Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive 4

Einstein's neice
I.Q. (film) is a movie revolving around Einstein's neice Elizabeth Boyd. Is she fictional ? Einstein's only sibling Maja, didn't have children, so is the neice from one of his cousins ? Jay 18:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I got the answer from Reference desk/Humanities. Jay 10:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Jay, I believe she's totally fictional. At least, I have seen no references to any niece of Albert Einstein... On, and actually, the name of the character is Catherine Boyd, instead of Elizabeth. At least, this is what I read on IMDB.com. Milena 19:36, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Omissions
While the article is excellent, it misses two important points:


 * 1) The fact that, from an early age, Einstein went off religion (apparently it made no sense to him)
 * 2) His continued work against nuclear warfare in the last 10 years of his life.

203.129.48.8 06:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Categorization
From categorization:
 * An article with the same name as a category should usually belong only to that category, for instance, Deism belongs only in Category:Deism.

Admitedly it is a guideline, but I think that it is a good one. That is why I moved the categorization to the category. Now it has been moved back. I would like to discuss that matter somewhat. Perhaps the guideline needs some work in this case.

--EMS | Talk 01:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure myself; it is strange to have an article on a person have no category other than itself, and it also makes the Albert Einstein category show up a bit strangely in other categories. For example, Albert Einstein, the person, had something important to do with the Manhattan Project, so he should be in Category:Manhattan Project. But when the cats are all in the category Category:Albert Einstein, then he appears as a sub-category of the Manhattan Project. Which isn't quite right. Only the person is meant by such a reference -- the Einstein's refrigerator has nothing to do with the Manhattan Project and shouldn't be in that category at all (though it is by sub-categorization).
 * I think the problem is that Category:Albert Einstein really means, if it is no so named, "Things associated with Albert Einstein", which is not the same thing as "The human being, Albert Einstein", which is what all of these categories (birth and death dates, etc.) refer to.
 * --Fastfission 15:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Aspergers
What is the relevance of mentioning a spurious mental disease and saying it is alleged to be part of the foundation of Einstein's intellect? This specious malady is only important to numerous male internet users because using reductive reasoning they can self-diagnose themselves just like Asperger's namesake. Unfortunately any criticism of the darling of the so-called 'geek' subculture, apparently this is as chic as an open discussion about who's taking which meds and the last time someone cut themselves for livejournal, only serves to rile up the Ass Pies. Aspergers did not write Einstein's 1905 papers. Einstein wrote them. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.53.17.160 (talk &bull; contribs) 23:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC) These links are to sources of high standing. I think the theory improves this featured Article. Psychologists of high standing believe Asperger's syndrome is real. Others disagree. Aspergers may be unreal. Assuming that the condition is definitely unreal is unscientific. Barbara Shack 17:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion. Please familiarize yourself with our neutral point of view and original research policies. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Einstein, Newton, and Asperger Syndrome From Mary Kugler
 * Einstein and Newton showed signs of autismfrom the New Scientist
 * Einstein and Newton 'had autism'From the BBC
 * I think it should go without saying that calling Asperger's Syndrome a "spurious mental disease"/"specious malady" is more than a little insulting to some of us, Mr./Ms. Unsigned User. *bites thumb in Shakespearean manner* thanx. Philolexica

Note to 206.53.17.160
(In reference to Aspergers syndrome and Albert)

1) Please do sign in to be worthy of belief,

2) I must take the side of Miss Barbara Shack here, it is credible information.

3) You have the opportunity here and now on this page to comment before randomly making deletion changes on someones diligent and time consuming effort/ work, to build an encyclopedia, and or debate the Aspergers syndrome topic. That is what this site is about, has been, and always will be. It's not an attempt to destroy information. You may argue your point here. Thanks in advance Scott 22:41:57, 2005-09-10 (UTC)

(BTW I am not the unsigned writer.) What first concerns me is that all three articles are actually coming from the same press release of the same two researchers. They do no more than reproduce each other and neither the BBC nor New Scientist endorse the theory in any way - not that either is qualified to do so. There is no reference to a publication in a peer-reviewed journal, and no indication of whether anyone with expertise in the field *beyond these two researchers* believes that the theory is worth taking seriously. The only clear information is that two researchers say that Einstein *may* have had Asperger's

Second, the evidence cited in the articles appears weak. The Wikipedia article on Asperger's syndrome gives a number of distinctive traits for diagnosis and very few of them have been shown to be true of Einstein.

E.g. Wiki: "People with Asperger's syndrome are often noted for having a highly pedantic way of speaking, using language far more formal and structured than the situation would normally be thought to call for." Now surely someone would have noticed if Einstein was like this? One article says effectively the reverse: that Einstein's lectures were *confusing*. Testing for simply 'problems in communication' glosses over the difference.

Wiki: "The disturbance causes clinically significant impairments in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." Not much evidence of this. The BBC article concedes: "... the German-born scientist made intimate friends, had numerous affairs and spoke out on political issues."

A thorough rebuttal (by an autistic man) with citation of research appears here:

http://www.jonathans-stories.com/non-fiction/undiagnosing.html

At the very least I think it would be appropriate to mention that the Asperger's theory is speculative, has not been peer evaluated, and is disagreed with by prominent researchers (Sowell for one).

--Tdent 10:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I've had intimate friends, been politically active... it's these affairs I'm missing out on. *sigh*  No, no, no!  Stop trying to generalize Asperger's Syndrome!  It's a complex neurological condition with no known cause, but more importantly, it sits within an autistic spectrum, within which one autist might have more in common with a neurotypical than another autist.  It's a fact that whether or not Einstein had or didn't have Asperger's is indeterminable, and therefore, this shouldn't be an issue of debate.  Posthumous diagnosis is controversial by its very nature, and no legitimate scientist is going to come out with a definitive answer.  The possibility that Einstein had Asperger's Syndrome is speculation, but on that note, it's widespread speculation with great ramifications -- for living autists more than Albert!  Do to the evolution of the English language, people described as "autistic" today don't necessarily have autism; instead, it connotes many qualities and attributes that are associated with autism.  There is nothing terrible about a breif mention of a speculative diagnosis, but when addressing Einstein the man, I think more exacting adjectives can be found.  Debate on proper diction would, in my opinion, prove much more fruitful than the pointless debate that has ensued thus far.  For example, since when has a man's kind and friendly demeanor been "rooted" in his pacifism?  Seriously. Philolexica

Gap in the career outline
The career details are incomplete around 1900. It doesn't say when he started work at the patent office. CalJW 05:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, the family seems to magically transport itself from Ulm to Munich (where the Luitpoldgymnasium is) without explanation. Presumably they did actually move between the two places - when?

--Tdent 10:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, there is nothing much about the 1905 year. There is a link to it, but some sort of summary needs to be in the article. I came here looking for the history of Einstein's work on Special Relativity. 194.200.237.219 12:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think there is some unreverted vandalism in the article. Look here ; there is a much better discussion of the miracle year.  If I have time, I will try to put the missing text back.  Pfalstad 17:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I fixed this. Pfalstad 22:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It looks like someone (who was also anonymous) removed vandalism instead of reverting it. I do wish people would check to see what was changed, before cleaning up vandalism. 194.200.237.219 15:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Quotations
User:EarthBoundX5 added a loooong list of quotations and appended a COPYRIGHT notice. I removed the list. EarthBoundX5, please add these quotations to Wikiquotes if they are not in fact copyrighted. (How the heck can quotations by Einstein be copyrighted, anyway? Even by the Hebrew University, much less by this Kevin Harris?). EarthBoundX5's only other contrib has been an apparent hoax article up for AfD.---CH (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you made the right call on the removal. Aside from that... quotations can be copyrighted like any text but their use is usually considered "fair use" since they are usually such a small part of the overall work. There are more details at the Wikiquote copyright page if you'd like more information on how copyright law applies to quotations. --Fastfission 12:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Nationality & "who is the greatest"
made some changes that I reverted and I thought I would explain why. Just my feelings on it, and why I reverted these changes. --Fastfission 02:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I think the citizenship information was added because of endless disputes as to whether Einstein was German or American or whatever or not. I think it is a sensible thing to leave it in even if it is not ideal, because it stems off problems.
 * 2) I don't know or care who is the "greatest physicist" but I think it is true that Einstein is "widely regarded" as the greatest scientist. I think "widely" here means "more than just the physics community", for one thing, but I also doubt that there is much "hard data" on whether or not Newton or Gauss is considered "better". If there is hard data, it should be added in the article somewhere (and cited) but doesn't need to be in the lead section, much less with an awkward note which references a basically empty statement.

Frequent vandalism
I've been watching this page for a while and i've seen it being vandalized quite so often. Isn't there any mechanism in wikipedia to prevent changes to a page unless reviewed ? At least for frequently vandalized pages, one would have to spend a nontrivial amount of time checking if someone's added some crap. Manik Raina 13:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Good idea tough it would not help much as revision would take time as well. Still, it is an idea and probably the best place to present it is at Village pump. -- Svest 17:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;


 * The problem with this system is that it gets rid of the Wiki philosophy that anyone can edit at any time. There are methods for page protection but those are only used in very limited circumstances. I don't think it's a big deal, it's not usually very hard to undo vandalism. --Fastfission 00:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article seems to be vandalized at least once a day on average. Unfortunately, frequent reversion means that the article is gradually deteriorating over time.  Pages can be more or less protected, but this is usually reserved for the highest profile pages like the Wikipedia main page, so I am not optimistic.  If it were protected, naturally I'd like to see a nice clean (readable, minimally controversial) version protected.  Aye, there's the rub; others will want to protect their own version, possibly with a passion. ---CH  (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed folks, thanks for replying. Have a good day Manik Raina 01:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I notice that all the vandalism comes from anonymous IP numbers. If Wikipedia editors had to take the single additional step of first logging in&mdash;under any pseudonyme they like, even as ridiculous as, say "Wetman"&mdash; the thoughtless, spur-of-the-moment vandalism, here and at Leonardo or Michelangelo etc etc, would be largely elimninated, with no loss of anonymity...after all, who is "Wetman"? --Wetman 13:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Introduction
I have to say that I agree with Fastfission, FayssalF, and other users that recent attempts to insert comments into the introduction of this article have been disruptive and should be reverted.

The offenders, who are trying to discuss citizenship, etc. in the first paragraphs, should argue their views in this talk page if they desire instead of continuing to insert badly written material in a way which (in my view) disrupts the flow.

My own view is that Einstein was by his own account about as far from being a "nationalist" as is possible, and that there is in any case little point in explaining at great length various tangled attempts by patriotic citizens of various countries to claim figures like Einstein or Euler, etc., as citizens of Switzerland or wherever. However, if someone wants to argue that this is somehow a terribly important (despite Einstein's own views), let's discuss here where the best place to insert this material into the article might be, in terms of not disrupting what readability the article has left after so many previous careless edits has led to a certain "incoherence creep". ---CH (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Father of Modern Physics?
Hi, 24.253.120.206, I yield to no individual in my admiration of Albert Einstein's scientific work, but I am not sure that any single person really deserves to be called the Father of Modern Physics. Several others, such as Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, and Dirac, also played crucial roles in the rise of modern physics. In fact, there are very few cases in modern science in which one person could really be called the undisputed father of any subject. For example, hardly anyone who works in the field of information theory would fail to name Claude Shannon as the undisputed father of their field, but if you ask most scientists who work outside this area of mathematics (but use some concepts such as communication entropy in their work), you will find they are likely to name Norbert Weiner as a second "father" (and others such as John von Neumann also played a role in the events leading up to Shannon's 1948 paper).

Another problem is that according to the usual Wikipedia standards (which unfortunately tends to weigh the opionion of rank ignoramuses equally with that of experts), you can't say that anything about Einstein is undisputed. While few reputable physicists or historians familiar with Einstein's work would fail to agree that Einstein deserves to be called the the father of general relativity or the father of special relativity, in fact both of these titles have been vigorously disputed, beginning with politically inspired hate speech of scientists like Johannes Stark and Philipp Lenard in the 1920s and continuing to various individuals our own time who have axes to grind (see sci.physics.research for a current very silly but long-running thread on this repugnant "argument"). I happen to think this alleged controversy is kept alive by nonscientists with sometimes complicated or obscure extrascientific movitations, which is rather disgusting (and sometimes hilarious), but by Wikipedia standards, it seems that the onl thing which matters is the public controversy, however silly from a scientific or historical point of view, does verifiably exist.

If we accept that we need to remove the word undisputeable, it seems to me that there is no point in keeping the rest of what you wrote. I believe it is quite sufficient, by way of assessing the magnitude of Einstein's scientific achievements, to say that he is regarded as one of the greatest scientists of all time, and in fact one of the most notable figures in intellectual history.

Can you please explain below why you insist on adding this new material to the introduction? ---CH (talk) 06:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreement. -- Svest 07:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
 * Not a big fan of the Father of Modern Physics line either, for the points just raised re: multiple contributors to quantum theory. Gaff 16:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that one who dragged his feet on the full theory of quantum mechanics should be called the father of modern physics. I see him more as the last of the great classical physicists.David R. Ingham 05:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Religious Views
Recent changes made to this section. Some direct quotes added and appreciated. I must wonder about this sentece, however: He showed a clear belief in the God of science. What does that even mean? I think it should probably be either removed or clarified. What are others thoughts? User_talk:Gaff 16:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree that every reader should be highly suspicious of quotations attributed to Einstein. To some extent this is true of any celebrity, even living ones (e.g. Penrose), but Einstein quotations pose special problems.  Some points to bear in mind:
 * Einstein is one of the most (mis)-quoted persons in human history,
 * Especially in scientific matters, Einstein often contradicted his earlier pronouncements multiple times,
 * After 1920 or so, and especially after he moved to the U.S., there was enormous pressure upon Einstein to use his celebrity to aide various causes, usually by signing some letter or giving reporters a favorable sound bite. Like many people, Einstein liked to be helpful, so despite misgivings, he often obliged.  And he often wound up feeling used (or abused) as a result.  Pais has a good discussion of this.
 * In an extreme case of helping a friend in need, it seems that Einstein once allowed his name to be added as a coauthor to a popular book (the goal was to boost sales in order to feed an impoverished refugee family)--- this book is the source of some well known "Einstein quotations", so in this case, Einstein could even be said to have collaborated in misattributions to him of things he didn't actually write or say! Needless to say, that would be misleading, and taking this story out of context certainly cannot be used to "justify" misattributions.
 * In my experience Einstein quoters often have some agenda, e.g. arguing that quantum mechanics doesn't make sense, or that Nazism or the bomb are bad, that God exists, or does not exist, and so on and on and on, by appealing to Einstein's authority, often with little regard to the context in which Einstein said Q, or even whether he really said Q at all. As long as you are aware of this, the agenda (if any) is usually obvious enough.
 * Since I believe this article should focus on Einstein the man (which mostly means focusing on the aspect of his life which he himself regarded as most important, his contributions to theoretical physics), I would hope that editors would be sensitive to these issues in considering thoughtfully whether to introduce new material, and if so, where and how.


 * The legend or popular icon aspects are certainly notable, but if they threaten to take over this article, I would prefer discussion of "Einstein the pop culture icon" should be moved to a separate article (or articles). In particular, tracking down the provenance of various quotations attributed to Einstein, might be of some value as an illustration of how people have reacted to the "Einstein the pop culture icon" over the years.  If some very persistent and careful reader out there has a lot of time plus copies at hand of all the reputable Einstein biographies, his collected papers, and so forth, it might be worthwhile to collect various alleged quotations, trying to determine their attribution, and writing a separate article.  (I suggest calling it Spinning Einstein, but only in jest!)  This article should carefully give the provenance of each alleged quotation.  Examples:
 * you have at hand a copy of paper X or book Y by Einstein, and you can verify directly that he did in fact write Q: add the bibliographic citation to the references section, and where you include Q, mention the citation and if possible the date,
 * you have at hand a copy of a reputable biography (e.g. Pais) and can verify that the author believes that Einstein said Q: check the footnotes to see the source, perhaps a personal letter or diary by the person AE was talking to, add the bibliographic citation to the reference section, and where you include Q, explain who AE was talking to, if possible mention the date, and cite the biographer,
 * you can verify from primary souces that Q is actually due to someone other than Einstein: add the bibliographic citatation, etc.,
 * you can find the first known appearance of alleged quote Q in a highly dubious source, such as a political polemic, a book by an disreputable author, or perhaps a contemporary newspaper article which you can plausibly argue should be considered suspicious.


 * Another thing to bear in mind when editing this article: above I imagined a thoughtful editor, but as well all know, most edits of this article are either thoughtless (even malicious) or else represent hasty attempts to revert such edits. Incoherence creep is the phenomenon in which text is added by inexperienced writers in a way which breaks up the flow between previous paragraphs, sentences, or ideas, gradually transforming a readable, well-organized article into an incoherent, chaotically disorganized article).  This phrase aptly describes the sad history of this article, as we can see on a weekly or even daily basis.---CH  (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Asperger's syndrome
I have noticed that there is a tendency for patient advocacy groups for various real and serious conditions to make lists of historical figures or celebs who allegedly suffer from the condition. I have never really understood this agenda (if I am dying from liver cancer, would knowing that celebrity C is also dying from liver cancer really make me feel any better?), but I recognize that such lists are probably well-intentioned. Nonetheless, claims of post-mortem diagnosis are speculative at best, and sometimes are pretty damn absurd, which is the case here. They might be notable in the sense that scurrilious or silly gossip might be notable, but in the case of historical figures like Einstein with genuine claims to notability with go far beyond being the target of gossip, they should not be emphasized unduly.

I have known persons who really do have autism and also Asperger's syndrome. These are conditions which no doubt take an expert to reliably diagnose, but I doubt it takes an expert to doubt that, say, David Letterman has Asperger's syndrome! I have never met Letterman, but I think anyone who has ever seen him on TV, and who has known living individuals who really have been diagnosed autism or Asperger's syndrome, would know at once that David Letterman is not, and has never been, autistic!

The point is that I doubt it takes an expert to recognize that socially fairly normal persons do not have autism. I have seen newsreels of Einstein, I have read reputable biographies such as Pais, and I have even studied contemporary documents such as letters by Einstein, the diaries of Count Kessler (who knew AE socially in Berlin). None of these sources give the slightest hint, in my view, that Einstein could possibly be diagnosed with either of these today by any experienced and reputable physician. In fact, quite the contrary. I can hardly believe that this is even an issue, but I have complained elsewhere about society's tolerance for one the strangest hobbies of certain retired physicians, namely "diagnosing" historical figures such as Lincoln, Napoleon, or Einstein with all kinds of conditions, in flagrant disregard of accepted principles taught in medical school (such as declining to diagnose a patient whom one has not examined personally).

Needless to say, I'd like to see mention of the claim that Einstein was mildly autistic moved well down the article. I think this suggestion is much too silly to deserve mention in the first few paragraphs, given the many much more important aspects of Einstein's biography which clamor for the reader's attention.

CH (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, it seems you are imposing your own prejudices about we Aspies. Whether Einstein has or has Asperger's Syndrome is probably less significant than that he displays personality traits which are autistic or at the least autistic-like.  As an Aspie, it has long been my conviction that obsession is the most defining aspect of the condition, not social ineptitude.  It is this aspect of the "geek syndrome" which gives me a nerdy disposition, which is perceived as such, and not as some social dysfunction.  Aspies tend to be bad at "small talk," which is why individuals like myself and presumably like Einstein flurish among other intellectuals.  Nonetheless, no Aspie is complete without at least some social quirks and indeed difficulties too, but my reading of Einstein's personal life has proven he's had his share.  And personally, having had an admiration for Einstein all my life -- even though I'm an aspiring professor in socio-cultural anthropology (because I love to be in front of lots of people and talk about people) -- there isn't any historical figure with whom I feel more empathy.  All that said, I agree with you for the most part: speculation as to whether Einstein was an Aspie should be treated only in passing, if at all; labeling Einstein with a neurological condition is a cheap way of generalizing a complex personality.  On the other hand, that Einstein displayed autistic qualities says much about society, notions of normalcy, conformity, and of course, the autistic specturm.  Appropriately, Einstein is mentioned in detail in the Asperger Syndrome article. Philolexica

Vandalism, Incoherence Creep, and Page Protection, and a Modest Proposal
Incoherence creep is the phenomenon in which an initally well-organized and readable article, with a clear flow of ideas from one sentence and one paragraph to the next, is gradually destroyed by edits of the following kinds: If you have been monitoring this article on a daily basis, you have very likely seen many examples of this kind of edit.
 * well-intended additions of material by inexperienced editors which breaks up the flow of previous writing, or disturbs an internal organizational scheme (e.g., recent additions discussing Einstein's "national origins"),
 * vandalism of the silly or scatological variety (this high-profile article is highly vulnerable to this; to mention just one example, I have noticed that teachers in some computer labs seem to assign a class to look at it, with the result that some students attempt to send real-time "amusing" or hateful messages to each other by editing the article),
 * additions of material in pursuance of some agenda which disturbs the balance and flow of the article; examples are too legion to list but include the Tesla freak, persons eager to tear Einstein down by any means, such as insinuating that he "stole" [sic] his theories from others, cranks promoting their own "theories", someone pursuing some Asperger's syndrome agenda),
 * careless attempts to revert this kind of edit (sometimes to an inappropriate version allowing earlier damage to survive).

My point is that permitting (almost, one might say, encouraging) frequent vandalism and otherwise minor but bad edits of high profile articles is destructive to the Wikipedia for several reasons: Accordingly, I'd like to see this article restored to such a happy state and then protected permanently. Even this would not fix the problem over the long term, since not all admins have scientific or historical expertise or are unbiased when it comes to Einstein, and no doubt some admins would want to unblock the article, and indeed from time to time there might be good reason to add timely material (e.g. to note the current World Year of Physics honoring Einstein).
 * it tends to prevent users with expert knowledge from contributing good writing because they wind up spending all their "WP time" trying to correct damage to articles which they or someone else worked hard to whip into shape,
 * despite such efforts, incoherence creep tends to gradually damage or destroy articles which at one time were well-organized, accurate, fair, and readable.

Does anyone know what is the best way to submit petitions of the kind I have in mind to Wikimedia?

More generally, does anyone know of suitable forums for discussing the Wikipedia model versus the classic Britannica model for creating an encyclopedia? I believe that the world wide web, wiki software, and other technological innovations offer promise for a blend of suitable features from this model which could lead to a "controlled content" encyclopedia which would offer better writing and factual reliability than the current Wikipedia but also greater timeliness (particularly on rapidly advanced technological topics) than a classical paper encyclopedia.

A related question: I am of course aware that I am by no means the only Wikipedia user who feels that Wikimedia will eventually be forced (by rampant vandalism and other destructive edits by anons which are overwhelming the current administration system) to abandon its strange insistence (which is unique to this site, in my experience) on allowing even unregistered users to freely edit content. Given the inevitability of this step, it is in the Wikipedia's best interests that it occur sooner rather than later. Would anyone else here be interested in circulating some kind of petition? Any suggestions for how to do this effectively? Anyone have past experience with previous attempts to nudge Wikimedia in this direction? I think its pretty clear such a major step would have to be approved by Jimbo Wales, in fact I have the impression he is at once the only person who needs to be persuaded and the only person who could veto such a change--- please correct me if I am wrong about that!

Thoughts? ---CH (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Apparently you're going to get your wish; Jimbo plans to have stricter editing rules for some articles. See .  I can't find any detail about this proposal on wikipedia itself, though.  Also check out Village pump (perennial proposals).  Pfalstad 15:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe, maybe not. At any rate, if you want an encyclopedia that you can edit but other people can't, Wikipedia isn't the place for you. I'm not sure that the "wiki" philosophy of "anyone can edit" is a workable approach, but it does seem like the number of janitors around here exceeds the number of vandals. An important question is "who gets bored first". --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Bored? Who? Nothing! Bird Flu? Nothing! -- Svest 02:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;


 * Hi, Jpgordon, if you read what I wrote more carefully, I actually mentioned several proposals, some less controversial than others, and I asked for suggestions about where might be the most suitable place to discuss these. If someone can suggest such a venue, perhaps we can continue the discussion there.  OK?---CH  (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is under 24/7 vandalism attack. Pages get blanked, replaced, overwritten in a destructive manner, however pages are reverted/removed/restored before you even know it as a result of "janators". "Anyone can edit" comes with his problem yes, if it werent "anyone can edit", who determines who can edit and who cant ;). I understand your frustration, however sometimes it is necesary to take drastic mesures against some more notable vandals. -- Cool Cat Talk 11:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Link vandalism
Hi all, as an example of vandalism apparently designed to degrade this article but remain undetected, note the recent edits by 206.254.117.182 in Texas, which consisted of dewikifying the introduction.---CH (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Is Einstein German?
Is there any evidence that he has German ancestory? Ethnic German ancestory. I'm trying to remove all Austrian, Jewish and Swiss Americans from the German American category. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.141.217.93 (talk &bull; contribs) 04:37, November 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Both of his parents were Jewish. He has no ethnic German ancestry.Vulturell 09:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Uhm, Germans who born in jewish family are not Germans? --128.214.69.47 11:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This "controversy" is an example of why I deplore inflammatory edits to this article. 128.214.69.47 from Helsinki, I am probably more sympathetic to your politics than to those of Vulturell (to judge from the comments above), but I wish you would avoid adding potentially inflammatory characterizations of Einstein's political views to this article.  The 00:32, 6 November 2005 version is noticeably less inflammatory re Palestine than versions which you wrote.  Please, let's all keep the focus on Einstein the man, particularly his scientific work, rather than attempting to hijack Einstein the icon to promote this political view or that.  TIA ---CH  (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Marion?
It's very possible I'm missing somethere here, but I can't understand who this "Marion" in Albert_Einstein is. There is no other mention of a Marion in the article. Does anybody know what this refers to?

--Recnilgiarc 19:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe this may be a garbled reference to Marian Robeson, Paul Robeson's mother. I recently read a biography of Robeson but don't recall this episode being mentioned!  I will remove it pending confirmation.  Thanks for pointing out this problem. ---CH  (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ahha, that could explain it. I ran across Paul Robeson after Googling "Marion Einstein", but I didn't think to check his mother's name. Thanks!
 * --Recnilgiarc 19:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. Paul Robeson's association with Einstein re civil rights and peace initiatives is documented elsewhere, and putting up Marian Robeson is certainly the kind of thing Einstein would have done, but I can't find independent verification of this right now.  If anyone has the time to borrow from your local library reputable biograpies of Einstein and of Robeson to comb through for references to this episode, I'd be grateful, since if verified it adds a nice human touch to the article.  Searching collections of Robeson's writings might also uncover further verification of his association with Einstein.  Books like Susan Robeson's The Whole World in his Hands might have some pictures of Einstein with Robeson.  Speaking of which, it would be nice to have a page collecting public domain or fair-use images of Einstein.  I tried to obtain permission from the copyright holder of a very nice picture of Einstein sitting with Leon Infeld, so far without success.  Too bad since it's one of the few pictures showing Einstein in a relaxed social situation (his customary expression ranges from bored to uncomfortable).  I'd also love to be able to upload the picture with his sister Maya and the picture taken by a passerby in Berlin just days before Einstein left Germany forever, in which one can perhaps detect a bit of the distress and bewilderment he must have been feeling.---CH  (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I have one quibble regarding the word friend, which is much overused with respect to Einstein. People who knew Einstein agree he had very few friends in the sense of close confidants.  Besso, Born, and Infeld could probably be described as friends, Bohr as a much respected colleague, Lorentz and Mach as respected elders (in his early years), Szilard as someone whose company Einstein sometimes enjoyed (there is no question he enjoyed the famous refrigerator episode) and sometimes merely endured, Robeson, Painleve, and many others as politically prominent figures with whom Einstein discussed political issues and even collaborated with, at least to the extent of signing open letters and so forth.  Robeson is someone he met with several times and corresponded with concerning social/political issues on which they shared common views, which is a bond of a kind, but I doubt there was a close personal friendship.  I would prefer to see that paragraph rewritten to describe their occasional collaboration to further social justice and world peace, issues about which both men cared deeply.---CH  (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Font problems
This talk page keeps growing, and an incorrectly coded signature of one participant, User:Gaff, messed up the fonts on the previous version of this page. (I have left a note on the talk page of that user asking him to fix the problem with his signature.) I have fixed the fonts in Talk:Albert_Einstein/Archive/2 and moved recent discusions to a new archive page (see link above).---CH  (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Use of the word "creation"
Is it appropriate that the word "creation" is being used to describe the universe as part of an objective encyclopedia article?

From the third paragraph:

"His reverence for all creation, his belief in the grandeur..."

&mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Funny Fins (talk &bull; contribs) 15:32, December 3, 2005 (UTC)

Einstein and Immanuel Kant
Does anyone who really knows Einstein's life know if he read Kant at all? I ask this for several reasons. First, Einstein said the following:

Here's a quote from Kant:

Kant means "a type of experience" from what has been translated as "intuition" here.

They're obvious not exactly the same, but they are similar enough for me to think they either come from a common source or one (Einstein's) is adopted from the other (Kant's).

Another reason I think Einstein might be affected by Kant (or maybe the German Idealists in general??) is because of the importance of space and time in Kant's philosophy - they are the prerequisites to knowledge, and in this way we can know the structure of future experiences before we've even experienced them (we know that we will always experience them in time).

My second reason is probably off target, but I think the issue I brought up with the quotes is interesting - I welcome any responses.

--FranksValli 08:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Einstein read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason at the age of 13. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.216.64.159 (talk &bull; contribs) 19:10, December 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * bio by Pais, "Subtle...", p 13, says he first read Kant in high school GangofOne 07:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1889: Meets 21 year old student Max Talmud, introduces Einstein to key science and philosophy texts including Kant’s "Critique of pure reason" --24.253.120.206 13:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Age 10. Did he understand it? GangofOne 05:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That source, which is posted above, does not say. This site states that he understood it at the age of 13, which is one of the reasons why the psychometrician estimates his ratio IQ to be 183. --24.253.120.206 12:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Some V Stats
Big improvement in the past few days, keep it up! :-)

From the history page: Maybe we finally have those pests on the run? ---CH 00:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 10 Dec (so far): V < 1 min
 * 9 Dec: blanked for 1 min
 * 8 Dec: no V (first time I've seen that in months!!)
 * 7 Dec: V 1 min, 5.5 hrs, 2 min, 1 min
 * 6 Dec: V 7 min, 1 min, 3.3 hrs, 1 min, 1 min


 * Guess not, darn it, just saw a vandalism which was hear for 1.6 hours today. ---CH 04:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Einstein and Religion
From Ze'ev Rosenkranz "The Einstein Scrap Book", ISBN 0801872030, p. 89.


 * It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near to those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems.

Yesselman 19:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

From Max Jammer's "Einstein and Religion"; ISBN: 0691006997; p. 43.


 * The extent Einstein concurred with the philosophy of Spinoza:


 * Rejecting the traditional theistic concept of God, Spinoza denied the existence of a cosmic purpose on the grounds that all events in nature occur according to immutable laws of cause and effect. The universe is governed by a mechanical or mathematical order and not according to purposeful or moral intentions. Though he employed the notion of "G-D," Spinoza applied it only to the structure of the order and declared that "neither intellect nor will appertain to G-D's nature." He therefore denied the Judeo-Christian conception of a personal God. What the Bible refers to as divine activities are identified by Spinoza course of nature. G-D is the "infinite substance" having and thought. G-D is devoid of ethical properties, for good and evil human desires. What is commonly called "G-D's will" is identical with the laws of nature. People do not act freely in the sense of having alternatives to their actions; their belief in freedom arises only from their ignorance of the causes of the desires that motivate their actions. The ultimate object of religious devotion can only be the perfect harmony of the universe, and human aspirations must accept the inexorable dictates of the deterministic laws that govern life.

Yesselman 16:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Table
Why don't we have a table in here about Einstein, like Richard Feynman, and most developed biographical articles? Or is it just no one has made one yet? -- Mac Davis  &#xE0D;&#x19B;. 08:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * They are not required and a lot of people think they look ugly and select one quote entirely arbitrarily as a "representative" quote. --Fastfission 16:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Asperger's
For the vague "several researchers at the universities of Cambridge and Oxford", I have substituted the name of the principal researcher. But I am not convinced this belongs here at all. There is a lot of speculation along these lines, much of it published, including questions about the size of various lobes of Einstein's brain etc. But I don't think any of this has been widely accepted in the scientific community. In any case, I am surprised to see such a major thing introduced into the article without discussion on Talk, and with all the documentation coming from BBC news stories! --Macrakis 03:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The "diagnosis" of Einstein is extremely speculative at best - and let's not get into the controversy about Asperger's diagnoses in general. I've tried to edit this to help keep the pro-Asperger's POV from standing, and I'm not sure the current version is superior in any way to earlier versions - almost every word has had to be hammered out in numerous article revisions rather than discussions here on the talk page. --Krich 03:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I explained some time ago why I feel this entire paragraph should be removed as unverifiable speculation, not to mention an irrelevant distraction in a short biography of Einstein. If someone feels it is terribly important to have this (mis?)-information mentioned somewhere in the Wikipedia, I'd suggest creating a seperate article on "unverifiable speculations concerning Albert Einstein".---CH 03:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, mathematicians really are amazingly arrogant, unpleasant people to be around.... --Mistress Selina Kyle 04:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * We're writing an encyclopedia. The contents should be well-sourced.   What's more, they should be well-chosen.  Lots and lots of people have speculated about many things about Einstein.  But somehow we need to boil this down to a good article. Let's look at what Baron-Cohen himself says. In Essential Difference: Male and Female Brains and the Truth about Autism (p167), he writes "[Einstein and Newton] certainly showed many of the signs of AS, though whether they would have warranted a diagnosis is questionable, since they hgad found a niche in which they could blossom." (my emphasis) So even B-C is not very definitive about it.  I also note that the references are to BBC News articles. Piling on anonymous researchers at Oxford and Vanderbilt doesn't help. --Macrakis 04:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The current revision by User:Macrakis seems like a reasonable compromise between the need to keep unverifiable speculations and other possibly inappropriate distractions to a minimum, and the obviously very strong desire on the part of some users to prominently mention this "controversy". I hope that Selina will agree. ---CH 04:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The version by Macrakis looks absolutely fine to me as it current reads. I'll not make further edits in this section if this language stands. --Krich 05:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * And of course it did not. I've changed this back to Macrakis' version, as it seems the most concise, accurate, and fair. Selina, you appear to be the only editor here that wants to push the Asperger's language. Honestly, if this keeps up, I'm going to change my stance to one of removing the reference to AS altogether - I was never sure it belonged here in the first place due to its dubious nature. Please work with us in the spirit of compromise, if you'd like your input to stand. I just don't think you are going to be able to get away with pushing a pro-diagnosis POV in this article. --Krich 16:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I see that Selina has reverted to the old POV language once again today. I believe that she is now in violation of the three revert rule, and have told her so on her talk page, after trying several times to get her to discuss this issue on our talk pages or here on this talk page. She refuses to do so with me, or the others that are attempting to work with her on including language that refers to the controversial Asperger's issue without using pro-diagnosis POV wording. --Krich 20:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Could we put the Asperger's stuff in a separate article? Pfalstad 20:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, please! (I too think the Asperger's stuff belongs in a separate article.) ---CH 20:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * P.S. There is (or was and could be again) a Category:Albert Einstein in which someone tried to collect all articles dealing with something Einstein did, or which otherwise referenced Einstein.

Asperger's material absolutely belongs in its own catagory. This is suppose to be a fact-base account on Einstein only, and not saddled with anything that remotely resembles opinion, hypervolie, speculation etc. This Selina should be reminded that its an encyclopedia, not a repository for personal bias. Any intent on trying to shift from that damages the integrety of this medium turns Wikipedia into a website aspiring to be an encyclopedia, rather than just being. P.N.G 20:43, 31 Jan 2006 &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.127.170.144 (talk &bull; contribs) 04:44, February 1, 2006 (UTC)

Given the normie's desire to monopolise all beneficial discoveries of history, despite the fact that many gains in the fields of computing (just for instance) are the responsibility of verified, diagnosed Aspies, the speculation should stand. In fact, many reliable sources consider the posthumous diagnosis (and shamefully, if you died in our so-called enlightened English-speaking society before 2000, posthumous diagnosis was as good as you got) factual. Einstein's intelligence was focused entirely upon a pervasive, singular interest, to the point where schoolteachers told his parents he was retarded (see if you can name one of them) and his social skills were underdeveloped. That's two strikes against his being a normie. Strike three is that he apparently believed in not wasting his time choosing clothes to wear for the given day, and thus had a lot of suits that all looked the same (seriously, is there any photograph of him that does not show him in a simple suit?).

Given the rampant abuse that we aspies have to suffer, on top the of the flat-out lies from scum like Dick Wolf, while it might not be prudent to say that Einstein was definitely an Aspie (in spite of this being believed as fact by many credible sources), leaving the theory open to consideration is a must. This man endured much in an inability to buckle down and think like everyone else, and since Asperger's Syndrome is turning out to be nature's way of reminding us that it does not want us all to be the same, I feel that he would happily throw in his lot with we Aspies.

&mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.51.229.98 (talk &bull; contribs) 14:39, February 6, 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur with the statement above. If you took archive footage of Einstein, Warhol, and Gates, then ran it alongside footage of verified, diagnosed Aspies like myself, you would reach one conclusion. If Einstein was not an Aspie, then he was doing a very good job of impersonating one. That, by the way, is a very popular catchphrase among the plague of adults who should have been diagnosed decades ago. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.51.229.98 (talk &bull; contribs) 11:40, February 8, 2006 (UTC)

World War IV quote
I have changed the quote to what I found in the Calaprice 2005 book. (diff) Ligulem 16:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)