Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive 7

Fastfission is Trying to BAN Licorne from Wikipedia
Fastfission is leading a lynch mob to try to ban Licorne, because Licorne KNOWS WHAT THE STORY IS about the fraudster plagiarist einstein. -- Fastfission's efforts amount to CENSORSHIP. -- Licorne 20:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I personally do not find anything wrong with that. You do not make a convincing argument, especially by referring to yourself in the thrid person. Something like this should not be posted on the talk page for Albert Einstein. Delta 01:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

HARALD said the Introduction needs be Rewritten

Harald returns soon from vacation and he will rewrite the Intro to make it conform with the published facts. -- Meanwhile Fastfission is desperately trying to BAN Licorne before Harald returns.-- Licorne 21:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * see Requests for arbitration/Licorne. You brought it on yourself, Licorne. --Alvestrand 22:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Alvestrand. Licorne no longer has anything positive to offer. According to Licorne Einstein can only plagarise or be wrong (always). He is not susceptible to argument or reason. All he can do is repeat and shout his views which we all know by now. E4mmacro 00:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Licorne, there is no one who is surprised at this -- I announced both to this page and on your page many times that I find your editing disruptive and that continuing it would lead to arbitration and eventually probably your own banning. If anybody is curious as to why I am trying to ban Licorne from Wikipedia, they are welcome to view the RFC or the RFA about it. It isn't a "lynch mob", it's well over a dozen editors who think you have consistently violated both the policies of this website and lack any ability to contribute productively. You've brought it upon yourself, and people have shown unbelieveable amounts of patience with you on this issue. --Fastfission 02:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

WAIT FOR HARALD, he agrees with me that the Intro must be rewritten. -- Harald has more integrity than any of you masqueraders. Licorne 02:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think you get it. It isn't about the line, it's not about the facts of the article, it isn't about who agrees with you. It's about your editing behavior. If Harald came back today and said you were the greatest guy in the whole world, it wouldn't keep you from being banned, not with posts like this. --Fastfission 03:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You just hate what I say because it is true. Licorne 03:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the best you can manage by way of a response? Don't you have something more meaningful to do with your life? Come on now. Would someone who is "superior" resort to arguments like "Fastfission You Started It"? --Fastfission 03:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fastfission Wikipedia should dump you immediately for insulting people and CENSORSHIP ! -- Licorne 03:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fastfission You set up that nasty page to insult Dr.Winterberg, the same way you insult me, it is because you hate the message that you persecute the messengers.-- You should be fired by Wikipedia fast. --Licorne 03:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fastfission You should be FIRED for insulting Dr.Winterberg ! --Licorne 03:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Your inability to take responsibility for your own actions is sad, but not unexpected. Looking forward to seeing you gone. --Fastfission 13:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

E=mc2 Paragraph is Misleading and Incorrect
The article simplistically and incorrectly credits Einstein with E=mc2. In fact, Einstein never derived the equation (H.E. Ives, 1952), his derivation was a circular tautology which proved nothing. Einstein was trying to rederive Henri Poincare's E=mc2 but could not do it. -- The article must therefore be rewritten. -- Licorne 04:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Relativity priority dispute. --Alvestrand 04:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * NO -- This is NOT a priority dispute -- Ives proved Einstein did not derive the equation -- correct the article ! -- Licorne 04:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The Development of Special Relativity ?
The article says Einstein developed Special Relativity ? -- Please name one thing to support this ! -- Special Relativity's DISCOVERY  was COMPLETE  before Einstein's first paper ! -- Correct the article ! -- Rephrase it. --Licorne 04:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If we take Poincare at his word, SR was developed by Lorentz, and there are subtle, important, and well-known distinctions between Lorentz's version of the theory and Einstein's. Zorba 194.44.154.17 12:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Poincare COMPLETED Relativity.  Lorentz  couldn't do it.  --  You claim there are well-known distinctions of Einstein's version ?  Reality is, there is no new interpretation whatsoever in Einstein's 1905 paper, none. So go stuff it Zorba you're just a liar. -- And Zorba you're trying to twist this into a priority dispute. --Licorne 13:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If Lorentz "couldn't do it", why did Poincare give Lorentz credit for what we now call special relativity? Are you better informed than Poincare? Zorba 194.44.154.17 14:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is NOT a priority dispute page, Henri Poincare was a polite gentleman, who completed what Lorentz could not. You'll find your answer elsewhere in more detail but not here please. Licorne 14:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Need Use Proper Footnotes in the Article
Kip Thorne's fallacious quote (reference 9) amounts to a sneaky priority dispute and should thus be eliminated on two counts.

Also, Wikipedia should not do as Einstein who failed to properly cite without footnotes. - The Field Equation in the article should be properly footnoted, to David Hilbert, 20 November 1915.

Licorne 05:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's not duplicate the previous page
I suggest that we all resist the temptation to go over all the same ground again in this talk page. E4mmacro 07:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Macrossan once  again,  avoiding  to  answer  anything  specific, just  his  false  god  Einstein,  his  golden  calf of israel. -- Keep  the blinders on Macrossan. -- Licorne 12:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It's very simple, please ignore everything Licorne says. It has become obvious that he craves attention, and so I submit to everyone to ignore his posts and not answer them. He should eventually leave when his comments go unanswered. Tailpig 16:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * When Harald rewrites the Intro then I'll leave. Only then. Licorne 20:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi I just came back from vacation... knowing you, even when I improve the intro, I very much doubt that you'll like it! Even more, the intro seems not to bad; there is a glitch however, but that is in the linked general relativity article intro - it's misleading to state that "General relativity (GR) is the geometrical theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915". But I was unable to explain it to the bunch of people who currently tweeks that article. Maybe someone else wants to try to explain that in 1915/1916 "general relativity"was not a "theory of gravitation"? Harald88 06:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not clear what you mean here. 66.194.98.232 22:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * GRT was a theory according to which all motion is relative, in general, just like inertial motion was in SRT. As Einstein put it (Einstein 1916), GRT "leads" to a theory of gravitation, which however he didn't give a separate name. Nowadays that unnamed theory is called "GRT". Harald88 11:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

About the new archive0 page
Concerning the new archive page: Talk:Relativity priority dispute/Archive0, which was created from content from this page. I think it would be less confusing if it were moved to "Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive 6". I will do that unless anybody objects. Paul August &#9742; 20:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Leave it alone. These constant name changes are confusing. Zorba 193.108.45.254 11:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It should move. The current name is obviously a typo. A redirect from Talk:Relativity priority dispute/Archive0 to Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive 6 should prevent confusion. The Rod (&#9742; Smith) 17:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

CH, who created the archive, also agrees with the move, so I went ahead and moved it. I really think it will be less confusing to future editors this way. I left Talk:Relativity priority dispute/Archive0 as a redirect, so you will still be able to find the archive under the old name. and I updated the "Archive box" above. Paul August &#9742; 18:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thorne's Quote is out of Context
Kip Thorne's quote is out of context. In the whole context along with Hilbert's claims of priority, Thorne's quote becomes quickly neutralized. Thorne's quote shoud be removed, unless the whole context is further developed there.

Also, the GR section makes it sound like Einstein discovered the field equation which is of course false. -- Where is Harald he said he would rewrite the article, where is he. Licorne 22:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ironic, that you would be making an argument about it being quoted out of context in this respect. But in this case, you are, I think, wrong: Thorne's quote conveys exactly what Thorne meant. It clearly says that the issue of dates is complicated, that Hilbert may have published first technically, but then explains some of the difficulties in just saying that "Hilbert has priority". It's very easy to understand what Thorne was intending, and I saw nothing in the book itself which would imply that Thorne meant anything different by it. I suspect you might be using the term "quoting out of context" wrong: it refers to the question of whether the quote has been used in a way which would imply something not said in the text of the original work (i.e., the way you originally used Thorne's quote, to try and imply that Thorne thought Hilbert had simple priority, was using a quote out of context). --Fastfission 23:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I mean in the greater context of quotes by OTHERS especially by Hilbert himself who repeatedly claimed priority, which neutralizes Thorne. In this larger context Thorne is clearly seen as wrong, so his quote should removed, or else for balance Hilbert's claims of priority should be there too, for the COMPLETE CONTEXT. Licorne 23:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As I suspected, you're using the term "quoted out of context" incorrectly and somewhat nonsensically. What you are saying is that you think Thorne's quote is incorrect. Which is a different type of claim (and the same one you've been going on about, ever since Thorne's quote was no longer being quoted out of context).
 * Quoting "out of context" refers to the process of isolating a quote from a larger work in a way which obscures or distorts the meaning of the author in a way which would have been clear had the work as a whole been taken into consideration. A classic example is the phenomena of Creationist websites which take Darwin's passage on the evolution of the eye from Origin of Species (in which Darwin expresses the fact that it is hard to imagine the eye having been evolved gradually) and then say, "Look, even Darwin knew his theory was wrong!" In reality, Darwin thought no such thing: the passage immediately following the part quoted out of context by the Creationists resolves the issue completely for Darwin (he says that even though it is hard to believe, there are reasons to think even the eye could have been evolved gradually over time, and lists them). Hence, the Creationists remove the quote from its overall context and use it in a way which gives a false or misleading impression of Darwin's opinions, in this case.
 * So having a quote on a page which, say, disagrees with other things on a page is not "quoting out of context". At worst it would be a case of contradiction. And having a quote which other facts disagree with does not make it a "quote out of context" either -- it just means one or the other quotes could be wrong. In this case I think neither is the case, but that's a separate issue.
 * Quoting out of context is the sort of thing you did with the Thorne quote originally, attempting to imply that Thorne believed that Hilbert had priority. In reality, as the whole context of Thorne's work explains, Thorne thought no such thing. As you seem to realize in your many "theories" about why Thorne disagrees with your opinion.
 * Hope that clears things up! If you have any other questions feel free to ask. --Fastfission 01:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thorne's quote is out of the context of the general discussion of the priority dispute, BUT OK let's look at it your way, Thorne is simply wrong, even better reason to remove his quote, it contradicts the published record where Hilbert did in fact claim priority, several times. Remove Thorne's quote therefore. -- DO IT, IT'S PROVEN WRONG. --Licorne 01:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you provide some sources for these assertions which do not include your own idiosyncratic interpretations/translations of Hilbert or from questionable sources? --Fastfission 03:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As quoted in the new book by Wuensch in Hilbert's  1916  letter to Schwarzschild he called it MY THEORY,  and again in his 1924 paper Hilbert wrote Einstein in his latter publications finally arrived at the equations of MY THEORY.  -- So Kip Thorne is WRONG, and Thorne's quote should be removed (reference 9). -- Licorne 03:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That all seems pretty tenuous to me. You're basically saying that on the basis of two pronouns, you think a long and more synthetic approach should be removed. I don't think that's a sound research strategy, sorry. Find a good secondary source that says that Hilbert claimed priority, and we'll consider integrating their point of view in. Otherwise it's not acceptable. If your only recourse is to your own idiosyncratic interpretations and translations of Hilbert, that's not good enough, sorry. --Fastfission 22:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is your source: Jagdish Mehra (1974). Licorne 14:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert Claimed Priority
Jagdish Mehra 1974 Einstein, Hilbert, and the Theory of Gravitation, Reidel. -- There Mehra  says Hilbert claimed priority and he cites Hilbert's 1924 paper as evidence.67.78.143.226 20:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Where is Harald ?
Harald you said you would rewrite the artcle.


 * No I did not say so, you read too much into things. Harald88 01:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

1) Einstein was not the author, it was simultaneous by Hilbert.

2) The article makes it  sound like  Einstein discovered the field equation, which is false.

3) Thorne's quote is contradicted by Hilbert's exact words regarding priority.

4) Ives(1952)  proved  Einstein did  not derive  E=mc2, his derivation was a circular tautology.

5) Einstein contributed NOTHING to the DEVELOPMENT  of special relativity.  -- Please name just ONE  thing ?

Licorne 23:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I did, several times... but if you are oversensitive to "development": in fact that word is not needed and can thus be left out (as I did now). Harald88 01:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Come on Harald you have much more to rewrite, don't quit now. Licorne 01:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Licorne, please back up your claims and cite where Hilbert discussed the general principle of relativity before Einstein, thanks! Harald88 01:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hilbert would not have done such a thing, because none exists, which is one more place where Einstein was wrong, and which also is why GR is only a theory of gravity, as Hilbert correctly called it. -- Einstein never understood the theory, which Grossman had constructed, not Einstein. -- Licorne 13:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I can not but take that as conformation that even according to you, GRT as introduced by Einstein, was really Einstein's theory - and that it's therefore not faulty to simply state that he was the author of it. You may propose to add a clarification: I already pointed out to you, that the problem is not in this article, but in the intro to general relativity where the distinction between the original GRT and what nowadays is called "GRT" is wiped under the carpet. Harald88 10:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well Harald, then CORRECT THE  INTRO. -- PS it was Grossmann's theory, not Einstein's, and it was wrong until Hilbert correctly published it. Licorne 13:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: I regard Einstein's authorship on GRT to have been started long before 1915/1916, notably in 1911 he already gave the approximate equations based on the equivalence principle. For many practical applications such as GPS, his 1911 paper suffices. Who published these things before him? Harald88 11:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Who would want to publish wrong equations ? -- And Equivalence goes back to Newton, not Einstein. -- Einstein's 1911 equations were wrong, no one could base GPS on that, you'd get lost and crash your car. -- Also note, that in science, the AUTHOR is he who published first and correctly, which was not Einstein nor Grossmann, but Hilbert. Licorne 13:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Harald, You must know it is futile. Ignore him and hope he goes away. :) E4mmacro 19:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Zorba concurs, fully and completely. Is Zorba a "green" clone? Zorba 193.108.45.247 10:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Toblerone
comment says "see talk," but nothing there. Toblerone is a technical term that many won't understand. We have article on it so it should be linked to. GangofOne 07:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * See below. Paul August &#9742; 07:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Toblerone patent?
I've reverted the bit about Einstein approving "the patent for the mold for Toblerone". Although there are many web pages that claim something of this sort, I am nevertheless somewhat skeptical of this claim. For example see question 22 here, this page at the Tobleone.com and this page on the history of Toblerone. Even if true (and we could find a reliable source) I'm not sure it warrants a place in the article, except perhaps in a "trivia" section. Paul August &#9742; 07:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks false. The Toblerone article has a link to the patent, but Einstein's name is not on it. The patent pdf is from toblerone.com. at that site (link above) it says "The TOBLERONE brand is registered with the Federal Institute for Intellectual Property in Bern, and shortly thereafter TOBLERONE becomes the first patented milk chocolate with almonds and honey. The physicist Albert Einstein, barely thirty years old, is employed at the Institute. A few years later, he will become famous for his theory of relativity." So THEIR site doesn't even say Albert approved it. So it's bogus. GangofOne 07:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a comment: I reverted the addition of the remark about Toblerone as vandalism, but a quick web search made me think that maybe it was intended as a serious contribution, so I reverted my revert. At any rate, even if it is true, it is a minor piece of trivia that probably does not deserve to be in the article, especially given that there are so many more important things to say about Einstein.   dbtfz talk 07:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, your actions were alll quite understandable. Paul August &#9742; 18:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Einstein examined patents on electrical devices (signal transmission, clock coordination, etc.), not food or molding equipment. It would be pretty strange for him to have approved it personally; definitely not the sort of work he was certified to do. --Fastfission 22:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Cosmology
"Important contributions to ... cosmology", looks like an understatement. I think he (almost) originated the study of cosmology by applying GR to the whole Universe. AS far as I know, the only serious cosmology before that was a realisation by someboby that Newton's Universe must be infinite to stop it collapsing under gravity, and the possibly contrary notion that if it were infinite the night sky should be much brighter (you see a star in whatever direction you look). But modern cosmology started with his "cosmological constant" paper didn't it? E4mmacro 20:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * But Einstein called the cosmological constant his biggest blunder, don't you know that. 67.78.143.226 20:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, Dean, I do know that. E4mmacro 20:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

What was Macrossan's article doing on the Einstein page ? It is not relevent to Einstein and is contradicted by Whittaker's low opinion of Larmor's work. It is only there for self aggrandisement of Macrossan who put it there himself. 67.78.143.226 20:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thought it was there to help you in your campaign to show Einstein didn't originate SR. Probably should have been moved with the removal of priority disputes. And what does your comment have to do with cosmology? Why not start a new topic if you think this is importnat? E4mmacro 20:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Tone of this article
I have been asked to explain what I think is inappropriate about the tone of this article. I find these questions difficult to answer with examples, because usually in cases like these I will give specific examples, and then those examples will be fixed, and then I will be expected to remove the dispute or cleanup tag even though many more remain. Therefore I will try to explain as generally as possible and give a few examples for illustrative purposes only. I think it's important that we all understand the formal tone that is expected of encyclopedia articles, and when we do, we should be able to improve everything here.

Broadly, this article reads like "hero worship". Certainly, Einstein was a remarkable person, but I think there is an undercurrent of adulation and an overall attempt to emphasize all the amazing things he did. Please understand that I am not criticizing the factual accuracy of this article, but only the method of presentation. Some examples:


 * The final lecture climaxed with his introduction of an equation that replaced Newton's law of gravity, the Field Equation.

The use of the word "climax" here implies that there was something monumental about his equation.


 * Einstein's postulation that light can be described not only as a wave with no kinetic energy, but also as massless discrete packets of energy called quanta with measurable kinetic energy (now known as photons) was a landmark break with the classical physics.


 * Not true? green 193.108.45.246 20:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Point-of-view


 * Einstein himself was a great statistician

Point-of-view


 * Einstein tried to unify gravity and electromagnetism in a way that also led to a new subtle understanding of quantum mechanics.

It isn't really explained how this is "subtle" or how it lead to a "new understanding".


 * He died at 1:15 AM[2] in Princeton hospital[3] in Princeton, New Jersey, on April 18, 1955 at the age of 76 from internal bleeding, which was caused by the rupture of an aortic aneurism, leaving the Generalized Theory of Gravitation unsolved. 

Unclear what this means, but it seems to imply that the generalized theory of gravitation is "unsolved" only due to Einstein's death. Maybe "unfinished" would be better?


 * The whole introduction to the Personality section is informal and has the personal air of someone describing an old friend, not a formal discussion proper for an encyclopedia.


 * Einstein initially favored construction of the atomic bomb, in order to ensure that Hitler did not do so first, and even sent a letter18 to President Roosevelt (dated August 2, 1939, before World War II broke out, and probably written by Leó Szilárd) encouraging him to initiate a program to create a nuclear weapon. Roosevelt responded to this by setting up a committee for the investigation of using uranium as a weapon, which in a few years was superseded by the Manhattan Project.

Implies that Roosevelt was investigating atomic weapons only beacuse Einstein suggested it, which is something I understand to be factually false.

Hopefully this discussion will enable us to improve this article. ⟳ ausa کui × 18:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree E4mmacro 20:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * On the atomic bomb: the current version is mostly correct. The Einstein-bomb connection is often overstated, claiming the entire Manhattan Project was a result. This is not true (the bureaucratic story is more complicated than this), but the Einstein-Szilard letter did result in the initial bomb investigations sponsored by the federal government (though these early investigations were not very productive; only later did the program really get going). As our article on the letter goes into in more detail, Einstein did not actually write the letter, he just signed it, which helped to guarantee that it would be taken seriously (since Szilard was relatively unknown outside of the physics community). --Fastfission 02:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Good points, please don't hesitate to make improvememts. Harald88 11:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Author - Rephrase the Article to Avoid Misuse of Terms
To Harald: In scientific context the author is the one who first correctly publishes.

Hilbert first correctly published the discovery of general relativity on 20 November 1915.

So Harald Please rephrase the Intro, as you had done with Special relativity.

67.78.143.226 20:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

To Harald, It is a misuse of terms, Einstein did not introduce the field equation, he only discussed it. So rephrase  that  too  in  the  article, because  it was Hilbert  who had  introduced the  field  equation  five days  before. Licorne 13:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Generalized theory
"Einstein began to form a generalized theory of gravitation with the Universal Law of Gravitation and the electromagnetic force in his first attempt to demonstrate the unification and simplification of the fundamental forces. In 1950 he described his work in a Scientific American article. Einstein was guided by a belief in a single statistical measure of variance for the entire set of physical laws."

Is the last sentence true or high level bs? It doesn't seem to have any intelligible meaning. Moreover, iiuc, Einstein was seeking a deterministic (not statistical) theory for his Unified Field Theory. So even if the last sentence is intelligible, it seems out of sync with his research direction wrt "Generalized theory". green 193.108.45.134 21:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it does sound like high level bs... on what source or sources is it based? Harald88 22:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea? There is the suggestion it comes from some Scientific American article. I just noticed some likely additional bs: "Einstein tried to unify gravity and electromagnetism in a way that also led to a new subtle understanding of quantum mechanics." What subtle new understanding is the author referring to? I'd sure like to know, and probably the rest of the physics community would as well! green 193.108.45.246 20:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I would guess "hidden variable theories". His letters to Schrodinger late in life show that he considers himself and Schrodinger as a lonely outpost (which they were I think) believeing there must be a hidden variable theory that could work. E4mmacro 21:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * But this had nothing to do with his attempt to unify gravity and EM, which came later in his career. The EPR paper, e.g., was published in 1935. green 193.108.45.244 10:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL
Someone removed this sentence from the intro: "widely regarded as the greatest scientist of the 20th century", referring to WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL.

I reverted that change. The reason being that I think it's important for our understanding of Einstein's role in the 20th century to note that he is so regarded.

If it were not for the few naysayers like Bjerknes and User:Licorne, I'd remove the qualification and say "is" the greatest scientist of the 20th century. --Alvestrand 21:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed that phrase, and I think with good reason: it's both weaselly and peacockish. Don't get me wrong; he probably was the century's greatest scientist, and I'd bet he's widely regarded as such. But it doesn't contribute anything to the article to say so (if there's someone who's reading this article who's not familiar with Einstein, well, Wikipedia's not going to convince them of such a bold claim, true or not), and it's not a verifiable claim (or if it is, no one has bothered to provide a source for it). I think Licorne et al are irrelevant; how does their presence justify the intentional inclusion of unencyclopedic statements? Ruakh 22:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't find it weaselish, as it is a rather straightforward, blunt statement. As for WP:PEACOCK, there's no need to let a style guide take on the role of absolute policy on editing this page.  I bet plenty of editors of this article would like it to stay; it's been there a while, been discussed on the talk page of WP:Peacock as an exception to the general "rule of thumb", and has been there since well before its change of status to FA.  If you want to remove the phrase, you're going to have to convince us, and just quoting WP:PEACOCK isn't good enough.  --C S (Talk) 22:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me start by striking out the last sentence of my earlier response; I had misread part of Alvestrand's comment. (Sorry.)


 * Okay, that done — something can be both straightforward and blunt, yet violate the policy to Avoid weasel words. (I assume the policy's name comes not from the noun meaning "a person regarded as sneaky or treacherous", but rather from the verb meaning "to be evasive; equivocate" .)


 * At any rate, I don't think it's a useful or encyclopedic statement — the paragraph already mentions several of his contributions and his Nobel Prize, and if anything, we should put more emphasis on those rather than pre-empting them with barely-meaningful peacockfulness — and neither you nor Alvestrand seems to be arguing that it is useful or encyclopedic. You mention the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_peacock_terms, but of the four commenters there commenting on the Einstein article, one agrees with you and three with me.


 * If everyone here really does agree with you, then I'll drop the matter; hopefully, other editors will comment here, and we'll find out whether that's the case.


 * Ruakh 00:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Per discussion at WP:Peacock I don't see a breakdown of three people saying that you are correct in saying that specific statement about Einstein should be removed. So I find your summary rather suspect.  In any case, I still think that discussion points out Einstein as an exception to the general rule of thumb, with tacit agreement by several others.  Note in particular, the comment by Stan, with response by ESP.


 * The statement in question is a very useful statement. It points out Einstein's unique role in public consciousness as the greatest scientist of recent times.  Your use of "encyclopedic" is rather vague, as Brittanica is even more praising, saying he was "recognized in his own time as one of the most creative intellects in human history".  It is not alone.  So clearly encyclopedias do say stuff like this, as far as Einstein is concerned.  Your additional use of this term in addition to saying it's not useful, is meant to convey some additional point that I am missing.  --C S (Talk) 01:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In addition, I find your comment that "neither you nor Alvestrand seems to be arguing that it is useful or encyclopedic" objectionable. Clearly we do think that and so does Fastfission.  Alvestrand clearly gave a reason, and my comments clearly indicated I believe there is a good rationale for keeping the remark.  We're all experienced editors here and to imply that we are not basing our comments on a belief that we are keeping useful content, or that we are somehow arguing to keep unencyclopedic content, is in poor taste.  --C S (Talk) 02:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith. I did not imply any of what you're inferring. Ruakh 03:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What did you mean to imply by that comment then? Rather than try to understand why Alvestrand and I would consider the statement useful or encyclopedic, you state that we don't seem to be arguing on that basis.  So you basically said we were arguing for something else, while leaving it open as to what that could be.  Do you see why that would be insulting to someone?  --C S (Talk) 03:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't imply anything. You did not argue that it was useful; I'm sure you thought that it was, and I'm sure you still think it is, but you did not make the claim that it was, and you certainly didn't give any arguments (in your original comment) that it was. (I'll admit that I shouldn't have painted you and Alvestrand with the same brush, though; he did give an argument, albeit one that I didn't agree with: "I think it's important for our understanding of Einstein's role in the 20th century to note that he is so regarded." You, however, gave no such argument.) Re-read your comment, and you'll see what I mean. Ruakh 15:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's a pretty strong statement -- to be widely regarded as the greatest (not "a great", mind you, but the superlative form) scientist of the 20th century is a remarkable fact in and of itself. We are not -- and should not -- say whether he was or was not "the greatest" (how would one measure such a thing?) but saying that he is regarded as such is not a problem and, I think, generally true. --Fastfission 00:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And as a note.. we should not, and do not, say that Einstein is the greatest. That's the peacock phrase. Saying that he is regarded as the greatest is not -- that's a statement about perception, and a significant one. The statement does not intend to convince the reader that he was the greatest -- it is a statement about his status in the minds of others. --Fastfission 00:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, sort of; see the second half of WP:WEASEL, which gives an almost identical example (using "Some people think that the Yankees are the greatest baseball team in history" as the example). Ruakh 00:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this is a somewhat more exceptional situation than the Yankees. We're not talking about some loose sense of fan opinion, we're talking about major publications, the fact that he's probably the only scientist almost everyone knows about, and so forth. As the article explains in a later section, the number of verifiable things enshrining him with that status. Compare it with the opening lines of Encyclopedia Brittanica's article on Einstein: "In the first 15 years of the 20th century, Einstein—recognized in his own time as one of the most creative intellects in human history—advanced a series of theories that proposed entirely new ways of thinking about space, time, and gravitation." --Fastfission 03:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the sentence is inappropriate. It's part of the general tone problems in this article that I described above. ⟳ ausa کui × 01:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the first sentence is appropriate and adds to the article. One of the guiding styles for encyclopedic writing is news style, which is written using the "inverted pyramid" structure. In this style there is a sequence consisting of the first sentence, first paragraph, first section (the lead or lede), etc., with each element giving more detail, but also capable of standing on its own. The idea being that the reader can stop reading at any point and the article would still make sense. So the first sentence should ideally be how you would describe the subject if you had to do it in one sentence. The first paragraph would be what you would write if you could only write one paragraph and so on. If I had to explain who Einstein was, in one short sentence, saying something like Albert Einstein (March 14, 1879 – April 18, 1955) was a German-born theoretical physicist widely regarded as the greatest scientist of the 20th century., would be my choice. Paul August &#9742; 04:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * FTR, I think the sentence is useful and encyclopedic. --Alvestrand 10:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I regard Feynman as the greatest scientist of the 20th century, and I think that many agree. It's better to quote such an opinion: "So-and-so calls him the greatest scientists of the 20th century". That can't be hard to find, and it's certainly more encyclopedic. Harald88 10:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I must shamefully admit that I had to look up Feynmann to remember what he did. He did a lot of great stuff, but his stature is still vastly different from Einstein's. Agree that it is good if the claim in the intro is backed up with citations later (under "popularity and cultural impact"?), but disagree that those need to be in the lead paragraph. --Alvestrand 11:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I go along with that, for reasons of style. Harald88 10:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, this seems like the best solution. Simply putting a quote in the opening does not effectively present the reader with the reality of the situation -- it's not that one commentator views him as important, but that a huge number do so. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I did a search on books.google.com for "einstein greatest scientist" - there seems no lack of places to cite from, but the job of punching in references will be a chore.... --Alvestrand 09:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)