Talk:Max Born

An interesting paper
While researching a certain topic I came across a very interesting 1982 paper of a talk given by Abraham Pais to the (then) Optical Society of America conference in Tucson, Arizona. Apparently, two months later it was pubished by Science.

I think it is relevant to this article, but I am not sure how useful it is to the editors of this article. Also, I have no idea where I could incorporate the citation (with PDF link). I suppose external links would be OK if there is no other place for it. Would the editors of this article be interested in a "Further reading" section, beginning with this paper? Also, the title in Science varies slightly with the title of the paper. In any case, its your decision and here is the paper:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Quinn (talk • contribs) 00:51, September 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * Address to the annual meeting of the Optical Society of America October 21, 1982 (Tucson AZ). Retrieved 2013-09-8

The quotation about the "root cause of all the evil in the world"
The quotation regarding the source of evil, supposedly taken from Born's Nobel Prize lecture, does not appear in the lecture, as anyone can confirm (relatively brief and easy to read, it is readily available on line).

Nor does it appear in the informal speech he gave at the banquet held in his honour (https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1954/born/speech/). The footnote on the quotation sends the reader to his son's article, where his son says it was part of the lecture; since he includes one of the German phrases, it appears he had an original draft that may have included the quotation: if so, that source should be located.

In the meantime, the writer of this Wikipedia article might either find the source or make it clear to the reader that it's something his son, not Max Born himself, says. This is important, even though the quotation does reflect very well Born's general thought on the matter.

P.S. The German is found quoted at https://de.wikibrief.org/wiki/Max_Born, but it too lacks any reference to a source. The Chinese Website also quotes the German, but leaves a lot out (and replicates the reference in the present English version). 159.2.65.153 (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Good that you have come here. You are probably referring to the edit that I reverted per wp:no original research. Yes, we could take it, provided a source could be found that directly supports the statement. Note however that —in artciles— we never say "It should be noted that..." We just say it and stick a proper wp:secondary source to it. Happy source hunting . - DVdm (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)