva was cheated out of a co-credit for Albert's scientific papers or not, because she would become treated badly by him either way. And whether she gave up her own scientific ambitions completely, or if she simply got obscured by male scientists (both scenarios were common for female scientists back then), hers is really a sad story. When you think about the prejudices against female scientists in that era, you have to wonder how far even Marie Curie could have gone, if she hadn't had the support of her fellow scientist husband. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.232.52.87 (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Just one point on what you have written: "When you think about the prejudices against female scientists..."

The Einstein/Maric correspondence during the period when they were students and just after shows that Einstein strongly encouraged Maric in her studies and envisaged a life together jointly working on science. But she (twice) failed the Zurich Polytechnic final teaching diploma examinations, and there is no authenticated post-Polytechnic work by her, so it is a misnomer to describe her as a scientist (or mathematician). It wasn't Einstein's fault that Maric's academic failures led to her having to give up her scientific ambitions. It is also worth pointing out that the senior professor of physics, Heinrich Weber, offered an assistantship to Maric prior to her first final diploma exam failure in 1900, so the opportunity would have been there had she passed the exam. Incidentally, she told her close friend Helene Kaufler that she did not wish to accept it, as she would rather apply for a position as librarian at the Polytechnic. (Milan Popović [ed.] In Albert's Shadow: The Life and Letters of Mileva Marić, Einstein's First Wife, 2003, pp. 60-61.) Esterson (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again! I should have replied almost two months ago, but I'll do it now instead. Fine, Mileva failed her exams. But so did a majority of the the female students at the Polytechnic back then. Do you really think that was a coincidence? As a matter of fact, Mileva didn't give up as quickly as many others did. And until she entered the Polytechnic, she had always been described as brilliant, and she only was the fifth woman to be accepted to ETH. And even if it wasn't Albert's fault, that she didn't pass her exams, it was his fault that the last (at least) thirtyfive years of her life was a nightmare. Would you want to be financially dependent on an ex-husband, who had treated you like crap, left you for another woman, called you "uncommonly ugly" and "a zero, who should keep your mouth shut" and never cared about your schizophrenic son? I wonder if the woman had a happy day in her life after she left Albert in 1914, while he would marry another woman (whom he also treated like crap) and rise into superstardom. Mileva Maric deserves so much better than this "she was a nobody/failure" treatment. Even if she doesn't deserve co-credit for the theory of relativity, her story deserves to be told. And I would like you Einsteinists to acknowledge that his worst side wasn't some cute little quirks, but that he actually was a terrible husband and father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.232.52.87 (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Was Mileva Marić a mathematician?

The first sentence of the lede had been changed to state that Mileva Marić "was a Serb mathematician".

Though she has been widely so-described, there is no justification for describing Marić as a "mathematician". In the 1900 Zurich Polytechnic final teaching diploma exam (physics and mathematics) her grade in the mathematics component (theory of functions) was only 2.5 on a scale 1-6, and her poor grade was undoubtedly the main reason she failed to obtain the diploma. (None of the other four candidates in her group obtained less than 5.5.) When she retook the exams the following year she only increased her mathematics grade to 3.5, and again failed. [Einstein Collected Papers, vol. 1, doc. 67; J. Stachel, Einstein From 'B' to 'Z'. (2002), p. 29.] Nor is this simply a matter of exam failures. In her end-of-semester grades record for the first year at the Polytechnic she scored below 5 in the four mathematical topics studied that year. Her best results were in the intermediate diploma examination (1899): grade 5 in differential and integral calculus and in analytic geometry, 4.75 in descriptive geometry. [D. Trbuhović-Gjurić, In Schatten Albert Einsteins: Das tragische Leben der Mileva Marić (1988), pp. 61, 63.]

This, of course, would not be conclusive if she had later accomplishments in mathematics, but there is no record of any such achievement. If there is no reliable information rebutting this, I shall revert the change. Esterson (talk) 10:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

N.B. I've just noticed that this topic came up three years ago! [[6]] But as this time I've included full details of Marić's academic record in mathematics at Zurich Polytechnic I'll let it stand. Esterson (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I added two sources that say that she was Serbian mathematician. Neko111 (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

As I understand, you in fact dispute this statement? I will not dispute your statements about her results in exams because this is rather a question was she a good or bad mathematician. Mathematician with average results is still mathematician, right? Neko111 (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

By that argument every College student of mathematics who fails their exams is still worthy of being called a mathematician, which would make the description virtually meaningless.Esterson (talk) 07:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Nekko111 has added two sources that say that Maric was Serbian mathematician. As I stated above, she has certainly been widely described as such, and he/she provides two examples. But neither source provides any evidence for this, and they are evidently simply repeating something they have read elsewhere. Such is the way that unsubstantiated contentions become common "knowledge".

Let's look at these two sources. S9.com describes itself as a biographical dictionary that anyone can edit, and the entries do not even have reference citations. In other words it is unreliable as a source. The other source is the Tesla Society of New York, which is hardly a disinterested organisation. The article, by General Secretary Ljubo Vujovic, so incensed the fellow Serb physicist V. Alexander Stefan that he wrote an open letter to the Society rebutting the story they were propagating. [[7]]

Incidentally, of the several reference links to the Tesla Society article one is anonymous, one unavailable, and six are to the original PBS Einstein's Wife webpages which were so full of factual errors and dubious assertions that that it had to be completely rewritten when the PBS Ombudsman upheld a complaint against the film and website. [[8]]

In contrast, someone who has actually sought out the evidence for the claim, rather than simply making assertions, is John Stachel, who having considered the documentary evidence writes

All this evidence is not offered as proof that Maric was no mathematical genius. The point is that there is no evidence that she was particularly gifted mathematically, while there is some evidence that she was not. It is no service to her memory… to make exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims about Maric's abilities. (J. Stachel, Einstein From 'B' to 'Z', (2002), pp. 29-30.)

I still await evidence that Maric can justifiably be described as a mathematician, rather than merely unsubstantiated assertions that she was. Esterson (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Specifically on the references supplied by Nekko111: The s9.com citation is inadmissible by Wikipedia protocols. It is anonymous, without references, and anyone can edit the potted biographies.[[9]]

I believe the Tesla Society article[[10]] is also inadmissible because it violates the Wikipedia protocol that "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article."[[11]] The author's biography indicates that his only specialty is the life and work of Tesla. [[12]] As already noted, his accessible citations are to an anonymous webpage, the s9.com "biography", and six links to original web pages for the PBS Einstein's Wife website that have been removed because of their historical inaccuracies. A check of the rewritten pages that have taken their place shows that not one of them states that Maric was a mathematician or cites any mathematical work by her. In my view all this indicates that by Wikipedia standards the Tesla Society article is not a reliable source for the relevant contention. Esterson (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Role in Physics (2)

Cpiral has made substantial changes to this section. (In my view, when this is done to such a degree on a controversial subject it would be appropriate to put forward the changes for discussion first.) There are some sentences which I find unsatisfactory. For instance, the opening sentence should not present the question as to what extent Maric contributed to Einstein’s work, but firstly whether she did, and then, in which case, how much.

Second sentence: The verdict of professional historians of science is not that she did not directly contribute to Einstein’s “deep science” (whatever that is), but that she did not substantively contribute to his scientific work at all.

Third sentence: It is inappropriate to include “playwrighting”; authors of plays on Maric are using imaginative forms to present a view that they wish their audiences to come away with, not material based on solid historical evidence.

On what grounds is Evan Walker described as “very well respected”? Had it not been that he publicly engaged in this issue around 1990 he would be scarcely known outside a small circle interested in his somewhat esoteric views on consciousness and quantum theory. In letters to Physics Today and a talk at a session at the American Association for the Advancement of Science he engaged in speculation presented as facts to such a degree that John Stachel said in response that he would have to conclude “that he is a fantasist, who bases reality on his own desires” (Stachel 2002, p. 26). Among claims made by Walker are that ‘’from Einstein’s own statements’’ one can conclude that Maric was the “senior partner” in the development of the 1905 special relativity paper (false), that Abraham Joffe “states he saw the original 1905 manuscripts, they were by-lined ‘Einstein-Maric’” (both false), that the “Special Theory of Relativity began as a thesis Mileva wrote and submitted to Professor Weber, her major professor at the ETH [Zurich Institute of Technology] in Switzerland” (complete nonsense), and “The Photoelectric Effect paper began with Mileva Maric when she was a student of Professor Lenard at Heidleberg” (Lenard had not even discovered the photoelectric effect when Maric was at Heidelberg, and it was not until some four years later that he obtained the quantitative results that Einstein explained with his 1905 light quanta theory).

I am unhappy with the expression “while they were living and struggling for success together”. When is this supposed to be? They didn’t live together until they married in January 1903, except possibly for a month or two immediately before that.

Finally (for the moment) the paragraph:

An alleged comment "we finished some important work that will make my husband world famous" made by Mileva to a Serbian friend, referring to 1905 [Ref. PBS “Einstein’s Wife”]: If the comment was indeed worded that way, it can still be interpreted as appropriated reminiscence for her hometown folklore.[Ref. Highfield and Carter, 1993]

The second sentence is based on a hypothetical possibility (“If the comment…”), and the concluding part of sentence does not follow. (Re the Highfield and Carter reference, these authors reject such hearsay evidence collected some sixty years after the event from interested parties as of no historical value.) Esterson (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I note that Cpriol has changed

and some of the instances in which Einstein used "our" in relation to scientific work refer to their diploma dissertations,...

to

Sometimes in these letters when Einstein used "our scientific work" it was referring to their diploma dissertations...

Nowhere in his letters to Maric does Einstein use the expression "our scientific work". Esterson (talk) 09:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

In the passage on "The testimony of a well known Russian physicist…" Cpriol's amended version, starting with the citing of "Einstein-Marity", has it that "Joffe went on to state that "Einstein's entrance" in 1905 "was unforgettable", etc. This is incorrect. The passage in Joffe's article "In memory of Albert Einstein" starts by celebrating Einstein's entrance into the arena of science in 1905, followed by his stating the author was a bureaucrat at the Bern patent office.

From the above it should be clear that, though I certainly don't object to all the changes made by Cpriol on 17 February, I do have so many objections/reservations that I intend to revert them. As I wrote above, I think it is inappropriate to make so many changes to a whole section in one fell swoop, especially without discussing them first on the Talk page. I suggest that Cpriol reintroduce amendments on a passage by passage basis so that each passage can be treated separately, and where there are substantive changes rather than stylistic they be discussed on the Talk page first. Esterson (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The 1905 special relativity paper

At the end of a paragraph in the section "Role in Physics" presenting information indicating that Mileva Maric did not contribute to Einstein's publications Cpriol has added:

Most importantly, the Einstein whose explanations in that 1905 paper on Special Relativity we've learned to trust, contained no citations, and mentions only the aid of a non-scientist named Besso.[Ref: Ferris 1988]

(The reference provides a lengthy quotation from a book by Timothy Ferris that includes the statement that the 1905 special relativity paper "resembles the work of a crank" and other items seemingly of no relevance to the Maric issue.)

I confess I fail to understand what point is being made in the new sentence in the main text, or what bearing it has on the Maric issue. On the details, while it is true that it contains no specific citations, the 1905 special relativity paper cites relevant work of Maxwell, Hertz and Lorentz. Again, while not a scientist Michele Besso was an engineer with a deep interest in, and understanding of, physics that enabled him to discuss the theoretical work Einstein was involved with over virtually the whole period of Einstein's most productive years, as demonstrated by their correspondence (Albert Einstein: Correspondance avec Michele Besso 1903-1955. Paris: Hermann, 1979).

On Ferris's saying the 1905 special relativity paper resembles the work of a crank: From the perspective of physicists the paper looks very different, and quickly garnered interest. In the autumn of 1905 Max Planck gave a lecture on the paper, and Wilhelm Wien organised a colloquium on it. The following year Paul Drude mentioned the paper in a new edition of his book on optics and then again in an article published in 1907. A group of young physicists including Max Born in Breslau requested offprints from Einstein in 1907. Again, in 1907 Arnold Sommerfeld wrote to Lorentz about the paper saying "Einstein impresses me greatly…" These reactions from eminent physicists show they did not consider the paper to be the work of a crank. Ferris is a popular science writer with a journalist background, not a physicist, and his describing the 1905 special relativity paper as resembling the work of a crank reflects this. It is not an authoritative viewpoint.

On the background to the 1905 paper, we know that Einstein had been thinking and reading about motion relative to the ether on and off for some eight years, as seen from numerous mention of his ideas in letters to Maric in their student years, and in letters to his friends a little later. (Incidentally, there is not a single item of evidence that Maric had any especial interest in the subject – she made no mention of it in her letters to Einstein.)

For these reasons I intend to delete the new sentence quoted above. Esterson (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Your explanation about Timothy Ferris is accepted. I got an attitude adjustment, thank you. Your tone, however seems combative towards Ferris, and towards all my edits on the page. Please know that I don't directly study Ferris' or Einstein's, or Maric's works, and have no strong opinions about any of this. However I do study Wikipedia, and I do study an Evan Harris Walker's book, whose author page who brought me here, and because of which I quite innocently and neutrally edited the article. I will restore the reverts of my work that you did not defend. — CpiralCpiral 03:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Cpriol: Thank you for accepting my point on the Ferris item. However, I cannot accept your writing that my tone on this "seems combative towards Ferris". I simply presented the evidence from the reactions of eminent physicists at the time that Ferris' statement on the special relativity paper is not in accord with the historical facts, and that Ferris is a writer of popular science books who does not have expertise on the subject.

You got me. I meant "combative towards me" and I used poor Ferris. — CpiralCpiral 17:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You write that you have not directly studied Ferris' or Einstein's, or Maric's works, but you have studied Evan Harris Walker's book. I don't know what you mean by "Maric's works", as there are none. In regard to Walker's book, I presume, from the link, that you mean The Physics of Consciousness. What relevance has this to the issues under discussion?

That's the book! Again his author page mentioned that he is a player in the drama that is "How dare you say Maric did not play a role!". (-: — CpiralCpiral 17:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You write that you neutrally edited the Maric article. "Neutral" does not include posting statements that can be demonstrated to be factually wrong, as I have shown in the section above.

1) Positive emotions drive volunteerism. "Semantics!" is a curse word when fact-slinging volunteers mix negativity into the batch. 2) You are correct that it was factually wrong. 3)I have learned a general lesson, new for me on Wikipedia. I made the "good-faith, but out of context" error. Authors like Ferris use hyperbole (a literary device that drives emotions to sling facts, often seen in propaganda) to teach greatly. What I cited out of his wisely drama-infused science lesson I did not judge well if I thought it suited Wikipedia. It was a good semantic mix there but not for the article. Thank you for fixing my damage. 4)A necessary hypocrisy on my part to end my hypocrisy for now:'You said neutral, but no' mixes negativity into our batch. Rather, we might be discussing the article's facts, not each others statements about statements about things that have been removed. :-) — CpiralCpiral 17:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You write that you will restore "reverts of my work that you did not defend". What do you mean by saying I "did not defend"? Do you mean did not object to? If so, on the contrary you restored several statements which I pointed out are factually incorrect.

We will remove every factually incorrect item. Please itemize again for me? — CpiralCpiral 17:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

WAIT. Nevermind that request. When the IP reverted my revert of your revert, I careful review of just what had happened revealed that we've done well for the article. It appears that Esterson did not revert my edit properly. It looks like a revert, but it was an edited revert, and the edits he made were excellent, and kept the best part of the work I feared lost, knowing my own edits had plenty of meritous phrases which passed on Esterson's "revert with filter". We're done, thank you. Sorry. Goodbye. — CpiralCpiral 18:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I ask you again to engage in constructive discussion of the points I made in the section above, not reintroduce your amended version with its factual errors and sentences in regard to which I expressed doubts as to their clarity. Esterson (talk) 10:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

So we say. We ask each other to launch successfully from an unsuccessful revert-revert start. Let's see. — CpiralCpiral 17:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Being ever so diplomatic

I changed the section title, and first sentence to reduce bluntness: 'she did not have a role' to 'she made no significant scientific contribution to Special Relativity. The issue is contentious, so it needs diplomacy not bluntness, but "Speak softly and carry a big stick" definitely doesn't apply either. It's more like "Edit boldly, then discuss." — CpiralCpiral 18:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Esterson on this issue. I think the article should be reverted back to Esterson's version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.187.40 (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to vote here. Go in peace, and consider stopping to read about WP:Sock puppetry. — CpiralCpiral 23:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Cprial: On your new section heading "Role in developing the theory of Special Relativity"

I have reverted this change as (a) the issue in question is about alleged contributions by Maric to Einstein's scientific work generally, and (b) a cursory reading of the section indicates it is not specifically about the 1905 special relativity paper, so the new heading is an erroneous description of the contents of the section.

Now, you speak for the section topic and title saying "the issue in question is about alleged contributions". I see a section that is all about the general absence of evidence for the tiniest scientific-physics smidgeon imaginable. Proving a negative is not about "alleged contributions" and the section is not about discussing "her role" in physics in general, and as we say now not in the Special Relativity paper either. I see no specific "alleged contributions" as you say. If you nod to this response, then I next ask "How about naming the section Role in developing Einsteins early papers" or something to that effect?

Please understand that my goal, (our goal?), is to remove the inflammatory aspect of the term "her role" which is taken so easily to be "in general" as it is written; this is her role as wife, and how "a wife has no role?" Let's specify some things in the section title and the first sentence of the section instead of leaving up the highly inflammatory and understandable objectionable "no role" terminology, shall we?

In addition to my section title error you fixed, you also (inadvertently?) reverted the edit "no significant scientific role" rather than what it is now: "no role". (That's quite alright, it's part of the messiness of reverting.) But think about it, in the general sense, as it strikes the reader, there is no doubt whatsoever in her general role. She had a role: she was his wife during the early years. They even studied the same subjects in the same polytechnic and each had the exact same title of a doctoral thesis (each of them developing there own subject matter of course). Nevertheless, let's specify "no scientific role" rather than "no role" in the section title and first sentence. — CpiralCpiral 23:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Cprial: On your point about Maric's role, the first sentence of the paragraph in question refers to the issue about her possible role in Einstein's work and in his 1905 papers, so when the second sentence records that the consensus among professional historians of physics is that she played no role it is clear this is in the context of a scientific role. Nevertheless I am happy to agree to your suggestion that "no role" be amended to "no significant scientific role", and have made the change.

On the title of the section "Role in Physics": This sums up the nature of the topic that has been widely discussed in books and the media, and has been the title for many years, probably from the inception of the Maric page. It is clear what it means and there is no good reason to change it.

Again I request that you make suggestions for changes on the Talk page first, so they can be discussed by other editors. Esterson (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I tried WP:BRD:I was bold, you reverted, we discuss. We might also try sometime a little back and forth on the article itself. That way our edits and my edits could speak for themselves. Not that I don't like talk pages, but we can get off of the slow and inefficient talk page, and the slower and even more efficient reverting, and especially the reverting with editing, (which I have just learned why is a no-no I used to see no reason not to do). All this talk and quoting one another seems a avoidable to me in the spirit of WP:BRD. "Let your fingers to the walking" becomes "let your fingers do the talking", where "fingers" do the article directly. — CpiralCpiral 23:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)