Former featured articleAlbert 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 articleAlbert 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 so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 12, 2005.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 13, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
November 16, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
October 5, 2007Good article nomineeListed
June 14, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 18, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
May 8, 2023Good article reassessmentKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 2, 2004, June 30, 2005, June 30, 2006, April 18, 2017, and March 14, 2024.
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

GA Reassessment

Albert Einstein

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Kept, with thanks to XOR'easter for their hard work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there's some uncited text and other problems including

  • If one end of a wormhole was positively charged, the other end would be negatively charged. These properties led Einstein to believe that pairs of particles and antiparticles could be described in this way.
  • Later, after the death of his second wife Elsa, Einstein was briefly in a relationship with Margarita Konenkova. Konenkova was a Russian spy who was married to the Russian sculptor Sergei Konenkov (who created the bronze bust of Einstein at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton).[67][68][failed verification]*the Einstein-Cartan theory section
  • The equations of motion section
  • The Adiabatic principle and action-angle variables section
  • In "Über die Entwicklung unserer Anschauungen über das Wesen und die Konstitution der Strahlung" ("The Development of our Views on the Composition and Essence of Radiation"), on the quantization of light, and in an earlier 1909 paper, Einstein showed that Max Planck's energy quanta must have well-defined momenta and act in some respects as independent, point-like particles. This paper introduced the photon concept (although the name photon was introduced later by Gilbert N. Lewis in 1926) and inspired the notion of wave–particle duality in quantum mechanics. Einstein saw this wave–particle duality in radiation as concrete evidence for his conviction that physics needed a new, unified foundation.
  • The matter waves section
  • Although he was lauded for this work, his efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. Notably, Einstein's unification project did not accommodate the strong and weak nuclear forces, neither of which was well understood until many years after his death. Although mainstream physics long ignored Einstein's approaches to unification, Einstein's work has motivated modern quests for a theory of everything, in particular string theory, where geometrical fields emerge in a unified quantum-mechanical setting.
  • The other investigations section
  • Einstein suggested to Erwin Schrödinger that he might be able to reproduce the statistics of a Bose–Einstein gas by considering a box. Then to each possible quantum motion of a particle in a box associate an independent harmonic oscillator. Quantizing these oscillators, each level will have an integer occupation number, which will be the number of particles in it.
  • Many popular quotations are often misattributed to him.[example needed]

and possibly more. Though some of these could have been general referenced and I missed it. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems rather odd to open this without editing the article yourself or raising any issues on the article talkpage first. --JBL (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

information This review was put on hold for two months to relieve pressure on topic editors at GAR. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On a first reading, none of the uncited statements look atrocious. Various standard textbooks/histories/biographies should cover them, I think. XOR'easter (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Working through these as I find the time. XOR'easter (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All the {{citation needed}} tags are addressed now. XOR'easter (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
XOR'easter, thanks for your efforts. A couple of things still need to be directly cited: the quotes in the sentence beginning "As he stated in the paper" in the physical cosmology section, the Einstein–Cartan theory and Wave–particle duality sections. Also, do you think MOS:OVERSECTION is a problem at all? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The citation for the "As he stated in the paper..." is immediately preceding that passage. I don't see the need to repeat footnotes there.
There are more divisions into short subsections than I would have included, but I'm not sure that's a problem per se. XOR'easter (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Third-order tree list in the infobox known_for parameter

The above is egregious. Moreover, the presence of four default-hidden collapses is an egregious violation of WP:NOHIDE four times over, and I feel the recent editors making their contents more elaborate need to show a bit of restraint and pare it back down. Remsense ‥ 论 19:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically pinging @WikiCorrector5241 for their input. Remsense ‥ 论 19:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have rv'ed all the changes for discussion. WP:NOHIDE suggest discussion first. Per Template:Infobox person and Template:Infobox scientist this should be "Key topics/areas of study in which the scientist is notable", not the (current) excessive laundry list. Should be less than (5?) un-collapsed items with the rest at the recommended "see list" link. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Lead

The lead closes: "For much of the last phase of his academic life, Einstein worked on two endeavors that ultimately proved unsuccessful. First, he advocated against quantum theory's introduction of fundamental randomness into science's picture of the world, objecting that God does not play dice. Second, he attempted to devise a unified field theory by generalizing his geometric theory of gravitation to include electromagnetism. As a result, he became increasingly isolated from mainstream modern physics."

That's true, but rather depressing. Wouldn't it be better to close with something of his legacy? The lead for Leonhard Euler (a Featured Article) closes: "Several great mathematicians who worked after Euler's death have recognised his importance in the field: Pierre-Simon Laplace said, 'Read Euler, read Euler, he is the master of us all'; Carl Friedrich Gauss wrote: 'The study of Euler's works will remain the best school for the different fields of mathematics, and nothing else can replace it.'" The lead for Lise Meitner (today's Featured Article) concludes: "Despite not having been awarded the Nobel Prize, Meitner was invited to attend the Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting in 1962. She received many other honours, including the posthumous naming of element 109 meitnerium in 1997. Meitner was praised by Albert Einstein as the 'German Marie Curie.'"

Wouldn't it be appropriate to close with similar appraisals of Einstein? That in 1999, Einstein was named Time's Person of the Century?[1] Or that that same year he was voted the greatest physicist of all time?[2] Charlie Faust (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the lead: "A joint paper in 1935, with physicist Nathan Rosen, introduced the notion of a wormhole.[3] Alongside physicist Leo Szilard, he invented a refrigerator that consisted of no moving parts and used only heat as an input."
That's true, but is it important enough to be in the lead? Wormholes are theoretical; there's no evidence that they exist. And Einstein was not primarily known as an inventor. So I propose we excise those sentences from the lead, as they are not among the most important part of his career. And why not close with a brief assessment of his legacy, as seen on the pages for Euler and Meitner? Charlie Faust (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because wormholes are theoretical, doesn't mean they don't have importance, they represent a potential solution to the problem of vast distances in the universe. Wormholes are a notable contribution of his. As for the poll at the end of the lede, that's one poll, there's dozens of lists that someone could list, especially when there's plenty that put Einstein behind other scientists but those wouldn't be included because Einstein isn't first. They belong in the legacy section. Reaper1945 (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense This might be relevant to you, as you've worked plenty on Einstein's page. Reaper1945 (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy Linking you as you previously edited out the Time's magazine person of the year from the lede, thought your opinion would be relevant. Reaper1945 (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a layman recognition nothing to do with academia. It's media junk it's not like Nobel. Lead is simply not the place for fluff of this nature. Moxy🍁 23:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Einstein's legacy wasn't purely scientific. He was, as his biographer Walter Isaacson notes, one of the first modern celebrities. So I think the Time piece is absolutely worth including. True, it is written for the layman, but then so is Wikipedia, and it serves as a good introduction to his life and work. And it's hardly fluff; it's an informative article from a respected publication. And the pages for other figures featured on the list mention this; on the page for The Beatles (a Featured Article), the lead closes with "Time magazine named them among the 20th century's 100 most important people." I'm not trying to trivialize Einstein as a mere celebrity; far from it. But he was perhaps the most recognizable person of the century, and the Time piece reflects this.
To wit: the piece is a good summary of his legacy, which wasn't purely scientific (although the article covers that, too.) Charlie Faust (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciated—I'm fine with what others decide here, given I've only really worked around the edges and others are likely more familiar with the actual sources than I am. Remsense ‥ 论 00:17, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As for the poll, it was taken among leading physicists. It's fitting to close with a summary of his legacy, as seen on the pages for Euler and Meitner (Featured Articles both.)
I'm not saying wormholes aren't an important theoretical construct, only that they're not important enough to be in the lead. They're just that, a theoretical construct; there's no evidence that they exist, and it's not even clear that they could. There's plenty of room for them elsewhere in the article, but Einstein did much more important work, and that's what should be in the lead. Charlie Faust (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Type of junk many countries have Canadian Newsmaker of the Year (Time).... Does zero in helping understand why he's notable. Moxy🍁 00:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it wasn't Newsmaker of the Year, it was Person of the Century. And, again, other figures who made the Time 100 have this noted in the leads of their pages. Shouldn't the Person of the Century? Charlie Faust (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Best try to avoid the examples used by pop culture bios. Is it article worthy yes is it lead worthy not even close. This isn't beyoncé Moxy🍁 00:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was. The runners-up, Mahatma Gandhi and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, weren't mere celebrities, either. Charlie Faust (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To keep it more generic and linking to actual information about the topic in question rather than just stating a fact with a link to an article with minimal information about the person. .... Suggested edit = throughout his career Einstein received many accolades and honors. Moxy🍁 00:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not just an article, it's a Featured Article. Other Featured Articles, those for Leonhard Euler and Lise Meitner, for example, close with a brief description of their legacies. The Time piece, and not just the ranking as Person of the Century, does that. Charlie Faust (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not all notable academic or intellectual figures have a noted legacy paragraph in their lede with polls or praise, for example Christiaan Huygens or Carl Friedrich Gauss, though quite a few do. As for the most important information in the lede, most if not all of it has been stated, such as relativity, Brownian motion, photoelectric effect, etc. Stating that he introduced the notion of a wormhole wouldn't be so far off as to note one of his further notable contributions, unless you have more relevant and important information of his to state in the lede over it. The lede should be more concerned with actual work and their life. There's a legacy section to fit all the accolades and countless polls, though not pages all follow this. Reaper1945 (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems most Good and Featured Articles have a brief summary of the subjects' legacy at the end of the lead. And Einstein's legacy wasn't merely scientific; as Isaacson notes, he was one of the most recognizable people of the century. The Time piece reflects that. Charlie Faust (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll cede on the results of the Physics World poll, as it was just one poll, and other polls have placed Newton higher. However, I do think the article[4] is worth linking to as it gives an idea of Einstein's stature, and is a good introduction to various topics in physics. Einstein is consistently ranked among the greatest physicists, along with Newton and Maxwell. The way the lead closes now ("As a result, he became increasingly isolated from mainstream modern physics") gives little indication that most modern physicists hold Einstein in high esteem. They do. His work on the photoelectric effect was important in establishing the concept of light quanta (photons) and General Relativity gives us a framework for understanding the Big Bang and black holes, among much else. You wouldn't know that from the way the lead ends now.
So why not say something to the effect of "Einstein is ranked as one of the greatest physicists of all time", linking to the Physics World article and perhaps other polls which give the lead to Newton? That would be a way of summarizing his legacy. Charlie Faust (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should be more clear..... as a general rule of thumb...Lead should provide clear, relevant information and links to relevant sub-articles about the subject, rather than listing random facts and articles with minimal information about the subject. Let's try and guide our readers to more information on the subject and not generic pages in a promotional manner... especially in the lead. Moxy🍁 00:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a random fact that a major publication named him Person of the Century, or that a poll of leading physicists named him the greatest physicist of all time. Both the Time and Physics World articles are useful in their own right. Charlie Faust (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's only major in the United States...... meaningless to the rest of the world. Moxy🍁 00:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's your source for that? Time is a respected publication. And their contenders for Person of the Century came from around the globe.
Einstein's legacy goes beyond science, as Isaacson notes: "Einstein's launch into fame, which occurred when measurements during a 1919 solar eclipse confirmed his prediction of how much gravity bends light, coincided with, and contributed to, the birth of a new celebrity age. He became a scientific supernova and a humanist icon, one of the most famous faces on the planet. The public earnestly puzzled over his theories, elevated him into a cult of genius, and canonized him as a secular saint."[5] The Time piece reflects this. Charlie Faust (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is your goal to promote the time article or to lead our readers to information about this topic? Moxy🍁 01:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The latter, and the Time piece does that. I come not to promote the piece but to defend it, as it does a good job of summarizing Einstein's life and work for the layman. Charlie Faust (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you're talking about the source...... I've been talking about the wikilink the whole time Because this is just junk. Would be best to guide our editors to a listing of all his awards and accolades.... that include actual academic ones.... where people can also find the source you love with a mini bio. It's clear there's no consensus for this at this point.... you're free to seek more input. Moxy🍁 01:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I said several times that I was referring to the Time piece, meaning the piece published in Time magazine on December 31, 1999 and written by Frederic Golden. I don't particularly "love" Time, or the piece, but I feel it is worth linking to. Golden's article does a good job of summarizing Einstein's legacy, including pertinent quotes both by ("Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one’s living at it") and about him (Richard Feynman on General Relativity: "I still can’t see how he thought of it.") That Einstein was chosen as Person of the Century is a testament to his historical significance and how his influence extends beyond science (and is itself historically significant.) Charlie Faust (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another quote from the article, from physicist and historian Gerald Holton: “If Einstein’s ideas are really naive, the world is really in pretty bad shape.” It's significant that Time chose him as Person of the Century. Their selection of him over, say, FDR or Gandhi is itself historically significant. Plus, as stated, Golden's article is a good introduction to Einstein's life and work. Charlie Faust (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Golden, Frederic (31 December 1999). "Albert Einstein". Time.
  2. ^ "Physics: past, present, future". Physics World. December 6, 1999.
  3. ^ Einstein & Rosen (1935).
  4. ^ "Physics: past, present, future". Physics World. December 6, 1999.
  5. ^ Isaacson, Walter (2007). Einstein: His Life and Universe. p. 5.

Equivalence principle

Under "1919: putting general relativity to the test", we read "In 1907, Einstein reached a milestone on his long journey from his special theory of relativity to a new idea of gravitation with the formulation of his equivalence principle, which asserts that an observer in a box falling freely in a gravitational field would be unable to find any evidence that the field exists."

Per Wikipedia: "The equivalence principle is the hypothesis that the observed equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass is a consequence of nature." Isn't that what the equivalence principle is? Shouldn't the sentence on this page reflect that? Charlie Faust (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first principle principal is local; in the large there are tidal effects. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but the heart of the matter, as I understand it, is that gravitational and inertial forces are similar (and gravitational and inertial masses.) That's not clear here. We should work on it. Einstein deserves better. Charlie Faust (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, I agree that he deserves better.
Second, the heart of GR is that gravitation is not a force at all, but geometry, and what enters into the field equation is not the scalar mass but rather the stress-energy-momentum tensor.
I also believe that he deserves more credit for his 1905 PhD thesis; it played an important role in nailing down the molecular hypothesis. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 06:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! And his paper on Brownian motion pretty much established the atomic theory, did it not?
What about the equivalence of gravitational and inertial masses? That was known since Galileo, but not accounted for until Einstein. Wasn't that one of the roads to GR? Charlie Faust (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that any Physicist would deny that his Brownian motion paper deserved a Nobel prize, and, yes, it and his PhD thesis removed any plausible doubt.
The road to GR is a bit stickier. It involved Mach's principle, the equivalence principle, assistance from mathematicians, ten grueling years and a mind that's hard to fathom. While GR itself is simple enough, deriving the field equation from where he started seems supernatural. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was Richard Feynman who said[1] "I still can’t see how he thought of it", regarding GR. (That quote might be worth including.) Wasn't his "happiest thought" the realization that someone in free fall wouldn't feel their own weight? (That might be worth including.) Doesn't the thought experiment with the elevator relate to the equivalence of gravitation and inertial forces, i.e., someone in an elevator accelerating at 1G through empty space might think they were in an equivalent gravitational field? Charlie Faust (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The elevator is equivalent to a linear gravitational field. Essentially, that's the equivalence principle, his happiest thought, but how he got from there to GR no mortal understands. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Golden, Frederic (December 31, 1999). "Albert Einstein". Time.

Einstein was a Jew

I think it's important to mention he was Jewish, especially due to the fact he would've been executed if he hadn't fled Germany. מושא עקיף (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2025

Rosieeeemoo (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC) he does actually have dislexia can you please include this in the article[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Person of the Century

I've received some pushback for including the following in the lead: "In 1999, Einstein was named Time's Person of the Century."[1] The accompanying Time piece by Frederic Golden does a good job of summarizing Einstein's legacy for the layman.

And that legacy goes beyond science, as his biographer Walter Isaacson notes: "Einstein's launch into fame, which occurred when measurements during a 1919 solar eclipse confirmed his prediction of how much gravity bends light, coincided with, and contributed to, the birth of a new celebrity age. He became a scientific supernova and a humanist icon, one of the most famous faces on the planet. The public earnestly puzzled over his theories, elevated him into a cult of genius, and canonized him as a secular saint."[2] To point this out is not to trivialize Einstein as a mere celebrity. The Time piece reflects this: "Instantly recognizable, like Charlie Chaplin’s Little Tramp, Albert Einstein’s shaggy-haired visage was as familiar to ordinary people as to the matrons who fluttered about him in salons from Berlin to Hollywood ... Much to his surprise, his ideas, like Darwin’s, reverberated beyond science, influencing modern culture from painting to poetry. At first even many scientists didn’t really grasp relativity, prompting Arthur Eddington’s celebrated wisecrack (asked if it was true that only three people understood relativity, the witty British astrophysicist paused, then said, 'I am trying to think who the third person is'). To the world at large, relativity seemed to pull the rug out from under perceived reality. And for many advanced thinkers of the 1920s, from Dadaists to Cubists to Freudians." Not all of this could (or should) be in the lead, of course, but linking to Golden's Time piece leads readers to a useful and accessible source for it.

Golden's Time piece does a good job of summarizing Einstein's politics: his pacificism during WWI, his opposition to nationalism, his support for the Allies in WWII, his Zionism, his campaign for nuclear disarmament, his denunciation of McCarthyism and his support for Civil Rights. Again, not all of this could (or should) be in the lead, but by linking to the Time piece, we lead readers to this information. The Time piece includes pertinent quotes by (“Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one’s living at it”) and about (“I still can’t see how he thought of it” said Richard Feynman on General Relativity) Einstein. And Time's selection of Einstein as Person of the Century is testament to his historical significance, and is itself historically significant (the runners-up, Mahatma Gadhi and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, were not historical lightweights.) Other Wikipedia pages note honors from this same publication; the page for David Foster Wallace (no slouch, mind) informs us: "Wallace's 1996 novel Infinite Jest was cited by Time magazine as one of the 100 best English-language novels from 1923 to 2005." The page for William Gaddis (also no slouch) informs us: "The first and longest of his five novels, The Recognitions, was named one of TIME magazine's 100 best novels from 1923 to 2005." Being named Person of the Century is quite a bit more significant than having one's novel named one of the 100 best English-language novels of the century (Person of the Century is, by definition, an honor doled out once a century.)

In sum: The selection of Einstein as Person of the Century is testament to his historical significance and is itself historically significant, and the accompanying Time piece is a good introduction to Einstein's life and times. It leads readers to useful information. Golden quotes the Harvard historian and physicist Gerald Holton: “If Einstein’s ideas are really naive, the world is really in pretty bad shape.” Golden: "Rather it seems to him that Einstein’s humane and democratic instincts are 'an ideal political model for the 21st century,' embodying the very best of this century as well as our highest hopes for the next." What more could we ask of a man to personify the past 100 years?" What more, indeed? Charlie Faust (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why there's a new section about this considering what's been said above. As mentioned above by others this is just one of many honors and accolades he has received throughout his career and into later age. We should direct our readers to something more substantial...like an actual article listing his numerous accolades over an article that doesn't barely even mention him especially in the lead. The suggested contribution in the section above was....Throughout his life, Einstein received many accolades and honors. Moxy🍁 20:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by "an article that doesn't barely even mention him". To be sure, the 'Time piece not only mentions him, it is about him. Most of the major beats are covered: the gift of a compass which inspired a love of science, his renunciation of German citizenship and enrollment at the Zurich Polytcechnic, his pacificism during WWI, his support for the Allies in WWII, his Zionism, his joining Leo Szilard in warning FDR of the bomb, his campaign for nuclear disarmament, his support for Civil Rights, etc. It's a good source, worth pointing readers towards. True, Time is not a scientific publication but, as Isaacson and others note, Einstein's legacy extends beyond science. Charlie Faust (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes understand you like to link to Time(magazine) articles, but the wikilink to Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century is useless in helping readers understand more about this person - why not link List of awards and honors received by Albert Einstein were your preferred external bio (that has less info then here) is among many other bios used as sources from many nations and with actual academic honors? Seems your intent is the external link over guiding our readers to more info not covered by the external link. Moxy🍁 06:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Einstein's scientific awards are certainly worth noting, and his Nobel is duly noted. But, per the Nobel Foundation's excellent website, 226 individuals have won the Nobel Prize in Physics, one of them twice (John Bardeen, 1956 and 1972). Person of the Century is, by definition, something given to one person once. True, it's not a scientific honor, but it's worth including because it's not a scientific honor, as Einstein's legacy, as Isaacson and others noted, goes beyond science. The Time piece attests to his cultural significance.
Actually, Einstein's biography from the Nobel Foundation might be worth linking to, as it is an excellent source. Maybe you didn't mean to suggest that, but thanks anyway. Charlie Faust (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you dug up a link I added to an entirely different page. You say I "like to link to Time magazine". I don't especially, but if they have something worth linking to, I'll link to it. In the case of Nabokov, "a vivid English style that combines Joycean wordplay with a Proustian evocation of mood and setting" is a perfect evocation of his singular style, and, as I noted, Proust and Joyce were two authors he revered. That he was able to synthesize them is noteworthy, so I added it. That's not a reflection of my feelings on Time magazine. I also added a quote from Edmund Wilson to F. Scott Fitzgerald's page. Does that mean I "like to link to Edmund Wilson"? Not especially, but his quote was apt, so I added it.
And, look here, I actually deleted a link to Time from Tom Hanks's page: "In 2010, Time magazine named Hanks one of the 'Top 10 College Dropouts'"." Why? Because it's not encyclopedically significant. Being named Person of the Century is. I recognize that not everything Time publishes is golden; the aforementioned is clickbait. The Golden piece is an informative overview of someone who, yes, was arguably the most influential person of the century. That's the difference.
I actually agree that the Time piece "doesn't barely even mention him"; the phrase "doesn't barely even mention him" means that it does mention him. Not only that, it's about him, and is a good reference for Einstein's legacy. Glad that's settled. Charlie Faust (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Einstein ought to be named as the plagiarist of the century. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity_priority_dispute — Preceding unsigned comment added by T6nhde55 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Relativity priority dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T6nhde55 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, he shouldn't. Priority disputes are not uncommon in science; see Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz on the invention (or discovery) of the calculus, and Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace on evolution by natural selection. Simultaneous discoveries are not at all uncommon. That's what happened with the field equations for general relativity; the discovery was nearly simultaneous.
And while David Hilbert arrived at the correct field equations, it was Einstein's theory that he was finding the equations for. Hilbert himself said the gravitational potentials were "first introduced by Einstein."[3] Kip S. Thorne, one of the leading experts on General Relativity, who gives credit to Hilbert for the correct field equations, notes "Hilbert carried out the last few mathematical steps to its discovery independently and almost simultaneously with Einstein, but Einstein was responsible for essentially everything that preceded these steps. Without Einstein, the general relativistic laws of gravity might not have been discovered until several decades later." Hilbert agreed: "The differential equations of gravitation that result are, as it seems to me, in agreement with the magnificent theory of general relativity established by Einstein." (Emphasis added). And: "Einstein did the work and not the mathematicians."[4] Charlie Faust (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thorne says "almost simultaneously", without saying who had actual priority. Isaacson has a conflict of interest.
See the points made by Dieter W. Ebner.
Keep in mind that Einstein was keeping Hilbert abreast of his progress. and that Einstein had other advisors, e.g., Michele Besso, Amalie Emmy Noether. I believe that Emmy and Hilbert were the ones to formulate GR via an action principle. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are many interesting priority disputes in science, but this is not one of them, as it was not disputed by Hilbert himself: "The differential equations of gravitation that result are, as it seems to me, in agreement with the magnificent theory of general relativity established by Einstein." (Hilbert's words, not mine.) That Einstein and Hilbert reached the same results independently and more or less simultaneously does not make Einstein a plagiarist. Newton and Leibniz discovered the calculus independently, and the groundwork for calculus was laid by Descartes and Fermat, among others. As Newton himself famously put it, scientists stand on the shoulders of giants. But it's not wrong to credit Newton with the calculus. And it was Einstein's theory that Hilbert was finding the equations for. So he's not a plagiarist, let alone "Plagiarist of the Century." Unless you're going to accuse Leibniz and others of plagiarism, I doubt you're arguing in good faith. Charlie Faust (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Golden, Frederic (31 December 1999). "Albert Einstein". Time.
  2. ^ Isaacson, Walter (2007). Einstein: His Life and Universe. p. 5.
  3. ^ Isaacson, Walter (2007). Einstein: His Life and Universe. p. 221.
  4. ^ Isaacson, Walter (2007). Einstein: His Life and Universe. p. 222.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Albert_Einstein
No tags for this post.