Talk:Albert Einstein

Letter to NYT about Menachem Begin
Today I made an improvement to this article, but it was deleted without my consent. When reading the section that mentions the letter Einstein wrote to the New York Times about the visit of Menachem Begin to the United States, I realized that wikipedia actually has an image of the letter in Wikimeida Commons. This image is displayed in-line with the articles on other signatories, but it was unfortunately absent from Einstein's page. Obviously providing the source-content as a visual aid is a great addition to the quality of this article, so I added it. Then User:Artem.G maliciously removed it without my consent.

Can someone please restore these revisions?

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albert_Einstein&oldid=1191459172 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albert_Einstein&oldid=1191458692

Thank you

Unlock request
It appears that this article is locked from editing by User:Cirt -- a user who has been permanently banned from Wikipedia for abuse. Because the user who locked this page is a known bad actor, can we please unlock this page so I can restore my edit?


 * I see above text was written at 21:03, 23 December 2023 by user:Maltfield, and was neither signed (by four ~), nor signed by bot (second probably because edit contained more than one section?) as I think Maltfield expected.


 * User:Artem.G reverted edits cited above commenting that the contents is undue (excessive, unsuitable), proposing summarising it for this article, and proposing discussion on talk page before reverting his reverts. Maltfield tried to discuss here, but because his post was not signed Artem.G (and other editors who look after this site) missed it. I suppose in discussion he would claim the letters to New Yourk Times editors would be at least borderline Non neutral point of view (see above), and if Menachem Begin is still alive as I believe he is, also Biography of living persons apply, so additional sources confirming info in that letter is true would be needed before reverting. And if it can be confirmed as I suppose is required, the contents of that edit would be better placed at Begin article, or an article about history of Israel (written in a NPOW way), possibly here only resumed (because Einstein was one of several who signed it, not the sole author), as Artem proposed in his edit comment. As far as I see, there definitively was no malicious intent from Artem.G.


 * About consent to change contents of a contributor: Maltfield, following editors don't need consent of previous editors to further modify contents previous editors contributed (also need no consent for removing it if need be, please see copyright Text of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that is applicable, and link to it is shown whenever you publish here).


 * Furthermore, as far as I could find, when User:Cirt protected this site in 2009 he was not banned yet, because he did not yet commit the abuse that caused his ban; then he was still a bona fide admin, acting on approved request, see:

08:34, 10 June 2009 Cirt talk contribs changed protection settings for Albert Einstein ‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite) (vandalism, prot req fm WP:RFPP) (hist) (thank)
 * See also when he resigned his admin rights, and when and why he was banned: Sockpuppet investigations/Cirt/Archive; conclusion: this page has been semiprotected permanently years ago because of continuing high vandalism count on it, like several others, to relieve a bit the burden on patrollers, not explicitly (and malevolently) to prevent you to revert reversion of your edits.


 * What my answer here can help to: my mentioning links to all involved above shall cause Wikipedia software to notify them about this problem when they are next logged in, and because I addressed misconceptions I found above I think they can look into it together and resolve it.--Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Anachronistic raid by the Gestapo of his family's Berlin Apartment in 1933
In the beginning of the subsection of Life and career, titled 1933: Emigration to the U.S., there is a sentence that claims his family's apartment was raided by the Gestapo repeatedly from February to March 1933, 1-2 months before the existence of the Gestapo as a Nazi organisation (or rather, before its renaming from the Prussian Secret Police to the Gestapo).

This is a strange anachronism and puts to question the reputability of the source of this information. I can find one source (https://library.yu.edu/c.php?g=1073982&p=7823903) that corroborates this information, albeit without the specification of it being the Gestapo who were responsible for the raid. Instead, the raid is attributed to nameless "troopers."

The bibliography cites two books which I do not have, so I cannot currently check the citations for this information.

KayvK (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: "Use British English" template
I propose the "Use British English" template. Since Albert Einstein is one of the most influential people in human history, I think it would be more correct to use the main English, i.e. the British English. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Could you please explain each logical step in this thought process before you ask for other editors to spend time discussing it? Because it presently makes no sense whatsoever, and moreover does not seem to take relevant site guidelines into account. It's really tiring to spend hours picking through every assumption you make in trying to argue for changes, only to point out that none of them actually reflect very accessible site guidelines. Remsense  诉  23:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * it's just a proposal, if you prefer to move the discussion to a more suitable place that's fine. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Right, but it's a proposal based in statements that directly contradict site guidelines. You say it would be more correct to use the main English, i.e. the British English, which can be frustrating because WP:ENGVAR says very plainly that The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety over others. So other editors have to spend time trying to understand how to reconcile the two, and it can be frustrating. Remsense  诉  23:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have just modified the comment by writing "I think". JacktheBrown (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Jack, I hope you feel comfortable when I ask these questions, because I really don't want to come off as bludgeoning or anything, I ask in good faith: why does that matter at all? Of course that's what you think, that's why you've made the proposal. The fact remains that WP:ENGVAR says what it says (please consider reading it in full) and describes how these decisions are made. We explicitly don't switch things up for no reason, and for our purposes the reasons you've supplied are explicitly discounted by the aforementioned guideline. There's a lot of room for flexibility on Wikipedia, but explicit guidelines exist for a reason, reflect strong existing consensus, and should generally be acknowledged when relevant.
 * Please take this as pragmatic rather than elitist gatekeeping: it is puzzling to try and engage with your suggestions when they are obviously contradicted by guidelines or policy. How are we supposed to answer other than just pointing you to the same places over and over? Before asking many questions like this, editors usually acquire some habit of checking if policy (here including guidelines, the MoS, etc.) have anything relevant to say. Then, any exceptions or nuances to discuss can be preemptively addressed by you.
 * In a post like this, I would usually expect an experienced editor to say something like "I know WP:ENGVAR says this, but here's why this situation is different..." or "here's why we should consider an exception..." Making us point to the obvious things first is a waste of other editors' time, Jack. I don't expect anyone to have an encyclopedic (ha) knowledge of any of this, but generally people try because policy is important, it reflects the existing consensus of editors and should not be ignored.
 * Sorry, one more thing: Jack, I have a feeling you are uncomfortable browsing policy pages or the Manual of Style on your phone, I know you're a mobile editor. Is this the case? If you want, I can try to help you so that it's easier to check what project pages actually say. Remsense 诉  05:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The subject was a US citizen; we're obviously not changing this for the reasons discussed at MOS:ENGVAR. No national variety of English is a preferred or "main" version on Wikipedia. VQuakr (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "was a US citizen"; yes, but only for 15 years: "United States (1940–1955)". JacktheBrown (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And? VQuakr (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * if you want to use American English for this page I agree, but your reasoning, in my opinion, doesn't make much sense; let me give you an example: if John Lennon had lived in the United States for five years, would you have used American English for the John Lennon page? JacktheBrown (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If John Lennon was born on the Danube and spent much of his earlier life in Switzerland, probably.
 * British English is not the "main" or "default" variety.
 * If there are ties for this subject, it's American, not British.
 * That's the entire point. You are still arguing with an underlying assumption that is contradicted by policy. Please stop doing that. Remsense  诉  17:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * all right, I will leave the discussion and, if I receive replies, I will give you the task, if you wish, to continue it. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As always, I appreciate your patience! Remsense  诉  18:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If John Lennon had been born outside of Britain/former British Empire nation and then had moved to the USA and become a citizen, yes we likely would end up with his biography written in American English. Those are some major changes to Lennon's biography, though, so it seems like quite the tortured analogy. VQuakr (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Childhood, youth and education
The material is out of chronological order, and that confuses on several places.

If there is no objection, I'd move the paragraph on Einstein family, and business, moving to Italy in 1894, currently almost at the top of section, after the paragrapghs addressing Einstein's school years and progress in Munich, and before the paragraph about his exams for Swiss federal polytechnics school.

Between there, the story how and why he left Luitpold Gimnasium before finishing it (when abitur was required for access to most university studies) should be at least mentioned (and maybe dr. Josef Degenhart, too). That shall also answer why a school in Swiss was chosen and neither one in Munich (as article imples family planed) or in Italy (where family then resided).

Current sequence of paragraphs is pretty much a mess even when individual facts are true, and I don't see how to make it better without this repositioning. Because this article is high profile I propose this change before making it. Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Old Cantonal  School  Aarau  might refer to Einstein studying in grammar school in Aarau for a year, mostly to improve his capability in French language (where he failed at first exam for federal polytechnics school); but before addressing reevaluation of citation proposed (I already see it is a secondary, not primary school as would be for Munich paragraph, and adding others relevant to what I wrote above), repositioning of paragraphs in better order I propose above is needed.


 * Anyway I can already see this: user:JackTheSecond (who added citation) was right to add citation, but wrong on what it meant and where it belongs; user:Zeev59 was right to return the previous Munich primary school, but failed to interpret the citation correctly and so probably wrong to remove the citation (which I'll use if it confirms what I expect, when we come to that ;-)

ž And Hieronofsyracuse was right putting that school into the infobox, even when Einstein did it only for a about a year, it was significant for several reasons, including that Einstein graduated there (which he didn't at Luitpold Gimnasium in Munich, just context I intend to give is still missing. I'll revert the Artem.G's removal of it (hi, in most situations your action would be OK) after I give context


 * Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

E=Mc^2
Did you know this formula was first discovered some years earlier by British telegrapher Samuel Tolver Preston? It is in his book "Physics of The Ether" written in 1875. K00la1dx (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * VQuakr (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My citation is on the back of this book:
 * https://www.amazon.com/Samuel-Tolver-Preston-Father-Atomic/dp/B0B92G12YH
 * Your not going to make me buy the book just to post. You can view the back of the book by clicking the picture on the amazon website.
 * "In 1875 four years before albert Einstein was born, Samuel Tolver Preston published an amazing book entitled "Physics of the Ether". In it he set down the famously formula E=mc^2 and thoroughly explained its implications"
 * If that does not satisfy you just look at the article already in wiki:
 * "In his book Physics of the Ether (1875) he claimed that if matter is subdivided into ether particles, they would travel at the speed of light and represent an enormous amount of energy. " K00la1dx (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Self-published. We use reliable sources. VQuakr (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously trying to cite a book when you don't even know what it says? Remsense  诉  18:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * reliable sources = bandwagon — Preceding unsigned comment added by K00la1dx (talk • contribs)
 * Under no circumstances can we cite a dust-jacket. EEng 03:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)