Talk:Albert Einstein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Albert Einstein is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good article Albert Einstein has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 12, 2005.

Never understood[edit]

Never understood why Einstein is mentioned as German-born, he was ethnically German. 77.166.30.3 (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

He renounced German citizenship in 1896 and changed his nationality several times. German-born means he was German at birth. He was ethnically Jewish. Apuldram (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Was Albert Einstein – formally – promiscuitive?[edit]

According the listed date in the text, A.E. divorced from M. on 14 February 1919. But according the "Declaration of Intention" (to become an US-american citizen) from 1936, he married E. on 6 April 1917 in Berlin. Could somebody verify the divorce date? -- ZH8000 (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

from Elsa Einstein: "Einstein's divorce from Maric was final on February 14, 1919, and Elsa married him three and a half months later, on June 2, 1919.[1]" Apuldram (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I thoroughly and profoundly doubt that a third-hand source, such as a newspaper, is more serious and reliable than an official document, as given here (by the immigration administration of the USA) for the wedding date. Only the wedding certificate itself (and the divorce certificate) could be more reliable. -- ZH8000 (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Official documents are notoriously unreliable, especially when the error is in interpreting handwriting - 7 and 9 are easily confused.
Here are four more references: [2], [3], [4] and [5]
It's also highly unlikely that, if Einstein had been a bigamist, nobody would have known until ZH8000 discovered it. Apuldram (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. All of the reliable secondary sources I can find agree that the marriage was in 1919, which is more convincing than a single primary source which may well have a typo or other error. Also, keep in mind that the claim that Einstein had two wives at the same time is WP:EXCEPTIONAL and would require multiple high-quality sources for inclusion. I've changed the year in the article back to 1919 and added two more reliable sources to support it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I accept the WP:EXCEPTIONAL argument. But I am not sure whether your short list of sources rely themselves on one and the same single source, since they do not publish their sources. Besides, einstein-website.de is a private, rather unreliable site by an acknowledged amateur, definitely not a professional historian, neither does he publish his sources. Also the 2ubh.com site seems to be a private site, with the same unfavourably disadvantages. While biography.com is published by a television network (again a media source), they do not publish their sources, neither, nor are they professional in the sense of historians. Even nobelprize.org does not publish its sources they rely on. – So I can hardly accept your links as an counter-argument, though I admit, there could be such, but I do not yet know them. -- ZH8000 (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Besides, the "Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science" (ed. Heilbron), the link you just added to "prove" the claimed date of 1919 is also only a third-hand source. Actually not that much better than WP itself. And we know that WP is a totally unreliable and illegitimate reference! -- ZH8000 (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I assume that by "a third-hand source", you mean a tertiary source, as described at WP:TERTIARY. There is nothing wrong with tertiary sources: while some of them, such as Wikipedia, are not reliable sources, others are very reliable.
The source in question, an article written by noted historian Gerald Holton in a book edited by historian John L. Heilbron and published by Oxford University Press, strikes me as very reliable. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Added a second OUP source by Abraham Pais an award-winning physicist and biographer. No bio ever lists 1917 or even talks about it ...no point in editing the article to that date or believe any talk will change anyone mind on this that every bio lists.--Moxy (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@ZH8000: I see that you have re-added information from the declaration of intention. Without a secondary source discussing this information, there is no indication that it is relevant. Moreover, the inclusion of the word "however" constitutes WP:Original synthesis. Please stop edit-warring and remove the sentence unless you can demonstrate consensus for its inclusion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Mr. Granger, first of all, please stop that childish behavior (placing pre-defined edit-war warnings without any basis). I assume your are an adult, aren't you.
Secondly, I clearly explained my re-adding: I do not interpret anything, but just referring to an officially acknowledged original document. And I refer to a given text on this doucument. I do not interprete the slightest thing, but just saying that this text, a marriage date, is given in this original, official document. So there is no synthesis taking place at all. And the publishing entity could hardly be less reliable, namely the U.S. National Congress, the original creator of this document, so to speak. So your argument about "WP:Originial Synthesis" fully lacks any relevance.
Thirdly, in the sense of WP:NPOV (neutral pont of view), this obviously contradictory date should be mentioned as an alternative view of the same issue, namely the marriage date with Elsa.
Therefore, this undoubtly sourced fact (that this alternative marriage date is given on a officially acknowledged official and original document) is totally valid to be mentioned here, independently how often it is actually being referred by any other secondary or even tertiary sources. – Especially by this extremely defensive way as a simple foot note. -- ZH8000 (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
@ ZH8000 - Your starting to get disruptive pls follow some basic behavioural concepts like WP:BRD. As mentioned above no sources mention this so it should not be shoehorned in here. To put it simply ... if reliable published sources do not include the information that you have found, then that information is—by definition—not important enough to include or misguided concept. I did read a bio recently that said they moved in together in September of 1917 after his separation from Mileva....will look for this passage'
Find sources: "Albert Einstein married April 1917" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference--Moxy (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
My dear Moxy, you are again mistaken. Your argumentation is only valid for secondary and tertiary sources, but not for officially acknowledged original documents. If you would read it carefully, you would easily recognize that I do not claim that this date "4 April 1917" is correct (or not), I just mentioned that it exists in an officially approved official and original document created by a very reputable and reliable institution. There can be no doubt that this document exists and that the date is mentioned as it is. These are undisputable facts and not subject for any kind of discussions. The very important WP:NPOV criteria claims clearly that
"A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability but violates NPOV. A Wikipedia article must comply with all three guidelines (i.e. Verifiability, NPOV, and No original research) to be considered compliant."
The National Congress source[6] is i) verified, ii) no original research, and finally compliant with iii) neutral point of view, since it introduces an otherwise objected and omitted information. – It is for the least quite astonishable that this formular has been signed by E. himself (it cannot be an interpretation error). -- ZH8000 (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
In my view your not understanding our policy. As this topic is simply not covered by any academic sources...only thing out there is this non-academic source ...that makes the correction. I suggest you ask for an RfC or more opinions at the NPOV noticeboard....because thus far your edits have been reverted multiple times by different editors. -- Moxy (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2016[edit]

Please expand the section about Einstein's honors to state why he received the nobel prize. Thank you!

== Awards and honors ==

Einstein received numerous awards and honors, including the Nobel Prize in Physics "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"[1].

83.175.99.230 (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

That statement is already in the article lead and indicates that he received the prize especially for his work on the photoelectric effect. Please be more specific in your request. I have now expanded the Awards and honors section. Apuldram (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Albert Einstein - Facts". Nobel Media AB – via Nobelprize.org. 

Einstein's Swiss-American nationality[edit]

According to MOS:OPENPARA sec 3 par 1, nationality is "if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable". Thus, according to his long-term citizenship and residences in 2 countries as well as the country of the main discoveries in 1905 and life-long fame in USA, Einstein was German-born, Swiss-American. He was not German despite retaking German citizenship in Weimar Republic, because was striped off of it in 1933 and did not retook it after 1945. In the view of this clear Wikipedia's standard for nationality, any personal preferences and votes on the subject are moot and pointless.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 05:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Considering, that Einstein was notable since 1905, he was Swiss-German-American, on the 2nd and final thought.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 06:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Not German-Prussian, but only German (see Constitution of the German Empire#Citizenship and Weimar Constitution#Section 1: The Reich and its States formally and collectively known as German Reich implying German citizenship regardless of a federal state of residence such as Prussia.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 07:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Your knowledge about citizen law in Deutsches Reich during 1866-1945 is obviously and simply wrong. How naiv must sombody be to base its argument on the basis of a nation's name?? Please go back make your homework and come back with better arguments, though I thoroughly doubt that you find better. thks. -- ZH8000 (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
It was based not on my personal knowledge, but on the letter of both constitutions, links to which are provided above. Just read them. And, usually, nations call themselves by the name of their country, unless are... Martians. I lived in Germany, they called themselves Germans prior to 1871, and nobody living in a notable city, like the Einstein's birth city of Ulm known since... 22 July 854 AD, ever called himself according to the federal state of residence, like in USA or everywhere else, except the German nobility and those from the former German territories not longer in Germany that Ulm was never part of.
Funny thing, there is an interview with Einstein where he says that he is German and not Prussian or Württembergian.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
MOS:OPENPARA does not allow multiply nationalities in the lead, and it is quite clear about it: "the country where the person... when he/she became notable", that is where he/she reached notability. There have been countless discussions about that. Alex2006 (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Not really, as actually - in the case of the deceased - MOS:OPENPARA says "the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable". So, not "became", which suggests the singular, but "was", which does nor exclude multiplicity of nationalities, as in the case of Einstein. That is formal logic and English language. Enjoy the free lesson or rather the proof of acting in bad faith, because you purposely selected incorrect, but self-serving, "became" over correct, but contradictory to your thesis, "was". That kind of attitude seems shameful and undesired in Wikipedia's editors.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Consensus by "no objections"[edit]

My understanding is that we reached consensus by "no objections" to applying MOS:OPENPARA sec 3 par 1 providing for the deceased "the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable", where "was" - by not excluding multiplicity - and "notable" imply Swiss-German-American for Einstein for being notable in 1905 as Swiss, in 1915 and 1921 as German, and from 1939 on (atomic bomb) as American. And, no "German-born" or "Austrian", because of MOS:OPENPARA sec 3 par 2 providing for the deceased that "previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability".--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense, this is pure presumptuousness and an invention of a rule that does not exist. So, NO I object. I am simply tired to discuss this issue with you. -- ZH8000 (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Kingdom of Württemberg irrelevant for Einstein's birthplace[edit]

At the time of Einstein's birth, the Kingdom of Württemberg was a secular federal States of the German Empire, as Illinois now in USA, and a kingdom only by name. Thus, including it in the article may be misleading especially for younger readers who may think that it was a real kingdom as with a king. When referring to Chicago, mentioning the State of Illinois is not needed. The same applies to famous enough Ulm. Thus, the Kingdom of Württemberg can be dropped as practically irrelevant, and also because dissolved and dead already in 1918, and including it is more confusing than informing.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I see no reaso for dropping since we're talking about 1879 and 1918, More iirc importantly despite bing of having been incorported into the German empire in 1871, they continued issue their own papers and cizizenship. For that reasin The German WP entries explicitly lists hi citizenship before 1896 explicitly as Württemberg and then later as Prussian.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
The Kingdom of Württemberg (in Germany/Holy Roman Empire since 1495 as Duchy of Württemberg) is now obscure and ancient history in English speaking world ("ESW"), and its citizens were also citizens of German Reich as per Constitution of the German Empire#Citizenship and thus Germans for ESW. Later, German citizenship was per Weimar Constitution#Section 1: The Reich and its States and not per federal states such as Free State of Prussia and thus German too and not Prussian, as Weimar Republic was officially German Reich; those German editors of WP need to study German history more, and because they are Germans, it does not mean they know better and what matters for them is not relevant in ESW in this case. Do not rely on believing, but on knowing.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't think (persumed) obscurity in the ESW amounts to much of an argument here. WP is not an encyclopedia for the ESW but an international encyclopedia in English, but more importantly there is no good reason to suppress the (known and verifiable) correct information just because it may appear obscure to some readers. As far as citizenship section on the German empire you've linked above is concerned note the importance of the year 1913 in the description and obviously Einstein was born before 1913.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree that he was born in the German Empire. It's clear-cut to me. Jusdafax 09:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there is any dispute about where Einstein was born, he was clearly born in the German empire and phresing that as German born is ok. The potential dispute is about the exact (formal) nature of his first citizenship and whether the article (or the lead) should provide that information or not. For instance in the citizenship section of the infobox a more precise and imho better way to phrase the first entry is Kingdom of Württemberg in the German Empire (also in analogy to the Austria case).
A somewhat separate but related dispute might be, whether to call him a German, Swiss, American, German-Swiss, German-Swiss-American, Swiss-American, German-Swiss-Austrian-American or whatever physicist. Or whether it's best to simply stay away from these variations by calling him German born. --Kmhkmh (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps both could used, as in "German Empire, Kingdom of Württemberg" or "German Empire (Kingdom of Württemberg)" - a solution that hopefully all will find appealing. Jusdafax 16:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Every citizen of the Kingdom of Württemberg was also a citizen of the German Empire as per duplication of the federal state citizenship also to the German Reich/Empire level (Constitution of the German Empire#Citizenship). Because the Kingdom of Württemberg is obscure, the federal state level citizenship can be dropped and only the German Reich/Empire level could be mention for clarity. "Make it simple..." as Einstein article is not about history, and clicking on Ulm will lead to more historic details.
The Einstein's birthplace should be dropped as per MOS:OPENPARA sec 3 par 2 stating that "the country of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability". Thus, no "German-born". But, Einstein retook his German citizenship, which is relevant to his 1915 general relativity and 1921 Nobel Prize. The American citizenship is also relevant to Einstein's notability of the letter to President FDR and atomic bomb. In 1905 he was Swiss. Thus, Swiss-German-American.
The places of citizenship could be dropped in the top table for clarity. So: German, none, Swiss, Austrian, German, American, without countries to follow, but just linked to those nationality names, e.g "German Empire|German" in "[[]]" and the dates only. "Make it simple... ." It should be sufficient, as clicking on the links will allow to get more country history details this article is not about.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Consensus by "no objections" revisited[edit]

My understanding is that we reached consensus by "no objections" to simplifying the citizenships in the top table by naming them only, linking to the countries, and making active for those who want to study history of the particular countries to make everything clear and simple while retaining easy access to references by 1 click.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 05:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

unfortunately your underrstanding is wrong.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I can simply support Kmhkmh's statement. Logicalgenius3 is simply undereducated about the subject and makes fundamental wrong conclusions ("despite" his user name). I am simply tired to discuss this issue with him any further. -- ZH8000 (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I have not been involved in this discussion, but regarding the lead, I repeat that there is a guideline, which forbids to cite multiple citizenships there. The matter of multiple citizenships in the lead has been discussed many times, for example at Enrico Fermi's Talk page or here at ANI (ANI is the right noticeboard, since WP:OPENPARA is part of a guideline, and as such can be enforced), and the consensus is clear. I advise the above mentioned user to read carefully the discussion at ANI which I linked here, and if he continues, I suggest ZH8000 to take him to ANI too. Alex2006 (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
As was said elsewhere, indeed there is no policy about consensus by "being tired of discussing the same thing over and over". Please stop reverting, and stop inventing policies. - DVdm (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Fixing sources[edit]

moved from my talk page. -- ZH8000 (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Would be best to not make it hard for our readers to find sourced info. If a book links is there pls replace it where need be ...pls dont remove it because of style preferences. We are here to help people find info Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 29#Linking to Google Books pages. -- Moxy (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong if you think so. In fact it reduces redundancy, the possible source of errors. It does not reduce ease of use, you just click on the link to get the very same info (perhaps it asks the authors to be a bit more cautious, but we are capable to handle it, aren't we!). Finally, it is recommended WP style to use only one style of referencing: WP:CITEVAR. -- ZH8000 (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I dont think you understand the problem.. dont remove links to books or PDFs etc..- as per the RfC link above. I have no problem if you would like a certain format for the refs ...just move the links to the right section...dont remove links to more info. Going out of your way to reduce access to information is never a good thing.....think of our readers at all times pls. Never never pick format over accessibility . -- Moxy (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)