Talk:Albert Einstein

Start a new discussion at bottom

Archives
Complete archive Individual archive files: Oct 2001 – Feb 2004 Mar 2004 – Jan 2005 Feb 2005 – Aug 2005 Sep 2005 – Dec 2005 Jan 2006 – Feb 2006 Feb 2006 (priority dispute) Feb 2006 – Mar 2006 Mar 2006 – June 2006 June 2006 – Aug 2006 Aug 2006 – Nov 2006

Template:V0.5

Template:FAOL

High school drop out

How the hell did he drop out of high school, if he went to college? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.131.124 (talk • contribs)

You have to remember that this is in the pre-SAT days and not finishing high school wouldn't necessarily bar you from admission to college (especially if you had a good reason for not finishing, as Einstein did). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.86.187 (talk • contribs)

Being in pre-SAT days does not really have anything to do with it, since the rules for admission to University in Switzerland haven't changed much since then. While Einstein dropped out of high school in Germany, he went back and finished high school in Switzerland, thus making sure he would be allowed to go to University (see the article). Schutz 06:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but maybe it was because he was smart that he didn't have to

Vegetarian

Al's views on vegetarianism are somewhat well-known and influential. They should likely be included, albeit briefly. Re: "extending the circle of compassion," etc. I think most evidence shows he was a wavering vegetarian in practice, but more committed in ideology. Hey, just like my mom.

Geeman's comments on "Jewish"

I've just reread Geeman's comments in the archive about wanting to put the words "Jewish" into the opening paragraph on Einstein. On balance I think this is a good idea for clarity and I support it. A good way of overcoming all the objections against it is to see the phrasing for a similar case in the article on Solomon Lefschetz where it says that Lefschetz was "born in Moscow into a Jewish family (his parents were Turkish citizens) who moved shortly after that to Paris." Isn't that so simple? This phrasing is particularly clever because the phrase "Jewish family" gets out of all the problems of religious and nationalistic labels (which I agree we should avoid in the case of Einstein's "Jewishness"). Therefore I support a similar phrasing in the opening paragraph of Einstein. If there are no objections, I'll go ahead and make this correction in 5 days time so you guys have time to sleep on it. bunix 22:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It already says he was born to a Jewish family in the first sentence after the intro. Personally I don't think his "Jewishness" or "Germanness" are important enough to put in the intro, but we include the nationality for the sake of convention. I would support fewer labels in the intro (removing "German-born", but not adding more. Kaldari 23:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is in the intro...but not in the top lead paragraph....which is what I think Geeman was refering to. Geeman can you comment? I support the inclusion of these labels. Such labels are there for every other biography on the wikipedia...just because Einstein's case is a little more complicated than average doesn't mean we should shirk from the challenge of finding a succinct way of putting it across. We can collaborate to find the optimal wording. bunix 06:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

“Such labels are there for every other biography on the wikipedia.” Really? How about Michelson, Oppenheimer, Feynman, Gell-Mann, Weinberg, and Witten. None of them is labeled as “Jewish” in the lead paragraph. I think the lead paragraph of a biography (and the other paragraphs above the Contents) should summarize what is most notable about the subject. I would, however, support mentioning his Jewishness in the Nationality field of the Infobox. --teb728 06:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC) As for the Lefschetz biography, that article does not yet have multiple sections; so it does not yet have a summary header. --teb728 06:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to comment, bunix. Thanks for the invitation... :) First off, let's establish a few things. There is a convention in the bios of WP to state the person's national origin, background and affiliations in the first sentence. That's useful because it gives us a quick reference to the personality and cultural heritage of the person. In most cases nation of origin is not really pertinent to the person him/herself with certain obvious exceptions like politicians, rulers or soldiers. It's just a nice way for us to get a quick handle on the person's identity. In other cases, though, it is more significant. For many biographies of scientists their cultural/religious background really isn't particularly important to their personalities or their lives, but for others it is very important. For instance, if one didn't mention Oppenheimer was American in the intro to his biography one would be really missing the point of his relevance to 20th century history. Imagine for a moment that Oppenheimer had faced racial discrimation as part of his later troubles and that he wrote a book on Zionism, was considered for posts in Israel, etc. Wouldn't it be worth noting his background in the intro sentence then? The problem with Einstein, of course, is that his Jewish ancestry influenced his life so directly but he was also a complex guy whose personal identity was more paradoxical than most. He was born a German, but through sense and circumstance left Germany (both physically and legally.) He was born a Jew but through intellect and inclination did not practice that faith overtly, though many people (myself included) would argue that he remained culturally very Jewish. Both of those things were a huge influence on his life and appear dramatically throughout his biography. The words "German" or "Jew/Jewish" each appear over a dozen times in the body of the article, not including the text box and category listings. If he were not born a Jew in Germany he'd probably not have left (and how might the world have changed?) Even if he hadn't written a book on Jewish topics, how many people were offered leading positions in Israel? Simply describing him as German and/or Jewish (or worse calling him Swedish or American as others have done) stumbles over the whole purpose of that introductory sentence because it is at best vague and at worst a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth.

Before I hop off my high horse, let me comment that I think the issue here is that we should try to have in the opening sentence a description that is as accurate as possible and that introduces the rest of the biography as elegantly as we can. For Einstein, I think the substance and complexity evident in the rest of the article warrants some more care in the opening sentence, and if that makes for language that qualifies itself then all the better because Einstein himself was very much about such qualification. I understand that a lot of folks would (idealistically, I believe) prefer to ignore the issue of nationality and religion. (Let's not kid ourselves about not having an agenda here, shall we? Nobody participates in an encyclopedia without one....) I'll buy that as far as it goes because I think it has an essentially noble motivation, and in many cases is really truthful in addition to being an expression of tolerance. In this case, though, such a method winds up doing more harm than good because it isn't truthful and degrades the tolerance of Einstein as expressed by the circumstances of his background. Doesn't it seem odd that the current introduction parses his profession into "theoretical physicist" in order to distinguish him from experimental physicists, qualifies his place of birth by saying he was "German-born" yet ignores his Jewish ancestry? IMO we should try for a sentence that most accurately describes the man, and one that does not mention his Jewish ancestry fails to do that.

All that said, I'd like a little more support or substantive refutation of these ideas before making such changes. Perhaps we should just go ahead and make them though and see how long it takes before they are reverted in order to get some idea what people think about it. Geeman 05:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of what Geeman says—except perhaps his conclusion. I’m not opposed in principle to mentioning Jewishness in the intro, but I see two problems:

• One is stability. The “German-born” label has remained stable for some time. I fear that if you change it, that would open the door to those who want to label him in addition or instead as “Swiss” and/or “American.” (You can see from the archive that there is sentiment in that favor.)
• The other problem is conciseness. You presumably want to add this to the first sentence, which is already pretty full. Adding more than a word or two would make for unwieldy prose. I don’t care at all for bunix’s suggestion of introducing Jewishness indirectly, for it is inherently wordy. I wonder if a solution might be to add a third paragraph to the intro, summarizing the non-scientific things he is noted for, and mention Jewishness there.

Although his Jewishness is marginally notable, if someone is reading the intro only, they can do without a mention of Jewishness. If they are reading more, its mention at the top of the biography proper, is sufficient. I suggest we leave it at that. --teb728 03:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This argument has been going on for a long time now, with reversion wars etc. along the way. There is a whole (overly long) article for getting into details and influences; the intro should be just enough to orient readers who don't already know anything about the subject (which may be an empty set when it comes to Einstein). The only reason that "German-born" was retained was that it explains why there is a German-language pronunciation link immediately beforehand. Everybody wants to claim Einstein as a member of their particular tribe, which if we try to accommodate that in the intro leads to a ridiculous-looking result. (We also had that with regard to national flags in the infobox.) — DAGwyn 20:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Of the counter-arguments presented above I think the most compelling is the conciseness issue. The remaining arguments strike me as being variations on a theme: that adding information to the existing "German-born" description will lead to a series of edits in which people will, for the sake of their own agendas, try to lay claim to Einstein. My counter-arguments to those counter-arguments:

Regarding Conciseness: Unfortunately, there is no single word that adequately describes a German-born, expatriated, non-dogmatic Jew. Wouldn't it be nice if we could just say "Agnostigebrew" or something? :) In his native tongue, of course, we could probably slap a few words together to create one of those Germanic lingual monstrosities that even included his profession ("Einstein was an Ausdeutcherjudenphysiker who....) but, sadly, English is a rather blunt tool. The problem, though, is that where some folks may see the current intro as concise others I see it as incomplete. In fact, the "German-born" descriptor is really more confused than concise. Isn't the logical next step in the conciseness argument to be even more concise and simply say "German" rather than "German-born" and if someone wanted more information about his later nationalities they should turn to the body of the article? I don't think that's the way to go. "German-born" is more truthful to the man for all that it is less concise. But "German-born" is only half-truthful because it ignores the reason for his emigration: his Jewish ancestry. Since Einstein was such a complex guy we're just not going to be clear, accurate AND concise all at once unless someone somehow manages to come up with the linguistic equivalent of Relatively where E=Einstein, M=Maternity and C=Culture.... We're just going to have to accept that limitation (like the speed of light--since I'm going nuts with the physics metaphors.)

Regarding Stability and Laying Claim to Einstein I appreciate that folks like stability in WP articles, but I would argue that we should be less concerned with stability and those who lay claim to someone's legacy than we are with the accuracy of the article. Yes, I know there are Americans and Swiss who want to lay claim to Einstein in one way or another, and they are certainly welcome to make their arguments. We should give those arguments due consideration when they inevitably crop up. I'm equally certain there are a large number of Jews who claim Einstein as one of their own in ways that Einstein himself would find highly disagreeable. However, the fear of additional edits and opening up the issue to the whole nationalistic muddle should not be used as a counter to the argument about whether Einstein should or should not be defined in the opening sentence of his WP article as being of Jewish ancestry. The question is whether it more accurately describes him than the current text.

I also disagree with the suggestion that "German-born" only remains in the article in order to explain the German pronunciation of Einstein's name. Mentioning the national origin and major affiliation of a person in the opening sentence of the WP biography is so common as to be a template.

A more legitimate way of dealing with the issue is to have a note in the plaintext of the article asking those who would edit it away from "German-born" and "Jewish ancestry" (or whatever terms wind up being used) to please look to the talk page and present their arguments there before making a change. As it is, the Einstein page seems to get vandalized fairly regularly, and there are plenty of folks monitoring it, so we can certainly deal with folks who might be able to actually muster an argument to support their agenda. Geeman 06:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I was the last one (modulo reversions) to edit the nationality portion of the intro, so the reason I gave for retaining the (long-standing) "German-born" is first-hand. "German" can't be used for conciseness, simply because it's a wrong characterization. One nice aspect of "-born" is it hints at a more complicated nationality, which is in fact exhibited later in the article. — DAGwyn 21:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I like "German-born" as a descriptor very much. It's much more truthful than would be German, Swiss, American, Jew or any particular description that one might want to put in the first sentence of his bio. My contention, though, is that it does half the job. Einstein's German ancestry is on a level with his Jewish ancestry for reasons that are also dealt with in the body of the article on a more or less equal basis with his German origin (depending on how one might want to account for such things.) In any case, rather than regurgitate my prolix prose, let me do what I probably should have done to begin with and float the following opening sentence structure to see how folks feel about incorporating some of the ideas already expressed here while keeping the original "German-born" alive and express the "other half" of his origins: "Born in Germany to a family of Jewish ancestry, Albert Einstein (pronunciation and birth-death dates) was a theoretical physicist widely known as one of the greatest physicists of all time." That's a pretty concise way of introducing this article that would satisfy all my concerns. It doesn't start off the text with his name as so many other bios do, but I think that's good thing. Such openings are so dull. Comments? Geeman 08:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that’s not bad. How about more succinctly, “Born a German Jew, …”? --teb728 20:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed responding to this before I posted the note below. The thing about "German Jew" alone is that it doesn't really convey the fact that Einstein left Germany to take citizenship in other countries, and it fails to acknowledge that he was not nationalistic nor religious. "Born in Germany" or "German-born" is more truthful and segues into the text of the article better. IMO, acknowledging his Jewish ancestry does the same for reasons noted previously. We need to sacrifice a smidge of conciseness (about 30 characters worth) and qualify the terms qualify for the sake of accuracy. Hence "Born in German" or "German-born" and "to a family of Jewish ancestry" rather than just "Jew." Geeman 06:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If his Jewishness were limited to his family ancestry, it would certainly not be worth mentioning in the header. I acknowledge that his Jewishness is marginally notable enough for inclusion there because he identified with the Jewish people throughout his life. Not only was his family Jewish—he was Jewish—not in a religious or Zionist sense, but in a social and cultural sense. --teb728 09:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not as bad as it might be, but the question is, why mention the Jewish ancestry in the first sentence? Wikipedia biographics articles normally don't mention family religion or other cultural associations in the intro sentence, unlike birthplaces, unless there is a compelling reason to do so. The "German-born" was retained primarily to explain the adjacent German pronunciation button; otherwise I would have preferred to remove it too, to help keep out all those group-membership claims that some people like to insert. — DAGwyn 22:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The reasons for mentioning his Jewish ancestry in the first sentence are described at some length above. The most recent archives have further explanation if the above comments don't do. It should be noted, however, that "German-born" is not merely there primarily to explain the pronunciation button. Noting the origin of the person in a biography in the first sentence is a standard way of going about such things. It's a standard way of going about such things. The above is meant to give an accurate and truthful version of what is a standard first sentence structure for WP biographies. Geeman 04:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and put the proposed change to the opening sentence noted above into the actual article. Let's see if it actually freaks people out or is so offensive that it gets reverted quickly. Geeman 04:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

96 minutes: That's a pretty quick revert--particularly in a Sunday night/Monday morning time frame when the article normally gets few changes. --teb728 08:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

One option to get around this problem might be to make the German-born implicit and avoid all of this dicussion in the first paragraph as follows: Albert Einstein (German pronunciation (help·info)) (b. March 14, 1879 in Ulm, Germany, d. April 18, 1955 in Princeton, New Jersey) was a theoretical physicist widely considered one of the greatest physicists of all time.[1][2]. I'm not unhappy with the current version, but I thought this possibility worth mentioning.--Stephan Schulz 12:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Somebody tried that a couple of months ago. (It seemed like a good idea to me.) But first someone reinserted “German-born,” and then someone deleted the cities with a reference to WP:MOSDATE#Dates of birth and death. --teb728 21:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I know I'm coming in a bit late here, but personally I don't see why his heritage is mentioned in the opening line of the article. It basically says Einstein was born to a family of Jewish heritage but doesn't expand on it at all. I think it would be much better off left alone at the start of the biography. I think it'd be much better to mention his relevance to Jewish culture (ie being offered the job as leader of Israel) after the intro. He is known for being a physicist, not necessarily for being a Jew. I'd prefer something like "Albert Einstein was a renowned physicist (mention stuff about work in physics) and was significant Jewish cultural/political figure". Of course, the wording would have to be less blunt, but that's my two cents. --Wafulz 01:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It's tough to get a good opening sentence that mentions his birthplace, his cultural signficance and his status as a physicist. I do take your point that we should acknowledge his significance to Jewish culture/politics, but it's tough to figure how a good opening sentence would accomplish that. Particularly with the "standard" of mentioning nationality (or nation of origin) at the same time. When it gets down to it, I think we have to be somewhat general in the opening. What was Einstein? A list of his "qualities" if you will. His contributions might be more appropriate to the fuller description of the article itself, unless we can figure out how to word it in some way that manages to satisfy....

Regarding just putting in his places of birth and death without mentioning either his German or Jewish origins explicity: I think that does make a certain amount of sense. It is a "compromise by elimination" but it is, at least, accurate and simple.

What are the actual objections to using the "Born in German to a family of Jewish ancestry," as the opening? Geeman 04:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I may have just worded myself poorly, but I'd prefer not to see anything related to religion or heritage in the opening sentence. It should be left in the biography section. The way I see it, he was a physicist primarily, and maybe a Jewish cultural icon. I don't see the relevance of mentioning (or rather, justifying) his heritage in the same sentence. --Wafulz 05:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don’t object to saying he was born a Jew, but his family’s ancestry is certainly not notable. Only Geeman and bunix seem to be in favor of the proposal; some people have expressed opposition to mentioning Jewishness in the first sentence. It seems premature to put it in the article. --teb728 21:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Jewish" is unfortunately a broad term. As several folks have noted he was not a particularly devout man in many ways, but his fundamental personality and character are in many ways Jewish. However, the importance of his German/Jewish background to the introduction of this article is that it characterizes not only the man more accurately, but addresses his role in history. German-born and Jewish ancestry connect up to the way his work was (and was not) accepted in Germany through to his later citizenship in America. To paraphrase the comments I made in the archives, if we say he was German-born and not mention that he was Jewish then we are not too far off wondering why it was Hiroshima not London that was the target of the first atomic weapon. That Einstein's primary role in history is as a physicist is not in question. Why his role as a physicist played out as it did (and 20th century history unfolded as it did) is directly informed by his Jewish ancestry.

I know this isn't a popular way of characterizing people, and in 99.9% of WP biographies I'd agree that such considerations are really not as signficant enough to warrent inclusion in the first sentence of the bio, but because of his role in history Einstein is a special case. That role was directly affected (and its hard to argue that world history would have remained the same) because of his background, so his biography requires a bit more complexity. Geeman 04:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

atomic bomb

I always heard that Einstein had invented the atomic bomb while working in a top secret area of America is this true? If so where? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.29.125 (talk • contribs)

I don't know where you heard that, but you shouldn't trust them as an information source. The role played by Einstein in the development of the atomic bomb was twofold: (a) the physics of nuclear fission had been materially advanced by Einstein's earlier theoretical work, e.g. the principle of mass-energy equivalence; (b) at the outset of WWII, Einstein was persuaded to sign the Einstein-Szilárd letter to the President of the US urging that the US mount an effort to develop an atomic weapon before the Germans. That was the impetus for the Manhattan Project, which was the actual development effort (in which Einstein played no part). — DAGwyn 00:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It's really only one-fold. Einstein didn't do anything with nuclear physics. E=mc^2 comes into play but not in any way Einstein would have known about at the time he postulated it. His biggest role was the letter, and even if he had not written that the Manhattan Project probably would have begun independently a few years later (and the project that was created by his letter didn't amount to much of anything). --Fastfission 00:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: I didn't say that Einstein worked in the area of nuclear physics; I chose my wording carefully. DAGwyn 20:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Notable prizes

Every time I add the Copley Medal to the notable prizes section of the infobox, SuperGirl removes it. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Kaldari 23:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think SuperGirl usurps too much authority; I recall her saying on past occasions that there was a "consensus" for this or that (always in favor of her personal opinion) when opinion was actually substantially divided. The Copley Medal is a prestigious award, comparable to the Fields Medal in mathematicians, which we would expect to see noted.

It seems like a "notable" enough "prize" to keep in the infobox to me.... Supergirl: Why are you removing it? Is it against some infobox list or template? Geeman 05:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I originally added that prize to the infobox and was later shocked to see it removed. --68.224.247.53 05:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Since there is a consensus, I'll add it. --Kasparov 05:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Summation Convention

No mention of the Einstein Summation convention, not his most important work, but maybe could be included? (this thing is at: Einstein notation) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.111.8.103 (talk • contribs) .

Feel free to add a link in the "appendices" to the article; it isn't significant enough to mention in the main body. — DAGwyn 23:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Einstein Plagiarism Speculation

Maybe their should be a section detailin this:- *Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist *Plagiarist of the Century

• Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century by Richard Moody
• lbert Einstein: Was he a thief, a liar and a plagiarist? **Was Einstein a plagiarist? by Cecil Adams
• The Eclipse of 1919 - Albert Einstein: Prophet or Plagiarist
  • Was Einstein a plagiarist by The Christian Party
  • Albert Einstein: Plagiarist and Fraud by Ian Mosley
  • The other side of Albert Einstein by Physics World, January 2005
  • Physics Notes: E = mc² is not Einstein's Equation by Viktor T. Toth
  • [1]
  • Was Albert Einstein a hoax? by Sam Sloan
  • Albert Einstein: A Jewish Myth] by Dr. Paul Bowers, B.S., M.E., Ch.D.
  • A Theory of Einstein the Irrational Plagiarist] by Christopher Jon Bjerknes [2] – The Canberra Times September 19, 2006
• The Einstein Hoax: The Disastrous Intellectual War on Common Sense by H. E. Retic (Author)

From many peoples understanding Albert Einstein was a plagiarist. However his work on Brownian motion (for which he got the Nobel prize) was apparently original and quite good. Remember, he didn't get the Nobel prize for "his" relativity theory. :DEinstein received the Nobel Prize for his work on the photo-electric effect. [3]

This should be in the article from a non biased POV (regardless of whether links are Communist or Nationalist the references and facts should be taken note of) FK0071a 14:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

your "references" are a collection of anti-semitic and confused Christian cranks. Wikipedia doesn't need every piece of nonsense found on the internet. The full article is at Relativity priority dispute and discusses anything you ever wanted to know about the topic. dab (𒁳) 15:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you even read or looked at the references you are mentioning above ? In particular, the paper Physics Notes: E = mc² is not Einstein's Equation says exactly the opposite of what you are implying. Schutz 22:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

And who is Viktor Toth, that we must accept his googling bit? Vsmith 23:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at the post script to Toth's article. Well worth a read --LiamE 23:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

None of the above are Reliable Sources. This is a crackpot theory trafficked by white supremists and anti-Semites. It gets no voice on Wikipedia. --Fastfission 02:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps they are not “sources,” but the Physics World and Toth essays contain anything but “crackpot theor[ies] trafficked by white supremists and anti-Semites.” The Physics World article considers various criticisms, but the only one it accepts is womanizing. Toth says only that the Einstein field equation should be called “Einstein’s equation” rather than his other equation, E=mc². --teb728 05:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I was ignoring the Toth page because it clearly had nothing to do with the others and was probably put in there by mistake. The Physics World article basically says the same things about the other sources as I did, and obviously I wasn't referring to it as among them. --Fastfission 17:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Theory of Relativity

If I'm not mistaken, isn't it Einstein's general theory of relativity itself that is the tool that has proven that reality is made of flat Euclidean space (when mass isn't around)? 2:14 December 7, 2006 (EST)

In the general theory of relativity (but not the special theory), gravitation is treated as an effect of the curvature of the space-time continuum, building on geometric ideas of Gauss, Riemann, and others. The success of the theory supports the notion that the actual physical structure of space-time is such a more general geometry than the flat one of Euclid. On what grounds do you assert that it is actually Euclidean? — DAGwyn 00:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It is pointless to speculate about properties of an empty universe, since that doesn't correspond to anything that can ever be within our experience. Nearly all cosmology (theory of the large-scale structure of the universe) relies heavily on the general relativistic property of mass causing space-time to curve. — DAGwyn 00:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You said "non-Euclidean geometry does not correspond to physical reality", and I asked on what grounds you claim that. — DAGwyn 23:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually non-Euclidean geometries are just as rigorous and concrete and have the same axioms and postulates as Euclidean Geometry, except that the parallel postulate is different, and straight lines are generalized to geodesics.

The gravitational field near the earth is low, and so space-time is almost flat here. As a result it is easy to imagine lines remaining parallel forever. But space-time is strongly curved near a massive object as in a gravitational lens; so light, which travels along geodesics, can diverge from a distant star, move along paths on opposite side of the massive object as it passes by, and converge to a telescope on earth.

Thus near the earth reality corresponds nearly to Euclidean Geometry, but near a strong gravitational field it corresponds to non-Euclidean geometry. --teb728 00:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

While this is getting off-track for a Wikipedia Talk page, it may help the fellow to mention the case for 2-D "plane" geometry, which may be easier to envision. A relatively small region of the Earth's surface seems to be a portion of a plane, and so planar Euclidean geometry seems "natural", but navigators have long appreciated that for extended voyages they have to take into account that the surface is curved on a larger scale. "Spherical trigonometry" used to be taught as an intermediate math course in US schools, some time after "plane trigonometry". Trigonometry on a sphere is just as rigorous as trig on a plane, but the formulas are different – for example, the sum of the internal angles of a triangle on a sphere exceed 180 degrees by an amount that is proportional to the area of the triangle. (The radius of the sphere enters into the formula.) It is a practical example of a case where non-Euclidean geometry is a much better fit to reality than is Euclidean geometry. — DAGwyn 07:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed my mind and decided that the point I made was not valid so I have decided to delete my comments about this issue. FDR 23:43:32 12/29/2006 (UTC)

Education "controversy"

Do we really need the lengthy analysis of Einstein's grade card. Seems the article is plenty long without dragging out the grade details. Also, it is not our job here to presume or deduce anything (removed that part) - just to report the pertinate published and notable information. Vsmith 03:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that Einstein had the same attitude that almost every good scientist and engineer has (and probably lots of other people): he paid more attention to and did more work in those subjects that he found of interest. It's really silly to analyze individual report card grades anyway. (For example, I took a course in two different years, failed it one time and aced it the next.) The only point I see in mentioning the topic at all is to counter the oft-heard claim that "Einstein failed mathematics in school". — DAGwyn 00:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Copied the following from my talk for all to view:

Einstein Edits

Alright, let me explain to you the logic of this, when it comes to flow of article.

I agree that embellishment and such should have no place in scientific articles in general, however I disagree with your ideas here.

You are being narrow minded. Read the 2 paragraphs pertaining to his education and performance in school. The reason why I included the additional information is to end that section with "Einstein only excelled in the subjects he deemed relevant to his scientific career."

This is THE TRUTH. Alright, i can take out the "presume" and "deduce" bit, if need be, however, I STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT THIS VITAL INFORMATION AS TO THE thinking of Albert Einstein, or his perception of education in general as a reflection of his own experiences through high school, is VERY IMPORTANT AND RELEVANT to this article. It's not just the flow of the entire paragraph, its a concluding sentence, which is important in any academic essay.

I am not sure about your level of understanding of these subtle ideas. But JUST FOR YOU, i will take out the "presume" and "deduce" bit, even though it is blatantly obvious, I was being pragmatic by using those 2 verbs to suggest that there might have been more to Einstein than what's on paper.

Fine, i'll take it out, but I am going to include the concluding sentence, and if you still have a problem with it, let's take it up with higher personell.

Regards, --Emperor 03:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Emperor ?? where'd that come from? OK Peter (as you first signed the above post), but I'd suggest taking the issue to the Einstein talk page rather than some higher personell - whoever you're referring to there. As I obviously cannot argue with THE TRUTH with my limited level of understanding of these subtle ideas.

"Einstein only excelled in the subjects he deemed relevant to his scientific career." -- hmm, or was he more normal and excelled in subjects that he was interested in? Do we have a reference that states his career oriented focus? or just that he was following his interests as many very bright teens have done throughout history. Vsmith 03:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Copying this to talk:Albert Einstein - please respond there wher all of the higher personell guys can watch. Vsmith 03:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Overlord or Emperor has inserted another version of his concluding sentence which appears to be based on his interpretation and thus comes near to or is WP:OR. Also he seems to have re-added similar material a number of times, I have previously left him a WP:3RR warning on his talk page. Vsmith 04:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the latest version of Overlord’s conclusion with the comment, “This conclusion does not necessarily follow.” In doing so I had in mind Vsmith’s comment above, “was he more normal and excelled in subjects that he was interested in? …” On reflection, however, I see that the evidence not only fails to support Overlord’s conclusion; it positively refutes it: Einstein got a 6 in history and 5’s in German and Italian, and in Munich he got high marks in Latin and Greek. How did this excellence advance his scientific career? On the other hand, he got only a 4 in technical drawing; you would think that if he were so career-focused, he would have tried harder there. --teb728 23:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC) I have heard that his low mark in French was the result of trying to cram three years of French into one year. So Robinson’s interpretation is questionable. --teb728 23:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I must say I both agree and disagree with the above arguments. Firstly, the marks he obtained in other courses DO NOT refute the concluding sentence of mine. However, they don't necessarily support it either. That's why I have accepted the current changes until I can find evidence of a quote of Einstein, clearly supporting my conclusion. I am almost certain that I am right, however proving it is difficult. Einstein's priorities lied in the physical and mathematical sciences. Obtaining an excellent grade in also history doesn't suggest I am wrong. His above average marks in other courses do not falsify my claims in any way. If anything, it does suggest that irrespective of his qualms he did take pride in what he attempted. The reason why I am certain of my claims, is because of several aspects in his earlier life. I am not going to mention these, as they do not provide the proof that I am looking for at this point. I believe in the future, once I find something irrefutable, I will include my original concluding sentence. --Emperor 14:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

English and Einstein's matura

Something hopefully less controversial... The article currently says: Einstein also completed English studies, for which he received no grade.. This, I believe, is incorrect. The document is a pre-printed form with the possible courses; if Einstein did no receive a grade, it is proably because he did not take the course. In more recent times (until a few years ago), Swiss students could choose between Italian and English as a third language. I cannot be confident that it was already the case in Einstein's times, but it looks like a good explanation for the absence of a grade. In any case, I'll just remove the sentence. Schutz 23:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I studied in switzerland for several years during primary school, secondary and high school, and it IS possible to complete subjects WITHOUT receiving a grade. However, usually it would be denoted with "bes." for "besucht" and so it seems that you might be right. I must add, however, that it is not unlikely that Einstein also completed English studies, because I have a friend, in his 50s, who studied in the same High school as einstein did, and he did indeed receive grades for german, french, italian and english. However, it might well be the case that Einstein studied the more scientifically focused "typ". In any case, it's better not to presume. --Emperor 14:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If there is no reliable source for the statement that he received no grade, it should simply be deleted. Harald88 19:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

relativity

would it be true to say that he was wrong and that e=mcsquared and that at higher velocities the energy increased and not the mass? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.137.118.130 (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

No (I don't know what to say more as the three suppostions don't match). Harald88 19:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, there is some sort of misunderstanding, but it's not clear what. One way of looking at E=mc² (click on that link for more detail) is that the m refers to a velocity-dependent mass which increases according to $m(v)=m(0)/{\sqrt {1-({\frac {v}{c}})^{2}}}$. — DAGwyn 01:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I should add that whether or not the preceding interpretation is a really good one depends on whether the gravitation-generating effective mass should be m(v) or the "rest mass" m(0). It is more usual when working with fundamental particles to reserve m for rest mass, and use the energy-momentum-(rest)mass relationship: $E^{2}-(pc)^{2}=(mc^{2})^{2}$, where E and p c together transform properly as a relativistic 4-vector. The source of gravitation in the general theory of relativity is the more sophisticated stress-energy tensor. — DAGwyn 00:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Bhagavad Gita quote

Removed the following as neither source gives the original occurrence of the quote.

When I read the Bhagavad Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous.

About.com is not a valid source and the Bhagavad Gita and Management source seems rather a poor source for the quote. Provide a better - or the original source and context or leave it out. Vsmith 16:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if a reference to Einstein's own writings can be cited, then it would be an interesting quotation to have in the article, but if (as I suspect) Einstein never said that then it certainly does not belong in the article. A problem with Einstein is that every group and creed wants to claim him as one of their own, regardless of whether he really was.. — DAGwyn 05:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and beside the requirement of verifiability for all information in articles (see WP:Verifiability and WP:Citing sources), citing a source for this quote in Einstein’s own writings would provide a context for it, rather than just something he supposedly said sometime in his life. --teb728 06:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have come across Einstein's quote on the Bhagavad Gita a number of times. However, what you guys said above makes sense. --Incman|वार्ता 00:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If you can track down the reference to Einstein's own writings, you'd be doing us all a favor, and then the quotation would be interesting to add (assuming that it wasn't taken too far out of context, which we could then check). — DAGwyn 22:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Religious views

I've put in the relevant quotes from Pais (the definitive biography) which cite the Nature Paper, and a ref to the Nature Paper. As user:Sparkhead pointed out the mention of the Nature paper should not be in the quotes section, but the previous one. Since the other "blind/lame" quote is slightly different and cited to a secondary source I have not deleted it, because he may have said it twice, but the primary source Nature and definitive bio should take priority IMHO. NBeale 23:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That said bio is "definitive" is POV (not just your POV), there's no need to include the quote twice. It's already in there. --*Spark* 03:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Spark. I've now got the original Nature Article from the Wellcome Library - unfortunately for copyright reasons I can't post the whole of it but I have quoted it extensively in the article. The blind/lame quote is different so either the other ref is wrong or (as I suspect) E. said much the same thing in 2 different ways. If you want to delete the latter (secondary source etc..) I have no objections. I think Nature trumps a book about E. (PS I wouldn't say definitive in an article, but that's pretty much how Pais is described in this. NBeale 19:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Einstein's refusal "might have stemmed from"

You write:

"Einstein's refusal might have stemmed from his disapproval of some of the Israeli policies during the war of independence."

Your "might have stemmed from" claim appears as your private position on this. Please, provide a quotation from a reputable source or remove your claim if you can not substantiate it.

64.160.42.130 03:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Michael Yatziv

The sentence you cite was a toned down remnant of a POV edit, which originally referenced his open letter criticizing Begin and Herut. That letter, of course, does not justify the speculation. I have removed the remnant. --teb728 08:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Not only U.S. citizen offered foreign leadership position

Tansu Çiller served as prime minister of Turkey from 1993-1995 after acquiring American citizenship while in graduate school in Connecticut: http://mediaguidetoislam.sfsu.edu/women/03b_feminism.htm

Belgrade-born California businessman Milan Panić was a U.S. citizen when he served as the prime minister of Yugoslavia from 1992-1993.

Golda Meir was prime minister of Israel after having had American citizenship (it is unclear whether she renounced it). Critic9328 18:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Possibly there is a difference between being offered it, and deciding to stand for election. David Underdown 17:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Experiment at age 16 not correct, I think

I think the article is incorrect in describing the wonderful thought experiment that Einstein performed at age 16. The article as now posted says: "...at the age of 16, he performed the thought experiment known as "Albert Einstein's mirror". After gazing into a mirror, he examined what would happen to his image if he were moving at the speed of light; his conclusion, that the speed of light is independent of the observer, would later become one of the two postulates of special relativity."

In fact, I think his great thought experiment, which led to his theory of special relativity, was about riding alongside a light beam and trying to catch up with it.

Here is his quote as recorded in Peter Bucky, The Private Albert Einstein, Kansas City: Andrew and McMeel, 1992, page 26: “In Aarau I made my first rather childish experiments in thinking that had a direct bearing on the Special Theory. If a person could run after a light wave with the same speed as light, you would have a wave arrangement which could be completely independent of time. Of course, such a thing is impossible." He expanded on this experiment in Aarau at age 16 in his own "Autobiographical notes," printed in Paul Arthur Schilpp, Albert Einstein, Chicago: Open Court Press, 1949, page 49: "If I pursue a beam of light with the velocity c (velocity of light in a vacuum), I should observe such a beam of light as an electromagnetic field at rest though spatially oscillating. There seems to be no such thing, however, neither on the basis of experience nor according to Maxwell’s equations. From the very beginning it appeared to me intuitively clear that, judged from the standpoint of such an observer, everything would have to happen according to the same laws as for an observer who, relative to the earth, was at rest. For how should the first observer know or be able to determine that he is in a state of fast uniform motion? One sees in this paradox the germ of the special relativity theory is already contained."

I think it would be better to say: "That same year, at age 16, he performed a famous thought experiment by trying to visualize what it would be like to ride alongside a light beam. He realized that, according to Maxwell's equations, light waves would obey the principle of relativity: the speed of the light would seem the same, a constant speed, no matter what the constant velocity of the observer." 209.97.231.74 04:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Jefferson St. Charles

Suggestion

Einstein has so many memorable quotes. Why isn't there a section in the article dedicated only to his quotes even if the have to be repeated??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marwan123 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Quotes belong in Wikiquote, not in Wikipedia articles (at least not extensively)Acornwithwings 02:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved text on special relativity

The following was posted to the article by 207.210.130.113. Assuming it is not plagiarized, it deserves a home somewhere, but this biography is not a suitable home:

"The classical laws of physics were formulated by Newton in the Principia in 1687. According to this theory the motion of a particle has to be described relative to an inertial frame .... (many paragraphs removed from this copy—see note below * —Æ) .... The committee was at first cautious and waited for experimental confirmation. By the time such confirmation was available Einstein had moved on to further momentous work."

--moved to talk page by teb728 22:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

* With thanks to TEB728 for removing the plagiarism from the article and to 24.147.86.187 for locating its source, I have abbreviated the talk page copy in the interest of economy of space here. Athænara ✉ 03:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that the reason given for the Nobel decision is bogus. He wasn't awarded the Nobel prize for "further momentous" work, but for clearly less momentous work. More likely the Nobel committee was leery of awarding prizes for theories, period. — DAGwyn 07:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The Einstein Nobel decision is rather complicated — the easiest answer is that they gave it to the part of his work which was undeniable by all, was very concrete in its implications and truth, and was in itself still terribly important (his photoelectric work is one of the most important things in early quantum theory, pushing the quanta from an theoretical construct into something more real). There are more details than that, of course, but I'm fairly sure that's the gist of it. --24.147.86.187 01:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It is plagiarized at that. [4]. --24.147.86.187 01:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Remark on reverted edit concerning c & constant

I agree with the reversion: Not only would Einstein have been more likely to use "k" for "konstant" if that were the etymology (he didn't speak English at the time), but also he would not have believed anything so ludicrous as that the speed of light was the only constant in the universe. (Immediate counterexamples would be 1 and c^2.) Indeed, check out cosmological constant. — DAGwyn 07:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Show trials

Einstein endorsed Stalin's 1936 and 1937 show trials. See "Einstein-Born Brief Wechseln" and an English translation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.113.156 (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Where can we find some citation by Einstein to that effect? It seems very unlikely.. — DAGwyn 01:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The Einstein Born Letters, London, MacMillan, 1971, 2005. Einstein/Born Briefwechsel, 1916-1955, Verlag Rowohlt, 1984. In 1937, Born wrote to Einstein, suggesting that he recommend a physicist to the Soviets, mainly Molotov. Then Born said, "I could understand it if you wanted nothing to do with the Soviets. The new trial against Radek is disgusting." Einstein replied by endorsing the phoney trials and quoting the ipse dixit of experts on Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Tongue

The tongue photograph citation link is dead. (currently Albert Einstein# note-54). I don't have time to wayback machine it or find alternative source, so leaving note here. —Quiddity 02:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That is very important.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.113.156 (talk)

It kind of is, from a particular point of view. See [5]. Which I'll now add/replace as the ref in question. —Quiddity 12:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why don't we show the picture here? I'm sure it was included in the article at some point, but I really don't feel like going through the archives and page history to find out what happened to it, I haven't checked the article in months. --Conti|✉ 03:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it was deleted from the Image namespace in July for failure to meet copyright requirements. --teb728 07:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I managed to find the deleted image (Image:Zunge.jpg) from the article history. The image was apparently deleted because no proper source was given, which is kinda silly given the fact that the source is even discussed in this very article. --Conti|✉ 15:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reuploaded the image with a proper fair use rationale and added it to the article. --Conti|✉ 16:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hoorah! thanks :) —Quiddity 18:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The october/november 1915 communications

I think I spotted a minor mistake. In the article it is stated:

In November 1915, Einstein presented a series of lectures before the Prussian Academy of Sciences on a new theory of gravity, known as general relativity. The final lecture ended with his introduction of an equation that replaced Newton's law of gravity, the Einstein field equation.

All other sources that I have seen relate the following:
In oktober/november Einstein submitted in quick succession several hurried communications to the magazine: 'Proceedings of the Prussion academy of sciences' (Preusische Academie der Wissenschaften, Sitzungsberichte).

Not a series of lectures in november, but hasty notes to the magazine, each one basically a correction/amendation on the preceeding one. At the time, Einstein and Hilbert were corresponding with each other, keeping each other informed about their progress. Einstein and Hilbert assisted and stimulated each other (any secrecy would have been frowned upon as contrary to the free spirit of science), but at the same time they were competitors, and historians of science indicate that if Einstein would have hesitated he would not have had priority of publication.

Anyway, the november communications weren't lectures, and they weren't articles. It is my understanding that the november communications were hurried notes, each published within a week of being submitted, aimed at securing Einstein's priority.

Several months before, in the summer of 1915, Einstein had been invited to Göttingen to present lectures on his new theory. The subject of these lectures was the theory that nowadays is known as the 'Entwurf theory', the attempt at formulating a general theory of relativity that was published in 1913, a collaboration between Einstein and his friend Marcel Grossman.

Einstein's first systematic exposition of the general theory of relativity was composed and published in 1916. --Cleonis | Talk 09:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the exact history, which presumably could be looked up, but in fact Einstein had been trying to devise a relativistic gravitational theory, publishing various attempts, for several years before 1915. — DAGwyn 01:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I need to correct myself on a very important point. The 1913 Entwurf theory was an attempt at a relativistic theory of gravitation. Contrary to what I wrote above it was not an attempt at formulating a general theory of relativity. In fact, between the publication of the Entwurf theory, and the october/november communications, Einstein published on four different occasions a line of reasoning aimed at proving that any theory with the property of being generally covariant could not possibly be correct. That is, Einstein was denying the possibility of formulating a physically acceptable theory that would have the property of general covariance.

The development of Einstein's general theory of relativity was one with many U-turns. In october of 1915 Einstein changed his mind once more, and returned to a set of equations he had considered but then discarded in 1913. Einstein calculated once more an approximate value for the perihelion precession of Mercury, and this time he obtained a value very close to the astronomical value. In quick succession an elated Einstein rushed several communications to the Sitzungsberichte. --Cleonis | Talk 02:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Need explanation or another article on "geometrization of gravity"

I know some vague stuff about the general theory of relativity, but not enough to write anything about "geometrization of gravity", which this article refers to.

Somebody added a link to Geometry for "geometrization", but that is inadequate to explain what this is about.

I think either an explanation is needed or an another article is needed. Clemwang 05:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What is meant by that term is explaining gravitation as a geometric property of the space-time manifold, instead of a separate thing that just happens within space-time without being part of it. It's probably not worth any additional effort to explain in connection with the Einstein article. — DAGwyn 06:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Noinclude tag

Could an admin remove/ fix the "noinclude" tag visible near the bottom of the page?Thanks. 24.20.69.240 11:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. The tag came from vandalism to an included template, so fixing it didn't require an admin. Hemmingsen 11:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Nationality

I believe that Albert Einstein's nationality tag should be changed immediately to 'Swiss-American' for the several reasons which I will now explain:

• Wikipedia's laws state that each subject must be tagged by their citizenship(s) ('German-born' is most definitely not a citizenship)
• At the time of his death, he was a citizen of the United States of America and Switzerland, not Germany (he had previously renounced his German citizenship)
• Wikipedia advocates using citizenship (Swiss and American), not ethnicity (German (possibly Jewish depending on personal beliefs about Jews as an ethnic group)), as the nationality tag placed in the introductory biography.
• Birth place is unnecessary and not supported in the opening paragraph. Such details are shown clearly in Einstein's info box and also explained further down in the article.

For those reasons I will change the nationality tag immediately.

Cypriot stud 18:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• There is no "Wikipedia law". If you think there is a policy or guideline, providing a link would be useful.
• Why do you pick the time of his death? He was born German (and later became a citizen of the German Reich).
• Einsteins Nationality is complex and this parapgraph is the result of a long discussion. Before changing it "immediately", try to obtain consensus.

--Stephan Schulz 22:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Whatever label(s) go in the lead sentence of a bio are decided on a case-by-case basis, according to whatever best summarizes to subject. The question of what label(s) to put in Einstein’s lead sentence has been extensively discussed on this talk page (Einsteins nationality (archived), Jewish-German-Swiss-American scientist (archived), Jewishness (archived), Nationalities (archived), Putting "Jewish" back in the opening sentence (archived), Geeman's comments on "Jewish"). The consensus was that Einstein’s nationality, citizenship and religion were not sufficiently notable to mention in the lead sentence (but that “German-born” should be retained to explain why the German pronounciation is given). Notice, however, that his Swiss and American citizenships are listed in the infobox, and his citizenship has a section in the body of the article. --teb728 22:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the two relevant questions to ask when deciding how Einstein's nationality/ethnicity should be described in the opening sentence is first: What best describes the man? Second: how did his origins affected his legacy? From what I can tell, Einstein's Swiss and American citizenships were more pragmatic than personal, and more incidental than influential, so I don't think they belong in the opening sentence. Further, they did not necessarily have a dramatic effect on his impact in history. I would argue that his being German-BORN was significant, and that his being a jew is signficant (for reasons I've already elaborated upon pretty extensively, so I'll not regurgitate them other than to mention that I don't think anyone has made any substantial counter argument to them so far) but despite being an American myself I don't find his American citizenship particularly noteworthy, nor do I think his Swiss citizenship tells us much about Einstein as a person or historical figure that we don't already learn by noting he was a German-born jew. Geeman 23:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Look [6] here. You will see where it says that citizenship, not ethnicity, must be used as the nationality tags.

Why do I choose his citizenship at the time of his death? Because it was the most recent citizenship he had. He was no longer, in the eyes of the law, classed as a German (about a German as a Jamaican who has never left Jamaica). His birth place is clearly visible in his info box, as well as his explained multiple nationalities. But the most up-to-date and, in accordance with Wikipedia's regulations on citizenship, correct citizenships were Swiss and American, so there is no reason for him to be labelled otherwise. Also, 'German-born ' is not a citizenship; it can really only be German or Swiss-American. Birth isn't relevant in the introductory paragraph.

Cypriot stud 17:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal Point of View

Badddd!!!!!!!!!!1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 262DU (talk • contribs) 21:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC).