Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive 2

Pantheist?
Just noticed that a link to List of Pantheists was added and removed. From what I know of Einstein's religion, it's probably misleading to associate him with any organized religion or philosophy. I remember reading a quote somewhere to the effect that noone else means quite what Einstein meant when he said "God." Isomorphic 05:41, 5 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I had him on a list of pantheists, but it appears that only obscure pantheist organizations call him a pantheist. If anyone knows something substantial or verifiable on the subject, that would be great, but otherwise I'll leave him out, due to obvious objections from certain parties Sam Spade 06:17, 5 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Beyond that, normal convention is not to link to have items on lists link to the lists. There are just too many weird lists on Wikipedia to have them link back, and so the lists are usually only linked to from general articles on the subject. So Pantheism should link to List of Pantheists, but the article for a given pantheist should not.
 * Also, is it properly Pantheist or pantheist? Because if it's properly lowercase, then the article should be moved to List of pantheists. Snowspinner 15:01, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Languages he spoke?
Did Einstein speak in English or German or both languages ? How fluent was his English ? Jay 17:33, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Albert Einstein as a trademark
"This popularity has also lead to a widespread use of Einstein in advertisement and merchandising, eventually including the registration of Albert Einstein&trade; as a trademark."

Is that accurate? Could we have some more information on that? --Tothebarricades.tk 05:17, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Already provided. Brutannica 06:01, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah, I didn't notice that section. I'm so dumb sometimes... :P --Tothebarricades.tk 06:23, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Copyright status of the images in this article
The main image Image:Albert Einstein.jpg has no copyright info, Image:Einstein patentoffice.jpg is under fairuse, Image:Einstein2.jpg is in the public domain and Image:Einstongue.jpg is presumably fairuse as well though detailed info is provided.

Only one of them specifies a source, this needs to be fixed. -- Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   09:55, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)


 * Here's an idea: contact CalTech and see if they will approve of using some of their Einstein images under Fair Use. Out of all places I bet they'd be the most receptive to this idea (more so than a private company). They have a ton of GREAT Einstein pictures: http://archives.caltech.edu/photoNet.html --Fastfission 02:40, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, Image:Einstein patentoffice.jpg is actually in the public domain. I've asked the uploader of Image:Albert Einstein.jpg to supply the source and licensing info; alternatively, this could be replaced by either Image:Karsh Einstein.jpg or the larger version of the same, Image:Albert Einstein by Yousuf Karsh.jpg, which is in the public domain, too. remains the "tongue" picture. Lupo 09:52, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, and Image:Einstein2.jpg was not PD, it was a copyrighted Magnum photo which I have just deleted for that reason (and also because we do have PD replacements for it). Lupo 12:52, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Time for featured-article status?
It seems an obvious choice, but apparently this article has not been nominated as a Featured article candidate. Would someone like to do the honors? - dcljr 04:58, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Mmm... I dunno. I always thought it could use more on Einstein's personality and political views (although those sections might have been fleshed out by now), and some of the science stuff might be a little too complicated. Brutannica 07:52, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I nominated the article now. --ThomasK 05:20, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Light bent by gravity
In the section Albert Einstein, it says:


 * ...when it was tested by measuring how much the sun's rays were bent by gravity during a solar eclipse, ...

That doesn't make sense. If I recall that experiment correctly, it was measured by how much the light emanating from a star "behind" the sun was bent by the sun's gravity. The experiment was made during a solar eclipse because a star behind or very close (in line-of-sight) to the sun would otherwise not be visible at all. The findings from that experiment matched the predictions made by the theory. Somebody can explain "behind" better than me, I'm sure. Lupo 10:51, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * My apologies... I can't recall my source. Brutannica 02:01, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

BTW, do we have an article on this experiment somewhere? It was a milestone that certainly deserves coverage, and with a diagram, the whole thing becomes much easier to explain, too. Lupo 11:01, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The best I found was gravitational lens... I've corrected the article. Lupo 11:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Posted to Prague?
Am I mistaken, or was Einstein not posted to Prague at some point before Berlin? User:sca 18:37, October 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 21:06, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Yes. Though "posted" is the wrong word. He was offered a prof-ship there.


 * Also the article says: "Einstein settled in Berlin as professor at the local university." There are 4 universities in Berlin so the phrasing is vague, if not inacurrate. I feel some details should be added on the Prague-Berlin period. --128.12.193.8 09:09, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Disliking "Time mags person of the century"
(William M. Connolley 21:06, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)) I dislike the text under the photo: "Time mags person of the century"... since he is so much more important than time mag, and their judgement of scientific matters is irrelevant, it seems rather demeaning. There must be a better scientific quote to put in.

Criticism and allegations of plagiarism
I have removed the following additions:
 * The name "Einstein" evokes images of genius, but some critics have claimed that he was a plagiarist, who allegedly infringed on previous theories of Lorentz, Poincare, Gerber, and Hilbert. One critic, Christopher Jon Bjerknes, documented what he saw as plagiarism in the work titled "Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist". Bjerknes see some of Einstein's work as not properly acknowledging his contemporaries, in addition to providing formal logical argument demonstrating that Einstein could not have drawn the conclusions he claimed to have drawn without prior knowlege of the works he referenced, but did not cite nor credit. Numerous quotations from Einstein's contemporaries are also included to support the notion that Einstein's infringements had indeed been noticed. Others disagree with Bjerknes.
 * Christopher J. Bjerknes (2002). Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist. ISBN 0-971-96298-7

The reasons I have removed them are 1) this book is not taken seriously by ANY mainstream historians of science or physicists and in the few respectable places it has actually been reviewed it has been denounced as pure rubbish ; 2) from my looking at selections of it online, I think it is pure rubbish and not worthy of a paragraph on the Wikipedia article -- the author obviously has no idea about the history of Einstein's relativity nor the historiography of priority disputes, much less the differences between Einstein and Poincaré and Lorentz, which are significant, and cites criticisms from members of the Nazi Deutsche Physik movement as evidence against Einstein which is either very sloppy or horribly offensive; 3) the book in question was published by a vanity press and has not received enough mainstream attention to make it or its claims encyclopedic. The section is incredibly POV, of course ("Others disagree" and "some critics" makes it sound like this is actually a widely supported view, which it is not), but that could be changed. In trying to make it NPOV, I had the feeling that it really oughtn't even bother being part of this article in the first place. If someone wants to disagree with my decision, though, I'm open to talking about it, of course. --Fastfission 04:18, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I might also note that the justification that Bjerknes gives for all other mainstream scientists and historians from not realizing this sooner or agreeing with him, if I recall, is because they're all part of the big Einstein sham conspiracy (personally, I get a payoff of about $100 a month to keep my mouth shut). It is classic conspiracy theory nonsense. --Fastfission 04:20, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I would also like to note that the only reason I can think of to include this sort of information is if this conspiracy theory nonsense is widespread enough to be considered encyclopedic. I don't think it is, it has attracted little attention even on the internet much less in mainstream press. However if someone has a different feeling for this I'd be happy to hear it. I only know about it because one of my friends stumbled across it and sent me the link a long time back, it is not something that historians of Einstein are even generally cognisant of, much less the general public. --Fastfission 04:25, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I concur. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a site dedicated to cataloguing, promoting, or debunking fringe theories.  There is someone out there with a fringe theory on virtually anything, and Wikipedia's usefulness would diminish if we tried to acknowledge all of them. Isomorphic 16:20, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I of course agree, and I would like to also say that the Salon link at the bottom recently added about the question is probably all that needs to be said on it, it is a well-done article in my assessment. --Fastfission 17:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Concerning the Olinto de Tretto use of E=mc2 before Einstein. This is not "really" true and certainly not accepted by mainstream science. All the history about Olinto de Pretto and the equivalence mass-energy comes after an italian book written in 1999 by italian Umberto Barocci. A link to the portrait of the book is given here: . The Olinto de Pretto article can be found here (only italian). The article speaks about kinetic energy of luminifereous ether and says that in order to be efficient medium for light to travel ether should vibrate at speeds faster than the light speed and so particles in the ether would have energy  on the order of mv^2 with v greater than c. (The paper is one of those theory of everything where the author explains the heat of the Sun the orbits of the planets and the formation of the Solar system. Mass-equivalence is only read by Bartocci) This is by no means any thing related to the energy-mass equivalence. In Italy some media have acclamed Olinto de Pretto as author of the equation but scientist seem not to agree . In fact, Olinto de Pretto is advocated by "extreme right" antisemitist groups to criticize Einstein as it can be seen here   and its main link together with a hundred more sites. Wricardoh 21:05, December 5, 2004 (UTC)

Moved from article
I removed the following unsourced recent addition from the article:


 * A more recent theory is that he suffered from Asperger's syndrome, a disorder related to autism.

Unless the author can provide external sources for this "theory" and show that it is not yet another fringe theory, this has no place in the article. Lupo 08:09, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * How about take a look at the Asperger's syndrome page. There is certainly a reference there.  I've seen it referenced in quite a few publications.  AFAIK, any published theory does have a place in this article.
 * BBC News article
 * Thoric 14:27, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Suggest 34 possible wiki links and 13 possible backlinks for Albert Einstein.
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Albert_Einstein article:

Additionally, there are some other articles which may be able to linked to this one (also known as "backlinks"): Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right. Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to &mdash; LinkBot 11:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Can link popular culture: ...ame exceeded that of any other scientist in history, and in popular culture, Einstein has become synonymous with someone of very hi...
 * Can link elementary school: ... was Jewish (and non-observant); Albert attended a Catholic elementary school and, at the insistence of his mother, was given violin ... (link to section)
 * Can link slow learner: ...]]s and mechanical devices for fun, he was considered a slow learner, possibly due to dyslexia, simple shyness, or the stron... (link to section)
 * Can link liberal arts: ...f and then joined his family in Pavia.) His failure of the liberal arts portion of the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule... (link to section)
 * Can link secondary school: ... sent by his family to Aarau, Switzerland to finish secondary school, and received his diploma in 1896. Einstein subsequent... (link to section)
 * Can link modern physics: ...ear, he wrote four articles that provided the foundation of modern physics, without much scientific literature to refer to or many... (link to section)
 * Can link Nobel prizes: ...hotoelectric effect]], and special relativity) deserved Nobel prizes . Only the photoelectric effect would win. This is something... (link to section)
 * Can link The International: ...bilis Papers]]" (from Latin: Extraordinary Year''). The International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP) has planned t... (link to section)
 * Can link empirical evidence: ...ory explanation decades after being observed&amp;mdash;provided empirical evidence for the reality of atoms. It also lent credence to stat... (link to section)
 * Can link physical systems: ...y, the assumption of infinite divisibility of energy in physical systems . Even after experiments showed that Einstein's equations fo... (link to section)
 * Can link Einstein's equations: ...rgy in physical systems. Even after experiments showed that Einstein's equations for the photoelectric effect were accurate, his explanation... (link to section)
 * Can link light waves: ...e the Michelson-Morley experiment, which had shown that light waves could not be travelling through any m... ([[Albert_Einstein#Work and doctorate|link to section)
 * Can link atomic nuclei: ...uch phenomenal amounts of energy. By measuring the mass of atomic nuclei and dividing them by their atomic number, both of which are... (link to section)
 * Can link atomic number: ...suring the mass of atomic nuclei and dividing them by their atomic number, both of which are easily measured, one can calculate the b... (link to section)
 * Can link binding energy: ...r, both of which are easily measured, one can calculate the binding energy which is trapped in different atomic nuclei. This allows o... (link to section)
 * Can link Berne, Switzerland: ...xaminer second class. In 1908, Einstein was licensed in Berne, Switzerland, as a teacher and lecturer (known as a Privatdozent), w... (link to section)
 * Can link nervous breakdown: ...nd had nursed him to health after he had suffered a partial nervous breakdown combined with a severe stomach ailment. There were no child... (link to section)
 * Can link Kaiser Wilhelm Institute: ...eories. From 1914 to 1933 he served as director of Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics in Berlin, and it was during this time he recei... (link to section)
 * Can link Academy of Sciences: ...Einstein presented a series of lectures before the Prussian Academy of Sciences in which he described his theory of general relativity.... (link to section)
 * Can link Newton's law: ...climaxed with his introduction of an equation that replaced Newton's law of gravity. This theory considered all observers to be equi... (link to section)
 * Can link skepticism: ... with experimentation or observation, leading scientists to skepticism . But his equations enabled predictions and tests to be made... (link to section)
 * Can link scientific community: ...There were, however, many who were still unconvinced in the scientific community . Their reasons varied, ranging from those who disagreed wit... (link to section)
 * Can link absolute frame of reference: ...xperiments to those who simply thought that life without an absolute frame of reference was intolerable. In Einstein's view, many of them simply co... (link to section)
 * Can link the real thing: ...rtainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me it is not yet the real thing . The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any cl... (link to section)
 * Can link refrigeration cycle: ...instein and Leó Szilárd. The patent covered a thermodynamic refrigeration cycle providing cooling with no moving parts, at a constant link to section)
 * Can link space-time continuum: ...anics.  Einstein assumed a structure of a four-dimensional space-time continuum expressed in axioms represented by five component vectors. ... (link to section)
 * Can link subatomic particles: ... the energy density are particularly high. Einstein treated subatomic particles in this research as objects embedded in the unified field, ... (link to section)
 * Can link unified field: ...tomic particles in this research as objects embedded in the unified field, influencing it and existing as an essential constituent of... (link to section)
 * Can link variational principle: ...rched a way to delineate the equations to be derived from a variational principle .... (link to section)
 * Can link forms of government: ...khoels]] and Einstein in 1943]] Einstein opposed tyrannical forms of government, and for this reason (and his Jewish background), he oppose... (link to section)
 * Can link nationalism: ...o which Einstein bequeathed his papers. However he opposed nationalism and expressed skepticism about whether a Jewish nation-stat... (link to section)
 * Can link nation-state: ...nationalism and expressed skepticism about whether a Jewish nation-state was the best solution. He may have originally imagined Jew... (link to section)
 * Can link nuclear tests: ...Albert Schweitzer]] and Bertrand Russell fought against nuclear tests and bombs. With the link to section)
 * Can link Australian film: ...ientist displaying a moment of humor. Yahoo Serious, an Australian film maker, used the photo as an inspiration for the intentional... (link to section)
 * In Conscription, can backlink Albert Einstein: ... is just one more proof of its debilitating influence"'' by Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell and Thomas Man...
 * In Dylan Thomas, can backlink Albert Einstein: ....  He appears along with Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley and Albert Einstein all on probably the best known of all record sleeves, the B...
 * In Avogadro's number, can backlink Albert Einstein: ...d to the equivalence of matter and energy discovered by Albert Einstein as part of the theory of special relativity. When an a...
 * In Einstein on socialism, can backlink Albert Einstein: ...http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm Why socialism?] - Albert Einstein, Monthly review, 1949-05 ([http://www.amnh.org/exhibiti...
 * In Jacqueline du Pré, can backlink Albert Einstein: ... interpretations. Let us not forget the words of the great Albert Einstein, "Great spirits have always been met with violent oppositio...
 * In Diffuse sky radiation, can backlink Albert Einstein: ...ficult to observe because of the glare of the sun. In 1911 Albert Einstein published an article in which he showed that the real expla...
 * In National Air and Space Museum, can backlink Albert Einstein: ... and other artifacts, there is an IMAX theater and the Albert Einstein Planetarium....
 * In Fotini Markopoulou-Kalamara, can backlink Albert Einstein: ...ew Jersey. Previous postdoctoral positions were held at the Albert Einstein Institute, Imperial College London, and Penn State Universi...
 * In List of hospitals in Pennsylvania, can backlink Albert Einstein: ... Hospital * Philadelphia ** Albert Einstein Healthcare ...
 * In Prolixity, can backlink Albert Einstein: ...ing upon context. == Concise language == By some accounts, Albert Einstein once said: "Make everything as simple as possible, but not ...
 * In Raymond U. Lemieux, can backlink Albert Einstein: ...Canadian) (1990) * NSERC Gold Medal in Science (1991) * Albert Einstein World Award in Science (1992)...
 * In The Majestic Documents, can backlink Albert Einstein: ...ident said on the issue. Various important people's such as Albert Einstein and Ronald Regan's signatures have been found on these docu...
 * In Last Son of Krypton, can backlink Albert Einstein: ...Luthor]] must join forces to retrieve a document written by Albert Einstein and stop the alien ruler. The story is considered a classic...

The Greatest Scientist of the 20th Century
I think the claim '...the greatest scientist of the 20th Century...' is hyperbole. My own view is that he can't have been this because (1) he was a theoretician and (2) how original a theoretician he was is very contentious, (see contributions from others on priority for many parts of the work claimed by him or attributed to him). All science is cumulative but for what it's worth my suggestion for a stand-out-figure on the basis of intellectual brilliance and practical achievement is Nikola Tesla. The progressive development of our material circumstances and welfare at such a marked rate in the last 100 years has its technological cause in the creation of devices which effectively generate, transmit and use energy and I'm not aware of any other single individual whose theoretical and practical achievements in this area even approach let alone exceed Tesla's. He also had some choice things to say about the work of others, including Einstein, on relativity, '...[a] magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king...., its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists...', (New York Times, July 11, 1935, p23, c.8), and 'I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.', (New York Hearald Tribune, September 11, 1932) and '...the relativity theory, by the way, is much older than its present proponents. It was advanced over 200 years ago by my illustrious countryman Boskovic, the great philospher, who not withstanding other and multifold obligations wrote a thousand volumes of excellent literature on a vast variety of subjects. Boskovic dealt with relativity, including the so-called time-space continuum...', (1936 unpublished interview, quoted in Anderson, L, ed. Nikola Tesla: Lecture Before the New York Academy of Sciences: The Streams of Lenard and Roentgen and Novel Apparatus for Their Production, April 6, 1897, reconstructed 1994).--Smark33021 00:56, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Whether Tesla was great or not doesn't really matter here, the line in question is "who is widely regarded as the greatest scientist of the 20th century." Which is generally accurate -- he is widely regarded as such -- whether or not you (or I) agree with such an opinion. In the popular mind, and indeed in the mind of many scientists, he is portrayed as the exemplar figure for "scientist" even if in reality one could make several arguments to the contrary.--Fastfission 20:04, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Catagories
Could we please leave Einstein in the Category physicists? The fact that is is a subcategory of some other category is - to me - less important then the fact that the category of physicists will be imcomplete without him (and without the other Nobel prize winners). If someone is browsing through the physicists category, they might not think (or want) to look for and check out related categories. If we drop out all of the physicists who appear in other sub-categories, there will not be much left in the physicists category, which will make it far less useful. Michael L. Kaufman 02:12, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. I was looking for him in the list of physicists, and I couldn't understand why there was not one of the most know physicists in the world! Nova77 06:47, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * he was also (as sorry as I am to say this:) not Swiss but German (native of Ulm). The categorization should be changed accordingly. dab (&#5839;) 10:16, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, but he did renounce his German citizenship and kept his Swiss citzenship. Is "German" supposed to mean his birth location or his "nationality"? I think such distinctions are somewhat petty anyway, though. I'm fairly sure that Einstein wouldn't have been liked to be listed as being any particular nationality, and certainly not German, but anyway, he's not here so I guess it's not up to him. --Fastfission 21:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * If we list him under either national category, I'd list him under both. If I remember correctly, he didn't consider himself a German if he could help it. Isomorphic 18:25, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, if we're going to talk about citizenship, wasn't he also granted American citizenship? I'm fairly sure. Why not put him under all three catergories? And if we're going to argue about where he would've wanted us to place him, I have no input on the subject except this quote from him: "If relativity is proved right the Germans will call me a German, the Swiss will call me a Swiss citizen, and the French will call me a great scientist. If relativity is proved wrong the French will call me a Swiss, the Swiss will call me a German and the Germans will call me a Jew." Clearly, he realized that many nations would claim him as their own, and that his nationality was ambiguous. Just place him under Germany, where he was born, and don't try to predict what Einstein would want. We're not mentally equipped for that. Saraneth 17:25, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tesla
Whether Tesla was great or not doesn't really matter here, the line in question is "who is widely regarded as the greatest scientist of the 20th century." Which is generally accurate -- he is widely regarded as such -- whether or not you (or I) agree with such an opinion. In the popular mind, and indeed in the mind of many scientists, he is portrayed as the exemplar figure for "scientist" even if in reality one could make several arguments to the contrary.--Fastfission 20:04, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Which son?
Near the end of the article, I read that one of Einstein's sons was hospitalized for schizophrenia and later died in an asylum, and the other moved to California. Unfortunately, the article never specifies which son is which. Could someone please clarify? Thanks a bunch! --Saraneth 03:15, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Hans Albert Einstein did not die in an asylum and was an accomplished professor of hydraulic engineering at Berkeley until his death in 1973. So maybe he is the one who goes to California (he certainly didn't die in an asylum). --Fastfission 04:22, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * While copyediting I added some information to that effect. Thanks for the heads-up! Steven Luo 09:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

FBI File
Great article. But when did they create and keep the FBI file? Needs to be more specific, and obviously the fact he got citizenship should make some reference to it. :ChrisG 22:33, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The file itself looks like it began taking in submissions from at least 1932 when Einstein applied for a visa to the USA. But I haven't yet found anything more specific... (boy, it's one hateful little file) --Fastfission 22:51, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Plagiarism"
Though it's been discussed many times before, this is a place where our anonymous friend can justify trying to add three pages of bad history to a pretty good entry. All of the people cited hold fringe opinions, no mainstream historian finds their arguments plausible, none have published in peer-reviewed publications, almost all seem to lack understanding of the ways in which Einstein's formulations differed from those who he drew on (Lorentz, Poincaré, etc.), and most of them have no sense about using historical sources (i.e. use propaganda published by the Deutsche Physik physicists as reliable sources). This is not new, and Wikipedia should not be a dump for every looney accusation, especially ones which date back to the worst extremes of German nationalism during World War II. No Einstein scholar gives this sort of stuff a moment of attention, despite the fact that it would be quite a coup to be able to prove conclusively (or even indicate suggestively) that Einstein was a plagiarist. --Fastfission 01:48, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Recent reverts on edits about Einstein's alleged plagiarism
An anonymous editor is currently trying to edit the article with very POV additions. These additions allege that Einstein was a plagiarist, ripping off both the general and special theories of relativity. First, for those that do not know about this matter, these allegations have been long debunked and shown to be groundless. As evidence, I suggest anyone doubting this just do a google search under Bjerknes and Einstein. Bjerkness is a self-published author who wrote a book alleging Einstein was a plagiarist. I easily found this review of his book, on the first page of hits:, which decisively takes apart the book. Cecil recently debunked this on the Straight Dope. There are many more results you can find like this.

Basically, Bjerknes is a crank and his theory and "research" is highly crankish and of no merit. There is not one respectable historian that believes any of this. I challenge the anon to produce one recognized authority supporting his/her edits.

I also suspect that the anon is really Christopher Bjerknes. Bjerknes has been very energetic in promoting his crank views on usenet, in particular sci.physics.relativity. He is not at all interested in correcting his views or learning of his mistakes (the true sign of a crank). This anon seems to have the same affliction.

I think there may be a place for the mention of theories like Bjerknes's, but only a small place, and it must mention that it is a fringe theory that has been debunked by serious scholars.

It may be that we may have to get the page protected or ban the anon. --C S 02:06, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Censorship redressed
My words have been snipped but not refuted. A. A. Logunov has cited Bjerknes's work in one of the finest physics journals in the world:

http://data.ufn.ru//ufn04/ufn04_6/Russian/r046e.pdf

http://xxx.arxiv.cornell.edu/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0405/0405075.pdf

&mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk &bull; contribs) 02:21, January 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Firstly, please sign your contributions to talk pages by writing four tildes like this ~.


 * Secondly, the citation above (Cornell Uni) Cites Bjerknes's work solely for the purpose of disproving the theory that Hilbert copied the Gravitational Field Equations from Einstein. If you read to the end of the paper that you yourself cited, you will find the conclusion: "All is absolutely clear: both authors [Einstein and Hilbert] made everything to immortalize their names in the title of the Gravitational Field Equations. But General Relativity is Einstein's theory".


 * I think that concludes the argument. DJ Clayworth 02:33, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Bjerknes's work was cited in one of the finest physics journals in the world by A. A. Logunov, who was Vice President of the Russian Academy of Sciences. It was also cited in Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung:


 * http://www.physics.unr.edu/faculty/winterberg/Hilbert-Einstein.pdf


 * Since you do not deny those facts, you have no argument with what I wrote. If you want to trade quotes, here's one from Jurgen Renn:


 * "I had personally come to the conclusion that Einstein plagiarized Hilbert[.] [The] conclusion is almost unavoidable, that Einstein must have copied from Hilbert."


 * Renn was quoted by Curt Suplee in his newspaper article "Researchers Definitively Rule Einstein Did Not Plagiarize Relativity Theory" The Washington Post (November 14, 1997): A24. Since Logunov, Winterberg and Bjerknes have proven that Renn's revisionism is flawed, I agree with Renn that the conclusion is that Einstein was a plagiarist.


 * &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk &bull; contribs) 21:24, January 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * We deny your "facts" and have plenty of "argument" with what you wrote. Just be aware of Three revert rule. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Curps (talk &bull; contribs) 21:32, January 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * How do I link the "Einstein" page to identify it as a disputed page which does not present a neutral point of view? What is the effect of doing so? If I so designate it, will others be able to remove the designation? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk &bull; contribs) 22:00, January 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * You can link it however you want, but others can remove the designation. Neutral does not mean "crank". You won't win on this one, sorry, Wikipedia is not a place for conspiracy theories passed off as being respected opinions. --Fastfission 22:15, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Numerous books by Jean Hladik, Anatoly Logunov, Jules Leveugle, Dennis Overbye, Christopher Jon Bjerknes, Andrea Gabor, etc. have in the last couple of decades discussed Einstein's plagiarism. I believe a section on Einstein's Plagiarism should be added to present a more complete history of Einstein, as is appropriate in an Encyclopedia article:


 * Einstein's Plagiarism
 * Numerous sources have directly or indirectly accused Albert Einstein of plagiarism. These charges range from Einstein's appropriation of the special theory of relativity through unattributed use of the Lorentz Transformation and Henri Poincare's "principle of relativity" in Einstein's paper 1905 Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koerper, to broader accusations of a career long pattern of plagiarism. The latter point of view is taken by Christopher Jon Bjerknes in his books Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist and Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity. Bjerknes points out that the special theory of relativity first appeared in the works of Woldemar Voigt, George Francis Fitzgerald, Joseph Larmor, Hendrik Antoon Lorentz and Henri Poincare.


 * Einstein was often accused of plagiarism. He did not answer his critics in a responsible fashion and so missed the opportunity to justify his behavior. Other books which provide insights into Einstein's unnamed sources include: E. Whittaker, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity; A. A. Logunov, The Theory of Gravity and On the Articles by Henri Poincaré ON THE DYNAMICS OF THE ELECTRON; J. P. Auffray, Einstein et Poincare; J. Leveugle La Relativite, Poincare et Einstein, Planck, Hilbert: Histoire veridique de la Theorie de la Relativite; J. Hladik, Comment le jeune et ambitieux Einstein s'est approprie la Relativite restreinte de Poincare; J. Mehra, Einstein, Hilbert, and the Theory of Gravitation.


 * Jules Henri Poincare
 * Anatoly Alexeivich Logunov has proven the priority and the superiority of Poincare's formulation of the special theory of relativity over Einstein's later and less sophisticated work. Poincare pioneered the concept of synchronizing clocks with light signals in his articles and lectures La Mesure du Temps (1898), La Theorie de Lorentz at le Principe de Reaction (1900) and The Principles of Mathematical Physics (1904). Einstein copied this method without giving Poincare credit for the innovation. Poincare stated the principle of relativity in 1895, and in 1905 stated the group properties of the Lorentz Transformation. It was Poincare, not Einstein, who introduced four-dimensional space-time into the theory of relativity. At first, Einstein did not approve of the idea. Einstein learned the formula E  mc^2 from Poincare's 1900 paper.


 * The General Theory of Relativity


 * Tilman Sauer, Bjerknes, Logunov  and Friedwardt Winterberg  have shown that David Hilbert derived the generally covariant field equations of gravitation in the general theory of relativity before Einstein. Bjerknes and Winterberg claim that Paul Gerber published the same formula for the perihelion motion of Mercury in 1898, that Einstein published in 1915 without an attribution. Bjerknes also points out that Johann Goerg von Soldner predicted that starlight grazing the limb of the Sun would be deflected by the gravitational field of the Sun, in 1801, more than one hundred years before Einstein. D. E. Burlankov has shown that Niels Bjorn and Sophus Lie derived many of the fundamental formulas of the general theory of relativity years before Einstein.


 * Mileva Maric
 * Desanka Trbuhovic-Gjuric (Im Schatten Albert Einsteins), Evan Harris Walker (Physics Today 42 9, 11 (February, 1989); Physics Today 44  122-124 (February, 1991).), Margarete Maurer, Senta Troemel Ploetz (Women's Studies International Forum Volume 13, Number 5, (1990), pp. 415-432; Index on Censorship 19 33-36 (October, 1990).), Christopher Jon Bjerknes , and others  believe that Einstein's first wife, Mileva Maric (aka Marity), collaborated with him on his 1905 papers, or wrote them herself. Abram Joffe (Uspekhi fizicheskikh nauk 57 187 (1955)), who had seen the original manuscripts, stated that the author of these papers was "Einstein-Marity" and Mileva Maric used this name, but Albert Einstein did not. Daniil Semenovich Danin (Neizbezhnost strannogo mira (1962), p. 57) claimed that the papers were signed "Einstein-Marity" or "Einstein-Maric". Albert wrote to Mileva and asked her to collaborate with him, in the context of Lorentz's theory, which they copied in 1905. He wrote to her about "our work on relative motion".


 * Einstein's "Miracle Year"


 * Einstein's so-called "miracle year" is not so miraculous as one would think from looking at his papers, which lacked adequate references. The special theory of relativity was first published by Lorentz and Poincare, and Poincare created the modern four-dimensional form of the theory before Einstein. The theory of the photo-electric effect draws a great deal from Newton, Planck, Wien, and others. The theory of Brownian motion was anticipated by Robert Brown, Gouy, Nernst, Smoluchowski, Sutherland and Bachelier.


 * I would like to discuss this issue in a civil and responsible fashion. How do I complain when others fail to act in civil manner?


 * &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk &bull; contribs) 22:30, January 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * I am new to this and would like to report the fact that an NPOV link was removed while a discussion was taking place. How do I do so? I understand that Wikipedia requests that I not respond to insulting messages, so I will not. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk &bull; contribs) 23:17, January 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * I again ask if someone would be so kind as to inform me as to how I can lodge a complaint? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk &bull; contribs) 23:33, January 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * You can read Dispute resolution. You should also read the articles in Category:Wikipedia official policy, so that among other things you don't violate the three-revert rule again. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Curps (talk &bull; contribs)  23:50, January 24, 2005  (UTC)


 * A NPOV link can be removed if it is just one anonymous person against a dozen editors. If you don't plan to actually discuss what people have written about your additions, you will get nowhere on this. I suggest you give up on Wikipedia and turn to alternative outlets for your theories. --Fastfission 23:23, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I should like to point out that Friedwardt Winterberg is a famous physicist who has published hundreds of articles in physics journals. He received his PhD under Nobel Prize laureate Werner Heisenberg. Professor Logunov is one of the most respected physicists in the world and was Vice President of the Russian Academy of Sciences and is today Director of the Institute for High Energy Physics. Jean Hladik has published numerous books on Einstein and relativity and is also highly regarded. Dennis Overbye is a science editor at the New York Times. Whittaker's book are considered masterpieces and are among the most highly respected histories of science ever written. Bjerknes and his work have been favorably cited in the finest physics journals in the world. The documentary Einstein's Wife airs on the Public Broadcasting Network in the United States, which is highly regarded. This is not the place to defend against all the personal attacks made in this discussion, but let it suffice to show that they are false. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk &bull; contribs) 17:08, January 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * You cite names but never demonstrate how they support your theories. For example, Dennis Overbye does NOT support them.  He comes to the conclusion that Einstein's wife provided intellectual and emotional support in the form of giving him a conversational and life partner but he never concludes that Einstein took the essential ideas of relativity from her or plagiarized her or anything of that sort.  He has written a book called Einstein in Love.  Perhaps you should read it. --C S 03:17, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * It is typical of Plautus to quote seemingly impressive references by respected mainstream scientists, or links to mainstream websites, with the claim that these support his opinions. Except when you actually click on the external link or look up the reference, there's nothing there at all to support his opinions. -- Curps 03:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I refer you to pages 296 and 297 of Overbye's "Einstein in Love, A Scientific Romance" with regard to Einstein's use of Kretschmann's ideas. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk &bull; contribs) 04:21, January 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * And what is your assertion? I presume you have one to refute what I wrote above about Overbye.  Unless these pages contain a statement that Kretschmann's work was plagiarized by Einstein, your reference is pointless.  --C S 09:13, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * I will have to watch the documentary again to ascertain for certain whether or not Overbye modified his views in it. If he did, then he would be one of those supporting my claim with regard to Mileva. If not, he would not. I have not relied on him with regard to my claims about Mileva. If you think he should be added to the list of those with a different view on this point, then we can add his name, but it would be wise to watch the documentary again. My reference to Overbye regarded Kretschmann, and Overbye shows that Einstein plagiarized Kretschmann's ideas. As you suggested to me, I suggest you read Overbye's book. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk &bull; contribs) 12:37, January 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * There's no need to make a list of those that disagree with your views, because that list is exponentially longer than the list that agrees with even some of your views. That is what "mainstream" and "fringe" is all about.  You have claimed there's evidence on certain pages of Einstein's plagiarism.  Quote the relevant passage and explain how it shows Einstein plagiarized.  --C S 13:40, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * "Kretschmann's paper, which appeared in the Annalen der Physik on December 21, 1915, apparently struck a chord with Einstein. By now, of course, the hole argument was an embarrassment, and he was eager for an answer. Five days later Albert wrote back to Ehrenfest, who had been pestering him about the hole problem, with an answer almost identical to Kretschmann's. Space-time points, he said, gain their identity not from coordinates but from what happens at them. The phrase he used was space-time coincidences.'40
 * 'The physically real in the world of events (in contrast to that which is dependent upon the choice of a reference system) consists in spatiotemporal coincidences . . . and in nothing else!' he told Ehrenfest. Reality, he repeated to Besso, was nothing less than the sum of such point coincidences, where, say, the tracks of two electrons or a light ray and a photographic grain crossed.41
 * In his magnum opus on the new general relativity theory early in March 1916, Albert paralleled Kretschmann almost word for word: 'All our space-time verifications invariably amount to a determination of space-time coincidences. . . . Moreover, the results of our measurings are nothing but verifications of meetings of the material points of our measuring instruments with other material points, coincidences between the hands of a clock and points on the clock dial, and observed point-events happening at the same place at the same time.'42"
 * Quoted from Dennis Overbye "Einstein in Love: A Scientific Romance" (Viking, 2001): 296-297.
 * Note "40" Letter from A. Einstein to P. Ehrenfest of December 26, 1915, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 8, Document 173 (Princeton University Press, 1998): 167.
 * Note "41" Letter from A. Einstein to M. Besso of January 3, 1916, from John Stachel's contribution "Einstein and the Rigidly Rotating Disk" to D. Howard and J. Stachel Editors, Einstein and the History of General Relativity, Volume 1, (Birkhauser 1989). The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 8, Document 178, (Princeton University Press, 1996): 172.
 * Note "42" A. Einstein "Die Grundlagen der allgemeinen Relativitatstheorie" Annalen der Physik 49 (1916): 769-822; as reproduced and translated to English in The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 6, Document 30, (Princeton University Press, 1996): 153.
 * Einstein, immediately after Kretschmann's work appeared, began reiterating it without mentioning Kretschmann.
 * &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk &bull; contribs) 17:05, January 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Strangely enough, I don't see any plagiarism here. Even Overbye is reluctant to take the final step and say Einstein plagiarized Kretschmann.  In fact, Overbye continues by saying, on page 298, "Curiously, the normally generous Albert never mentioned Kretschmann's paper as the source of his inspiration about space-time coincidences."  I wonder why Overbye just can't see the light.  Perhaps it has to do with the fact that on page 295 (right before the pages you cite) Overbye mentions that Paul Hertz had earlier suggested basically the same idea to Einstein?  Perhaps when several people arrive at the same idea, even if one published first, then nobody really cares if later that first publisher is not cited?  Perhaps this would explain why the same journal that published Kretschmann's paper later published Einstein's paper which contained a portion that "paralleled Kretschmann" even without a reference to Kretschmann?  --C S 19:41, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Where is it that Einstein cites Hertz or Kretschmann? The word "plagiarism" has no magical properties that place it above all other words. Overbye demonstrated Einstein's plagiarism. You try to excuse it by calling plagiarism, not-plagiarism, and then patronize Overbye as you have been trying to patronize me. I note that you left off the notation Overbye attached to his sentence "Curiously, the normally generous Albert never mentioned Kretschmann's paper as the source of his inspiration about space-time coincidences." Why didn't you quote the footnote on the same page referenced to this sentence with an asterisk, which is the only notation on the page? Quoting from Dennis Overbye "Einstein in Love: A Scientific Romance" (Viking, 2001): 298, "The close timing of Kretschmann's paper and Albert's mention of 'space-time coincidences' to Ehrenfest led Howard and Norton to conclude that Albert had appropriated Kretschmann's idea." The note then goes on to explain why. In case you don't realize it, "appropriated" in this context means plagiarized. I once again ask you to conduct yourself in a courteous and responsible fashion and offer revisions to my proposal. If you refuse, I suggest we enter arbitration. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk &bull; contribs) 03:26, January 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * In addition, Winterberg has explicitly said his analysis cannot prove Einstein copied from Hilbert : (begin quote from Register article) "My analysis of Hilbert's mutilated proofs therefore cannot prove that Einstein copied from Hilbert," he says. "It proves less, which is that it cannot be proved that Einstein could not have copied from Hilbert. But it proves that Hilbert had not copied from Einstein, as it has been insinuated following the paper by Corry, Renn and Stachel." Winterberg concludes that three people should be given credit for developing the general theory of relativity: Einstein, for recognising the shape of the problem, Grossmann for his insight that the contracted Riemann tensor was key to solving the problem, and Hilbert for completing the gravitational field theory equations. (end quote) When I have time I will investigate these other names you have dropped, but I suspect they will not come through for you as you claim. --C S 03:17, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * I suspect his views will change. Time will tell. Since Einstein had seen Hilbert's manuscript before changing his theory, Einstein must have copied Hilbert's ideas. Bjerknes proves this in many ways in his book "Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity." We have as proof: Einstein's letter to Hilbert from November 18, 1915, stating that he had seen Hilbert's manuscript. Einstein's paper on the perihelion motion of Mercury which was submitted November 18, 1915 and which had incorrect gravitational field equations. Einstein's first footnote in that paper. The comments published on page 803 of the journal that published Einstein's paper submitted November 18, 1915. Hilbert's declarations of his priority. Einstein's acknowledgements of Hilbert's priority. The general acceptance by Hilbert's and Einstein's peers that Hilbert had derived the equations before Einstein. Jurgen Renn was right when he said, without his revisionism, the proper conclusion is that Einstein plagiarized Hilbert's work. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk &bull; contribs) 04:21, January 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * As for Einstein's Wife on PBS, they've aired speculative documentaries before, but I agree that if this documentary supported your claims it would indeed be a valid source. Unfortunately for you, this documentary does not conclude that Einstein stole his wife's work; it only raises the possibility and investigates somewhat the idea that Mileva Maric colloborated with her husband.  One thing Bjerknes (and you) never explains is how Einstein can have both plagiarized all these famous men and at the same time have stolen the same ideas from his wife.  That's a glaring contradiction in your theory. --C S 03:17, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * I suggest you look at
 * http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/mileva.htm
 * which presents some of the evidence. If the Einsteins were partners, and Mileva approved of the publication of the papers with inadequate references, then both were plagiarists. If Mileva objected to the plagiarism and asked that her name not appear on the published paper, then Albert was the only plagiarist and he plagiarized the already plagiarized work. In other words, Albert may have taken credit for the plagiarized paper, which Mileva may have written or coauthored. That does not make the paper original, but it made Albert famous while Mileva suffered. I do not see a contradiction and I think Bjerknes is consistent. If person X steals or borrows a car from person Y and then person Z steals the same car from X and Y, Z is a thief.
 * &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk &bull; contribs) 04:21, January 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * The documentary supports my claims by showing interviews with Evan Harris Walker, Senta Troemel-Ploetz and others who believe that Albert took credit for Mileva's work. Walker has also published articles in Physics Today, which state that Albert took credit for Mileva's work. John Stachel was interviewed in the documentary and published a criticism of Walker's article and he believes that Mileva was just a sounding board for Albert and if you want to mention that we can add it. The fact that the issue is worthy of a section in a encyclopedia article is demonstrated by Women in World History: A Biographical Encyclopedia, Volume 5, "Einstein-Maric, Mileva" (Yorkin Publications, 2000): 77-81, which is an encyclopedia that has addressed the issue. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk &bull; contribs) 08:00, January 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * I said you contradicted yourself because you cite this PBS documentary; it does seem as though Bjerknes is consistent with respect to this issue. This documentary does not support your claim.  These people you cite are not saying that Mileva was a co-plagiarist or plagiarized others and had her plagiaristic work stolen by Einstein.  They are suggesting the possibility that Einstein stole his wife's original work on relativity, etc.  You apparently don't see anything contradictory about propping up your idea that Mileva was a (co)plagiarist with assertions by people who believe that Mileva was not a plagiarist.  But I do and I bet I'm not alone.  One hallmark of your evidence thus far is that you frequently will cite a part of someone's work to support your case when the rest of that person's work refutes it.  By this piecemeal fashion, you have generated quite a bit of "evidence".  But I'm far from convinced by that kind of "evidence".


 * At this point what you're doing is more original research (which is not allowed on Wikipedia) rather than just citing someone who expresses your views. FastFission is correct in asserting that your researched material is not appropriate for Wikipedia.  It's one thing to have some appropriate references to fringe theories and researchers but another (unacceptable) thing to do your own research and try to argue your ideas in an encylopedia article.  In particular, you should think over why your reverted edits were reverted and what contributions are appropriate with respect to these issues you've raised.


 * C S 09:08, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * There are at least two historical issues involved and it is proper for me to rely upon different experts with regard to different issues. One of the issues is the question of whether or not Albert took credit for Mileva's work. I claim that he did and the PBS documentary supports that claim. Another issue is whether or not the work was plagiarized from another source. It is perfectly consistent and appropriate for me to rely upon other experts to answer that separate and distinct question. In the example of the stolen car, I might rely upon one set of experts to determine if Z's fingerprints were found on it, and another to determine if the engine was original to the car or had been replaced. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk &bull; contribs) 12:37, January 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Your analogy doesn't fit the situation. If indeed we were discussing a matter where there was a "smoking gun", e.g. fingerprints, same engine, etc., real facts that are undisputable, it would be a good analogy.  But we are discussing a situation where you are citing expert opinions (assuming these people are qualifed).  These kinds of opinions are not a matter of "here are the fingerprints and this is what I think", rather it is "here are some ambiguous data, I interpret them this way and this way".  You only pick the part of the conclusion you like because the expert disagrees with you.   Here's your analogy modified to fit the situation: expert A says he saw X steal the car.  It is his expert opinion that it is so.  As part of his opinion he states that not only did X steal the car, X was accompanied by Y who assisted.  Another expert B gives her opinion: X was alone and did not steal the car, but merely walked by.  You come along and cite A to demonstrate that X stole the car, and then cite B to demonstrate that X was alone.  But the inconsistency here is that if these are indeed experts that you trust, what led you to discard part of their analyses and accept other parts?
 * In any case, you still don't understand how pointless this is. You're not going to get the page changed in the way you wanted with your edits.  You still don't seem to understand why and you still don't seem to understand that at best that there will only be references to figures like Bjerknes's opinions (not yours) and that these references will point out that this is a fringe view.   All this discussion has done nothing but demonstrate to everyone else that you're engaging in original research.
 * C S 13:40, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * There is no inconsistency with accepting point 1 made by expert A when the facts indicate that A is correct on point one, and not accepting point 2 made by expert A when the facts indicate that A is incorrect on point two. For example, consider the fact that Overbye cited Renn, Stachel and Corry's paper on Hilbert and Einstein and obviously Overbye was wrong in his conclusions on this point, but that does not mean that everything Overbye ever wrote must be discarded. I gave you a link to some of the facts which lead me to accept the conclusion that Albert took credit for Mileva's work. I gave you a link which led me to accept the conclusion that Poincare published the special theory of relativity before the Einsteins, that they never gave him adequate credit, and that Poincare's theory was superior to theirs. I see no conflict in agreeing with Overbye's book on the point of Kretschmann and disagreeing with it about Mileva Maric. I have proven to you that Albert's plagiarism of Mileva's work is a widely held view that has been published and discussed in mainstream venues. That is what is required for the view to appear in an encyclopedia and I have proven to you that the issue has indeed been published in a mainstream encyclopedia. I have not said that I want the page changed to my specifications without edits. On the contrary I have welcomed discussion and patiently and politely responded to it. I have invited you to offer changes and the invitation is still open. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk &bull; contribs) 17:14, January 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * You've proven no such things. You've misused quotes and taken things out of context to support a wide mesh of nonsense. You are obviously a POV pusher and you're not going to get your way no matter how much you whine about censorship and have no seeming understanding of what is "mainstream" and what is not. Go find some alternative place to push your crackpot theories, it'll be a better use of your time than hassling us on here. --Fastfission 18:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you are led to believe things by very scanty evidence as I've repeatedly seen now. You also have a problem with understanding the differences between plagiarism and improper attribution, among other things.  Even if Lagunov is correct that Poincare basically had the special theory of relativity published before Einstein, and even if Einstein was very familiar with Poincare's work, you cannot conclude plagiarism.  You can only conclude improper attribution.  It's laughable that you think that the obscure Einstein could somehow plagiarize the incredibly famous and respected Poincare and not only get away with it but reap great fame.  The proper conclusion is that Einstein made contributions considered important enough that he garnered much credit from his peers.  Even Lagunov admits in his book that Einstein made important contributions to special relativity; he just thinks that Poincare's were more important.
 * You have not proven what you say: that thinking Einstein plagiarized his wife's work is a "widely held view". It did appear as you say, in the Women in World History: a biographical encyclopedia.  But that is hardly a mainstream source.  In fact, when I went to find it, I found it had the same call number range with all these books on feminist revisionist history.  And when I read the entry on Einstein-Maric, I found it was absurdly biased and clearly biased toward trying to promote Einstein-Maric as a victim.  The evidence it gave for her alleged collaboration was based entirely on out of context quotes and an innuendo that because Einstein's greatest work was done when he was young and still married to Einstein-Maric, she obviously did his math for him.
 * My patience has run out. You continually show ignorance of Wikipedia policy and are unable to see the obvious errors in your thinking.  I only regret I've spent this much time on this matter, but hopefully it has benefitted the Wikipedia community in some way.
 * C S 19:41, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have attempted to discuss the matter in a civil fashion with you. Wikipedia policy asks you to suggest revisions to my proposal and you have not done so. I have shown you numerous mainstream accounts that merit an entry into the Wikipedia Einstein page and you have redefined mainstream as completely agrees with Chan-Ho. You have repeatedly misrepresented what I have clearly stated. I have repeatedly shown that your logic is flawed. If you are not out to simply censor valid entries into the encyclopedia, then suggest changes. Otherwise, since my good faith efforts have not succeeded in persuading you to follow Wikipedia policy, I suggest it is time for arbitration. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk &bull; contribs) 20:14, January 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * One important and valuable point has been raised by this discussion however. There should be some portion of the article devoted to the Hilbert-Einstein controversy.  It is indeed a controversy (although perhaps not a great one), but I haven't seen any definitive evidence either way.  It should perhaps have its own page as neither the Einstein nor Hilbert articles seem a fitting place for such material.  --C S 03:17, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read "Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity." There is much more evidence presented there than in the journal articles. -- 24.15.188.92 04:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You keep mentioning Logunov as if he supports your theory. But he does not, as has been pointed out by DJ Clayworth.  Indeed, in the paper you cite by Logunov (and two coauthors), it is said: "According to the standard point of view Einstein and Hilbert independently of each other and in different ways, discovered the gravitational field equations."  The emphasis is mine and I did it to emphasize that Logunov and coauthors are first off admitting that this is the standard view (cf my comment right above where I was unsure what the consensus over the Hilbert-Einstein situation was).


 * Next, they actually conclude that the standard view is indeed correct! From the conclusion of their paper:"The analysis, undertaken in Sections 1 and 2, shows that Einstein and Hilbert inependently [sic] discovered the gravitational field equations.  Their pathways were different but they led exactly to the same result.  Nobody "nostrified" the other...All is absolutely clear: both authors made everything to immortalize their names in the title of the gravitational field equations.  (their emphasis) But general relativity is Einstein's theory."


 * So this famous man you cite in fact disputes plagiarism by both Einstein and Hilbert! Not only that, he cites Bjerknes only to reference some portions of some historical documents.  The citation not only proves nothing, but given the content of the paper is clearly only meant to reference these documents and not meant to say the authors agreed with Bjerknes.  DJ Clayworth has basically pointed this out, but you seem incapable of understanding these points.  You can keep citing famous people whose work do not support your theory as support for your theory, but you're only increasing your reputation of crankhood.  All you've proven thus far is that Bjerknes is indeed very much alone in claiming what he does and that there is some controversy over the Hilbert-Einstein business but that the consensus is that Hilbert and Einstein are each given credit.  --C S 03:57, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Logunov, and the other authors thank Bjerknes for helpful discussion in addition to citing his book for the publication of the proofs (I believe the citation in the first instance is more than just a reference to the publication of the proofs but also refers to the substantial commentary on the missing section found in Bjerknes's book "Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity." Bjerknes writes about a 2 1/2 page explanation where the missing section is indicated). I understand what Logunov has said, and my reference to his paper was to the fact that he has proven that Renn, Stachel and Corry's revisionism is incorrect. Do you dispute that Logunov has refuted their revisionism? I disagree with Logunov, et al's assertion that Einstein could not have copied from Hilbert, and their assertion simply does not agree with the facts. There most certainly has been a priority dispute, so I disagree with them on that point, also. I have also cited Logunov's book on Poincare in which he proves that Poincare published the special theory of relativity before Einstein. Do you disagree with my conclusion that that is what Logunov has said? Please understand that one aspect of plagiarism is the fact that one person publishes the work before another and when I say that Logunov has discussed Einstein's plagiarism I mean that Logunov has discussed the fact that Poincare anticipated Einstein and that Einstein failed to give Poincare due credit. Do you believe I am mistaken on that point? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk &bull; contribs) 05:06, January 26, 2005  (UTC)


 * The point you're mistaken on is whether or not this belongs on an encyclopedia, which is all that matters here. Your own confusion about historical issues, usage of sources, and the history of physics has no bearing on the fact that this stuff doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. The fact that you are deliberately lumping in people who you know don't share your conclusions only further points out your intellectual dishonesty. --Fastfission 05:43, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Fastfission has twice modified his/her original post to make it increasingly insulting. Wikipedia asks that I not respond to insulting posts, so I will not. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk &bull; contribs) 05:50, January 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * If saying that you are intellectually dishonest is "increasingly insulting" then I'm happy to insult you, you poor little victim, you. --Fastfission 18:30, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bjerknes is self-published fringe which is not accepted by any established historians (whom he believes, if I recall, are all on the pro-Einstein dole). Winterberg is an established physicist but not a historian (and is fairly fringe himself, with a lot of ties to the LaRouche cult). These sorts of fringe don't belong in an article on Albert Einstein. If it belongs anywhere on Wikipedia, it belongs in an article specifically on this question (along the lines of Abraham Lincoln's sexuality and Apollo moon landing hoax accusations). In any event, it cannot be done in a way which appears that this is a mainstream view ("Numerous people" != three fringe authors and the wackos who follow them). --Fastfission 02:46, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a website dedicated to expounding, promoting, cataloguing, or debunking fringe theories. Rather, it is a compilation of generally-accepted information. If every article had to devote space to any existing fringe theories regarding its subject, we would greatly decrease our usefulness as an encyclopedia. Isomorphic 23:06, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Getting into a revert war is not a civil and responsible fashion, so you're not quite in a position to start talking about your moral superiority yet. And it's clear you have little discussion in mind when your first urge is to "complain." There is an entire page here now about why people don't want to include this. I'll repeat it for the sake of civility:
 * Your sources are fringe figures discredited by mainstream scientists and historians.
 * Your writing takes for granted their truth and shows no evidence of the fact that the "facts" and opinions you cite are not respected by mainstream scientists and historians.
 * These sections add undue emphasis to what is considered a fringe and unscholarly theory.
 * As I wrote above, an encyclopedia entry on a figure should not have a fourth of it devoted to a fringe theory. It would be akin to having half of the article on nuclear weapons be devoted to a theory about how they were potentially powered by energy from God's big toe. If the latter crazy theory were popular enough to warrent attention from popular society, so that when one went to an article on nuclear weapons you would expect the Big Toe of God theory to be at least acknowledged, then it could have a separate page created for it (such as Abraham Lincoln's sexuality and Apollo moon landing hoax accusations) so that it would not mar up the main article with a fringe discussion.
 * Hopefully that will make some of these objections a little more clear. I expect you will discuss this in a civil manner now, right? --Fastfission 23:05, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)