Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive 18

RfC: date format in this article
Should this article use DMY dates (such as 14 March 1879) or MDY dates (such as March 14, 1879)? --Stfg (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Background: the first version of the article, dated November 2001, used MDY dates. It was changed to DMY dates in this edit, dated August 2008. Recently, an editor has sought to change it back to MDY dates, but this has been reverted as lacking consensus. Please also see discussion earlier on this talk page. Some policies/guidelines that may be relevant are WP:STRONGNAT, WP:RETAIN and WP:DATERET. --Stfg (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC) Refactored to include creation and edit dates. --Stfg (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

This issue has also been raised at Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 94 and closed as unresolved. --Stfg (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

''Please use the two "Support" sections for single-user explanations, avoiding rebuttals and discussion. The "Threaded discussion" section is available for general discussion, and please feel free to add new subsections on specific topics if you wish.''

Support DMY dates (e.g. 14 March 1879)

 * Support more likely as pointed out in my comment below in the "support" section (forth from top).TMCk (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support keep - Einstein held a "MDY-nationality" during a mere 15 years, but DMY-nationalities during 60 years. The five papers written in 1905, the theories of relativity, and the reason for his Nobel Prize, together constitute the essence—and the bulk—of Einstein's notability, and none of that happened under citizenship in MDY-space. The wp:STRONGNAT guideline is therefore not applicable, and even if it were, the "strong tie[s] to a particular English-speaking country" is insufficiently strong to warrant a change from the long standing DMY date format to a new one. - DVdm (talk) 07:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As you boldly stated above, Enstein spent 22 years in the United States as opposed to 52 years in non English speaking countries. You bold statement is incorrect. JOJ   Hutton  14:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Quibble corrected. - DVdm (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Who is "Enstein"? :) Just trying to loosen up the RFC ;) TMCk (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * And he hold Swiss citizenship for about 54 years. Wouldn't that make real strong national ties, "stronger" than to the US if citizenship alone is considered like it was argued by some????TMCk (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Just pointing out flaws in presented reasoning.TMCk (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Enstein was Doc Brown's dog. And I'm not gonna fix the spelling. But it was a typo. Thats what happens when I edit on my iPhone 75% of the time.
 * Well yes he had Swiss citizenship, but if the strong ties non English speaking countries was suppose to be part of the equation, then STRONGNAT would simply say Strong National ties to a particular country, not Strong national ties to a particular English speaking country. The MOS already says that its the strong ties to an English speaking country that matter most, not the strong ties to a non English speaking country. -- JOJ  Hutton  23:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course it was just a spell error. Happens to me all the time but "Doc Brown's dog" is a good one... I see you're loosen up a bit ;) My point with his long-term Swiss citizenship is not about English vs. other language speaking countries but about "strong national ties" he might have had (in your opinion) in regards with the United States or not so much (in my opinion) compared to other countries or if he in his own mind even had any strong feeling in regards to any nation/nationality. Since he openly favoured a global government I doubt any strong ties to a specific country, be it an English speaking one or other.TMCk (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support keep as per the above, WP:DATERET and the following: DMY was Einstein's preferred choice of format, and he spent the majority of his life in countries in which the DMY format held most weight. It's too arrogant to ignore the practice of all non-English speaking countries, just to ignore WP:DATERET and try and force a change based on what would have been an alien format to the man himself. - SchroCat (talk) 11:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to give you a "heads up", but Einstein regularly used MDY dates when writing in English. His now famous 1939 letters to FDR confirm that MDY was not an alien date format as you say above. JOJ  Hutton  14:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * RE: It's too arrogant to ignore the practice of all non-English speaking countries: Feel free to start a discussion at MOSNUM, proposing that we should stop pegging English-Wikipedia style to the way things are done in English-speaking countries. And good luck with that. --MelanieN (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You two can stop WP:BLUDGEONing everyone who disagrees with you: this isn't the section for discussion, so comment in the right place, rather than berate people with (shock horror) a different opinion to yours. - SchroCat (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support keep - Article was stable at DMY for over 5 years so WP:RETAIN should apply unless there is a significant reason to change. Given Einstein's origin and international history, including multiple different citizenships using WP:STRONGNAT to justify a change is a weak argument. There is no encyclopedic improvement whatsoever to be gained by changing to MDY and narrow-minded nationalism should never be an acceptable reason to switch.--Wolbo (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually think that you mean WP:DATERET, not WP:RETAIN. RETAIN is for spelling differences. DATERET is for dates. DATERET says: If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on article talk. That is what we have here. We have a reason to change based on a strong national tie, which according to WP:STRONGNAT, says Strong National tie to a specific English speaking country.
 * WP:DATERET also says that The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on article talk. Since the first dates were MDY then DATERET supports MDY. Its obvious that you prefer DMY, but DATERET is no reason to continue to continue to use the incorrect Date format, regardless of how long the date format has been incorrectly used in the article.-- JOJ  Hutton  17:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * RE Article was stable at DMY for over 5 years: And before that it was stable at MDY for more than six years - nearly seven. DATERET cuts both ways. --MelanieN (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * We need to keep in mind that our policies were in big part non-existent at the time the article was started and when the date change was made in 2008, the now established "strong-nat-policy" was under scrutiny. So things weren't as clear then as they may seem now and we need to acknowledge that fact. There was a similar instance at tank even so it was about ENGWAR in general, not only dates.TMCk (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It shows that he, just like any other immigrant to the States adhered to common formats in letters depending who he would write to. I do the same [at least I try hard] when writing to friends etc. overseas... I.E. I use "Mail" instead of e-mail"... TMCk (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support keep DMY – Germany and Switzerland are English-speaking countries (and this qualifier should be removed from the MOS, as most countries would qualify to some extent, and it shouldn't matter anyway for the purpose of dates unless a different character set is used, in which case the style used for latin character dates in that country should be used). —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 03:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support keeping DMY Per my arguments in past discussions and per AlanM1's points. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 12:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support retain DMY Einstein had an international history with the majority of his years being associated with DMY. The STRONGNAT claims are personal opinions that one nation can claim Einstein as their own, but there is no justification other than a preference. Accordingly, the existing style should be retained as it has been accepted on this highly watched article for years. Johnuniq (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support keeping DMY because I find these nationalistic "dis-cussion" futile and superflous. Period. -- ZH8000 (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a nationalistic discussion, but a discussion about the guidelines. There are supporters on both sides from all countries. JOJ   Hutton  02:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussions about guidelines belong on guideline talk pages. - DVdm (talk) 06:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Support MDY dates (e.g. March 14, 1879)

 * Support since there is no real country ties we should use the format that is the most reader friendly. (MM/DD/YYYY) is simply more comfortable for people to read. No need for ISO standards if we a writing out the months. This is despite my ties to Canada (Date and time notation in Canada)-- Moxy (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Mdy is more user reader-friendly than ymd but whether's it's more reader-friendly than dmy is another question (the question at hand). I find dmy more reader-friendly (i.e. when I'm the reader). Jimp 09:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - WP:STRONGNAT refers to English-speaking countries only. Einstein, by his own choice, developed strong ties to the US, living his last 22 years there, participating in its academic life, serving as a consultant to the U.S. Navy, co-signing the letter that influenced President F.D.Roosevelt to have the US research atomic weapons, engaging in civil rights activism, and applying for and receiving US citizenship. Einstein had no strong ties to any other English-speaking country; imho the concept of "DMY-space" in reference to German-speaking countries has no relevance to WP:STRONGNAT. On this basis, given that an editor is willing to restore the article's original use of MDY dates, I think that is the correct thing for this article. --Stfg (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Per MOS talk, it's clear that his ties to a non-English country like Germany are irrelevant to how his date is given in the English WP. And no one is suggesting he had strong, or any, "national ties" to any other English country besides the U.S. (8 weeks in the U.K. vs. 22 years, plus citizenship, in America.) Therefore, the key rationale for using D-M-Y, a British format, seems to rely on single fact, He did his significant work in German, which is not relevant for the English WP.


 * In addition, Einstein's contemporaries, also European immigrants who became U.S. citizens, are mentioned in the article and they all use the American format. Among those are John von Neumann, Kurt Gödel, Leó Szilárd, Edward Teller, Eugene Wigner, and even Einstein's 1st wife, Mileva Marić. Per OSE, the overarching concept remains, that of precedent and consistency throughout the Wikipedia project. And FWIW, there is/was, by my count, already a consensus on this talk page and on the closed DRN to change for format back to M-D-Y. --Light show (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Per comments below that he used the MDY format when writing in English after moving to the U.S. in 1933, here are a few images: 1939, 1945, 1948, 1951. --Light show (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those. I think it is HIGHLY relevant to see that he himself used the "Month Day, Year" format when writing in English. This is his article, we should do it his way. --MelanieN (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So you think it's 'HIGHLY' relevant that a person who lives in a country uses the date format of that country when writing a letter to someone else in that country? Honestly, that's your argument?.....Einstein's turning in his grave. So what about this letter from Einstein in English? --Wolbo (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Is Turkey an English speaking country? I don't think so. So how is it relevant to the English Wikipedia? JOJ  Hutton  19:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Einstein's first and famous letter was dictated by him in German and translated by someone else. Not that it matters [one usually tries to adhere to formats used in the country one is writing to] but makes the example mute. All original English written letters (and there were not many) I found that if not addressed to an official US body made use of the common date format in Europe. Furthermore, most of his correspondence seem to have been written in his maiden language (German) anyways, even while living in the US before and after becoming a citizen here.TMCk (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: As pointed out at the discussion above [just hit Ctrl + F and "dual citizenship], here a simplified version: Article could go both ways as there is in my opinion no real strong national tie despite his US citizenship he hold for a short time compared to his life and his notability doesn't come from that time either. He was a well known and respected person way before becoming a US citizen. His "national ties" are way more complicated than holding a specific citizenship at his last years before dead. It might even not have been much of a choice for him at the time since being of Jewish descent. Also a sign/hint/reason(?) that his national ties to the US weren't as strong as some perceive it (and would render wp:STRONGNAT mute) is his Swiss citizenship he held for far longer (the majority of his life) and to the day he died [yeah, some editor in the discussion thought dual citizenship is a mute point b/c according to them Einstein didn't hold any other [citizenship] than an American one... well, they were clearly wrong and should've read our article before making such statement]. I said "could go both ways" but I'd retain it the way it has been for quite some years. wp:RETAIN comes into mind.TMCk (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You're correct. When I wrote above, Einstein wasn't a "dual citizen," having "renounced" his other citizenship, I was referring to Germany. My mistake. --Light show (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Appreciate your honest comment/response.TMCk (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support I agree with the reasoning that Einstein's life in Germany should not influence the decision, and that he had closer ties to the US than any other English-speaking country. I am not convinced that the change from M-D-Y to D-M-Y was a valid edit, in view of this arbitration case. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support WP:STRONGNAT specifically says "A Strong National Tie to a Specific English speaking country". Since his only Strong National Tie to an English speaking country was to the United States, the more common United States MDY date format should be used. It does infer that the Strong National Tie must be stronger than a Non English speaking country national tie, nor does it infer that a Strong National Tie to an English speaking country may not be strong enough, as some have incorrectly alleged in the previous discussion. As far as National ties are concerned on Wikipedia, English speaking countries must be favored over non English speaking countries. And since Consensus is based on the quality of the arguments as viewed through Wikipedia policy, its clear that only STRONGNAT can apply and there are no guidelines that trump STRONGNAT as far as dates are concerned.-- JOJ  Hutton  01:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support: This format is a less formal, more commonly used format. That alone makes it more desirable for an encyclopedia article, as it makes it more accessible. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  02:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that mdy is either less formal or more common than dmy. It's just a matter of preference. Jimp 09:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the support for your assertion that mdy is "less formal, more commonly used"?--Wolbo (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Date format and Date format with the addendum that spoken English is far more common (and fundamental) than written English. WP is supposed to be easily accessible, and if the written form expresses the spoken form, that makes it more accessible. I will leave the giant wall of example links (both wikilinks and external links) to your imagination, unless you really find it necessary. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support ... He had some national tie to the US, was it "strong" enough? I don't know, maybe. The fact that he was German & Germans tend to use dmy when writing German doesn't count. I think the article could go either way unless we could show which he preferred when writing in English. If the article started with mdy, let it go back to that. Jimp 09:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Einstein's now famous letters written to Roosevelt in 1939 are written in English and use the more common MDY date format. Hopefully that answers the question of which date format he preferred in English.-- JOJ  Hutton  10:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether it's more common or not depends on which kind of English you're talking about but if he used mdy in English, so should we. Jimp 11:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify, when I say common, I mean more common in the English speakingbcountry which he had strong ties to. Not more common around the world. JOJ   Hutton  11:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support since this is the format recommended by MOS, namely, the format used by the English-speaking country to which he has strong national ties. I find it hard to believe that anyone could think that living for 22 years in a particular country, including 15 years as a citizen of that country, does not establish a "strong national tie" with that country. IMO some people's novel interpretation of "strong national tie" does not trump the clear language of the MOS. Also, JoJ makes an excellent point, above, that Einstein himself used this format when writing letters in English. --MelanieN (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - The only argument for a DMY which seems to have any policy based merit is User:DVdm's. DVdm noted that Einstein spent the majority of his life in DMY countries and the article ought to reflect this. That reasoning is directly addressed in WP:STRONGNAT though, which specifically points to "english speaking" countries as the only countries that should be considered. The english speaking country with which Einstein has the strongest association is clearly a MDY country. NickCT (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The point about strong national ties is not about having "the strongest" ones but "strong ties in general". There is a difference that should not be overlooked.TMCk (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't agree more. Its is about having strong ties in general but to a particular "English speaking country". Non English speaking countries are not part of STRONGNAT.-- JOJ  Hutton  00:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You're getting closer but not close enough yet. "Strong" national ties are more than mere citizenship or less strong ties to a non English speaking country [which actually there aren't much since even not an officially language, European countries do teach in school British English (adding some American English recently) and if abroad, you'll find yourself getting responses not in American but British English]. They're ties to a nation or in Einstein's case I would argue a lack of it but if one must choose yet closer to European style English language and even more European date format. In my mind besides other points, the so-much-longer hold Swiss citizenship rules out a "strong" tie to our (US) date format.TMCk (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:STRONGNAT. From Princeton to Pasadena, Einstein had strong national ties to the U.S. SueDonem (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:STRONGNAT and his work and life were here in America and he spent the rest of his life here and he died as an American citizen.SW3 5DL (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
In RfCs structured like this, it's normal to place comments only in the section for the option you support. Some editors have placed comments in both sections, in one case merely making the same comment in both sections. This doesn't gain extra weight; it just makes it harder for the closer. Please would editors who have made comments in both sections merge them into one comment in the section for the option they support. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, ✅. - DVdm (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Appreciated. --Stfg (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I have (well, I thought I had, but MelanieN beat me to it :-)) restored the original section headers, which simply ask which date format to be used. To specify that one format would be retained while the other would be a change would prejudice the discussion. Some may consider that the current version, created in 2008, is the one to be "retained"; others may say that it is the one used through the majority of the life of the article. Besides, other guidelines bear on the discussion.  Please do not change those section headers without first obtaining consensus to do so here, in this subsection. --Stfg (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Nyah, nyah! 0;-D I concur that the section headings should not say "retain" or "change" - especially in this case where "retain" can cut either way. --MelanieN (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I was actually thinking about changing the section heading to "Support Changing Back to Original MDY format", since the other user seemed to want to be thorough.-- JOJ  Hutton  17:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be unhappy with that. Everyone can make their own statements about which guidelines they consider to apply to which aspects of the history. We shouldn't be using the section titles to lead people. --Stfg (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It would keep the two Support sections cleaner, IMO, if rebuttals and comments by others are placed somewhere else. Otherwise, those sections will grow into hard-to-follow digressions and arguments. --Light show (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with that in theory, but some of the things I see written is just simply incorrect. One person is even quoting the wrong MOS. I mean how do you argue the meaning of the guidelines with someone when they even know the difference between them? JOJ  Hutton  20:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Good question. One option is to wait until consensus is eventually tallied, and if too close to call, then open discussions about the quality of any "Supports." Per consensus-building, In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. --Light show (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what "until consensus is eventually tallied" means -- isn't that when the RfC is closed? Many of the exchanges arising from comments and rebuttals fizzle out pretty quickly, and then they don't cause any real difficulty. If and when they start to get complicated, a new thread or even a new subsection here is always an option. --Stfg (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I sympathize with 's mention of WP:BLUDGEON this morning, though it applies to more than two editors. The purpose of the two support sections is to enable editors to make their statements, without these becoming the excuse for extended bickering. To keep popping up to explain why you think each person's post is mistaken is some way or other is rude and disruptive. If you feel that some view is incorrect and that this needs discussing, it's better to start a thread or subsection here and present the issue itself, without squabbling with editors who hold different views.


 * If any editor felt that their support comment had been made the target of too much of that, what would people think of that editor moving the offending comments here and providing a &lt;small>...&lt;/small> comment indicating that they had done so? I would have no objection to that, personally. (I mean only comments on their own !votes, not general refactoring of the page.) --Stfg (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd leave the comments in place, but would add a note up top to please use the "Support" sections for single-user explanations and avoid rebuttals. I think new topics not already covered should be brought up in new sections. People who take the time to "Support" something shouldn't be afraid to do so. --Light show (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I've put something at the bottom of "up top", and deliberately not signed it, so anyone can feel free to copy edit it. --Stfg (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Notifications

 * WT:MOS --Stfg (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WT:MOSNUM --Stfg (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

English Speaking Countries
For the purpose of the English Wikipedia, Germany and Switzerland Are Not English speaking countries. The fact that some people can speak English in these countries is a very poor excuse for of an argument.-- JOJ  Hutton  03:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * From the "Switzerland is yours" website: Quote: "The English language is very widespread in Switzerland. After their mother tongue, the Swiss speak English best, since it is used as a link and the language of communication in this multilingual country ..." also: "Traditionally, Switzerland is home to a large anglophone community. The English language is very widespread and is used as a link between Switzerland's various linguistic communities. Switzerland is extremely open culturally and economically, and thus has all the services an anglophone could possibly want. So much so that some English speakers who have lived in Switzerland for years have not felt the need to learn one of the national languages, since they are able to deal with any situation in English." In addition, English is taught as a language in the scholls of certain cantons. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Also from a Ph.D. thesis, quote: "The study might show that we have our own special swissicized variety of english, at which point you can wonder if it isn't also a type of national language, which combines structures, expressions and mindsets of all the other national languages, une sorte de mélange." Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Swiss style magazine, article: "English as a reference language in Switzerland": "The Swiss economy is one of the most competitive in the world and attracts an important number of multinational corporation headquarters who tend to employ a significant number of locals. A large majority of them have adopted the English language as their lingua franca, especially in the Suisse Romande." Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Also:


 * (ref name="Durham2014")
 * (ref name="Coulmas1991")
 * (ref name="CumminsDavison2007")
 * (ref name="Ammon2001")
 * Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The Guardian: English tests Swiss identity: "Switzerland has four constitutionally recognised national languages: German, French, Italian and Romansh, but educationalists and politicians now acknowledge that English has become the lingua franca of choice between these groups. These days, when young Swiss people from different language areas of Switzerland encounter each other they prefer to communicate in English. Not only are they likely to speak English better than another national language, but it also neutral, allowing them to avoid the thorny issue of whose language to use." Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  10:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Is this really the way you wish to take the argument for DMY? Looks like you have "jumped the shark and are out of ideas. JOJ   Hutton  11:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The idea was not mine. It was 's. And I simply replied to your comments in this section which you started. Specifically your comment: The fact that some people can speak English in these countries is a very poor excuse for of an argument., which tries to dismiss the use of English in Switzerland as merely ...that some people can speak English. I think my reliable sources show that your argument has no merit. If anyone is doing any shark jumping, it isn't me. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 11:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the most absurd argument I have heard in a long time. If you are finished digging up obscure sources to support your contention that "Switzerland is an English speaking country," allow me to quote from our own article Switzerland: "In 2011, the languages most spoken at home among permanent residents aged 15 and older were: Swiss German (4,027,917, or 61.1%); French (1,523,094, 23.1%); Standard German (637,439, 9.7%); Italian (545,274, 8.2%); Ticinese and Grisons (107,973, 1.6%); Romansh (37,490, 0.57%); and English (278,407, 4.2%). Speakers of other languages at home numbered 1,382,508, or 16.5% of the population." Certainly many people in Switzerland, and a lot of other European countries, can speak English. There are many educated Europeans who can speak multiple languages including English with near-native fluency. This does not mean that they should be setting the style guidelines for the English Wikipedia. That would be like claiming that U.S. usage should set the MOS standard at the Spanish Wikipedia, since 35 million Americans speak Spanish. --MelanieN (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This is the most absurd argument I have heard in a long time.: Nothing new here. You tend to express strong disapproval for the opinions of editors you disagree with and you have previously been told about it. In any case, this is your own opinion, and you are entitled to it, but I don't have to agree. If you are finished digging up obscure sources to support your contention that "Switzerland is an English speaking country,..." The sources are anything but obscure, including the Guardian and scholarly publications by experts. They represent the latest research on English usage in Switzerland which establishes the usage of English internationally and intranationally. Your statistics about other language usage in Switzerland are irrelevant, since it has been established that English is actively being used internally as a lingua franca. Certainly many people in Switzerland, and a lot of other European countries, can speak English.: That misses the point. Just knowing the English language is different from actively using it to communicate as an internal lingua franca with others in their own country, as has been established by the reliable sources. As far as That would be like claiming that U.S. usage should set the MOS standard at the Spanish Wikipedia, since 35 million Americans speak Spanish.: The en.wiki MOS does not speak, indeed it cannot speak, about other Wikipedias. This argument is invalid. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  18:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you wish to change the entire scope of the English Wikipedia, you are welcomed to try. This article is not the battleground for such a change though. So until you bring about the radical change that you seem to be proposing, for the purposes of the English Wikipedia and STRONGNAT, Switzerland and Germany will not be considered English speaking countries. You bring a decent argument, but I doubt that you will be able to invoke the change that your opinion suggests. So you had your say, you made your point, and hopefully we won't have any more if this disruption again. JOJ   Hutton  21:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You bring so many clichés to attack me that I find it laughable. Your badgering obviously knows no limits. You invoke "battleground", "disruption" etc. just because I gave you a reply quoting reliable sources. This is AGF-defying and uncivil. I repeat again: You opened this thread because you were threatened enough by AlanM1's arguments about Germany and Switzerland being "English-speaking" countries that you felt you had to address them. I felt that your dismissal of AlanM1's arguments was too facile so I brought forward some counter-arguments. Given your record in this discussion, you are the last editor I would expect to agree with me. So it is not surprising that you don't. You baseless accusations in your replies need to stop nevertheless. If you want to throw mud to stifle the discussion you may yet succeed. But it isn't civil to throw mud at your opponents hoping to win arguments. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 22:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Again I applaud your effort to change the scope of Wikipedia. The place to make such proposals is at Village pump, not here. It is already well established as to which countries are considered "English Speaking" countries on the English Wikipedia. Switzerland and Germany are not two of them. Your arguments are heard and are not considered to be consistent with how the English wikipedia community has interpreted the scope of "English Speaking Country" in the past. You are free and welcome to redefine that scope at the Village Pump, but this is not the place for such a radical proposal.-- JOJ  Hutton  23:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My discussion here with you has ended. I repeat one final time: This idea was not mine. It was AlanM1's. Instead of opening this useless section you should have directly replied to him and offered him the idea of the Village pump, not to me. Also, I never proposed anything, so don't misrepresent my reply to you as a "proposal". You opening this section, soliciting comments, just to finally state that this idea was supposed to go to the village pump in the first place, was unconstructive. My only regret is that I took your section seriously enough to waste my time replying in it. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 00:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Look, I don't know you from Jack. Yes it was another user who said that Switzerland and Germany were English speaking countries. But it was proposed that we don't "rebutt" in the main sections, but create new sections when something new is brought up. That's what I did. But it was you who decided to defend the other users idea with several sources and conclusions. So as far as I'm concerned, you own it now. It's your proposal. It's not my concern that you feel misrepresented. My only concern is the integrity of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And in the end, those countries are still not considered English speaking countries. JOJ   Hutton  01:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

My only concern is the integrity of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. So is every other editor's who took part in this discussion. But the guidelines are vague in certain parts and that's why we have these lengthy discussions. We should not have them to advertise ourselves as the champions of our POV to gain standing over the opposing opinions. And it still appears from the lengthy discussions that you have failed to gather consensus for your proposal, regardless of the standing of these countries as English-speaking or not. And despite your continuing allegations, it is still not my "proposal" but my attempt at an "interpretation" of the guideline. I trust you can distinguish between the two. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 02:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Uh, wow. Would someone explain please, why whether a "country is English-speaking" (whatever that means) should have anything to do with the date format we use for articles related to that country?
 * 1) Isn't it our goal to use the format that would be familiar to the reader?
 * 2) If the assumption is that the reader of an article in enwiki about a predominantly German subject (not necessarily this one) is most likely to be an English-speaker from Germany, and we are trying to use a format familiar to them, isn't that format the one used by English-speakers in Germany? Isn't that also likely to be the same format used by speakers of other languages in Germany? I acknowledge that there could be a difference in countries where a different script might be used (e.g. Israel, Qatar).
 * 3) Is the assumption starting #3 even reasonable? I think it's probably not, and that we are unlikely to be able to predict what format will be familiar to the reader. In that case, shouldn't we fall back maybe to the format most used in the sources of the article (which I again contend will be that of English-speakers (at least) in that country)?
 * —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 11:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Still need to know what it means by "English speaking country"? Here is the Wikipedia entry at List of countries where English is an official language. This list has been the accepted criteria for what is and is not an English speaking country on the English Wikipedia for over ten years now. You are not going to change that here simply because you don't agree with it or you don't know hat it means.
 * And no, it is NOT assumed that more Germans will read an article about a predominately German subject. In fact here are the official readership stats for every Wikipedia project, including the English Wikipedia. . Germany only accounts for 2% of the traffic on the English Wikipedia while Switzerland doesn't even crack the list, and The US accounts for nearly 40% of all traffic on the English Wikipedia. We go by what the guidelines say, and the guidelines say to use the date format of the English speaking country that the subject has strong ties to. It is so painfully obvious that it is the United States, that I can't believe anyone would even attempt to argue against it.-- JOJ  Hutton  02:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Changing the style of existing articles because of some bureaucratic consideration is guaranteed to cause disruption for no useful outcome. If there were a policy with a formula showing that MDY is required, the article would have been changed months or years ago. It is much better to live with "imperfections" than squabbling over unimportant stuff like this—stick to the long-standing style. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * On top of that, the subject has much stronger ties to non-English speaking countries—in all of which the current format DMY is in use—than to English speaking ones. Therefore the STRONGNAT guideline doesn't even apply to begin with. Good grief, what a colossal waste of time this is. - DVdm (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If that's the list, then shouldn't we wikilink "English-speaking nation" to it since it's such an ambiguous term? The rest seems to be saying why the guideline applies, which is not what I asked. I'm questioning the reasoning of the guideline, which someone has suggested this is not really the correct place to do. I've asked the question a bit differently at here. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 08:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ...where it's been eight days without a response. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 02:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There could be all sorts of reasons for that. It may, as you said there, just a case of people being tired of the subject. Or maybe people saw what it was like here and didn't want to get involved in more of the same. Or maybe the question was seen as rhetorical, given that the wording included phrases like "the correct result is obviously ..." and "... hampered by the seemingly-incorrect ...". Or it may even be that people see how difficult it is to cover all cases, given that your example raises a question that's nuanced by a US-citizen mother resident in the Belgian Congo. It's hard to write guidelines that cover all the what-ifs, and trying to do so is what leads to instruction creep. If you want to get it moving, perhaps a better way would be simply to propose a rewording of the guideline. I doubt whether any wording the community could come up with would save us from this kind of thing, though. --Stfg (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I was pointing out that the guideline obviously could not apply and was incorrect for what I believed to be a simple and common case of an article about someone without ties to any "English-speaking" nation. I chose Belgian Congo to remove any potential argument about whether it was "English-speaking", and was explaining that with those two phrases.
 * The second question was just that – a separate question, designed to add a bit of a tie to see how that would influence the decision, which I declared up front. It was even edited as a followup, with its own sig.
 * I didn't want to propose a change to the guideline if I was mistaken about its reasoning, which is why I asked the questions and presented what I thought the answers were. That seems more efficient than a couple more round-trips back and forth, each of which can produce potential misunderstandings, unnecessary tangents, etc. I also think it's more honest than just asking the first question and then arguing with a response, without the respondent knowing there was more to it (I'm sure there's a name for that style, commonly employed by lawyers when examining a witness). —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 07:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Conclusions
The month long RFC is just about concluded and this RFC will soon be archived. I'm not going to comment on what "I think" the result should be, but its obvious that there is a strong majority of editors who see that MDY is the obvious choice based on the reading of STRONGNAT. There is also some support for DMY, but in my opinion, not based very strongly on the guidelines, but on personal preference. It would be up to an independent third party to conclude this discussion. There are three ways to look at it. For one an independent arbitrator may look at it as an up and down vote and decide for MDY or decide for MDY based on a stronger guideline based argument. This is a likely possibility and I have seen this outcome before. The second outcome would be for an independent arbitrator to decide that DMY is the way to go based on the arguments. Personally I don't see that happening simply based on the numbers in favor of MDY above, and also this is not usually the likely outcome in situations like this, for an arbitrator to take the minority stance, but it has happened in the past, but usually only when the minority argument is very strong, which the DMY argument is not. Most of the time these things end in "No Consensus', which if that is the case, this may end up in formal mediation at the Mediation Committee. We will see what happens once the RFC has concluded.-- JOJ  Hutton  17:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The STRONGNAT guideline is not applicable, as for the by far largest and most notable part of his life, the subject has held nationalities in non-English speaking countries, in all of which DMY is in use, by the way. There clearly is no consensus to change the current status, which is DMY. "Lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit;"—see the policy WP:Consensus, second bullet. DVdm (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know, you have stated previously that you feel that STRONGNAT is not applicable. In my opinion however, there is no guideline to back that up. STRONGNAT is always applicable because its the ONLY guideline we have on the matter, so therefore its what we go by. And no consensus does not mean that we retain the current version, but that we keep trying until we come to some conclusion. If that means formal mediation, then thats what we do. Again, its my opinion that the argument for DMY is very weak. The fact that some people want to use DMY does not automatically mean that there is a guideline that supports using DMY. Only the guidelines matter as to how articles are written and formatted. In this case, the Guideline is very clear and very much favors MDY.-- JOJ  Hutton  17:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * What matters, is the policy about lack of consensus to make a change for which, by the way, not even a guideline is available. Keep trying until we come to some conclusion? The conclusion seems to be that there is no consensus to make your change. People who keep trying to get their way against consensus are sometimes referred to wp:NOTGETTINGIT, part of the behavioural guideline about disruptive editing. - DVdm (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No Consenus does not mean that we cannot continue the dispute resolution process. It just means that the article isn't changed, but it does not mean that we shouldn't continue to achieve a consensus. Your assertion that I am being disruptive by continuing the process is way out of line. It's only disruptive when it's AGAINST CONSENSUS, but you continually assert that there is no consensus, so how am I being disruptive? If there is no consensus, then it is perfectly reasonable to request formal mediation. That's policy too. JOJ   Hutton  18:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The raw count as I read it is: 8 in favor of "Day Month Year", 11 in favor of "Month Day, Year". That's a majority in favor of MDY, though not an overwhelming one. Anyhow, this is not a vote; it is a discussion, in which policy-based arguments win the day. The policy based arguments cite MOS and STRONGNAT. The counterargument, that STRONGNAT doesn't apply if the person also has strong ties to a non-English-speaking country, does not appear to be based anywhere in policy. It is a novel interpretation that contradicts the clear language of MOS and STRONGNAT. The closer of the discussion will decide, but presumably they will take account of the strength of the arguments. BTW even if they find no-consensus, they might well decide that "no consensus" favors the format (MDY) which was in the article from its inception and for six years thereafter. After all, there was never a consensus to change AWAY from that format; somebody just did it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed, policy-based arguments should win the day. wp:STRONGNAT is not policy. It is a guideline—and clearly not applicable. wp:CONSENSUS is policy—and applicable. - DVdm (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But that's based on the guidelines, and that's how it's determined. So consensus is in favor of MDY because it's the only one based on anything written. JOJ   Hutton  19:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume that you are joking. Otherwise the only thing that I can say to that is... good grief. - DVdm (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a point of style we are discussing. Thus, the appropriate guideline is MOS. More specifically, this is a date style we are discussing; thus, the appropriate guideline is MOSNUM, which is where we find STRONGNAT. These guidelines are themselves based on consensus. As DVdm points out, consensus is policy - and consensus is the basis for these guidelines. IMO they should not be dismissed on a whim - or on the opinions of a few editors at an article talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The phrases "These guidelines are themselves based on consensus" and "consensus is the basis for these guidelines" mean that changing the guidelines needs consensus. If your aim is to change the guidelines, this is not the place to discuss that. You need to go the guidelines talk pages.
 * Good grief indeed. - DVdm (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Umm, did we just change hats or something? Is this the routine in the Porky Pig cartoons, where you try to trick me into saying "Did not!" when I meant to say "Did too!" ? Just to be clear, I am the one saying we should follow MOS and MOSNUM as they are. You are the one claiming those guidelines are irrelevant. Or should be changed. Or should be ignored. Or something. --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah. I misinterpreted your remark as a reinforcement of Jojhutton's joke to ignore the significance of the lack of consensus to make the change. My mistake. My apologies. - DVdm (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

If the subject does not have ties to an "English-speaking nation", where is the policy for which date format to use? JOJ said:
 * "Yes, I know, you have stated previously that you feel that STRONGNAT is not applicable. In my opinion however, there is no guideline to back that up. STRONGNAT is always applicable because its the ONLY guideline we have on the matter, so therefore its what we go by."

which seems completely wrong. If I understand it correctly, that would be like receiving a citation while riding a bicycle for supposedly violating a law that has language in it saying it's only applicable to commercial trucks. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 14:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The how-manyth go-round is this? STRONGNAT is applicable by virtue of the WP:CONSENSUS policy, which states (my italics):


 * Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.


 * Or is anyone maintaining that we're anything more than "a limited group of editors, at one place and time"? All this special pleading against the applicability of STRONGNAT is BS. The only issue here is whether Einstein's ties to the US are considered "strong" -- a ridiculous semantic quibble that basically boils down to a question of ownership that's being pursued ad nauseam by both sides. --Stfg (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This article is not within the scope of the STRONGNAT guideline, because in by far the largest and most significant part of his life the subject held nationalities in non-English speaking countries. That doen't look like BS to me. The issue here is whether there is consensus to make a change to this article. Apparently there is no such consensus. - DVdm (talk) 07:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * A person can have strong ties to more than one country, of course. The guideline says "strong", not "strongest". I don't dispute that "by far the largest and most significant part of his life the subject held nationalities in non-English speaking countries". I do dispute the relevance of that. What I call BS is the "policy trumps guideline" special pleading, because the policy endorses the standing of guidelines over local consensus. --Stfg (talk) 10:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Closure requested
I've requested admin closure of this RfC. See WP:ANRFC. --Stfg (talk) 10:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Including relevant quotes
The relevance of Einstein's friendship with Chaplin are in that the few paragraphs are descriptive of Einstein's life and personality. Direct quotes or paraphrased descriptions from those who knew Einstein personally have an obvious value. Hence, a question like, "Are these 2 guys best friends," is not a rationale for editing the article. Another, like "Do people care he was wearing black at some event," is a required detail to support the non-free image of that particular event.

For similar reasons, biographical details supported by quotes relevant to the sections, are obviously valuable. Einstein's article, before expanding with biographical details, included mostly science and technical facts, understandable to physicists, and very dry. I am restoring the paragraph which included relevant quotes to Einstein's biography, and again suggest that editors discuss before reverting, as noted in BRD. Previous rationales, such as  more useless quotes - this article is about a person not about how Jews had problem, are personal opinions. --Light show (talk) 06:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Good to see your at the talk page finally. Would love to find out why your not willing to follow BRD its a pretty simple concept - you boldly add something ..if it gets reverted join the ongoing talk about it. But thats anoither problem...to the matter at hand... its been explained before lots of quotes are not a good thing - we are not in grade 10 here. Can you explain why these quotes you keep adding are relevant? The argument being made for there removal is there useless quotes that at the very least should be summarized (as has been mentioned previous by many editors). This is not people magazine that we fill with personal POV's...its an encyclopaedia article about a very well know scientist.  Would love to hear from others about these additions as I think the article is losing it authoritative voice. Had some input above voicing concerns for the accuracy  of some of the edits and this has still not been addressed. -- Moxy (talk) 09:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Moxy. Too many quotes spoil an article. We need to discuss and agree here before adding any more. --John (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the quotes are not needed, and that these edits should be removed. This is not the place to record the horrors of that time. Johnuniq (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * At this point we have 5 editors with in 5 days all concerned with the recent changes. Over the next week we should fix all this up. I will try to do what i can and hope others can help-out as-well. -- Moxy (talk) 11:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have a comment or question about a quote or two, try making them before wholesale deletions or edit-warring about entire paragraphs. Coming from a drive-by using a pseudo-rationale like "revert more useless quotes", does not improve the bio and adds nothing except a personal POV. Ignoring a BRD implies a preference for non-collaboration. And tracking an editor (ie. Kubrick), likewise adds nothing except another expression of "self-possessed confidence." However, I did appreciate your wonderful suggestion that one way of improving Einstein's bio might be to model it after "Adolf Hitler, a GA article of a person famous for their speaking ability that has very few quotes." --Light show (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Good. It isn't hounding to let you know that your practice of adding many quotes is poor and unencyclopedic, on whichever article you do it. Please don't. --John (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Note also that this so-called bio, when it was somehow considered GA quality, included mostly, about 85%, scientific details explaining his research with highly technical jargon. The Biography section was only 15%! Now it's the same sized article, but about 50% each of what could be two articles, his Biography and Scientific career. Isn't this a biography?
 * And who decided to skin his lead GA sentence? Originally, "Albert Einstein was a German-born Swiss-American theoretical physicist, philosopher and author who is widely regarded as one of the most influential and best known scientists and intellectuals of all time," and now merely "a German-born theoretical physicist." --Light show (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is 3 section about your edits and one archived section that is huge. Yet your still here adding quote after quote despite the concerns raised by many editors here and at Talk:Stanley Kubrick. I am trying to prevent what happen at Kubrick happening here - dont want to loss GA status as many collaborated on that to get it to to that level. As John mentioned above would be best if you proposed here on the talk page anymore quotes you want to add before adding them. I think you would have more success helping Wikiquote's then Wikipedia.-- Moxy (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I prefer to go by WP guidelines when using quotations in context with commentary:
 * "Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia. Quotations—often informally called 'quotes'—provide information directly; quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words. . . . Provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified there is no need for an arbitrary limit."


 * Therefore, if you have a problem with a particular quote or sentence, just copy-paste in Talk and explain first, instead of demolishing cited material without discussion. --Light show (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * BRD=bold, revert, discuss. You have the order wrong. If you are unwilling to follow BRD just say so. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The editor could careless about what others are saying about the edits ..Heres another quote ..its simply not possible to work collaboratively like this - disruptive at best and Not here at worse. Not possible to keep up... we would need many different conversation about the many quotes added....this is not happening.  Quote spammers are hard to deal with as they think they are doing a great job - its become a bigger and bigger problem. Also noticed we have some non-fair use images added recently..plenty of free images out there of this man.  -- Moxy (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Your only contribution to this article is your repeated expression of quotiphobia. Similarly, that was your only involvement with other articles I worked on, simply to proclaim your fear of quotations. Nothing else. Try writing and adding to those articles, instead of stopping by to bash local editors. As stated before many times, just cut and paste a problem quote or sentence to talk, explain the issue and suggest an improvement, and it might even get done. Then you can say you actually helped edit the article, which would call for a celebration. Note that this article has over 1,800 watchers and hundreds of editors who wrote something. Those are called "local" editors, and they will certainly notice problems to an article they edited. They don't need drive-bys that keep harassing active local editors. There are another 31 million articles with 76 thousand other editors you can deal with. --Light show (talk) 07:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * All good talk. This is the article we are currently discussing. There are too many quotes and the Holocaust stuff is a distraction. Bluntly, these edits you are making are lowering the quality of the article. Do we need to go to a Good Article Review? --John (talk) 09:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why did Einstein emigrate, and is that topic a mere distraction? --Light show (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he emigrated because he got tired of DMY. - DVdm (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, if you'd like to know what real disruptive behavior looks like, an example is when a drive-by posts a pseudo-edit to a lead and changes it seconds later, simply to attack another editor. --Light show (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Face-plant! - Not the place for this but since you bring it up. Correct I  noticed it was you that changed the image and decided I did not want to get involved in another edit war with you. The definition of disruptive behaviour is displayed by you in this article (not complying with BRD) and  at your old user name copyright investigation (Contributor copyright investigations/Wikiwatcher1) - you have wasted countless amount  of our  volunteers time cleaning up after you....its still ongoing ...with deleted image and quote summarizing. I agree that Wikipedia is a work in progress and edits can be fixed but sometimes its just to much. --Moxy (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor here. (I just came to check something about Einstein.) I prefer quotes. I don't trust every WP editor to paraphrase them correctly, or to include the important details. For example, the block quote from the NYT on Einstein's death includes the story about how Einstein's last words were lost because his night nurse didn't speak German. (I heard the story many times, but I didn't know it came from the NYT story.) BRD sounds like a formula for endless edit wars. --Nbauman (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

GA - yesterday and today
Back in March, 2010, when I looked at this GA/FA, I was surprised that it could be called a "biography." It was just 10% biographical details vs. 90% synopses of his scientific papers, each of which also had their own article. On the radical theory that he was a human being, I found a number of real biographies which discussed his life and activities, and was totally amazed to find out he did things, like walk and talk, just like real people, and currently the article is about 60% biography vs. 40% synopses. Moxy, who has yet to contribute to the bio, complains about too many quotations and too many pictures, which only make up a fraction of a percent of the biographical details. Does anyone else feel that the article, while not perfect, is currently more readable and biographical than before? BTW, the size of the article is the same now as it was then. --Light show (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The article needs a good cleanup all around. As has been mentioned before way to many useless quotes and the sections are a getting unbalanced towards his USA activities and other peoples POV on Jews. The article is better then it was when it reached GA level years ago...but has recently went down hill. I would like to edit the article but ever time I have you revert. I even started talks on the matter, other agree with me,  yet here we are still seeing more quotes added even  before the other concerns raised have been addressed. I understand that adding quotes to articles is your thing ..but there have been concerns raised - specifically here.  So what should be done here? I have decided to get a few others involved and help fix it up. We will be doing this at the start of  next month. There is no rush...was hopping you would have  paraphrase some of the quotes after so many have said its a problem.. but that is not really happing.  -- Moxy (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am with Moxy here. The incessant quotes work against readability, as has been explained. --John (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I have undertaken a program to remove quotes that are non-encyclopedic or simply not needed in this article. The quote situation has indeed gotten out of hand recently. A few edits should help restore the article to the fine status it enjoyed before such a disruption.Coldcreation (talk) 10:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Coldcreation for the help. Was planing to fix this some time ago but other matters came up. Quotes like what he wore to some ball are just not needed. Its a hard read this article as over quotes interrupt the articles flow. -- Moxy (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Plagarist
Where do we add the section about how he plagiarized everything from German scientists? It seems to have been well known at the time he was a plagiarist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themainman69 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, firstly he was a German scientist and secondly we don't because this is an encyclopedia based on reliable published sources rather than the Stormfront website. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, if this is something that was well known it should not be very hard to find several reliable sources covering this.--67.68.162.111 (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The article does have a link to Relativity priority dispute under "See also", where there is discussion of claims that relativity is not wholly original to Einstein. Roger (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That article is currently a mess, with structural problems such as wrong heading capitalization and asking questions in the headings...against WP:HEAD. And per WP:Fringe, it should perhaps present the Einstein matter as the prevailing view more than it does. Flyer22 (talk) 12:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Excessive details in Academic career section
Some recent edits have added excessive details or trivia to his Academic career section. Shouldn't most of those details be put in the Scientific career section, if anywhere? The 1st paragraph includes, "This paper included Einstein's initial estimates of Avogadro constant as $2.2$ based on diffusion coefficients and viscosities of sugar solutions in water." The 3rd also has such details which should go elsewhere. --Light show (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

One obvious side-effect of adding those kinds of details, and even citing them with foreign-language sources, is that it disinvites new editors. For instance, the brief first paragraph of the section might have a misspelling or simple typo. To a new editor wanting to fix it, the edit page for that simple paragraph would look like this:

There's something about that which contradicts the basic guidelines of what new Wikipedians can do: ''Anyone can be a Wikipedian—including you. Just click the edit link at the top of any page. . . ''. Good luck. Light show (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Wording and sources
, regarding this and this edit you made, why did you change the "Einstein also learned that his name was on a list of assassination targets," as though the material is dubious?

Regarding this edit, we should not remove sources simply because they are "unavailable." See WP:Dead link and WP:Paywall.

And regarding this edit, why remove that Einstein "actively supported racial tolerance"? I do see that it is somewhat redundant to that paragraph, though. Flyer22 (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I can undo the "source unavailable" edit, unless you'd rather revert all of them. Aristophanes 68   (talk)  23:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Vegetarian
Somewhere in the article there should be reference to him being vegetarian. He's listed as a vegetarian personality on wikipedia List_of_vegetarians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.137.203.231 (talk) 11:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Category Pacifist
User Good Olfactory changed category Pacifists to American pacifists:. I undid the change because there is no need to specify one (out of seven) citizenships. Einstein was a pacifist way before he got the American citizenship. Without any comment—and against the spirit of wp:BRD—user Good Olfactory changed it back:, so I reverted again:. - DVdm (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Quotations
Weak article. Most quotes should be removed.
 * Greater detail is needed. Perhaps you could tell us which quotes should be removed and give reasons for doing so.

Page Protection
Will this article remained protected forever?--24.248.74.254 (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that in the past, whenever they removed the protection from this article, they had to reinstate it within a week or two. So my hunch is that it will stay protected, although that's a decision for admins to make and I am not one. --MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It has been protected and unprotected about 38 times, mostly protected. It seems to be indefinitely protected now.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2014
These sources are not reputable or scholarly. The comments that correspond to them are argument. There is nothing representing the other side. As a person with Autism, I think it is important to keep this academic and free of unfound statements. Perhaps the section should be deleted.

Here are the sources. 13, 14, 15. "The Legend of the Dull-Witted Child Who Grew Up to Be a Genius". Albert Einstein archives. Retrieved 23 July 2012. "Frequently asked questions". einstein-website.de. Retrieved 23 July 2012. "Left Handed Einstein". Being Left Handed.com. Retrieved 23 July 2012.

Here is the corresponding comments. Contrary to popular suggestions that he had struggled with early speech difficulties, the Albert Einstein Archives indicate he excelled at the first school that he attended.[13] He was right-handed;[13][14] there appears to be no evidence for the widespread popular belief[15] that he was left-handed.

Could I receive editing privileges for this page. Albert Einstein and Robert Oppenheimer are two of my favorite people to study.

Thanks Matthew M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokingbull (talk • contribs) 04:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * When your account is four days old (just a few more hours) and you have ten edits (just three more), you will be Autoconfirmed, and you will be able to edit it. —teb728 t c 07:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * User:teb728 seems to have mistaken September for October.

FBI
Einstein was investigated by the FBI in the 1950's. I want more about this in the article. {{subst:unsigned|Deletedpeacockverbiage|12:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes ( ~ ). Thanks.
 * Wikipedia is yours. - DVdm (talk) 13:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2014
The pronunciation "German: [ˈalbɐt ˈaɪnʃtaɪn]" is incorrect. Please change it to "German: [ˈalbɐrt ˈaɪnʃtaɪn]". Thank you.

I am a native German speaker.

Jgfn (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅: . I'm assuming good faith and making the change.  G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary citizenship never existed
Hi,

regarding the issue I made many correction or notice on more pages. Just very shortly; Austro-Hungarian/Austria-Hungary citizenship have never been existed, the suggestion of this is a common mistake of some Anglo-Saxon sources. For more details check the Royal Hungary/Austrian Empire/Austria-Hungary articles, there was never a common citizenship, the dual citizenship was banned, Hungary was always a separate country with it's own borders, constitution and Diet, etc. even those times when actually the Crown was held by Habsburgs, unlike many non-professional sources suggesting Hungary was subdued or incorporated to the provinces of the Austrian Empire and ceased to exist. It never happened. By checking also the German and Hungarian Wikipedia, Einstein acquired the Austrian citizenship for sure in that period, but not any time the Hungarian.

Please someone change the citizenship section and correct Austria-Hungary -> Austria. Please also remove and delete the tag "People with acquired Austria-Hungary citizenship"

Thank You (KIENGIR (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2014
I propose to add the following book in the section Further Reading because it is very well written. Neffe is a German scientist and journalist. He is really good in explaining Einstein's theories and does not leave out the philosophical aspects. Of course the original German edition is listed in the German Wikipedia. So why not the English edition here?
 * Neffe, Jürgen (2009): Albert Einstein: A Biography. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. (Translated from the German by Shelley Frisch.) ISBN 978-0-801-89310-0

87.149.76.25 (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you mean ? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The 2007 edition is hardcover, the 2009 edition, which I proposed is paperback. Same content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.149.76.25 (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, ✅: . G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: Trivial typos
"Retireved" -> "Retrieved" and "BLunders" -> "Blunders", both in reference 128 -- 216.240.30.25 (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Thanks! Favonian (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Religious views
The following somewhat recently discovered letter of Einstein might be of interest: --Kmhkmh (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion

Discussion of capitalization of universe
There is request for comment about capitalization of the word universe at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Please participate. SchreiberBike talk 00:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

On being Jewish
I don't see any value in identifying Einstein as Jewish. He was not a religious-Jew, his parents were apostate, sent him to Catholic school, which would have made them shunned by the Jewish comminity. Genetically or racially being Jewish is very blurred, due to genetic mixing over ages, Jewish "genetic testing" sites tell you this up front. The wiki article on race makes the idea of there being a Jewish race problematic: Is there also a Celtic race? A Mongolian race? and so on, how many others then are there, and what value is there in calling them out? Is there some relevance to his genes being influenced somehow, as opposed to say George Washington, or any other historical figure?GESICC (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I might agree with you, except that Einstein himself identified as Jewish. All his life, he talked about being Jewish and supported Jewish causes. Also the Nazis identified him as Jewish. Roger (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Roger-It's a good call, so this should be moved and referenced this way. I support black causes sans being black.  Rather obtuse of you to use Nazi aryanism as a validifying criteria.  It doesn't change the above, of course, he wasn't religious, and genetically... ambivalent?GESICC (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * GESICC, please read the article, consider his involvement with Jewish culture and causes, read the Gaurdian article referenced above. Einstein may not have been a religious Jew, but he was clearly culturally Jewish, and that is Jewish. I am puzzled by your seeing little "value" (your word) in this. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Isambard, He helped salve egregious wounds, he should be remembered for those works. Culturally Jewish; I don't know how one could justify the statement.  What is the litmus for culture?  His parents clearly gave Judaism up, and went to Catholicism, which is strong contrary endorsement.  The more one researches the criteria for the topics we're discussing, the more confused they become, not clearer.  Unless there is some unbiased standard we need to stick with what we can cite. GESICC (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sir/Madam, I think it might be good if you reflected on why this issue, a man's Jewish identity, seems to be so important to you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Isambard, you seem to be trying to side track the "talk," making it inappropriately personal: User DVdm asked me to post this on "talk," rather than discuss with him, before I did, I researched, once I researched it, I became interested, once interested, it became, quoting you: "important." GESICC (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GESICC, please read the article, consider his involvement with Jewish culture and causes, read the Gaurdian article referenced above. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Isambard-I think it puts us in the home stretch. Say someone says they are Jewish:  Genetics being a wash, they do not practice Judaism.  What other criteria would allow that person to be accepted both by Jewish and by non-?  I keep going over the criteria, there don't seem to be any.  GESICC (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * GESICC, you are wasting my time. Only comment on this article if you want to refer to science. Einstein's denomination is no more important than that of the first person you meet in the street. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.172.125.249 (talk) 12:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So many claims of being Jewish are based on the Nazi definition of being Jewish, which is simply if your grandparents were Jewish, you were Jewish. It is a political definition that readily identifies real Jews and at the same time removes many sympathisers; cousins, etc., who though may not be Jewish, are family, we all understand what the terrible intent was.  I do not believe this should be the standard.GESICC (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * GESICC, forget it. Einstein was Jewish. Plain and simple. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 07:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Isambard--“Forget it,” is that a threat? Interesting, I seem to have the “honor” in being in a sympathetic position to Pontius Pilate: Judging an issue very important to Jewish people, and only a curiosity to myself.  There are many remarkable scientists and intellectuals that Jewish claim as their own, Spinoza, Bohr, lots!

The Nazi approach to identifying Jewish means that at any given time in Europe and the United States, between 4 and 7% of the population is Jewish. Many of them don't even know it. That is the pivotal identifier right now.

So it really comes down to two questions...:

1) Do Jewish people wish to be defined by an entity so vile that it called for the destruction of Judaism and any possible relations to it?

2) Should scholars accept a definition that allows great intellectuals to be Jewish, because they say so, defying any other criteria, and everyone else making the claim, to be shunned?

...And one consideration: All these great Jewish people, only became great when or after they'd rejected Judaism. Is this the desired legacy? That great people only become great by rejecting Judaism?

I don't feel qualified to make this judgment. So. Forgotten, like Pilate, I wash my hands of the subject. You judge.GESICC (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GESICC (talk • contribs) 21:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Philosophy of Science
I think it is odd that the first sentence of the article calls him a philosopher of science. I have heard of him hundreds of times, I have heard of many of his theories, but I do not know about his philosophy of science. This might be a sign of my ignorance, but it also suggests that his philosophy isn't first-sentence material. This is made even more striking by the fact that the page itself makes almost no further mention of his philosophy.123Mike456Winston789 (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I find the cited material on "philosophy", Stanford Encyclopedia, to be very interesting and relevant, but I understand your point about Einstein having been, first and foremost, a scientist, if admittedly a scientist interested in concepts. Would you be more satisfied if the note on philosophy were simply divided off into the second sentence? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Otoh, see for instance (primary),  (secondary), and  . - DVdm (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I made a change to the first sentence, which I think addresses Mike's concern. Isambard Kingdom (talk)
 * Looks good to me. Thx. - DVdm (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2015
ElephantSlayer1010 (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC) Albert Einstein was not born on 14 March but on August 2
 * we would need a source like [ -- Moxy (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2015
117.206.26.151 (talk) 08:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

Notification of request for comment
An RfC has been commenced at MOSCAPS Request for comment - Capitalise universe.

Cinderella157 (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Questionable sources
Apparently the article collected a bunch of sources which are considered unreliable/questionable by WP standards, moreover the information they sourced didn't look all that important and its value for an encyclopedic article seemed questionable. In order to keep the good article status and avoiding that the overall article gets tainted/tagged I simply removed all that stuff. If somebody contrary to me feels strongly about a particular information bit, he's free to add back in but this based on reputable sources. There is gazillion of proper scholary (or at least otherwise reputable) articles and books on Einstein, so there is absolutely no reason to resort to sources fail WP requirements or are at least in a grey/borderline area with regard to reliability and reputation.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I totally agree, but hesitated to do it myself. Thanks! -- ZH8000 (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Was Einstein citizen of "Nazi Germany"?
No, he wasn't. Why?:

Firstly, he resigned his German citizenship on 28 March 1933. Four days after the so called Ermächtigungsgesetz became effective. (Some) Historian rightfully define the 24 March 1933 as the start of the dictatorship by Hitler. But formally, the name of the country did not change. Nevertheless with the declaration of the Ermächtigungsgesetz the Hitler-regime took over, and it is historically correct to declare 24 March as the start of the Nazi's dictatorship. Nevertheless, dictators usually dot not declare themselves as a dictator, rather vice versa, they try to convince everybody about their supposedly lawful "election". Hitler's takeover was exactely that way. So de jure, Germany was still the same country as before. The country still had the same name and almost the same constitution.

Secondly, the term "Nazi Germany" was never the name of the country, not even under Hitler's regime. "Nazi Germany" is just a short version for referring to the dictatorship of the NSDAP party and Hitler. The country still had the same name, namely "Deutsches Reich", the same name as during the Weimarer Republic. So, de facto, of course it made a huge difference whether somebody lived during the Weimarer Republic or under the dictatorship of the Nazis. But de jure, the citizen of Germany were still the citizen of the same country.

Thirdly, the NSDAP or Hitler did not take over on one single day. Rather vice versa, step by step. You could also say that, and many historians say so, the Weimarer Republic did cease to exist until the 1st of August 1934, when Hitler also took over the role of the Staatsoberhaupt. With the declaration about the head of state of the German Empire from 1 August 1934 Hitler took over Hindenburg's offices; until then Hindenburg was the Staatspräsident.

So, no, Einstein was never a citizen of a "Nazi Germany". The term does not even exist formally. -- ZH8000 (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the name of the country was the "Deutsches Reich". In my opinion and yours, neither the "Weimar Republic/Weimarer Republik" nor "Nazi Germany" existed other than as handles for epochs in the history of the first republic known as the "Deutsches Reich" which existed from 1919 to 1945.  Unfortunately, many historians and Wikipedia disagree with the contention that the "Weimar Republic" survived the enabling act and insist on treating that "Nazi Germany" as a new regime.  To illustrate this, Wikipedia has NO article for the "Deutsches Reich" (1919-1943/5).  Properly, "Weimar Republic" and "Nazi Germany" should be merged into an article "Deutsches Reich" (1919-1945).  You are welcome to try such a reform.  I will support it.  It will fail.


 * As it is, Wikipedia divides "Deutsches Reich" (1919-1943/5) into the "Weimar Republic" and "Nazi Germany". My edit of the page lists Einstein's citizenship as "Weimar Republic" (1919-1933) and "Nazi Germany" (1933).  That is consistent with the current structure of Wikipedia, providing links to the relevant pages so that users can understand what is meant by "Weimar Republic" and "Nazi Germany".  Your edit of the page is not only inconsistent with the current structure of Wikipedia, but it is inconsistent with your claim that no one can have citizenship in "Nazi Germany", since it is merely the "Deutsches Reich", because the "Weimar Republic" is similarly merely the "Deutsches Reich".  As for the Enabling Act of 24 March 1933 being the dividing line between "Weimar Republic" and "Nazi Germany", this is the line virtually all historians use because the Act suspended the normal operation of the constitution and gave Hitler effective dictatorial control over the "Deutsches Reich".


 * Accordingly, the page should be changed to list Einstein's citizenship either both the "Weimar Republic" and "Nazi Germany" or neither, using the "Deutsches Reich" or "German Reich" (1919-1933), instead, and linking to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Reich which addresses itself to the German state from 1871 to 1943, noting the three epochs under which the title was used. I hope you find the latter approach acceptable since, in essence, we both reject the formal division of the first republic and it avoids choosing any date for the full arrival of the Hitler regime.  Criticality (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Firstly, WP is not a valid source WP:VER. Secondly, I thoroughly contradict your manipulative interpretation of my own statements, I do definitely not support your position. -- ZH8000 (talk) 09:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * So far as I can see, WP articles on other people who lived across various phases of the German Reich simply list them as having German nationality, without attempting to divide this up between phases. Einstein should also be listed simply as a German citizen, with the appropriate dates of his citizenship. The article can address the reasons he terminated this. Would this be a mutually acceptable solution? HGilbert (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I was about to make a similar suggestion. You beat me to it - DVdm (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am fine with this. -- ZH8000 (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I have made the change, which conforms to standard usage here and elsewhere. HGilbert (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Wrong Thesis
Einstein's first paper is incorrectly listed as his Thesis in the panel on the right. His thesis is actually titled "Eine neue Bestimmung der Moleküldimensionen [A new determination of molecular dimensions]" (1905). The reference for this can be found in the Publications section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.142.41 (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- ZH8000 (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

--User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2015
Albert Einstein (/ˈælbərt ˈaɪnʃtaɪn/; Yiddish (אלבערט איינשטיין) German: [ˈalbɐrt ˈaɪnʃtaɪn] ( listen); 14 March 1879 – 18 April 1955) was a Ashkenazi Jewish theoretical physicist.

Sources: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/einstein.html

Scotch-Polish (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

❌ it clearly states "The Einsteins were non-observant Ashkenazi Jews" in the "Early life and education" section. It is not what Einstein was known for, so does not belong in the opening line. - Arjayay (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that the provided source doesn't even support what Scotch-Polish wants to see in the lead (Ashkenazi isn't even mentioned in it).--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2015
46.99.54.209 (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC) citizenship = {{Plainlist|
 * Kingdom of Württemberg (1879–1896)
 * Stateless (1896–1901)
 * Switzerland (1901–1955)
 * Austrian of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (1911–1912)
 * Germany (1914–1933)
 * Albanian Kingdom (1933-1940)
 * United States (1940–1955)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Wrong attribution
The following statement is wrongly attributed to Einstein:


 * "In my whole life I have never felt so Jewish as now."

It was actually made by Haber. The results from google search is here. --LaoChen05:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Good find. Indeed. See the quoted Isaacson source. I have removed the paragraph. - DVdm (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Kingdom of Württemberg
Was the Kingdom of Württemberg an independent state with independent passports during the time Einstein was born? If not it should state 'German' nationality instead of "Kingdom of Württemberg".--Wester (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * no it was a state of the German Empire 14:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.172.99.44 (talk)

Swiss Citizen
Albert Einstein was a Swiss citizen from 1901 to his death. He never gave up his Swiss nationality. I don't understand why it doesn't appear clearly in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.240.57.104 (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2015‎ (UTC)
 * The infobox says exactly that. The text mentions when he acquired Swiss citizenship and it doesn't mention him giving it up. What exactly is unclear about that? &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  20:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Austrian of Austro-Hungarian Empire
The latest change regarding AE's citizenship as an Austrian of the Austro-Hungarian Empire bacame step by step worse, because it was either wrong, or badly expressed.

1. During the period of concern, there was an Austro-Hungarian Empire, but no Austrian Empire.

2. Nobody had an "Austro-Hungarian citizenship" in this empire, but either an Austrian, or then an Hungarian. But both belonged to the same nation, called Austro-Hungarian Empire.

3. Therefore, either Austria (Austro-Hungarian Empire), or Austrian of the Austro-Hungarian Empire are right. But since it is about citizenship, a status, and because the first version looks somehow contradictory, or even misleading (e.g. see the remark "his citizenship was not dual!" of a previous editor), I clearly prefer the latter one. -- ZH8000 (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It’s not correct to say that at the time there was no “Austrian Empire,” and it is certainly not correct that the multi-national empire was one nation. For background see Austria-Hungary and Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867. As a result of the Compromise, Austria-Hungary had one monarch but two governments: the Empire of Austria and the Kingdom of Hungary, with separate citizenships.
 * IMO it is most accurate to call the government of which Einstein was a citizen either “Austrian Empire” or “Empire of Austria,” but I can accept “Austria.” (But “Austrian” alone is not grammatically parallel with the names of the other countries where he was a citizen.) If people feel it necessary to mention “Austria-Hungary,” at least don’t call it “Austro-Hungarian Empire,” for only the Austrian government was an empire. —teb728 t c 05:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The "problem" with Austrian is, that Einstein lived an in part of the Austrian Empire (Bohemia) that does not belong to the current Austria anymore. So to avoid any confusion with current Austria the term Austrian Empire (or any variety of it) seems more appropariate than just Austria.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Or just "Austrian", which is slightly more appropriate, like it was before. Who cares about that "GRAMMAR" in this edit summary anyway? This is not grammar-related at all. Besides, "stateless" isn't a country name either. - DVdm (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Well i just stated a reason why just "Austrian" is not a good idea, because it is potentially misleading. However I may have missed that the whole discussion might refer just to this particular line: "Einstein became a full professor at Charles-Ferdinand University in Prague in April 1911, accepting Austrian citizenship in the Austro-Hungarian empire to do so.". In that case the use of "Austrian" is appropriate since no confusion with today's Austria exists. It turns out though that the use of "Austrian" is still a bit problematic for other reasons. It doesn't match the cited source (Isaacson), which states literally "Austro-Hungarian citizenship".--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You're correct, there was an Austrian empire, indeed. My fault. However the Austro-Hungarian empire was a mixture between a nation and a union. At least they shared the same army, the same foreign policy, and one ministery of finance. Further they developed a shared economic area with the same currency and a customs union. Not a full-blown nation, but still essential parts of it, I would say. (comparable to the EU nowadays? ;-)
 * That's exactely my reason to make clear why AE was not a "real" Austrian (compared to the current situation), since he gained the Austrian citizenship only, because it was necessary for his job as a professor at the German university in Prague (todays Czech Republic) and never worked or lived in Austria, as we undertsand it nowadays. – And Isaacson seems simply wrong.
 * Excately! -- ZH8000 (talk) 06:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Isaacson is simply wrong in what regard now? Because he uses "Austro Hungarian" instead of "Austrian"? Imho that is depending how you phrase it not wrong but just less precise, because Einstein did receive a citizenship of Austro Hungarian Empire. It just doesn't specify which. However for principle reasons we cannot state something in the WP article, that is not provided by the source. So if you want a more precise description you would need to come up with a source providing such a more precise description. You cannot simple argue, because we know that Austro Hungarian empire consisted of 2 nations, it offered 2 different citizenships for immigrants (on paper) and Einstein must have gotten the Austrian version. It's a plausible argument, but such plausibilty is usually not enough for WP, that is you need a source stating what (exact) citizenship Einstein got.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way, I had misinterpreted the scare quotes in The "problem" with Austrian... in your earlier remark. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 08:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It is simply wrong that somebody could aquire an Austro-Hungarian citizenship. First of all, citizenship ("Staatsbürgerschaft"), if at all, was tied to a municipality. And a municipality was part of, either an Empire ("Kaiserreich"), Kingdom (Königreich"), dukedom ("Herzogtum") or whatever autonomous authority was accepted according the laws during those days in Austria-Hungary. The Austro-Hungarian Empire however was in its own definition officially called in German "Österreichisch-Ungarische Monarchie", or in Hungarian "Osztrák-Magyar Monarchia" respectively. So Austria-Hungary was not a "Staat" in itself (lost in translation). Therefore, nobody could aquire an Austro-Hungarian citizenship. Either you were an Austrian, Hungarian or whatever; see Hirschhausen, Ulrike: "Von imperialer Inklusion zur nationalen Exklusion: Staatsbürgerschaft in Österreich-Ungarn 1867-1923". And AE aquired an Austrian citizenship ("Staatsbürgerschaft"), since he became a member of the German (aka Austrian) "Karl-Ferndinand Universität" in Prague (there was also an Bohemian Charles-Ferdinand University since 1882). -- ZH8000 (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * See my answer further up. I'm not arguing that there was a single "Austro Hungarian citizenship", I argued that the Austro Hungarian Empire offered/gave out citizenships, which is less precise albeit correct description (and given in the currently used source Isaacson). I have no objection against your more detailed description in the article provided you source it properly. You can however not have thise more detailed description and sourcing it with Isaacson as currently the case. Because then you are simply claiming something that the cited source does not provide. Independent of the correctness of your more detailed description, the WP content needs to be in line with the cited source otherwise sourcing becomes pointless.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * First of all: patience is still a fortune! So PLEASE give us some time like you demand to do! – Secondly, your claim "the Austro Hungarian Empire offered/gave out citizenships" is absolutely incorrect. The Austro-Hungrian Monarchy was simply (legally) not able to do so. You are not imprecise, but simply and fundamentally wrong . And you would have aquired the same insight would you have taken the time to study given source!!! And I do not think that an excyclopedia's goal is to collect and sum up obvious errors. -- ZH8000 (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * a) Well as far as patience, you have all the time in the world to collect the required sources and then modify the article.
 * b) Arguing the Austro Hungarian monarchy did give out citizenships because their organisational subunits did (the states) did, seems a bit contrived sementantics to me.
 * c) I have read (or more precisely browsed) the source you posted above and doesn't change change anything as far as I'm concerned. Again I never argued that there weren't 2 citizenships within the Austro Hungarian Emmpire, I merely argued the currently used source in the article is insufficient for that description.
 * d) I completely agree that we should correct errors or unclear formulation in sources, however the proper way to do that, is to cite a better or newer better sources. Simply pointing out the potential error on grounds of plausibility without sources to back it up is usually not enough.
 * e) To ultimately resolve the issue from my perspective it might be good enough to change the current footnote referencing to Isaacson into a short explanatory note which references to Isaacson and the document you linked above. Or alternatively might be used, which explictly uses the term "Austrian citizenship". Or of course any other source confirming the more precise description.
 * --Kmhkmh (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * So then, I propose that you simply exchange the source given with your English source in point e). I know a lot of German sources only speaking about "Österreichische Staatsbürgerschaft", since it is so obvious probably among German speaking and educated people.
 * Just a final remark: There was simply no authority to accord an "Austro-Hungarian citizensip"; this must have been an invention by Isaacson. It would be equally erronous to claim that sombody is able to accord an EU citizenship to somebody, instead of, for example, a German or a French citizenship, nowadays. -- ZH8000 (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It is possible that Isaacson was not aware of the double state/citizenship of the K.u.K. monarchy. Or maybe he simply wanted to refer to any citizenship being available for the Austro Hungarian Empire. Which of the 2 applies is ultimately idle speculation.
 * Stating that somebody has a Citizenship of the European Union is perfectly fine but again less precise as it doesn't describe which national citizenship that implies.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, there we have it: it's a language-related issue. The citizenship of the EU is called "Unionsbürgerschaft" in German, pronouncing the citizenship of the Union (and the first time I read about it), while the citizenship of an EU member state is called a "Staatsbürgerschaft" stressing the citizenship of a state/nation. -- ZH8000 (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Albert Einstein & Marilyn Monroe had a tryst in 1947
EDIT REQUEST This article needs to include that Albert Einstein and Marilyn Monroe had a tryst in 1947; they were both single at the time. She was 21 and he was 47 years older than her. This is documented in Shelly Winters' Autobiography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.104.60 (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

This must be some anti-Semite writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edruezzi (talk • contribs) 16:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Leiden
The article does not mention anything about his appointment[?] in Leiden, Chris2crawford (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2015
Just before he died Einstein appeared on an NBC television program and was interviewed briefly. : I don't have exact date but you will have to check the NBC archives

69.156.80.172 (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Inomyabcs (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Zero-point energy
Einstein did not come up with the idea of zero-point energy. Planck gave the vibrational energy formula


 * $$ \epsilon = \frac{h\nu}{ e^{\frac{h\nu}{kT}}-1} + \frac{h\nu}{2}$$

and showed the concept of zero-point energy. The references are here: "The paper by Einstein and Otto Stern ... presents the results of their study of some ways in which the zero-point energy, introduced two years earlier by Max Planck in his second quantum theory, might affect physical phenomena",, "When Max Planck introduced the concept of zero-point energy in 1911...", "...corresponding to the zero-point energy hv/2 that Planck ascribed to his resonators in his second theory of radiation."

Based on these findings, I think we should give proper credit to whomever it is due.--Laochen 05:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Since Einstein's contribution to the zero-point energy is not that significant compared to the other subject areas, also the article has acquired quite a size, I suggest that this section should be removed.--Laochen 05:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Significant nonetheless. It just needs to be sourced. Coldcreation (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

You're totally right 👉 WaleedAlfatihYhya (talk) 10:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2015
Albert Einstein was born in 1873 and died in 1956 he was a scientist and mathematician he was not very successful when he began he was doubted and then Darwin said he was right and they began to publish his books and soon he was a famous scientist. he is very well respected in his time and now we have Einstein day to honor him. On Einstein day in England they wear lab coats.

Coby multi (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Patent Office
Everyone seems a bit vague about how long he stayed there. Was it until 1908? Vince Calegon 09:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince Calegon (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2015
he dies 1955 not 1855

202.91.79.213 (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * - Article does not say 1855. - DVdm (talk) 08:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Albert Einstein's voice discovery
I have come to inform you that I have found a voice of Albert Enstein that has been recorded in August 22, 1930 at his radio show about his Sound Document Of Albert Einstein. I may not be an expert at this, but this might be useful of citing the source. This website, contains an audio recording that it could be cited as source where as the Wikiepidians might find the discovery of his voice. If any concerns, please reply to here, or my talk page. Hope this helps! 108.27.50.13 (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Works now released digitally
Works by Einstein have released see http://www.sciencealert.com/thousands-of-einstein-documents-are-available-for-online-for-free it includes letters and diaries. Gnangarra 11:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Albert Einstein atheist?
A day ago a user added the Category: atheists i revert the edit then come user:Seraphimblade and revert my edit claiming that Einstein was inded an athesit. But most of sources show that Einstein Einstein used many labels to describe his religious views, including "agnostic", "religious nonbeliever" and a "pantheistic" believer in "Spinoza's God." But not an atheist.


 * According to Isaacson, Walter (2007), Einstein: His Life and Universe, New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, ISBN 978-0-7432-6473-0: Einstein's called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist.


 * Einstein had previously explored the belief that man could not understand the nature of God. In an interview published in 1930 in G. S. Viereck's book Glimpses of the Great, Einstein, in response to a question about whether or not he defined himself as a pantheist, explained: "Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist."


 * According to Calaprice, Alice (2000). The New Quotable Einstein. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, p. 216; Letter to M. Berkowitz 25 October 1950; Einstein Archive 59–215: In a 1950 letter to M. Berkowitz, Einstein stated that "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment".

The article it self noted that he called himself an agnostic, and disassociating himself from the label atheist. He inded was an agnostic but since he refuse to call him self an athiest, Why we will fit him under Category of atheists.--Jobas (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Atheist" is the correct spelling, just for reference. As to why, Einstein made clear many times he did not have any beliefs in any gods. Whatever he may have chosen to call himself, that is in fact an atheist. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's is your personal opinion, you don't have the right to classification beliefs as atheist when he had been rejected that.
 * He refuse to call himself an atheist. End of the story, he called his own beilefs as "agnostic", "religious nonbeliever" and a "pantheistic" believer in "Spinoza's God." but he refuse to call himself an atheist the sources are clear about that. You can't push a Category of atheists for someone refuse to identified to call himself an atheist.--Jobas (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I still don't see it. If he'd said he "wasn't a physicist", it would still be clear from his work that he was one. And actually, he did at some points refer to himself that way. But the overriding consideration is that he didn't believe in any type of personal god, and said so consistently and repeatedly. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * do you have notable reliable sources that say that Einstein was an atheist, despite the documented fact that he declared that he was not? If you have such sources, perhaps we can include something from them. When such content is present in the article, your categories will not be removed. - DVdm (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * They're not my categories. To the best of my knowledge, they've been there quite a while. And yes, there are several, I can try to find them when I'm not on my phone. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, we'll wait a bit. It would be nice to have a source that mentions the despite-part... - DVdm (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not the best source... on the bias side....but has many point to consider...with many quotes. -- Moxy (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Afaics not much support for plain atheism in there. Exact page? - DVdm (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Waited a bit. No sources seem to appear, so I have restored the previous consensus. If valid sources are found, feel absolutely free to come back here. But before re-adding the categories, as in wp:BRD, let's discuss here first. - DVdm (talk) 10:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's an article from The Forward on Einstein and the Jews:
 * http://forward.com/news/325189/what-was-einsteins-relationship-to-judaism-and-zionism/
 * What Was Albert Einstein's True Relationship to Judaism — and Zionism?
 * Paul Berger
 * November 22, 2015
 * As if to underline his rejection of everything he was born into, the papers renouncing Einstein’s citizenship listed his religious affiliation as none. A decade later, when Einstein was forced to list a religious belief in his application for an academic post in Prague, he wrote, perhaps begrudgingly, “Mosaic.”
 * He identified as "Jewish" for some purposes, but he definitely didn't consider him a follower of the Jewish religion. The Forward discussed this further here. --Nbauman (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Copying this from the Pantheism talk page: I've actually stumbled upon another quote from Einstein (from a letter) from the book "Albert Einstein, the Human Side: New Glimpses from His Archives" by Helen Bukas and Banesh Hoffman, published by Princeton University Press in 1981. The letter is dated March 24, 1954. "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." This should positively prove that Einstein was not a (Pan-)theist. Muemmel85 (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Albert Einstein's American Citizenship
I don't understand the controversy in stating a simple fact. Albert Einstein was a German-born American. He became a naturalized U.S. Citizen in 1940. It's a matter of public record. There's a section in Einstein's WP article titled "U.S. Citizenship." The current description of Albert Einstein as a "German-born" physicist is nonsensical. If he was just a German physicist there'd be no need to say "German-born." German born is used when somebody was born in Germany but then later becomes the citizen of another nation. Albert Einstein was born in Germany, but emigrated to the United States and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1940. That is the reason to describe him as a German-born American physicist. NapoleonX (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Check the archives of this talk page, searching for citizen or citizenship. One example (out of too many already): Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive 16 - DVdm (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Albert Einstein is now classified as a non-religious Prophet
Not long after my addition of this information, a user reverted it. I made sure to source it and there was no reason given. I bring this up after considering the decision of Julian(the user) with a knowledgeable friend of mine(a Lawyer), we agreed the problem is with the [Prophet] page being too focused on religion rather than prophecy in expertise of a particular subject. I am unsure of how wikipedia treats such situations as I have perused the support pages and it is not explained nor mentioned. — (talk • contribs) 19:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

MaFi0s0 (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes ( ~ ) and put new messages at the bottom. Thanks.
 * I didn't find the word prophet in the source. Even if it is there, this is still a mere wp:primary source and no more than someone's opinion. In order for this to stick, we need (a few) reliable and relevant wp:secondary sources. - DVdm (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay I see, I guess I misunderstood the requirements. I will let someone else do that as I am sure they will. MaFi0s0 (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * And I've undone it again. Oops, it looks like there was an edit conflict and someone else beat me to it. Einstein is not a religious prophet. He may have been prophetic, but Prophet is about religious prophets (in spite of what you and your friend may think it should be about) . Do not link to it again. Meters (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * If you reverted it twice then it was not my edit. I added the info hours ago, someone reverted it hours after, and I put it back as minor because it was only a manual undo, not adding new info. You reverted it and that should have been that. If its been added a 3rd time it is someone else, so I dont believe I deserve a 4th warning over it and I tbh I think I will stick to just reading wikipedia.
 * I think Albert Einstein does not need any defining anyway, he is Albert Einstein. MaFi0s0 (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My warning was a mistake and had been removed. For some reason I did not get an edit conflict warning so i though that my undo had gone through. Meters (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Add to Category:Socialists?
Just seems like an obvious omission. 198.178.117.135 (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2016
He actually died on April 18, 1955

71.59.250.1 (talk) 03:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ Correct. He "experienced internal bleeding" on April 17 and "died early the next morning" (April 18). <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization   Talk   03:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

miracle years paper of 1905
How did einstein ,make visualization at first in 1905?how did idea about E=MC^2 come to his mind? Deepak pandey mj (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Not to be asked here. This talk page is for discussions about the article, not about the content—see wp:talk page guidelines. Please go to our wp:Reference desk/Science. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2016
The observatory, LIGO, discovering gravitational waves should be mentioned in the article where it says that Einstein's hypothesis was proved in 2016 and a hyperlink should be created directing to LIGO's Wikipedia page.

Ernest-2572 (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

ResearcherID wrong
The ResearcherID in Authority Control (http://www.researcherid.com/rid/I-6013-2012) is wrong. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Albert Einstein's citizenship
I changed the description of Albert Einstein from "German born" to "German born American physicist." I encountered resistance although there is no rational reason to call Einstein simply a German born physicist. He was German born. But the reason to have German born is to note the birthplace of somebody who subsequently had another citizenship. Otherwise, he would be called a German physicist, not German born. Einstein became a naturalized American citizen in 1940 as noted in the main body of his WP page. To call him a German born American is simply to include the fact that he was born a German citizen but acquired American citizenship. Some have objected that this implies that the main part of his life was as an American. It does no such thing, it is customary to note somebody's birth nation when they later immigrate to another country. He was a German born American physicist. I hope that this can be rectified civilly, that is the reason for my comments in the talk page of Einstein's WP page. T.S. Eliot is a similar case. Eliot was born in the United States but moved to England later in life, and renounced his American citizenship becoming a British subject. He is described as an American born British essayist. Einstein renounced his German citizenship and became a naturalized American citizen. And all due respect, but it is accurate to call an American citizen an American. True, there is North and South America, but those are continents not nations. The full name of the USA is the United States of America, hence its citizens are called Americans. I'm not trying to tag Einstein as an American. He wasn't born in the United States, so he couldn't accurately be called simply an American physicist, and to call him German-American would be misleading. I think he should be called what he was a German born American physicist.NapoleonX (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Concur, except that "German-born" is a compound phrase and should be hyphenated. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  Talk   00:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree: If a change were made (which I do not favor), it would be to “German-born Swiss physicist.” He became a Swiss citizen in 1901 and retained his Swiss citizenship for the rest of his life. Einstein did his major work in Switzerland and Germany; unfortunately by the time he emigrated the US, his major work was behind him. The case of T.S. Eliot is not comparable, for Eliot did his major work in England. —teb728 t c 09:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I favour leaving the article as it is: Albert Einstein was a German-born theoretical physicist. His various citizenships are displayed in the infobox. Apuldram (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, leave it as it is. This was discussed so many times before. See archives Talk:Albert_Einstein/Archive_18, Talk:Albert_Einstein/Archive_16, Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive 15, etc... - DVdm (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "Oh no, not again, this US-american chauvinism is so primitiv and childish and burdensome" were my first honest reaction to this worn-out issue. -- ZH8000 (talk) 10:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not being chauvinistic. If he has Swiss citizenship and never renounced it, that means he had dual citizenship. I'm fine with "German-born Swiss-American." T.S. Eliot was an American born British subject. His being naturalized as a British subject is what makes him British, while he was born an American citizen. Where he did his major work didn't alter the citizenship he was born with or his adopting British citizenship. That's why it was accurate to call T.S. Eliot an "American born British author." Stating Einstein's citizenship implies nothing about where his major work was done. If you won't change it to "German-born Swiss-American" or some variation, at least just say "German physicist." German-born by itself makes no sense. If you say someone is German, then obviously they were German born.NapoleonX (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But merely German born neatly indicates that he changed nationalies a few times. That's perfectly ok and there is no reason to merely mention the last one. More arguments to keep it this way in the archives. - DVdm (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support from my (Swiss, besides) side. -- ZH8000 (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * At the manual of style there is a guideline, WP:OPENPARA, which prescribes which citizenship should be mentioned in the opening paragraph of the lead. Double citizenships (or expression as "X born", or "Y naturalised Z") are simply not contemplated. The criterium applied there is that we should use the citizenship owned when the person became notable. In the case of Einstein, this is clearly NOT the American one. In general, my personal position is that as long as there is a guideline, this should be adopted, and possible changes should be discussed on the MOS discussion page. Unfortunately, often people prefer edit warring (I was a couple of times at ANI in order to enforce WP:OPENPARA). Said that, I am leaving the discussion, since I have to go to the ETH. :-) . Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Text

 * The text states that his wife remained in Zurich. It is also unclear whether E renounced his Swiss citizenship. Also you have introduced grammatical errors. Not making a fuss. Merely pointing out to you potential errors. As you say, period. Irondome (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I will check the accuracy of the citations. And the new material you have introduced. I will also attempt to clean up the grammatical errors you have introduced into the text. Irondome (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference 86, Einsteins co-operation for building atomic weapons
Reference 86 refers to an article on Thorium reactors which leads to believe that A. Einstein actively worked on the Manhattan project. As the Thorium reactor article is more of a push (to Obama) for implementing Th fuel based fission reactors and in disagreement with the (better) cited and correct article published as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szil%C3%A1rd_letter.

Strongly suggest to remove this citation and refer to the better documented wikipedia article.

GerGroeneveld (talk) 06:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Reference 86 is not really relevant and only mentions A.E. once. It should be replaced by something more relevant.  The Wiki article can be used as a link, but not as a reference.  Perhaps this would be a suitable relacement. Apuldram (talk) 07:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Albert Einstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://philoscience.unibe.ch/lehre/winter99/einstein/Stachel1966.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Connection failed (Page cannot be displayed due to robots.txt.). Apuldram (talk) 06:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 06:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2016
The caption associated with the image at the bottom left of the "1930–1931: Travel to the U.S." section has a typo: "premier" should be spelled "premiere" in this case.

It currently reads: "Charlie Chaplin and Einstein at the Hollywood premier of City Lights, January 1931"

Duddun (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Thanks.--TMCk (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Never understood
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)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2016
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".

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)

Fixing sources
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. -- 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)

Was Albert Einstein – formally – promiscuitive?
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. " 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:, , and 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)


 * 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' --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 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)

Einstein's Swiss-American nationality
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 and Weimar Constitution 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"
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
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 and thus Germans for ESW. Later, German citizenship was per Weimar Constitution 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. Jus  da  fax   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. Jus  da  fax   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). 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
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)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2016
There are stories that the reason Einstein was so clever is because he had an ability/disability called Autism.It is believed he was mildly Autistic with AS short for Asperger Syndrome.

79.77.92.161 (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * ❌: There are stories that Einstein was an alien from outer space. - DVdm (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2016
ALEin 15:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

FROM: Heading:  "Death" Einstein's remains were cremated and his ashes were scattered at an undisclosed location.
 * When a person is cremated, the left-overs are called CREMAINS, not ASHES! I used to do this for a living and this error should be changed in the article IMMEDIATELY!  ALEin 15:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * ❌ per not needed. From our article Cremation: The appearance of cremated remains after grinding is one of the reasons they are called ashes, although a non-technical term sometimes used is "cremains" ....


 * According to these sources, "ashes" is OK. - DVdm (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Minor wording update re: WWII use of Atomic bomb
I'd like to request or recommend a minor wording change in "World War II and the Manhattan Project" section of this article: "remains the only country to use them in combat," to become "remains the only country to have used them in combat," basically because it can be considered a past historical event. As far as I know, and certainly hope, the US (and everyone else) have no current/ongoing use of atomic weapons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.157.241 (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ See . - DVdm (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Albert Einstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ). Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC) Apuldram (talk) 10:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928123827/http://www.ipi.ch/E/institut/i1.shtm to http://www.ipi.ch/E/institut/i1.shtm

Apuldram (talk) 10:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gtalumni.org/Publications/magazine/sum98/einsrefr.html

Should a "Personal" section be added?
I feel like there a need to add a personal section about his hobbies and likes. For instance, his favorite book, his favorite music, love for violin, and other personal tastes found in his biography by Isaacson and other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icantevennnnn (talk • contribs) 14:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It isn't done for other biographical articles in Wikipedia, except to the extent that some item has received exceptional public interest. The violin is marginal, but the other items mentioned clearly don't qualify. — DAGwyn (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Albert Einstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811141225/https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1/m/Maric_files/EvidenceMaric.pdf to https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1/m/Maric_files/EvidenceMaric.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Apuldram (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Swiss Citizen
Please write in the article that Einstein was a Swiss citizen since 1901. He didn't ever give up to this nationality. He was very proud to have this Swiss passport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C66:71A0:4966:2229:D42C:4FDF (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * His citizenship has been discussed many times in the past, and the present version is the result of consensus. The infobox already shows his Swiss citizenship from 1901 until his death and provides a full list.  Apuldram (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but this infobox is wrong. ALbert Einstein was a Swiss citizen from 1901 to his death. He never abandonned his Swiss nationality. He was very proud of it because at that time it wasn't given very easily. I don't understand why this article prentends that he lost it in 1955: this is totally wrong. As this article doesn't mention this important fact and so underestimates the benefits Einstein got from it means that it is clarly politically oriented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C68:2F50:946F:5E34:2F2B:4F4D (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies for repeating the earlier answer: The infobox already shows his Swiss citizenship from 1901 until his death and provides a full list. Please read the first line of the article, which shows when he died. Apuldram (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Timeline section
This article contains a timeline. I am being told that timelines are not allowed in articles, they must be deleted or converted to prose. This previous RFC Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography determined that "biographies editors prefer prose format over a timeline section" so they have to go or be turned to prose. I think the discussion needs more opinions than the 6 people that commented. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Timeline. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree time line should be removed...also need to clean up some quotes. Dont need to know things like he was wearing black pants, Does not look like a GA article anymore.--Moxy (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Education v. Alma_mater
Per infobox template: "education = institution and graduation year, if relevant. If very little information is available or relevant, the |alma_mater= parameter may be more appropriate." "Alma mater = linked name of the last-attended higher education institution." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The template clearly says: "alma_mater: University or universities where scientist obtained their degree or degrees". And "If very little information is available or relevant...". That is excately what it is. -- ZH8000 (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2016 - Albert Einstein Albanian passport
Alber Einstein came to albania in April 1931. At that time, Einstein felt threatened by Nazi elements because of his Jewish origins. Later,. He was given an Albanian passport, allowed to leave the country, and eventually to travel to the United States. The one who helped him Dr. Jani Basho, the young physician graduate of the University of Vienna (Austria) Medical School, who upon his return to Albania was appointed physician of the Albanian Royal Court. It is in this capacity that he had the chance to do “a good deed” as a righteous person, for an individual who had reached world fame, and had distinguished himself in the forefront of scientific research, Dr.Albert Einstein. Dr. Basho met Dr. Einstein through an Albanian friend in Vienna, the well-known actor and artist Alexander Moisiu, a longtime friend of Dr. Einstein. Recently, this episode in the life of the great Dr. Einstein was also reported by the Wikipedia with the following text

79.106.209.58 (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: It’s not clear what changes you would like made. Please request the change in a format: "add X" or "delete X"  or "change X to Y". Also note that the dates don't tie up. According to the article, he was already in the United States in 1930. Apuldram (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Dead link repair reverted
with this unexplained revert, you reverted a repaired dead link. Could you explain why you did this? Or was this a mistake? - DVdm (talk) 07:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've restored the repaired version. Apuldram (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've replaced it with an archived version - we don't need to link to a scraper site. -KH-1 (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, both. - DVdm (talk) 07:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2016
I request access to this page because I feel that the name of his work has not been named correctly or described correctly. Scholar0 (talk) 13:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Einstein didn't disprove the ether

 * More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of view, the conceivability of which I shall at once endeavour to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general theory of relativity.

Einstein argues that we aren't compelled to deny the ether as it might still exist since Lorentz's ether theory arrives at the same formalism as Einstein's SR but the nature of the ether being immobile and undetectable makes it effectively non-existent. I disagree with the statement that he "disproved" it. I edited the page to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destatiforze (talk • contribs) 16:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes ( ~ ). Thanks.
 * The article does not say that he disproved the ether, but that he discredited it. Arguing that something does not matter, can be called discrediting. That part is properly sourced, and should not be removed on the basis of something Einstein once said. Most scholars agree that Einstein discredited the ether, so that is what Wikipedia should report. I have reverted the inappropriate removal. - DVdm (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

No Shekinah ndu (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2017
In side bar on right it says died aged 76 instead of age 76 in parenthesis. 216.129.181.121 (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ or ✔️ It doesn't, or it has since been changed by another user.  JTP (talk • contribs) 02:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2017
Shubh Baghel (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Marriages and children The discovery and publication in 1987 of an early correspondence between Einstein and Marić revealed that they had had a daughter, called

Delete had


 * ❌: the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". - DVdm (talk) 09:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * had had is correct. The tense is the pluperfect (past in past). The first had is the auxiliary verb and the second is the past participle. Apuldram (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So you would have had "had had" where he had had "had"? — DAGwyn (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. The article had had "had had" originally. Apuldram (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Einstein 1921 by F Schmutzer - restoration.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Einstein 1921 by F Schmutzer - restoration.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 14, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-03-14. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2017
I think you should add an extra subsection called "quotes" so nobody has to go to a different page to get quotes. 164.104.160.89 (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Already has too many quotes in the article as is MOS:QUOTE. see also WP:LONGQUOTE--Moxy (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Picture of the day
In light of the information above that the File:Einstein 1921 by F Schmutzer - restoration.jpg will shortly appear as a picture of the day, I have removed the word 'general' from the first sentence of the article as it is potentially misleading. The general theory of relativity, a model of gravitation and cosmology, has important astrophysical implications and has recently been supported by the detection of gravitational waves. However, it is certainly not "one of the two pillars of modern physics." That plaudit belongs to special relativity and its subsequent development. The term theory of relativity relates to the whole theory, whereas the term general theory of relativity is used for the more specific gravitational and cosmological aspects. In the context in the article theory of relativity is more approriate and not misleading. Apuldram (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2017
In physical theories prior to that of special relativity, mass and energy were viewed as distinct entities. Furthermore, the energy of a body at rest could be assigned an arbitrary value. In special relativity, however, the energy of a body at rest is determined to be mc2. Thus, each body of rest mass m possesses mc2 of “rest energy,” which potentially is available for conversion to other forms of energy. The mass-energy relation, moreover, implies that, if energy is released from the body as a result of such a conversion, then the rest mass of the body will decrease. Such a conversion of rest energy to other forms of energy occurs in ordinary chemical reactions, but much larger conversions occur in nuclear reactions. This is particularly true in the case of nuclear fusion reactions that transform hydrogen to helium, in which 0.7 percent of the original rest energy of the hydrogen is converted to other forms of energy. Stars like the Sun shine from the energy released from the rest energy of hydrogen atoms that are fused to form helium. 2602:306:CC07:6A0:4DA8:A88:28F:6787 (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Academic career
The section "Academic career" begins with the phrase "recognized as a leading scientist" which seems too vague. That could be said of anyone in the sciences.Browntable (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not of me.
 * Seriously, "recognized as a leading scientist" after a mere three years... sounds pretty impressive to me. - DVdm (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2017
Khan ayaan 123456 (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC) Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.--Moxy (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The font for these two entries is inconsistent with the rest of the list
Doctoral advisor	Alfred Kleiner Other academic advisors LunaCelestial (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * These are entries in an infobox. The fonts used are consistent with other infobox entries where the infobox parameter includes a link to a Wikipedia article.  The appearance of these and other items on your screen will be determined by your client/browser and its settings. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization   Talk   20:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2017
During his years at Polytech, Einstein had found a brand new way to add arithmetic sequences using a combination of matrices and vectors to find the sum. His algorithm was simply dubbed "Einstein Summation" and was used as an easy way to add arithmetic sequences before the algorithms used today. Chaserase (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: It’s not clear what changes you would like made. Please request the change in a format: "add X" or "delete X"  or "change X to Y". Please also indicate a reliable source for your information. Apuldram (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I recommend not inserting that text into the article. It badly mischaracterizes the Einstein summation convention, which does deserve a mention but not an incorrect one.  — DAGwyn (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Albert Einstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090622063213/http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7921.html to http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7921.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070610080506/http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/n01-04.htm to http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/n01-04.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Article split suggestion
Since the article is at 142KB, or over 12,000 words (not including cites), I'd suggest splitting it by about half by creating a separate article for Albert Einstein's scientific career. As it is, the Albert_Einstein section is essentially an annotated list of his theories. Splitting that topic off would be similar to a film actor's filmography article, a composer's compositions, or a writer's annotated list of works. Thoughts? --Light show (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Noting an RfC for the deleted photo of Einstein and Oliver Locker-Lampson
There is currently an RfC concerning the recently deleted photo of Einstein and Oliver Locker-Lampson. --Light show (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Albert Einstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150828225916/http://www.pha.jhu.edu/einstein/stuff/einstein%26music.pdf to http://www.pha.jhu.edu/einstein/stuff/einstein%26music.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160212083049/http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/02/160211-gravitational-waves-found-spacetime-science/ to http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/02/160211-gravitational-waves-found-spacetime-science/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150828225916/http://www.pha.jhu.edu/einstein/stuff/einstein%26music.pdf to http://www.pha.jhu.edu/einstein/stuff/einstein%26music.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics
"As World War I broke out that year, the plan for Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics was aborted. After the war, the institute was established on 1 October 1917."

I attempted to insert a query about this, but jmcgnh took it out.

My query was as follows: "This is not possible, as the war was still going strong in October 1917. Perhaps the date is wrong? If not, then this was during the war."

jmcgnh responded as follows: "Multiple sources agree with the 1917 date. The war delayed the creation of the institute but the creation did not wait for the end of the war."

Perhaps that is so. But that is not what the text in the article says. The text says that October 1, 1917, was "after the war." It was not. I suggest revising the text to say as follows: "Although the war delayed the creation of the institute, the creation did not wait for the end of the war. The institute was established on 1 October 1917."

BruceK10032 (talk) 09:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Apuldram (talk) 09:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)4

Einstein's PhD
A new editor has complained that "Albert Einstein never received a PhD" and that we need to fact check better. The latter is certainly true all over the encyclopaedia ... on the former, I don't know. The article seems to think he did (1905, Zürich) but it's not referenced. That his thesis exists seems indisputable but there isn't a ref for the award of the degree. A quick look at the university's website hasn't shown me it either, but maybe it's there. So, did he or didn't he? And, if he did, where is the ref? Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2017
In the non-scientific legacy section, I think we should change the line "the profession of plumber ..." to "the plumbing profession". Also, the chicagotribune citation for that is broken. 68.187.218.145 (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  05:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Source for the quote "the spirit of learning and creative thought was lost in strict rote learning"?
There's no source referenced for "He later wrote that the spirit of learning and creative thought was lost in strict rote learning" and I can't find one

In the english translation of "Einstein His Life and Times" by Philipp Frank I found: {quote} While Einstein was in Boston, staying at the Hotel Copley Plaza, he was given a copy of Edison's questionnaire to see whether he could answer the questions. As soon as he read the question: "What is the speed of sound ?" he said: "I don't know. I don't burden my memory with such facts that I can easily find in any textbook," Nor did he agree with Edison's opinion on the uselessness of college education. He remarked: "It is not so very important for a person to learn facts. For that he does not really need a college. He can learn them from books. The value of an education in a liberal arts college is not the learning of many facts but the training of the mind to think something that cannot be learned from textbooks." For this reason, ac- cording to Einstein, there can be no doubt of the value of a general college education even in our time. {quote} The source of that seems to be the new york times (18 May 1921) "EINSTEIN SEES BOSTON; FAILS ON EDISON TEST; Asked to Tell Speed of Sound He Refers Questioner to Text Books". Does anyone have a source of the actual quote in this article? If not we should remove it

Porjes (talk) 08:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * There seem to be several sources that confirm Einstein's dislike of rote learning, for example here and here. The sentence in the article is not a "quote", but some Wikipedia editor's own words to describe Einstein's views.  It could be reworded slightly, but certainly not removed completely. Apuldram (talk) 09:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Lincoln University
Not only is the parenthetical about Lincoln University being the first to award a degree somewhat extraneous, it is wrong. According to the Wikipedia article on Lincoln it wasn't founded till 1854. Oberlin College admitted both African Americans and women, and (according to the Wikipedia article) they awarded a degree to an African American in 1844, of which they are very proud. Is this some picky distinction between a College and University? I think it is extraneous and wrong and unless someone tells me better I will delete that parenthetical on Sept 15, 2017.Conscientia (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Bizarre deletion by User:DAGwyn on 24 March 2017
I added a mention in the article (based on a quote highlighted in the season finale of the HBO show Westworld) of Oppenheimer's discussion of the volume of errors in Einstein's early writings to help make a smooth transition between (1) the topic of the volume of Einstein's work and (2) the topic of when his writings were actually released.

User:DAGwyn deleted that at this edit with the explanation: "removed citation which was withdrawn by its original source."

That is a blatantly false statement. The cited source is still available at Google Books and has not been withdrawn.

The source explains that Oppenheimer did actually deliver those remarks about Einstein and they were widely reported at the time by The New York Times and other news sources, but that Oppenheimer then received negative feedback from colleagues and deleted them from the edited version submitted for publication. The fact that Oppenheimer withdrew those remarks from the published version (after realizing that he had erred in speaking badly of Einstein) does not change the fact that he did make such comments before a public audience at UNESCO headquarters.

See What Wikipedia is not --- Wikipedia is not censored. If no one defends that indefensible edit soon, I'm putting that text back in. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The material deleted was: In his 1965 lecture, Oppenheimer noted that Einstein's early writings were riddled with errors which had already delayed their publication for almost ten years: "A man whose errors can take that long to correct is quite a man."ref name="Schweber"> This comment was notably absent from the above-cited revised written version of Oppenheimer's lecture, but as the Schweber book explains, it was mentioned in the extensive media coverage of Oppenheimer's lecture as actually delivered.


 * If the first sentence of the deleted material is restored, it should be immediately qualified in the text by the statement that Weber withdrew it. User DAGwyn was correct in that the reference given did not support the sentence, so an additional reference is needed to a reliable source in the "extensive media coverage". Apuldram (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * If you look at page 281 of Schweber's book, it clearly says that "the views that Oppenheimer had expressed in Paris were widely disseminated" and explains in detail how various newspapers reported on the speech.
 * Also, it is clearly false to state that Schweber withdrew the statement. If you actually read page 281, it says that Oppenheimer withdrew the statement in the edited written version of his remarks. Do you have any training in close reading at all? --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Calm comments work best. Please read WP:NOTCENSORED to observe that it is irrelevant for this discussion. There is no requirement that every comment about Einstein be included. A lot has been written about Einstein so one test for whether text is WP:DUE would be to find several quality biographies which include the text. If that cannot be done, it is probably not due. Johnuniq (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I specifically brought up WP:NOTCENSORED because it appears that User:DAGwyn is improperly engaged in hagiography by censoring negative remarks about Einstein. Wikipedia is not censored; we present the good, the bad, and the ugly, if it is verifiable and neutrally presented.
 * Oppenheimer's remarks in 1965 about Einstein were clearly notable then and they are notable now. Page 430 of Denis Brian's 1996 biography, Einstein: a life, (not available online) addresses the controversy resulting from Oppenheimer's 1965 UNESCO remarks about Einstein's early work. Also, at least two biographies of Oppenheimer mention those remarks. This one specifically mentions Oppenheimer's attack on Einstein's early work and this one mentions the remarks' critical tone more generally. This biography of Einstein discusses how Oppenheimer in the same speech also trashed Einstein's later work. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It was Oppenheimer who withdrew his comment, not Schweber. It's much like a witness who later recants testimony, although in Oppenheimer's case there is a possibility that he changed his mind about the way he had phrased his comment about the frequency of Einstein's mistakes, rather than changing his mind about the actual frequency.  It would be misleading to include Oppenheimer's initial statement in the article unless you also then state that he later withdrew it; otherwise the reader is likely to believe that Oppenheimer was comfortable with his statement, which apparently he was not.  — DAGwyn (talk) 08:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Elsa's telling Chapin an amusing, apocryphal, and anachronistic story about the time Einstein conceived his theory of relativity.
Jsusky (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)It's surprising that this "relativity theory was written in two weeks" story has persisted without editorial comment. While it's entertaining in its way, on its face, this story is absurd.

Others have pointed out that AE was married to his first wife when he published the Special Theory in 1905 (and had a patent clerk job) and did not divorce until 1919.

Further, according to Dr. A. Douglas Stone (in "Einstein and the Quantum, the Quest of the Valiant Swabian") AE worked almost exclusively on the General Theory from 1911 until it was published in 1915. During this time he was employed at various universities in Prague, Zurich, and Berlin (where Elsa lived). For even a shadow of this story to be true, AE would have had to have been absent from both his first wife and his day job for two weeks.

Surely this story is no more than an entertainment by Elsa Einstein many years after "the fact" for an actor barely more crudulous than the editor who put the story in this entry.


 * AE separated from his first wife in 1914 and after that lived with Elsa, marrying her in 1919. It seems possible that Elsa's reminscence to Chaplin relates to other work on the theory of relativity - the story doesn't seem to specify that it was the special theory. A possible candidate for the work could be Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie (Cosmological Considerations in the General Theory of Relativity), published in 1917. I don't imagine that Elsa would have been able to tell Chaplin what was on the "two sheets of paper", or that Chaplin, in his memoirs, would distinguish between the  different theories. Apuldram (talk) 12:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the adjectives 'amusing, apocryphal and anachronistic'. Inferences and judgements by Wikipedia editors are original research. Instead, I have added a note with the relevant information about the theory of relativity. That allows readers to form their own inferences and judgements, which may well be the same as those expressed by Jsusky. Apuldram (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Jsusky (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Apludram should make the "note" truly "relevant" and "generalize" it to include General Relativity (pun intended). Perhaps point out that AE's four years of exclusive effort on General Relativity could not possibly square with the two-week-tale.


 * Good point, thank you. I hope I have now included your idea. Apuldram (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Jsusky (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Above, Apuldram wrote: "It seems possible that Elsa's reminscence to Chaplin relates to other work on the theory of relativity"

The "possible" includes the fantastic. Any story-spinning is "possible". It's apparent that Mrs. Einstein (the second) fabricated the story - from less cloth than Betsy Ross' successors spun her US Flag Legend circa 1876.

Let's not mislead Chaplin fans and film fans (who may skip directly to this legendary fluff) about serious topics. The General Theory is regarded (by the serious and informed) as one of the most remarkable feats of human reasoning extant. Why risk minimizing it as a mere "two week feat"?

BTW, if anyone wishes to wield the "original research" hammer and call them "inferences and judgements", then at least do the work as I did in the explanation above (citing Dr. Stone, who assuredly did do the work).

"Amusing", in that context, is a judgement.

In this context, "Apocryphal, and anachronistic" is not a judgement, and is an "inference" only in the very broad sense. Shall editors exert no logic whatever to leaven an illogical (yet "documented" "attributed" by the credulous Chaplin) story with a modicum of informed observation?

As it stands, the missus' story adds a nice light glimpse of Einstein's legend as seen by his common contemporary fans - why mislead while doing that?


 * Since the text (with the embedded note) was self-contradictory, i.e. here's a bit of hearsay that can't describe Einstein's actual actions, I have followed the WP precept "Be bold!" and removed it. This article contains far too much trivial information already to be padding it out with misinformation. — DAGwyn (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Pic of refugee card?
Please, WP:BRD.

This pic has been recently added and reverted, and then re-added, with arguments in comments only. That's WP:EW, as I'm sure you all know. Let's discuss and !vote. I'll start.


 * Remove. I suppose a pic of his refugee card might be interesting, but this pic is so poor, it fails to be as such. The card itself isn't legible, and stuff that's even less relevant dominates behind it.  Is there a better pic of this?  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  18:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. The version  added to the article and subsequently I cropped and adjusted at Commons.  Dr.   K.  23:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't oppose using this cropped version. --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  01:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Math
Contrary to popular belief, Einstein never failed math. Benjamin (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This article doesn't mention this apparent myth, but probably should. The Time story (linked above) seems like a reasonable source. Paul August &#9742; 15:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Categories
There are a ridiculous number of categories for Einstein, many of which are ridiculous. Can't we clean this up? --I am One of Many (talk) 04:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that would start an edit war, since evidently very many groups like to claim that Einstein was in their group. — DAGwyn (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

German pronounciation of "Einstein"
It would be appropriate to give the IPA-de prnounciation of "Einstein" since he himself did not pronounce his name "Ein-s-tein" as is usage in the English langage. Should be {IPA-de| aɪnʃtaɪn}}, but I am not an expert in IPA, just using my German. The name was written something like "Aynshtayn" by some of Enstein's ancestors, later Germanized by the familiy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.75.79.204 (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Citizenship
Maybe I missed something, but I see where he became a citizen of Austria and of Switzerland. Didn't this mean he was no longer a German citizen, or was it possible to be a citizen of two or three countries? In the article, he renounced his German citizenship after his return to Belgium, but how did he have a citizenship at that time?87.247.33.21 (talk) 04:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Albert Einstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150828225916/http://www.pha.jhu.edu/einstein/stuff/einstein%26music.pdf to http://www.pha.jhu.edu/einstein/stuff/einstein%26music.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Nationality
My proposal for the first sentence is:

"Albert Einstein (14 March 1879 – 18 April 1955) was a German-born, Jewish-American theoretical physicist. "

Dank Chicken (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)  in the   templates. If there are further issues, let me know. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)