Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive 3

einstein and education.
I think it would be good to include in the opening definition the fact that einstein left school with no formal qualifications other than a basic diploma and later a teaching diploma that was 'granted' to him by the same highschool.

the mention of his 'graduation' is misleading, It is I believe, an american term for completing school, In europe it signifies the gaining of a degree, something that einstein did not do, except for perhaps honourary degrees later in life. Even his doctorate was granted once his unconventional genious was recognised, after many years of submitting papers as a totaly unqualified author,.

I mention this because Einstein is often cited as a brilliant man worth emulating, i which case the highly unconventional nature of his brilliance should be clear, if only to encourage other non-academic brilliance that may be out there.

DavidP 19:41, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Autodidactic?
Why?? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hexii (talk • contribs) 15:59, March 6, 2005 (UTC)

Can't see any reason for this classification either, so I'm removing it. --Susurrus 23:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I miss a part of this article
including: categories, interwiki, external links. I think the article is too long.--Emes 16:46, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Einstein bros. bagel company?
Is this bagel company anywhere notable enough to be listed at the top of an article about Albert Einstein? It seems a little silly to me. --Fastfission 19:12, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I changed it to a more appropriate disambig link. --Fastfission 19:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Infobox
Can we remove the hideous infobox? For one thing it's redundant; for another, why is that quote more representative than any other and who gets to choose it? - Fredrik | talk 19:33, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree for the reasons you've stated. There's no need for it, it doesn't really add anything except by killing some of the whitespace, and the quote seems arbitrary. --Fastfission 03:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I removed it but ChristopherWillis added it back. I have removed it again. Jooler 08:28, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Though I don't like it, I think we ought to try and talk about it before just removing and reverting. --Fastfission 13:12, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Was it talked about before adding it? Jooler 13:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Does it really matter? --Fastfission 07:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Support Sebastian 01:56, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

Began to admire the church
I came across this. Is it true? If so, I think it should be mentioned in the religion part of this article.

"Pius XII’s public efforts moved Albert Einstein to write to TIME magazine in 1940 that, in face of the Nazi barbarism, "only the Church remained standing to halt the progress of Hitler's campaigns to do away with truth. In the past I never felt any interest for the Church, but now I feel great love and admiration for her, as the Church was the only one with the courage and tenacity to support intellectual truth and moral freedom. I must admit that what I once despised, I now praise unconditionally."

&mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by IanGM (talk • contribs) 01:39, March 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * http://users.binary.net/polycarp/piusxii.html - seems to apply more to the pope's article - not about Einstein's religious views, more about but his views about the role of churches--JimWae 02:01, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)


 * This would be a remarkable quote indeed. However, it sounds unlikely for three reasons: (1) I am not aware of any quote according to which E. "despised" the Church before 1940. That's a term he reserved for nationalism, racism and the military. (2) "the church was the only one" is an incoplete statement. The only what? This does not sound like the statement of someone who thinks deeply about what he says. Could be just a bad translation, though. (2) "unconditionally" sounds unusual for someone who usually did qualify his statements, given that "[t]here was little in the way of organized resistance to the Nazis' anti-Semitic policies by any Christian group during the 1930s in Germany"* (That was the original quote. I am toning it down there because there was some organized opposition.) and that there clearly was at least some collusion between official parts of the Church with the Nazi regime. Sebastian 04:11, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
 * I can look it up, if people are interested (it wouldn't be that difficult). That would only confirm that TIME published it, not whether the quote itself was true, of course.--Fastfission 05:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Evidence that Einstein didn't fail math?
Is there any evidence that Einstein didn't fail that math class? I've seen a quote by a supposed teacher of Einstein (one Karl Arbeiter) that states that Einstein failed a class in grade school. So far, I've not been able to find the source for that, but it is apparently quoted on academic web pages, as well. At least that needs a link to a debunking website. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.131.227.3 (talk • contribs) 12:48, March 16, 2005 (UTC)

Have a look at this: http://leiwen.tripod.com/diplo.gif it's the diploma of Einstein when he finished his school in Switzerland. Well, if the scanned picture is not a fraud, then he had he 6 in all mathematical branches, 6 in physics and 5 in chemistry. The tricky thing is: In Germany 1 is best and 6 is very bad. But in Switzerland, it's exactly the other way round, 6 ist best and 1 is very bad! I personaly see this as one source of the beleive that Einstein was a bad student at school. But in reality, he was a very good one. So failing a class in math and have these grades afterwards? I doubt that.

cheers

Thom

&mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.129.206.71 (talk • contribs) 08:35, April 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * I remember reading/hearing that the "Einstein flunked math" meme came from a confusion about the grading system. So that sounds right. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure it is true that he didn't consider himself a particularly good mathematician. Isomorphic 05:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * shure, there is this phrase: "don't worry about your dificulties in mathematics. can assure you, that mine are still greater." but that is his personal opinion about himself. it's not really objective isn't it? he had problems to put his ideas of physics into mathematical formulations and thus to check whether they are correct. that is not an easy task! and it's on a completely different level than the stuff you learn in school. i think a lot of people want to believe that he flunked math because he is seen as the super genius by many and this would bring him a little closer to "normal mortals" like us :-)
 * cheers, thom
 * {unsigned2|16:47, April 12, 2005|129.129.206.71}}

Why is he on German-Americans and German people lists
He wasn't German, so why is he on these lists? I think it should be removed. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.141.214.87 (talk • contribs) 04:36, April 14, 2005  (UTC)
 * Article says he was born in Germany, no?
 * Just because hes born somewhere doesnt make him that. I could take a woman to Bhutan and make her have a child there, it doesn't make the child Bhutanese. He dodged military service and fled to Switzerland also, not something a German would do. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.141.214.87 (talk • contribs) 05:59, April 14, 2005  (UTC)
 * No true Scotsman is a logical fallacy
 * Your statement that no true Scotsman is a logical fallacy is a fallacy, embodied logical fallacies can be Scotsmen too!;) —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:04, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
 * If he lived in Germany his first 16 years or so, then "in 1914, just before the start of World War I, Einstein settled in Berlin as professor at the local university and became a member of the Prussian Academy of Sciences... and took German citizenship" there's every good reason to say he was German. -- and Swiss, and American
 * You know the difference between Nazis & Germans? Einstein was friends with Germans (such as Albert Schweizer) - so saying he hated Germans his whole life is not only unencyclopedic, but false.
 * Do you live under a bridge & keep lots of fishing lure? --JimWae 06:14, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

He hated Germans as a whole, he may have got along with individual ones but, as a whole he detested them. Plus, Jews can't be Germans, according to many Jews and Germans alike. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.141.214.87 (talk • contribs) 00:34, April 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't you have something better to do than troll online encyclopedias? --Fastfission 00:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Einstein was German
 * he didn't hate all Germans and
 * there are many german Jews (even though many ware killed 60 years ago).
 * --MartinS 16:18, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * He was German, plain and simple. The only people who dont qualify him as German seem to be people like Hitler. Do you like Hitler? I know I don't. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Canaduh (talk • contribs) 20:51, April 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Einstein was born in bred in Germany until he was 16 years old. That makes him clearly a German, regardless whether he hated Germans. Andries 10:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, yes and no. The question is whether German refers to a nationality or something more transient, like an "ethinicity". If the former, it should be noted that he gave up his German citizenship very deliberately at one point, and spent most of his life not being a German. If the latter, we can problematize the notion of what it means to be "German" at all. Generally I believe Wikipedia policy is to go with self-identification, and I'm not sure Einstein would have ever identified himself along with any single country. The question is: should we bother to include a national identification at all? Is it helpful? Is it meaningful? Is it necessary? I'm very suspicious of the "we claim him" game when it comes to scientists, and I'm halfway sympathetic to the statement that since the German government officially decried him and his work (indeed, led an organized campaign against him), Einstein might have the right to decry his association with them back, and that would be something we ought to respect. (EB puts him as German-American, though, just as a note) --Fastfission 14:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Hes not German, repeat, not German, in any way shape or form. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.141.214.87 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 17 May 2005   (UTC)


 * He was born in Germany, a German citizen, son of German citizens. What more does it take? Jayjg (talk)  22:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * How about being a German? That usually helps. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.235.228.86 (talk • contribs) 04:49, June 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * What makes someone "a German"? Jayjg (talk) 15:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Not including a national identification makes sense. The work he is known for (and that's why he has his place in an encyclopedia) was published long before he became an American. So, emphasizing American nationality seems inadequate. Other people have mentioned reasons why emphasizing German nationality would be inadequate, too. So, let's just drop that information from the introduction. Anyone who really needs to know more about his nationality can read the rest of the article. Nationality is one of the most irrelevant pieces of information anyways. --171.64.204.98 22:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

As we're apparently dealing with someone who contends that Jews cannot be German, I don't think there can be any basis for agreement here. Life is too short. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A Jew is a Jew eternally nothing else, not a German not a Spaniard not an Irishman but, a Jew. How would Jews feel if some Germans just came to Israel and started saying that they are also Israeli's? They wouldn't like it. Einstein isn't German, just because his name is made up of two German words doesn't make him German. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.141.214.87 (talk • contribs) 03:14, June 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * You don't have to be a Jew to be an Israeli; where did you get that notion? Jayjg (talk) 18:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is getting scarily like a Usenet discussion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lol, so many people do not understand the difference between Nationality, Ethnicity, and Religion. One can be ethnically semetic and not believe in Judaism. One can be German and believe in Judaism. One can be ethnically germanic and live in another country besides germany. Why is it so hard to believe Einstein was a German. Einstein's family lived in Germany for generations, he was a German citizen, and spoke german. All germans were not Nazis. Nazis were members of the National Socialist Workers Party, and not all Germans liked the Nazis. Einstein was one of the Germans who did not like Nazis. Einstein did believe nationalism was "the measels of humanity", but that doesn't mean he hated Germany. It just means he did not like Nazis, or believe in the State above all else. 

--\Dev\Null &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.177.39.8 (talk • contribs) 22:22, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * sigh* I think my IQ drops ten points every time I read one of "unsigned"'s comments. My God, some people are ignorant!

E, mc2, etc
I removed the following text as being highly suspicious:
 * This connection of mass, energy and the speed of light was deduced first by Friedrich Hasenöhrl and published in Annalen der Physik, vol 15, 1904. This was the same journal that Einstein published his derivation in a year later.  He used Maxwell's equations for the pressure exerted by light applied to an evacuated container undergoing an acceleration.  The calculation was somewhat complicated, and he got a proportionality of 4/3 rather than the correct value of 1, however.

Given that most sites on the internet which mention this are crackpot "Einstein was a plaigiarist" sites, I'm going to insist on a legitimate citation before including this in an article. A full JSTOR search of "Hasenöhrl einstein" yields nothing. --Fastfission 18:20, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Good work. If I'd have seen something like that I'd remove it too. --Technogiddo 14:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Four or five papers?
In the section "Work and doctorate", it says:


 * That same year, he wrote four articles that provided the foundation of modern physics, without much scientific literature to which he could refer or many scientific colleagues with whom he could discuss the theories.

In the References section, it says:


 * John Stachel, Einstein's Miraculous Year: Five Papers That Changed the Face of Physics, Princeton University Press, 1998, ISBN 0691059381

Which is correct?? The Wikipedia article only mentions four papers. --Susurrus 07:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, the fifth paper was actually his thesis. I've included the original German title for it as well. --Susurrus 23:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Einstein's religious beliefs
There is evidence he may of been a Deist. Since he did not come out and flat say he was a pantheist. I think this conjecture should be noted &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.166.5.13 (talk • contribs) 06:51, April 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * Pantheist, Deist, and more?
 * Einstein believed in as he put it "Spinoza's god who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists." Spinoza is the founder of Pantheism. Deism is the polar opposite of pantheism, because Deism is a form of dualism - not monism - and believes in a transcendant clockmaker god... not in a pantheistic immanent God - 

Just because he comments favorably on Spinoza a few times, does not mean he is not a Deist. The quote in article uses much of the terminology of Deism & uses a lot of language that suggests a god that is a separately identifiable entity. Deism has often been criticized for its pantheism, as pantheism has often been for its near atheism -- also see pandeism & panentheism & panendeism--JimWae 17:29, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

Pantheist Only
This quote clearly shows he is only a pantheist: "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 I 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."

Pandeism is just a synonym for pantheism that, as a term, has no purpose of existing, and panedeism is different from pantheism since it believes in a god that is transcendant and immanent. Pantheists believe in a wholly immanent God. Pantheists will describe God as the perfection of the universe, or as einstein said "the structure of our world". He said nothing of believing in a transcendant God. Maybe some deists say the same things, but they would be miscategorizing themselves if they do.

Deism still promotes the belief in Heaven and Souls, and anthropomorphizes god. Hence why the Deism wikipedia page refers to God as a "He" and gives him the human characteristics. Here is one example from that page "In this view, the reason God does not intervene in the world (via miracles) is not simply that he does not care, but rather that he has already created the best of all possible worlds and any intervention could not improve it." Einstein would not make baseless assumptions like this and is therefore a pantheist, and believes exactly what he stated and nothing remotely like the quote above. The fact that Einstein mentions Spinoza specifically should've given you enough of a clue though

Again one more quote from the einstein page to prove my point: Victor J. Stenger, author of Has Science Found God? (2001), wrote of Einstein's presumed pantheism, "Both deism and traditional Judeo-Christian-Islamic theism must also be contrasted with pantheism, the notion attributed to Baruch Spinoza that the deity is associated with the order of nature or the universe itself." This means that pantheism is at odds with the judeo-christian view and also at odds with deism. This supports my claim that deism is the polar opposite of pantheism.

ProgressivePantheist 22:55, May 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * Those arguments are interesting, but he was still described as both a Deist and a Pantheist, regardless of whether you think they are the polar opposites of each other. Please stop removing attested facts from the article. Jayjg (talk)  00:10, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I reordered the page, to help with the clarity ProgressivePantheist 03:25, June 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * It seemed to be more pushing a POV than helping with clarity. Let Einstein speak for himself, please, before your promote your own favoured view. Jayjg (talk)  19:31, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lol let Einstein speak for himself... He did... he says he believes in Spinoza's God. Spinoza is the foremost pantheist philosopher. Go to Spinoza's page and look it up if you dont believe me. One cannot be deist and pantheist, It is like saying one is Christian and Islamic, it doesnt work. ProgressivePantheist 19:59, June 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Your POV is fascinating, as always. However, please stop trying to promote your own POV on the article page itself. Jayjg (talk)  20:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is a difference between POV and obvious undeniable fact ProgressivePantheist 22:01, June 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Please review the WP:NPOV policy; Wikipedia doesn't attempt to decide what is "undeniable fact"; instead it presents properly cited POVs on what the facts are. Jayjg (talk) 23:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

if you look up pantheism and deism in google, you get this site: http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/pantheism.htm It states in there that pantheism and deism are "polar opposites"... how's that for relevant citation. I already tried citing from this same page but you guys didn't like that, I hope this will take things from clear to crystal clear ProgressivePantheist 06:35, June 8, 2005


 * If you cannot understand why that is irrelevant to both my statements and this article, then I cannot help you. Jayjg (talk) 15:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

TM
Re the third pg, who registered his name as a trademark? Did he in say 1904, or did someone else do it last year? -SV|t 01:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting question; I e-mailed the company to see if I could get a response. I'll let you know if they get back to me. --Fastfission 16:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * A quick search of Patent and Trademark Office turns up a couple hundred trademarks using "Einstein", quite a few of which are the term Einstein alone. Trademarks are associated with specific items; so, for example, Einstein Brother Bagels and Albert Einstein stuffed toys and Einstein Wireless Communications co-exist quite happily. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The head of the Roger Richman Agency referred me to this article as a source of information on the topic. However it doesn't seem to have much on the history of it. As for its "use" -- it depends on how they have legally set it up. It is possible to trademark "celebrity" (i.e. Bela Lugosi's "I vant to suck your blaauudd") but it can be very tricky in court, and I'm not sure how it works after the celebrity in question has died (usually such things are held as forms of intellectual property because the persona has been "developed", however Einstein simply was Einstein, and it is hard to know how would could legally "develop" a personality of "being yourself" which extended indefinitely beyond one's grave!). Ah, this would be a wonderful and sexy little history paper to write... --Fastfission 01:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why no infobox?
?

Sam Spade 04:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that they were generally considered ugly and ultimately unnecessary. His name and birth/death dates/locations are easy to find (and the locations are generally not the first thing anybody needs to know about any given figure). There is also no criteria to decide what is the "paradigmatic quote", either, if that is still a continued field. In any event, we once had a very small discussion on it, with nobody actively supporting the infobox, so I reverted the addition as it was not discussed on the talk page. The "multiple times" reference in my initial comment seems incorrect as I look over the talk archive, and I imagine I am confusing it with the vote against the box at Charles Darwin.
 * If we wanted to vote again, I'd vote no infobox, for the reasons I've given. I don't think it improves anything, and I think it is ugly. --Fastfission 05:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Voting is very, very wrong. See User:Sam Spade/Voting is anti-wiki. Prost, Sam Spade 06:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Uh, okay. That aside, how exactly do you propose making aesthetic decisions such as this? It's not terribly helpful to post links to your cute little opinion pages without suggesting a clear alternative, you know. --Fastfission 14:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Other biographies have infoboxes and there should be one here. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.56.7.1 (talk • contribs) 16:34, June 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * If all the other kids jumped off a bridge...


 * Seriously, the article looks so much better now. Infoboxes are only useful for presenting in a tight way important information that isn't (1) patently obvious (2) easily findable in the first paragraph.  In this case, the first sentence states birth and death, while your average internet user knows more about who he is than could be conveyed in an infobox.  Therefore I think that one would add nothing.


 * Also, although Wikipedia is not a democracy, one has to arrive at a consensus somehow. It looks like that has already happened here, but I welcome further discussion.--Laura Scudder | Talk 19:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If there is indeed concensus to keep out the taxobox, I don't intend to violate it. That said, I think the issue can be discussed w/o fear of voting ;) Sam Spade 21:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Swiss/German?
Perhaps Einstein should have the last word? He famously remarked, "if relativity is proved right the Germans will call me a German, the Swiss 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." --RobertG ♬ talk 11:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The Germans called him a Jew, does that mean relativity is wrong? --Technogiddo 14:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You might not be aware that most Germans today would call him a German. The fact that he is also Jewish is acknowledged, of course.--171.64.204.98 22:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Ch-Ch-Changes
I'd appreciate it if things like adding an infobox or changing the main picture were discussed here first -- while people should "be bold," they are major changes in the aesthetic appearance of the article, and I disagree that the TIME magazine photo is the one which should be the primary photograph for him (it puts far too much importance on what TIME thinks -- if they had made someone else person of the century it wouldn't have reduced Einstein's achievements one bit). I also removed the unsourced and in my mind likely ridiculous notion about his estimated IQ from the lead paragraph. Whether or not such a speculative line -- even with a reputable source -- should be included in the article is a question which should be raised in general, but the idea that it should be in the lead section is, in my mind, ridiculous. --Fastfission 04:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * An infobox is good thing to have on biographies.
 * The main picture can be changed .... why discuss it here first?
 * These are not major changes in the aesthetic appearance.
 * The TIME magazine photo is the one which should be the primary photograph for him. Why does it put so much importance on what TIME thinks? It's just another accolade [though a bigger one then some] (and a good pic of him, better than the one that was there). If they had made someone else person of the century it wouldn't have reduced Einstein's achievements one bit.
 * &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.56.7.1 (talk • contribs) 15:20, June 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 16:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)) I strongly support FF in disliking the Time promo material photo, and indeed in his entire point that Times opinion matters not one whit.


 * Connelly, don't remove information (if you see the diff in the history, you did that!)
 * Time promo material photo? It a good shot of Einstien. I put in the 1905 shot insteade though (1905 being his best year of work).
 * &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.56.7.1 (talk • contribs) 16:25, June 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * I am highly suspicious that you are trying to "game the system" here. Making a lot of big changes (i.e. the infobox, picture changes, etc), then add a bunch of little details, then use the "removal" of those details when people revert the big changes as an excuse to revert. I've gone through (TWICE now) and tried to fix any such edits that happen after the infobox, picture changes, etc. so that no content changes are lost. This is in itself a good reason to stop making those sorts of changes before they are discussed, because they are hard to undo. Nobody has any desire to "remove content" -- they are just trying to undo these other, non-content changes. So please stop making them for the moment. --Fastfission 16:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think infoboxes are ugly and totally unnecessary. His name, birth and death day, and locations are easy to see in the article itself. Let's discuss it before trying to add it in. Work with me here.
 * Because if everybody just changes it on a whim, then I'm just going to revert it on a whim. What I'm saying is, I think that TIME magazine image is a really awful main page image. So if you disagree with me, you'd better discuss it here with me! That's a polite way to put it.
 * If you had spent 10 minutes trying to carefully undo those changes without reverting other edits already made, you'd find them to be less than minor changes too! Aside from that, they change the entire tone of the first page of the article, I consider that pretty important.
 * I very much dislike the TIME magazine image. I don't think it captures anything about the man himself and I dislike that TIME is written across his forehead as well. Their opinion of him doesn't matter one bit -- their sanction means nothing towards whether he accomplished great things. (I'd take a Nobel Prize over TIME's approval any day of the week!)
 * So let's discuss this a bit and see what other people think. I consider these to be big enough changes that I'd revert them if they were undiscussed. Now the main picture is grainy. That doesn't work either. Let's not get into a revert war -- I'm pleading with you people to discuss it here first, come to some sort of agreement. --Fastfission 16:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The other main reason to discuss it here first is that it is incredibly difficult to undo JUST those sorts of changes if any other changes in content have been made. So let's figure all that out before making other changes to content, because otherwise we're likely to accidentally lose other changes. --Fastfission 16:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think infoboxes are nice looking. His name, birth and death day, and locations are easier to see in the infobox. Let's discuss it before rmoving it (as it was there early on). I'll work with you.
 * The TIME magazine image isn't that awful, but I think the 1905 would be a better main image (1st one seen).
 * I carefully undo changes without reverting other edits already made and I do find them to be minor changes. Howq do they change the entire tone of the first page of the article?
 * These are not really big enough changes to throuw a fit about. I'd revert any blatant mass reversion.
 * The main picture isn't grainy. Why doesn't work for you?
 * Let's not get into a revert war -- I'm pleading with you to discuss it here first.
 * -- Anonymous &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.56.7.1 (talk • contribs) 16:41, June 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 16:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)) You're pleading with us to give up and accept your version. That won't happen. Discuss changes on talk first. And SIGN YOUR POSTS.


 * (William M. Connolley 16:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)) BTW folks, the anon here appears to be the same as the one over at Dynamic theory of gravity if you care to take a look...


 * (William M. Connolley 16:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)) AND apparent attempts to put AE's name on the aether page


 * You've broken the Three Revert Rule. Please stop. The reason we need to discuss it without your picture changes first is that they are not easy to fix. Which you'd know if you tried to carefully undo them without disturbing the other content that was added since they were added! --Fastfission 16:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Oops, we both reported her. I've removed my report. William M. Connolley 17:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC).


 * Now he/she's scrambled everything up. The whole thing needs a clean reversion. The only thing I can see of any value is fixing the spelling of "mad scientist" at the bottom, but I don't see the point in doing it if the whole thing is likely to be reverted back in the future (and I don't want to do that myself because I don't want to go over my own 3RR). This is ridiculous. Appealing to some version from six months ago as a precedent to continue this sort of revert war, without discussing it, is not "working with us." --Fastfission 17:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * the infobox was removed on 18 Jan 2005 by Gzornenplatz ... it should not have been -- Anon &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.56.7.1 (talk • contribs) 17:16, June 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * if there isn't a infobox, then there shouldn't be any pictures @ the intro. - Anon &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.56.7.1 (talk • contribs) 17:17, June 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * You have no basis for "it should not have been", and now you're just committing petty vandalism. --Fastfission 17:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

revert explanation
I reverted the page a few minutes ago because the 20:54, 15 Jun 2005 version somehow was returned. But for some reason the version before mine in the history is different. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ted-m (talk • contribs) 19:54, June 16, 2005 (UTC)

Kilobytes long
The page was 49 kilobytes long. Moving the Papers took off 5kb. It's now 44 kilobytes long. Some synopsis of facts and links to main articles would help this entry. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 14:30, June 28, 2005 (talk • contribs) 204.56.7.1.


 * BTW, note to all watching this article: Annus Mirabilis Papers has been spawned off from it, and (sigh) needs watching too. William M. Connolley 2005-06-30 16:26:12 (UTC).


 * Everything in the Papers articles is cited. - Anon &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.56.7.1 (talk • contribs) 16:50, June 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * This is your tradiational confusion. It is not true that everything that can be cited belongs in an article, and it would save rather a lot of effort if you could learn that. William M. Connolley 2005-06-30 17:17:10 (UTC).

Einstein's Quotes
I've removed this section from the page. It duplicates the Wikiquote in much less detail and without citation. Any objections? S.N. Hillbrand 18:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Swiss citizen?
Why is the fact that he was a Swiss citizen left out of the introduction?

"German-born American theoretical physicist"

The two countries that maybe is the most twinned with Einstein is Germany and Switzerland. Remember that he made all of his now famous works while he was in Switzerland/Germany. And I also think that most people tend to se him as German/Swiss - not "German-born American". So if there is just room for two different nationalities to be mentioneed then it should be German-born Swiss.

&mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.89.229.207 (talk • contribs) 21:29, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Einstein as film maker
I remember reading as a child that Einstein dabbled in film making when he was younger and living in Germany. Perhaps this is worth a mention in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamKF (talk • contribs) 23:53, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Einstein and quantum mechanics
His position seems to be similar to that of the last great alchemists relative to chemistry: he helped discover it but did not ever really believe it. --David R. Ingham 21:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Einstein and Religion
There needs to be a little more info in the Religion section; particularily about what Einstein means when he mentions a "God". Does he mean it in a "being" form or simply a supreme non-being form (as in, god IS nature; sort of like Pantheism). Does Einstein believe in a being who created the universe, and left it untouched; or did he mean Pantheism? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.2.47.248 (talk • contribs) 00:53, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Einstein's Last Words.
There appears to be a contradiction with respect to the description of Einstein's death. The statement says that Einsteind died in his sleep. But this is followed by the statement that the nurse said that he mumbled something in German before he died. So was he awake when he died or was he mumbling in his sleep. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.95.167.91 (talk • contribs) 11:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)