Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive 13

message: I propose to archive everything above except the sections "Citations and Copyright Violations" and "Objection to refering Einstein ethnic origin as 'German -Jew'," which seem still active. Does anyone want to retain any other sections on the active talk page? --teb728 08:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed archive 

message: there are many quotes in the arabic section with no valid refrences why are they kept there ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.195.138.206 (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  arabic quotes 

message: *Include. Not only was Einstein of Jewish descent, more significantly he involved himself in Zionist and other Jewish causes. --teb728 21:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you could find many people who would say so! :-) DAGwyn 03:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewish

message: Does anybody have such a strong objection to the current status quo (Inforbox Ethnicity=Jewish) that they can't live with it?  As a general policy I oppose to attaching ethnic labels to individuals, although in this particular case there are some good reasons for doing so (which I alluded to previously), but those reasons do not justify anything different from the status quo, except possibly removing that field from the Infobox altogether. — DAGwyn 19:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I oppose the poll for reasons stated before. Epson291 21:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you both for your comments. I offered the poll because already 42KB of this talk page had been devoted to the Ethnicity field without getting anywhere. (And it was still growing!) I thought that a poll would result in a conclusion (at the cost of a bit more verbiage). --teb728 23:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not just settle on having Jewish as the only ethnicity? There really isn't a huge need to mention he is of German ethnicity when you consider he was born in Germany (Had he born let's say in, Britian, then menionting it would be more paramount of a concern).  Epson291 09:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I was surprised to see that his ethnicity wasn't even mentioned in the first paragraph. The fact is Einstein left Germany because he was a Jew. He gave many speeches in which he identified himself as a Jew and as a Zionist. He dedicated a book "to the Jews of Germany" and renounced his German citizenship. The fact that he's Jewish, needs to be mentioned in the opening paragraph. Lizrael 14:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose the poll

message: 3 weeks have passed since the poll (which I opposed to then and still do) begin, .Not much have changed and the poll dosn't seems active any longer, the status quo shuold stay as it is, i.e. : only Jewish at the ethnic entry.Reasons were give, very good ones, and the discussion shouldnt start over again.The poll results showd that only Schulz and TEB support the inclusion of "German" in the ethnic entry (one more didn't sign and so cant be counted, unless we want users to double voting).The others (5 voters) supported the exclusion of "German", few more opposed the poll .so, the case is closed.--Gilisa 19:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ending the poll

message: Einstein promoted the research of the nuclear bomb up to the time of its first test launch at which he wrote the President of the time expressing that he hopes it will never be used.
^^^ is very unclear in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.40.198.245 (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you having trouble with your keyboard or did someone vandalize what you wrote above?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.19.218.91 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Einstein's involvement of the promotion of nuclear bomb research 

message: I've always heard that Einstein used 10 percent of his brain. Then suddenly, somebody named Magee99 told me quite confidently that Einstein used 9 PERCENT of his brain. Which rumor is correct?! --- JS, on 5 April at 12:15 PM —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 156.110.47.73 (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not at all clear that such a figure would have any meaning.  I suspect 100% of the brain is "used", in one sense, and that everybody is capable of more efficient, more precise, and/or deeper thought than he is actually doing routinely.  Certainly we shouldn't put any such dubious claim into the article. — DAGwyn 21:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Einstein's Brain Usage

message: The Poisson distribution article formerly stated, without citations: "Albert Einstein used Poisson noise to show that matter was composed of discrete atoms and to estimate Avogadro's number; he also used Poisson noise in treating blackbody radiation to demonstrate that electromagnetic radiation was composed of discrete photons." Could anyone help decide if these claims are true or not? Another Wikipedian 05:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with Einstein and the Poisson process 

message: I think it would be helpful to add a link to History of gravitational theory at the end of the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.59.190.197 (talk • contribs).
:OK, I added it for you. --teb728 17:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link 

message: You should give a town name (plus country) for EACH one. Charles Univ. is in Praha, Czech.; Prussian Acad. in Berlin, GE, as well as the next one in the list. "Bern" is the correct spelling for his 1905 residence, at least in their and HIS language.
- I am not entitled to amend that in the article, I learned.147.142.186.54 14:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems pointless, just adding more clutter to what is supposed to be a very consise Infobox.  They are all Wikilinks, so if a reader wants to know a location he can easily find out. — DAGwyn 04:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Institutions" (category in the information box) 

message: The Wikipedia article states that Einstein met Marcel Grossmann after he returned to Zurich from Prague to teach at ETH, his Alma Mater. Einstein already knew Grossmann, however, since they had previously studied together at ETH, where Grossmann would take notes at the math lectures that Einstein failed to attend.Intelinc 01:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Grossman was also the person that helped Einstein to get the job at the Bern paten office. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.65.69.107 (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Einstein already knew Grossmann prior to returning to teach at ETH 

message: The debate about Einstein's ethnic entry have last too long. A poll, which was first suggested by  TEB728 , is already ended with a clear results: 5-6  opposed mentioning Einstein as an ethnic German (Geeman is possibly the 6, but he is against any other decision than his suggestion about re-formulating the intro, asuggestion which under different circumstances than those I would support), 4 (3 actually , since it include Epson291 which already voted at the poll), including me, think that it was better if such a poll wouldn’t been done- (for many reasons, here is part of mine: facts are not for a democratic vote , the  German link of Einstein is truly already mentioned at least 3 times in the info box, a poll is an open invitation for hostile arguments and opinions against minorities and different ethnic groups and etc)  .only 2 voted for including Einstein as having both German and Jewish  ethnicities ,'the third' one shouldn’t be counted since : 1. And this is the only reason for which I didn’t count his/her voice (I don’t really need to explain, didn’t I?): he/she didn’t sign, counting his/her voice will allow for any other user which already signed to vote again and again (and any way, but less important, if we follow the Einstein article-only users which are active enough time to have the right for editing his article ) 2.And I didn’t used this reason for excluding his/her voice: arguments which are not to the point, and easily could sound as  provoking, manipulating and/or offensive, even tough not with bad intention, like that the Jews are not an ethnic group while the Germans do, and that Einstein didn’t truly was a Jew since he was only of a German of Jewish belief (but realy belived only in the God of Spinoza). Whether this kind of claims came from an ignorance about the Jewish people/ Jewish history/ethnic identities and etc , or whether they  came out of an agenda calling to Germanize any Jewish scientist (including Jewish scientist which born outside Germany but their parents primary language was German-as Michelson which born in Poland (and so did his parents) in a city that was under Prussian occupation or Szilard which born to a Jewish family in Hungary and etc) or just from a racist/ ante Semitic views(*)–I don’t know, nor does it make any difference –Wikipedia have its own quality standards and when someone giving explanations which are extremely  controversial / offensive/ without any evidential base to support it and etc- than his/her voice shouldn't be counted. Before you all attack me for saying so, let me to explain it with an example: if someone would claim that Einstein should be mentioned as only one of a two scientists team (i.e. him and mileva) which came up with the relativity – no matter how many users would vote in favor of such a bad idea, at any given poll, still it wouldn’t make such an argument for being more than a merely an extremely speculative bad statement / pseudo biography –and this would defiantly be bad for the Wikipedia quality standards. For conclusions: the debate have already last  too long and already having with results-Einstein entry status quo will remain the same as it is: i.e. only Jewish. Every comment on the talk page that have to do with it would be archived soon.Case closed.Best--Gilisa 19:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to make clear: my argument has been that *IF* one is going to mention that Einstein was "German-born" then I think one is obliged to mention why "-born" and not just "German" as nearly every other WP bio does. I'm not so much pro mentioning his Jewish heritage as arguing that if one is going to mention his national heritage in a parsed fashion one should include some indication as to why it is parsed.  His Jewish ancestry is a major factor in his life and role in world history, but so is his birth in Germany, and the over-riding issue to me is that one without the other is incomplete. That said, I'm going to go ahead and chime in at this late date and say that I've come to the conclusion that the only reasonable thing to do with our mop headed non-nationalistic German-Swiss-American, secularized Jewish Zionist vegetarian theoretical physist is to avoid all of that material from the opening paragraph(s) excepting the theoretical physist part.  It should be just "Name (DOB-DOD) job 'most famous for his....'"  Eistein's citizenship, relationship to nationalism, faith, lack of faith, etc. are simply too complex to summarize in a few lines, so that material should be left to a more complete description in the body of the article. Geeman 06:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph above that was referring to the "Ethnicity" entry in the Infobox.  As to the use of "German-born" in the introductory sentence: As you note, his citizenship etc. is too complex to capture succinctly.  Calling him "German" in the lead sentence would, therefore, be quite misleading.  "German-born" is factual, relevant, and explains why there is a German pronunciation link for his name (immediately preceding the lead sentence).  More detailed information about his citizenship, etc. is given later in the article and also in the Infobox.  This seems like the best balance to me. — DAGwyn 14:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are directly related issues. Without mentioning why he was "German-born" rather than simply "German" is at least as misleading as would be German alone. Einstein is best described as "German-born" because he was "born to a family of Jewish ancestry" and including one without the other is, at best, a half-truth. My overall point, though, is that Einstein's ethnicity, citizenship, and religious attitudes are too complex for simple summarization (in either an infobox or the opening sentence) and, therefore, should be omitted in favor of more complete text in the body of the article. Geeman 16:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why he is "German-born" is that he was born in Germany.  That doesn't require any further explanation, and it has the merit of hinting that he didn't remain in Germany, which of course is explained later on.  The reason for saying anything at all along these lines is that it seems to be the norm for Wikipedia biographies, and also the word "German" occurs in the immediately preceding audio link and seems to need some justification.  If one were to adopt the argument that something too complex to completely explain in the introduction justifies its omission from the introduction, then most of this and other introductions would have to be discarded. — DAGwyn 18:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Apparently, there is an ongoing discussion at the village pump (?!) here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive BE#'Jewish persona' articles.  One editor recently made edits, seeming to believe that the issue of Einstein's judaism had been definitively settled in that discussion.  My impression is that it was not, and given the extent of the discussion here I reverted the edit.  Silly rabbit 09:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived all the Einstein ethnic entry discussions 

message: Why isn't what his name means included. 
What about the fact that he was called small rock and now is one of the most famous smart guys ever! It isn't that hard is it just to put a definition down?
Come on!  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danielvandevorstenbosch (talk • contribs) 07:56, 26 April 2007  (UTC)
:Well, let's see. There's some famous guy, who has an article. So someone comes along and says "Hey, we should include the meaning (one reading anyway) of the guy's name!" And so they insert "Dachslager == roof beater" because it's so important. . . .   No, it's not. Shenme 08:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always thought of the stein in Einstein as a stein of beer, myself. See, a secondary (or possibly primary, depending on who you are) meaning of Stein in German is stein. And, no, I don't think it's worthy of being mentioned in this article. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 12:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Also 

message: I think it should be stated that Albert Einstein was a vegetarian other than categories--Migospia 11:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the references and they seem sufficient, so I inserted a brief note about his vegetarianism (at the end of the "Cold War era" section).  I also reactivated those category tags. — DAGwyn 18:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks DAG, that's good enough for me on the vegetarian thing (which is why I simply commented them out instead of deleting them from the source entirely - I figured someone would ammend the article).  The only other suggestion along these lines is the single sentence seems a little light and out of place in the context of the section.  If you could expand that one sentence to a three sentence or so paragraph, maybe including a quote from Einstein about his feelings on vegetarianism, it would help underline its relevance to the article as a whole. Dugwiki 21:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: >I also removed the article from :Category:Pantheism since there is no mention at all about Pantheism".  Actually, there is; "In 1929, Einstein told Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world...".   "Spinoza's God" is effectively Pantheism; see Naturalistic pantheism, Baruch Spinoza, Pantheism controversy.  --  Simxp 01:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If the Spinoza statement is being used to justify including the article in :Category:Pantheism then this should be made clearer in that paragraph (eg "In 1929, Einstein told Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world...", displaying a leaning toward Naturalistic pantheism.)  Whether that statement alone is enough to justify the Pantheism tag isn't that clear to me, but I'll leave that debate back and forth to other editors. Either way I think the article would benefit from making it more obvious why that category tag is being used. Dugwiki 20:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Even though he wrote in 1953 that he was eating meat, he wrote in 1954 that he was not eating meat. It appears that he was a vegetarian for the last 18 months of his life. Most people who are vegetarians used to eat meat. 18 months does seem a little short to classify him as a vegetarian, but I don't think it is necessary to be a vegetarian for the majority of one's life to be categorized as a vegetarian. There is no fine line though that determines how long one is a vegetarian to be categorized. Q0 08:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It appears that Einstein was a vegetarian for the last 18 months of his life, which was during his fourth marriage, so it makes sense that he ate meat during his second marriage. Q0 03:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What?!! I never heard of a third or fourth wife! The first and second were Mileva Marić and Elsa Löwenthal. According to you who were the third and fourth? --teb728 08:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I guess I got confused. The biography  that I read a long time ago led me to believe that he was married four times. After rereading it, it appears that Albert Einstein was married twice, not four times. At the end of the article, it said that Margot became Albert Einstein's new surrogate mother after Elsa died. I originally had the impression that Margot was married to Albert Einstein because the biography suggested she was a replacement for Elsa. Earlier in the article, it says that Elsa was Einstein's third surrogate mother. Most likely when I read the article a long time ago, I probably noticed the reference to Elsa being a "third surrogate mother" and didn't pay attention to the references of Elsa being of his second marriage. The biography doesn't say that Albert Einstein married Margot, so it appears that I was mistaken when I said he was married four times. Q0 12:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vegetarian  

message: I removed :Category:Fellows of Christ Church, Oxford because the article makes no mention of Oxford or Christ Church College.  If this is an honorary position that was given to Einstein (i.e. if Einstein did not actually work at Oxford), I suggest leaving it out.  Categorization by honorary degree is generally discouraged, especially for articles that are prone to category clutter like this one.  (Also note that categories for honorary degree recipients have been deleted relatively recently.) If, however, Einstein did work at Oxford, I suggest adding referenced information on this to the article.  Dr. Submillimeter 10:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Fellows of Christ Church, Oxford 

message: Was not Einstein a Austrian when he worked at Charles Univ.? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zginder (talk • contribs) 12:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citizenship 

message: i belive there is a serius error in one of the lines, and i would like it corrected, so no one will get confused.
quote:
"In 1996, when Einstein was fifteen"
the year is wrong, please fix this issue and delete this messedge afterwards.
:This has already been rectified. Thank you! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Serius Error''' 

message: The audio file for the German pronunciation for Einstein's name has caused all internet streaming media (Flash Player) on my system to mute immediately after I downloaded and played the file. I recomend someone examine the file or flag it to make sure that it is not corrupt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cjl61 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrupt audio file? 

message: Should there be a discussion in the article of his extramarital affairs which have become public in the last few years? (24.98.36.199 18:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think not, unless they have some bearing on other matters which are in the article now.  Indeed, there is already too much trivia which we ought to work at reducing. — DAGwyn 15:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I've disabled the editprotected tag. There should be consensus for an addition of a new section in such a lengthy article, and the page is only semi-protected, so almost any editor will be able to add text if consensus does form. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The article is already too long.  If there is some value in adding text about his family life (beyond the mention already present), then we could do so.  But if it's just "trivia" then please don't lengthen the article. — DAGwyn 23:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extramarital Affairs 

message: What sort of vandalism wasput on to restrict editing?--JD5568 13:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could determine that by examining the edit history, which has numerous instances of reversion of vandalism.  Vandals have done everything from changing one instance of "Einstein" into some net-user's name, to replacing the whole page with an obscenity. As a high-profile article, and probably for psychological reasons, the Einstein article attracts a lot of vandals. — DAGwyn 22:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And you gotta love Stephen Colbert... - Chiapr 03:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I read that he had many relations with women other than his wives. And also read an article where actually his first wife developed the math theories. I wonder if anyone else has come across info like this. ProtoCat 14:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't believe everything that you read.  The major biographies of Einstein don't describe an exceptional level of marital infidelity.  And the notion that Mileva had much to do with developments that Albert is normally credited with doesn't seem to be supported by any real evidence.  There are notes about this in "The patent office" section of the article. — DAGwyn 13:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the info. I guess we will never know for sure. But it is an intriguing concept. ProtoCat 15:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out "Relativity priority disputes". My personal opinion on some of these is that there are people who think that because he was Jewish, and no Jews can ever be deserving of credit for anything, he did not deserve credit for his theories, and the easiest way to remove credit from him is to advance theories that "other people did it". But that's Original Research - while the connection of some of the critics to anti-semitic organizations is known, their motives for advancing their theories is unknown, and probably unknowable. --Alvestrand 06:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I am confused by your anecdote. How did he use the check as a bookmark after he gave it to Mileva? --teb728 20:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  His affairs and his plagiarism 

message: http://www-tc.pbs.org/newshour/rss/media/2007/04/26/20070426_einstein28.mp3
PBS podcast. J. D. Redding 20:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Audio link

message: I removed the split-apart tag from the article, since it referred to here for a discussion and there was not even the start of a discussion here.  My immediate response is that the scope of the article is appropriate for an Einstein biography, but that indeed the article is too big.  Largely that is due to (a) almost every group wanting to stake a claim to some aspect of Einstein and (b) excessive interest in exploring unimportant details such as where his family lived when he was a child.  Splitting the article would be quite artificial and awkward, and would not address either of these issues.  Instead, a good overhaul to remove trivia could shrink the article to a more reasonable size.  Note that there already are links to more extended discussions of many matters mentioned in the article, such as scientific topics. — DAGwyn 23:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split apart?

message: Anyone (who reads in German) have an opinion on this matter: here. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 15:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Einstein quote 

message: Is the reference section a list of references or a further reading section? If its a further readin section its pretty excessive and seems to violate the Wikipedia policy that WIkipedia is not a directory. Trevor GH5 09:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't swear to all of them, but I know for sure that a large number of the references are indeed cited references linked from the main body of text.  There are a lot of references because a slew of recent copy-editing inserted them.  Many of them were added to satisy "citation needed" tags. — DAGwyn 13:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not talking about the inline citations, I'm talking about the "About Albert Einstein" section below the footnotes. It appears to be a further reading section. Trevor GH5 23:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Originally all the citations in the article were inline. But a copy editor introduced Harvard citations, which refer to references in the "By Albert Einstein" and "About Albert Einstein" sections. Originally the Harvard citations were just textual; I converted them to  →  pairs, where the  links to the . As I recall, most but not of the s had s linked to them. As I recall, I deleted some references which seemed unnecessary. --teb728 23:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References section

message: There is an urban legend that Einstien was learning disabled; should we make some mention of this and that it is false? It seems fairly prevalent. Titanium Dragon 08:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There used to be more mention of it; currently there is just "Although Albert had early speech difficulties, he was a top student in elementary school".  One problem is that the article is already too long, so adding text about untrue things seems inadvisable.  A possibly apocryphal anecdote: Einstein didn't speak at all, well past the usual starting age for speech. One day at dinner he suddenly said, in perfect German, "The soup is too hot." His astounded parents asked why he hadn't said anything before, and Albert answered "Until now, all was in order." — DAGwyn 19:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with DAGwyn in that past ur.legends about Einstein seem to be on the wane (a glory of the Internet?!?). But I sort of think a short blurb dispelling this myth might be good, too, since the myths have been so prevalent. Gwyn, you've got an excellent anecdote right there to do it with - the soup thing. Of course, the "possibly apocryphal" remark would need to be included.....I dunno - the topic of learning disabled could go either way. Just my 2 cents worth...Engr105th 21:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: See User:Samsara/Debunking an urban myth: Einstein at school for an explanation. --teb728 07:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Some time ago there was an extended debate about that (presumably now in the Talk archives).  The explanation seemed to be that the grading system had been misinterpreted.  For a personal example, when I was at Rice U. the grading system was 1=A..4=D; whereas by the usual system a 1.0 grade average would be very poor, at Rice it meant A+.  Something similar seems to have occurred concerning Einstein's school grades. — DAGwyn 16:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a link from the other ABC about it, with the relevant bit being:In 1896, which was Einstein's last year at the school in Aargau, the school's system of marking was reversed.A grading of "6", which had previously been the lowest mark, was now the highest mark. And so, a grading of "1", which had been the highest mark, was now the lowest mark.And so, anybody looking up Einstein's grades would see that he had scored lots of grades around "1" - which under the new marking scheme, meant a "fail". Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: How do you figure that he "was meant to be dyslexic"? A lot of experts on a lot of different things try to fit Einstein into their realms — that doesn't make it anything other than a conjecture. :) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I haven't heard of any good evidence that Einstein was dyslexic.  His German drafts of technical articles are remarkably free from letter transpositions etc. which is evidence to the contrary. — DAGwyn 14:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Learning disabilities myth

message: I suggest a minor change to the section involving Einstein's politics.  In 1919, he was a lead signatory on a letter signed by several prominent European intellectuals of the time (including Heinrich Mann) about alleged Serbian abuses in Macedonia, following their conquest of the region in 1912.   It seems like a more logical place to start the discussion of his politics.
Curcuas 16:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once Einstein became famous, he was called on by a lot of these causes.  I suppose it is okay to mention this one, if you have a reliable reference and providing that it doesn't try to get into detail about the Macedonian situation (use a suitable link for that). — DAGwyn 22:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Involvement 

message: Why is there no reference to the fact that Einstein is associated with the term "genius" (or rather, the notion of genius) in everyday speech than probably any other famous thinker? I presume it is already discussed on another page.  Still, I think it should be made note of in the Pop Culture section.75.69.110.227 02:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (I moved this new topic to the bottom, where it belonged.)    It's already mentioned (briefly) in the introduction.  The article is already too long; is there any good purpose served by adding more text on this topic? — DAGwyn 14:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Einstein associated with "genius" 

message: Albert Einstein was an agnostic. Einstein clearly identified himself as an agnostic. His words have been misunderstood or misconstrued to represent a view that was not his own. 
"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."
Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216.
“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”
Albert Einstein, to Guy H. Raner Jr., July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism; from Michael R. Gilmore, "Einstein's God: Just What Did Einstein Believe About God?," Skeptic, 1997, 5(2):62.
I found these two two quotes of Einstein from the website www.stephenjaygould.org.
I am a new Wikipedian and I know many things about Einstein. I can make important contributions to this article and other articles related to Einstein. Thank you. RS2007 09:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome!  Please be sure that any newly added information is accompanied by a reliable citation.  What we need most, however, is not more information but rather eliminating some of the trivia.  Does it really matter that Einstein was made to study violin when young but did not pursue it?  The same could be said about many thousands of people, and it tells us nothing useful. — DAGwyn 19:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albert Einstein was an agnostic 

message: I created the article 'The Evolution of Physics'. The Evolution of Physics was a book written by Einstein in 1938 for general readers. I need some help. The article is very short. Please expand the article. Thank you. RS2007 14:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Evolution of Physics 

message: 8 of the 17 images in this article are currently being discussed for deletion. (all tagged, except :Image:Einstein paper money.jpg which is being discussed at Commons). If you have any experience with images in Wikipedia, please join the discussions. --Quiddity 20:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image deletion 

message: The IfD discussion on :Image: Einstein tongue.jpg suggested that in order to be used as a non-free image, that image needed extended description of its iconic status. Since I don’t want to see such an extended description added to this article, I split out an Albert Einstein in popular culture subpage. I invite someone better at writing than I to:
*summarize the content in this article (I only deleted the image and its accompanying text), and
*expand the new page particularly the iconic status of the image. (I just copied the old content) --teb728 22:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Random quotations don't belong in the article.  Presumably you could find the quote at the Albert Einstein quotes site listed under "External links".  — DAGwyn 16:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albert Einstein in popular culture 

message: I'm currently trying to find suitable citations for some of the recently deleted text for which no citations had been supplied for several months.  Interestingly, the often repeated assertion that Bohr told Einstein "Stop telling God what to do!" seems to have no reliable source.  The best I found was: "A reliable source is Kroehling (1991), in which Pais says about Einstein that he had a certain type of arrogance.  He had a certain belief that not that he said it in those words but that is the way I read him personally that he had a sort of special pipeline to God, you know. He would always say that God doesn t play dice to which Niels Bohr would reply “but how do you know what God's doing?“" (N.P. Landsman) — DAGwyn 14:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited assertions 

message: Albert died on the 18th of April, not the 17th. 
Lloyd Wood 17:53, 16 August 2007
:Indeed, that seems to be the consensus of available on-line historical references. — DAGwyn 15:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says he died on the 18th; perhaps you mistook the mention that his final decline began the 17th: “On April 17, 1955, Albert Einstein experienced internal bleeding caused by the rupture of an aortic aneurism. … He died … early the next morning.” --teb728 18:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death of Einstein 

message: "anti-Semitismin". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.141.51.173 (talk • contribs).
:I fixed it; thanks for pointing it out. --teb728 06:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthographic problem