Talk:Albert Einstein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Albert Einstein article.
Article policies
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
Former featured article Albert Einstein is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good article Albert Einstein has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 12, 2005.


Contents

[edit] Jewish as an ethnicity?

I've changed the Jewish ethnicity to Semitic. Whether "Jewish" is an ethnicity or not is debatable, and Hebrew/Semitic is a more correct term. Intranetusa 04:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That text had resulted as a consensus after a long and sometimes acrimonious debate in the Talk page. Anyway, your position is certainly also debatable and not clearly an improvement. While I have heard Einstein categorized as Jewish, I have never heard him categorized as Hebrew or Semitic. — DAGwyn 20:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Being a Jew is a race much in the same way that it is a religion. Among Judaism, there are several different ethnic division (see Jewish ethnic divisions), but the members of the certain Jewish "rites" (if you will) are a race - descendents of Ashkenazi Jews, for example, all share some DNA. As such, it is fair to categorize Einstein as ethnic Jew under his biographical chart (see Talk:Jew, topic 20.) Eddy23 (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Eddy23
Decendants of Christians will also share a great deal of DNA as well. Judaism is as much a race as Christianity or Islamism. 64.230.4.137 (talk) 08:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
See the article on ethnicity, Jews certainly are such. Also, see the difference between Judiasm and Jew, they are not equitable. Judiasm is not an ethnic group, but Jew certainly is. Epson291 (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
To claim that 'Jewish' is not an ethnicity is about as bizarre as it gets. The article lists him as 'German born' - that is ignorant, stupid, antisemitic nonsense. He was not German or German born (whatever that means): that's like claiming that had Audrey Hepburn been born in China because her mother stayed overnight in Hong Kong and came into labour prematurely, she would have been Chinese. Einstein was Jewish, end of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.51.19 (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you seriously dispute that Einstein was born in Germany, or that stating that fact is "antisemitic"? The present text is a consensus resulting from long discussion and debate. The only reason his birth place is mentioned in the lead is that it explains why the German pronunciation of his name is given there. — DAGwyn (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Judaism is not an ethnicity- it is a religious faith. To say that Judaism is an ethnicity is falling into the trap that the Nazis did- a Jew is a Jew by religious choice- saying that it is an ethnicity negates any conversions that take place in or out of the faith which is absurd. I can't believe that wikipedia allows this to stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbmerge (talk • contribs) 01:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that Judaism is a religion. Except in his youth Einstein was not a believer in Judaism, nor does the article say he was. Jewishness, on the other hand, is an ethnicity. (See the article Jew). As the article says, Einstein was ethnically Jewish. —teb728 t c 02:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC).
This issue has been debated before, more than once, and the closest we found to a consensus was to identifiy it as an "ethnicity" in Einstein's case. As TEB728 said, Einstein was not Jewish in the religious sense.

Shalom, everyone! I lived in Israel for six month, took a class on Jewish ethnic minorities at Haifa University, and as an aspiring cultural anthropologist, and now currently take five anthropology classes including one on Ethnicity, I have great news for you all! Yes, wait for it... Jewish-ness is, in fact, an ethnicity. I really don't know what you people are rambling about... frankly, don't have time to read through all these silly ideas you people have. Jewish ethnicity is complicated, but it's a fact. It exists. End of story. Learned to live with it, love it. Oh, and unless I've been misinformed all of my life, Einstein is a Jew. I'm a big fan of his: a bobble-head and a portrait to prove it. But here's the kicker, to answer the none-sense about how Jewish ethnicity is Nazi propaganda! If you convert to Orthodox Judaism, you become ethnically Jewish. It's magical and bizarre, I know, but that's how it works. Philolexica (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

For more on AE's own view of his ethnicity, see this link for the text of a letter recently made public. (He also gives his view of religion: see the new entry by User:Malick78 in "Religion again", below) --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Letter now incorporated. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religion again

Another editor added "Religion = Judaism" to the infobox, which I reverted because in previous reading here I'd seen discussion where the conclusion 'seemed' to be "this is far from obvious, not simple, and even applying a tag would be misleading".

I've a question I'd like to ask, as I've not seen such a thing elsewhere, even on articles with years-long arguments on fine points, that were 'finally' resolved to one consensus or another. Would it be useful to have a small section above that gives a short summary list of difficult/contentious issues and their consensus outcome? Something like:

These items have had extensive prior discussions with consensus resolutions as noted below. Before asking for reconsideration of these, please review the archived discussions and determine the significant new points to be raised in your comments on this talk page.
  • religion - ill-defined after review from sources/interviews, so leave out of infobox
  • ethnicity - source from parents', regional/national not specified as multinational life
  • ...

I thought something like this would be a great thing to ask a new editor to look at, after reverting their reflex change of a 'difficult' item 'obvious' to them, like, uh, I just did.  :-(   Has anyone here seen anything like this done on other articles? Shenme (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I am also confused about the religion of Einstein. I think only an expert on Einstein can give us an appropriate reply. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The article is currently pretty clear about Einstein's religious views. He didn't follow any of the organized religions, and didn't think a supernatural being was involved in daily affairs. He was almost, but not quite, pantheistic. — DAGwyn (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • By the end of his life he thought religion was "childish". See here for a letter that has recently turned up. Malick78 (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Here is the Abridged letter from Einstein to Eric Gutkind from Princeton, January 1954, translated from German by Joan Stambaugh.[1] I will now read it carefully. Einstein mentions the philosopher Spinoza - who believed that God represents the deterministic system of living nature herself. Einstein's attack on religion sounds very similar to Stephen Weinberg's interview in the BBC's Atheism Tapes, who is openly hostile against religion. --Diamonddavej (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of scientific publications of Albert Einstein

Hi all,

I'm about to nominate List of scientific publications of Albert Einstein as a Featured List candidate, but I'd welcome your suggestions before I do. As you might notice, it's been a ton of work, so please be gentle in your criticisms; thank you! :) Willow (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've now nominated it as a Featured List. Your input there would be welcome; please follow the link! :) Willow (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religion: 3rd-hand quote

In the section on religious views the following quote is found:

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

Most of the quotes in this section are first-hand, direct quotes from Einstein's writings. But the source of this quote says "Albert Einstein, according to the testimony of Prince Hubertus of Lowenstein; as quoted by Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, New York: World Publishing Company, 1971, p. 425."

It's important to distinguish it from the first-hand quotes in the article. It's filtered through the memories and prejudices of two people. Pol098 (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Was Einstein an atheist?

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this".

In light of the above newly available quote, are we now justified in identifying Einstein as an atheist? Nick Graves (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Einstein really defies labeling. We don’t need any label, and if we did, “agnostic” would probably be more accurate. —teb728 t c 03:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Agnostic won't be a good label for him. Agnosticism is when you don't believe in proof there is a God or there's not one. You can debate that about him to. Atheist would be most correct because he did not believe in God and if you read his writings you can tell he's atheist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fire 55 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
As Fire 55 argues, you can indeed infer from Einstein's writings that he was an atheist, but wouldn't that be orginal research? He himself used the term agnostic: see, for example his letter to M. Berkowitz of October 25, 1950, quoted in the article. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Einstein left this point on religion clearly stated, there are plenty of refenreces on this, however the discussion is very interesting,indeed, please do not stop. Missingdata1 (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If a label is going to be issued, I think Einstein would be considered a pantheist. According to this quote at least: "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestation of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this sense alone, I am a deeply religious man."
Einstein was most definitely not an atheist has he never fully rejected the concept of a God(s), but nor was he an agnostic. Throughout his life he vented his frustration with people misinterpreting his religious beliefs, so as tribute I think it's fair we not misinterpret. But my main concern is that people are going to start pushing Einstein as an atheist in this article.
so, let's not!
anyways, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.148.148 (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bloomsbury Auctions link

moved from User talk:TEB728

Dear TEB728, why did you consider the link to Bloomsbury Auctions as a "spam"? The website (the original link to which was not due to me, although I was responsible for changing it from a loose link into a cited reference) shows the actual letter, which I consider as very valuable — it shows that the letter is hand-written and includes many corrections; one normally assumes that Einstein must have let the letter be typed by his secretary. Given the fact that the letter is likely to disappear in a private collection, I propose to restore the link to Bloomsbury Auctions. Kind regards, --BF 02:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Spam was surely the wrong word, but I think the Bloomsbury Auctions reference is not useful. For one thing the page will probably go away after the auction. I appreciate your desire for a specimen of his hand writing. It seems to me that is a better choice of a specimen is his final writing, which the article already references. —teb728 t c 03:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
You must have misunderstood me; I have seen complete manuscripts of Einstein in his handwriting. The point is that since we know only of parts of the letter, we have no idea of how long the letter is and the Bloomsbury Auctions website provides us with this missing information (as The Guardian of yesterday reported, even some historians dealing with Einstein did not know about the letter). Further, as I wrote in my previous message, it is also interesting to see the way this particular letter of Einstein's looks like — the way he has crossed words, etc. Such details provide us with the necessary information to retrace the way Einstein must have been thinking in composing this particular letter. As for "the page will probably go away after the auction", as the biblical saying goes, "Be not therefore anxious for the morrow: for the morrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." May I therefore request you kindly to restore the link? When the link disappears, we shall remove it as a dead link, but until such time I strongly believe that the link serves a very useful purpose. Kind regards, --BF 11:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I did misunderstand your first post. I thought your argument there was relevant to this article; perhaps I rewrote it in my mind to make it seem that way. Your second post is an argument for making the letter available to researchers doing original research on Einstein’s writings, but that I submit is not the audience for this article. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, and this link is one our article can do without. By the way, I thought your quote from the Sermon on the Mount particularly inappropriate. —teb728 t c 07:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
TEB728, I fail to understand why you behave the way you do. First you removed my text. Then, after I told you of your mistake, you deleted almost everything that I had added incrementally, to be precise in four consequent increments. You deleted a link by first claiming it to be a "spam", then on reminding you that it was not a spam, you admitted that you had used "the wrong word", nonetheless nothing prevented you from removing the link. Your first argument was that the link would be removed by the auction house and that motivated your action. Now, you have contrived another reason why the link should not be there at all. Don't you think that this behaviour is utterly incoherent? You further patronise by telling that the people visiting Wikipedia were not interested in the information contained in the page at issue, and end your message by delivering a sermon as to what Wikipedia is about and what it is not; you seem not to be disturbed by the consideration that the person you are addressing might know a thing or two. You also seem to get offended by what is an integral part of the English literature - please do not begin to tell me why you were offended as I have no intention of apologising for using a proverbial phrase. Please be aware that you do not own any Wikipedia entry. Please also know your place within Wikipedia, which is, in principle, one amongst equals. If you wish to go against my wish, then please first make a case for doing so in the talk page, instead of acting in the manner of the past two days. --BF 19:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) BF, Please read WP:AGF. I am acting in good faith, and I assume you also are acting in good faith. I fail to see, however, the reason for your fantasizing my motives:

  • You seem to imply that I have some reason for opposing your addition other than what I say: My reason for opposing the addition is that it is unnecessary to this article.
  • You fantasize that I was “offended” by your second post: I was not, although I must admit I am somewhat offended by the ad-hominem tone of your third post.
  • You fantasize also, if I understand you correctly, that I think I own the article. For your information I have neither more nor less status than you on this article. As always, if one wants to make a controversial change to an article, he should get a consensus on the talk page. To get a consensus he persuades other editors to support the change. In your first two posts you attempted to persuade. The personal attacks of your latest post are not the way to persuade.

Let me add to what I said in my first two posts: I looked again at the Bloomsbury Auctions scans and their quality is pretty bad. It seems to me that this low quality makes them of little value either as a specimen of Einstein’s handwriting or as a source for original research. —teb728 t c 08:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I see no point in keeping the link. It will not last long anyway. It's behind a firewall and I couldn't even see it. As editors, we have plenty of reliable sources that quote the letter's contents to use, so the original is not our concern. ► RATEL ◄ 08:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
TEB728, it is not a question of good faith or bad faith. As a matter of fact I never said, or even implied, that your actions were prompted by a desire to act maliciously. I said only one thing, namely that you bend your arguments so as to get where you want to be --- some people, you are clearly one of them --- never look at their arguments from the perspective of others. As for the "ad-hominem" thing, clearly after having deleted my contributions for five times, I could not have possibly been addressing my statements to my chair or my desk. Be it as it may, saying to you that the business of tomorrow can be dealt with tomorrow (that today we have already enough problem to deal with - "sufficient onto the day is the evil thereof") is not something offending (unless you do not understand the meaning of the text, which is conceivable).
Aside from the above, even in your last message you do not stop being illogical. For editing I do not need to ask the permission of any person, not least of you. Hence my editing. Now, the person who has been repeatedly deleting my text is you. You cannot tell me that I have to make a case in the talk page why my text should remain in the entry on Einstein. The onus of convincing people of your viewpoints is on you! I am under no obligation to ask your opinion on my edits! As it stands, you are just shamelessly telling me that you must have the last word on what gets into the biography of Einstein. On the other hand, if you follow my receipt, which is the standard approach, my addition can get deleted only when the community votes in favour of your opinion. I repeat: it is you who is deleting my text, and not I deleting yours! You are the person who has taken action against me. It is therefore you who is in violation of Wikipedia rules (it is utterly irrelevant whether you were right in considering the link at issue as inappropriate), according to which everyone is entitled to edit, not I! Therefore it is not I who has to make a case, but you. In fact, I told you this earlier, but, not surprisingly, you have come back telling me that I have to ask the permission of others before editing things that might not be to your linking. I am going to reintroduce my text and hereby caution you that you will be in violation of Wikipedia rules by removing my text for yet another time; your action will not be different from someone overtly committing vandalism on Wikipedia. --BF 20:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Please don't do that; it doesn't merit any more mention than it has. In fact I removed the redundant references for the letter; somebody had really gone overboard. — DAGwyn (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Why did you throw away the other references, such as the one to The Guardian that contained the English translation of the letter?! I give up - there is absolute chaos prevailing here. --BF 22:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
What matters for the Einstein article is not the circumstances of the auction etc. but the content of the letter. We don't need three references for that. I chose the reference which gave the text of the letter (in English translation), rather than those which gave only out-of-context snippets. The context is important for understanding what Einstein meant. — DAGwyn (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Look again. The reference which was retained is the one containing the translation. —teb728 t c 08:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Not quite true. Firstly, the original article by The Guardian, reporting of the whole event, has gone. Secondly, what has been retained in only an abridgement of the full translation; from it one cannot deduce how long the actual letter is. Perhaps you wish at least to restore the reference to this article in The Guardian; it is a very well written and very informative article (one of the best of its kind - as attested by the last student of Kramers in Leiden who has known Einstein personally). --BF 08:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I have given some thought to BF’s posts, and if I understand them correctly, the crux of our disagreement may be whether he is correct in a belief that he has a right not to be reverted. Am I correct, BF, that you believe that? For clarity, the following is my understanding of the Wikipedia process for disputed changes:
If someone wants to make a change to an article, he should either edit boldly or (particularly if he suspects the change may be controversial) propose it on the talk page. Although an editor is encouraged to edit boldly, this does not mean his change necessarily will stick. For if another editor disagrees with the change, he may modify it or revert it in whole or in part. If the original editor still wants the change, he should then go to the talk page and try to develop a consensus for it. He could also reassert the change, but doing so might not be a good idea. For doing so would not help build a consensus, and if he could persuade someone else to make the change for him, it would have a better chance of sticking. An editor objecting to the reassertion may reasonably request that the reasserting editor wait for a consensus, but such a request probably has only moral authority. —teb728 t c 08:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
For some reason you are unable to see the fallacies in your arguments. You refer to change, and, as you can attest to, I did not change anything; the changes were yours. I added a sentence or two to the text, and you changed the text by removing my text. I did not mind it the first time, since your action could have been due to a misunderstanding. I did absolutely mind it when you kept deleting my text (i.e. changing my text) after having told you of the logic behind my addition. It was therefore you who had to build a consensus (for removing my text) not I! You were the person who was responsible for the change; I was merely editing what I believed to be useful for the readership. I am sorry, but I do not wish to continue this discussion; I have lost already more than my fair share of time on this issue, with absolutely no consequence (you keep repeating your old arguments in new words). --BF 09:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
ps) TEB728, I have also left a response to your earlier message (timed 08:58, 19 May 2008). --BF 09:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

OK, I'll give this a shot, even though requests posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion should reference disputes involving no more than two editors, and I see more than two here. In my opinion:

  • BF's contribution, while interesting, contained an unnecessary description of an auction site, which could be considered spammy by someone glancing quickly and casually over the edit history.
  • It makes no sense to me to link or reference a page that will likely exist briefly.
  • I understand the link isn't relevant/available anymore, so deleting reference to it is the correct thing to do.

In any third opinion dispute between two parties, the third opinion giver has to choose sides. I'm sorry but while I agree that BF and teb have been acting in good faith, and that both have eloquently stated their positions, I have to say that I would have probably reverted BF's contribution myself if I had seen it first. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. There is also a process disagreement which involves only me and BF. It came into focus most clearly in my post of 08:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC) and BF’s post of 09:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC). Do you have an opinion on that? —teb728 t c 22:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
As I stated earlier, I gave up on the idea of linking to the web site of the auction house, since any further discussion would prove a drain on my time which I scarcely have; it is conceivable that other people here have similarly a limited amount of time for spending on Wikipedia. However, the following aspect is worth considering. The letter at issue and its existence had been up to very recently unknown even to professional historians of science. Most remarkably, Germany's media have been deafeningly quiet on this letter. On reading a shortened version of the English translation of the letter, my first question concerned the length of the full letter --- the piece in the Guardian did not mention whether the amount published constituted, let us say, 10% or 90% of the letter. Further, I personally felt a burning desire for seeing a reproduction of the actual letter. Both of my needs were at least partially met by the copy made available by the auction house. This prompted me to give the pertinent link a prominent place inside the main body of Einstein's biography (as I have said earlier, the link was already placed inside the main text by someone else; I only wrote a sentence or two, introducing the link). I was surprised, and remain surprised to this date, to experience so much opposition for having this particular address linked to from inside the main text. Amatulić says that s/he also would have deleted the link. Well I remain utterly mystified by such attitude. How can merely knowing about the existence of a letter, without any knowledge about its full contents and the way it looks like be intellectually satisfying? All those crossings and corrections by Einstein in his letter contain valuable information concerning his thought process while writing the letter. How can one be satisfied by the say-so of some journalists about whose scientific credentials one knows absolutely nothing? Lastly, I am as a matter of principle opposed to underestimating the intellectual capacity of the readers of Wikipedia - teb was asserting that these readers were not interested in such details, and my response has been and remains to be: how does he know that? Now Amatulić seems to express, though not as explicitly as teb, the same sentiment. --BF 23:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

BF: I didn't see "so much opposition" - only opposition by one person in particular. I have no doubt that the letter is valuable to include in the article, but the way you included it, by linking to a temporary page, wasn't workable. That, and the fact that your accompanying description could be considered somewhat spammy, are why I said I would have deleted the link. If you can find another reproduction of it, please do include it. It would be a shame if something like that were lost. I have not said that readers wouldn't be interested in such a thing; in fact I disagree with that sentiment. This is an encyclopedia after all; its function is to be, well, encyclopedic.

To TEB: I'll address the points discussed on 19 May:

  • Nobody has the right not to be reverted if all parties act in good faith.
  • BF was correct to edit boldly. Seems to me there was nothing contentious about his contribution.
  • There is no requirement for BF to go to the talk page to discuss restoration of something reverted, as far as I know. Everyone must use their own judgment whether a reversion is worth discussing on the talk page, or explaining in the edit summary. Much of the time, an edit summary explanation is sufficient, but apparently not this time. Then, when one party requests a talk page discussion, then it's time to go to the talk page. To the credit of both parties, that was done here.
  • It's unreasonable to demand that one party carry the burden of building a "consensus" when there are only 2 or 3 editors participating. Each side should state their position and evaluate the soundness of the other side, and come to an agreement on a path forward. That didn't happen. A third opinion can be useful to help resolve the dispute, or beyond that, a request for comment.
  • "Change" and "addition" are synonyms for "edit" in the context of this dispute. Trying to draw a distinction between an addition and a change is splitting hairs.

Those are my views. Hope it helps. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Amatulić, I shall be brief by saying that if there were no opposition, why has this page become filled with arguments and counter-arugments? Why my added text has been deleted for at least six times? Further, I did not add my text in bold (why should I have done so?); please consult the history of the entry on Einstein. As for adding a link to the text, showing a copy of the Einstein-Gutkind letter, firstly, I think I have already wasted enough time on mere two sentences that I shall no longer consider to touch the biography - unless TEB either disappears or puts aside his despicable habit of using faulty and contrived arguments to get to where he wants to be (please read TEB's arguments on this page; they are from the logical standpoint all faulty - I do not wish to be unfriendly to TEB and am only stating what I believe to be a fact). Lastly, my fear is that the letter at issue having now been bought by a private collector (at the total cost of nearly USD 500,000), we shall for a foreseeable time all be deprived of seeing this letter. I have checked the Internet, specifically some relevant sites in Germany, Einstein's birthplace; although there are some sites which supposedly show a reproduction of the letter at issue, they are all, without exception, showing the wrong letter (the people behind these sites must either be deluding themselves or the general public, or both): what they show is three to four times shorter than the letter that I saw on the web site of the auction house. So much for the scholarship of our present-day web literati. I shall stop responding to messages on this page, as it amounts to an utter madness to have to write thousands of words in defence of two sentences; I feel I have already written far in excess of what even a slightly reasonable person would do. I should like to recommend to TEB that s/he be more critical of herself/himself. With the unreasonable way that s/he is bossing here (mind you, s/he deleted my text for at least six times without presenting anything remotely resembling a reason!), I am absolutely certain that before long the biography of Einstein will suffer an irreparable stagnation; what gets written will only reflect the mind of TEB. --BF 11:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Your count is off: I removed the auction site link a total of three times, namely at 20:33, 13 May 2008; 23:27, 13 May 2008; and 09:00, 16 May 2008 (all UTC). I am not the only one opposed to the link: someone else removed it a fourth time, and two other people have expressed agreement with its removal. I attempted to explain my opposition to the link until you cut off discussion by turning to personal attacks. I realize I haven’t explained it to your satisfaction, but I stopped trying as a result of your attitude. But if you can be civil, I would like to seek a mutually acceptable compromise, and I believe one is possible.
(By the way, when Amatulić and I mentioned “editing boldly,” it was a reference to WP:BOLD—not the font style. Sorry for not making that clear before.) —teb728 t c 23:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise?

Amatulić’s reply to BF’s 20 May post clarifies the issue for me in a way that suggests a compromise. The issue is inclusionism:

The fact that Wikipedia is a web encyclopedia has three important consequences: On the one hand, it means that virtually anything could be added to the encyclopedia. After all, it’s just gigabytes; it doesn’t cost any trees. On the other hand, it creates a practical limit on the size of articles, as discussed in WP:SIZE. In compensation for that limit, however, it encourages sub-articles; for an interested reader, a sub-article is only a click away.

The Albert Einstein article is now 83 KB long—rather over the recommended size. I don’t usually think about it this way, but I guess this fact is the main reason I resist adding relatively unimportant content to the article. Several major sections already have been split out into sub-articles. If the same were done with the “Religious view” section, the sub-article would have dozens of kilobytes available for the kind of details BF wants to add. And I would have no problem with adding them there.

As for the Bloomsbury Auctions link, the page is still there, but requires a free registration for access. I am not sure whether that sort of thing is appropriate for Wikipedia. If it is, I would have no problem with linking it from a sub-article. (The letter was estimated to sell for £8000 but sold for £170000. Wow!)

As for the Randerson article, I agree with BF that it is well written. But although it was written in reaction to the Gutkind letter, it is not a particularly good reference for the letter. Rather it seems to me its importance is as an overview of Einstein’s religious views. I think it would be an appropriate external reference in a sub-article. —teb728 t c 00:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cold War era

Can someone clarify what is a "Middlesex heir"? Is it someone from Middlesex County (not, I dare say, the county of Middlesex) who was heir to something? Or was there someone called Middlesex who had heirs? Myrvin (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It refers to son of the founder of Middlesex University (Massachusetts). I added a link. —teb728 t c 01:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured List for Albert Einstein: Go there NOW!

The list of scientific publications by Albert Einstein is a Featured List candidate. If you care at all about Albert Einstein articles on Wikipedia, please review the list and either support it or oppose it at its candidacy. Thank you! Willow (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Works by Einstein

It somewhat bothers me that the change to refer to the list of scientific publications has lost the non-scientific publications. Perhaps the original "Works" article ought to be restored. — DAGwyn (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that it bothers you, but it was requested at the FLC for List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein. After opening the discussion at Talk:Works by Albert Einstein, I waited almost three weeks before making the redirect. A glance at the final version shows that there were only two non-scientific works in that list. CheekyMonkey felt that starting a new List of non-scientific publications by Albert Einstein with only two elements would invite an AfD. If you're enthusiastic about writing that non-scientific list, more power to you! :) You'll find everything you need in the Schilpp reference, augmented by the Collected Papers. The number of non-scientific publications is almost exactly 40% of the number of scientific publications, so you'll have an easier time than I did, if you choose to contribute that way. Willow (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Einstein and Margarita Konenkova

Why isn't there any mention of Einstein and his Russian lover Margarita Konenkova here? It turns out that she was a KGB spy, but alas, Einstein probably did not know it 71.103.0.107 (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Serkan.

I suspect it is because the editors so far have been unaware of documentation concerning this from any reliable source. If you provide one, we could check it out. — DAGwyn (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Google provides... http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/06-98/06-02-98/a08wn046.htm ... not terribly interesting, methinks. --Alvestrand (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference. It doesn't seem especially noteworthy to me, either, once the speculation is removed. — DAGwyn (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Here you go: http://books.google.com/books?id=zY7FE9ZyDO0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Private+lives+of+LAbert+Einstein&lr=&as_brr=0&sig=oiRd-ll1WBKRM88hA64Fb27PIjE
The Nobel laureate physicist V. L. Ginzburg mentions about the event in his book titled The Physics of a Lifetime (page 431), and how he read about it in the above book.
You will also find some relevant accounts in these books:
http://books.google.com/books?id=M2pbieYYHrYC&pg=PA75&dq=konenkova&lr=&as_brr=0&sig=lQI7SQwsnzj2CU1VRak4rLYk7NI
http://books.google.com/books?id=4IRFwN_rkMcC&pg=PA51&dq=konenkova&lr=&as_brr=0&sig=N_e6kVHmv5VlVkyflxp40TF9878#PPP1,M171.103.0.107 (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Ur
Four references doesn’t make it any more interesting than one. (And her being a KGB spy isn’t significant because Einstein had no access any secrets.) If she is notable enough to have article of her own, Einstein might be mentioned there, or if someone wants to write an subarticle on Einstein’s relationships… But surely it doesn’t belong in this already overly long article. —teb728 t c 23:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)