Talk:Mileva Marić/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Useful article

Investigations of Norwegian historian that Albert's work was Mileva's actually! Use it http://www.novimagazin.rs/opusteno/ajnstajn-nije-bio-genije-vec-mileva 15:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.96.77 (talk)

An electronic translation of this article from a Serbian magazine does not always make precisely clear what the "Norwegian historian" (whose credentials I have not been able to verify online) is saying, but there is enough to show that there is nothing new here. She rehashes stuff that has been decisively refuted, such as the story that Joffe testified he had seen the three most important 1905 papers with Maric's name on it. She claims Maric studied the photoelectric effect with Lenard in 1897-98 when in fact it hadn't yet been discovered, and erroneously asserts that she studied four-dimensional geometry with Minkowski. In other words, she is simply repeating dubious claims already made mostly by feminist writers with little knowledge of the subject matter. Esterson (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Old discussion about copyvio (I think)

don't know what the previous user was talking about, perhaps it was a mistake?

text is not the same as the webpage content, verify for yourselves

regards

Igor

I've checked. Large parts of it are identical. -- Oliver P. 16:47, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's true, I unknowingly updated this page from deleted content. I didn't know there was controversy over it and found it odd how it existed but wasn't being linked. Duh. I did edit various portions but is largely the original. My b. I forgot to login too. Dtgm

Oh, I see. Thanks for explaining! I suppose that means I can delete it again, then. -- Oliver P. 17:23, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

NO! lol, yes, yes you may. Dtgm

I assume by 'theory of heat' what is really meant is thermodynamics. /Eckesicle

---

I'm restoring this talk page just on the off-chance that whoever has restored Mileva Maric has permission to do so. This way they can also see the previous discussion on the subject, for what it's worth. The webpage being talked about is this one. -- Oliver P. 02:21, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Can someone give us some detail about the "psychotic" son? RickK 02:52, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

His name was Eduard: he died in 1965 at a psychiatric hospital in Burglölzli. -- Someone else 02:56, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

What's the objection to "illegitimate"? If in fact she was adopted rather than died, it would presumably be the reason why. -- Someone else 03:07, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"Illegitimate" puts an undeserved onus upon the child. Her parents' relationship may have been "illegitimate", but the daughter at worst can be said to have been "born out of wedlock". RickK 03:10, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree that "illegitimate" has a negative connotation by today's standards which the child does not deserve. But I believe that it generally refers more to a child who's father is unknown or not acknowledged. In this case, the parents did get married, and, although both Albert and Mileva apparently never again spoke of Lieserl, she was not exactly "unacknowledged" or denied. They seem to have just let the matter drop (as suspicious as that sounds. We'll most likely never know the details of the arrangement unless more correspondence is found)...Anyway, "born out of wedlock" is probably the better expression in this case...Engr105th 20:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

---

There are still odd snatches that remain in this article from the original webpage. How paranoid about copyright are we supposed to be? The phrase "Einstein's companion, colleague and confidante" might be recognisable to the original author. And similarly for "Mileva entered Einstein's life in a crucial period of his scientific achievements". And so on. See this diff, which shows the changes between the last version that I considered worrying enough to replace with the "possible copyright infringement" notice and the current version. -- Oliver P. 23:58, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Prize money

I always heard that he gave her half the nobel prize money, which was in the divorce settlement. / Habj 16:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Lets find a way to properly put this information in the article without being too POV

Re the above material:

1. One item suggests that a brief, rather naive, report from Maric to Einstein of one lecture given by Lenard in Heidelberg in 1897 was relevant to Einstein's paper 1905 paper on Brownian motion. This is scientific nonsense. Maric's attendance on the course given by Lenard in 1897-98 has also been presented as evidence she made contributions to his 1905 photoelectric paper. When the 'evidence' is as woolly (or, as in this case, devoid of substantive content) as in this "controversy", just about anything can be claimed – and has been.

2. "After they married, Mileva sacrificed her professional goals, helping Einstein's career instead." Mileva didn't have any professional goals by then in the sense implied, i.e., of being a professional physicist. She had failed her Diploma exam twice, and her aspiration had been reduced to considering applying for a post as a librarian at the Zurich Polytechnic (1900), or as a high school teacher (1901). (Her main aspiration by then was to marry Einstein. To a friend in 1900: "Albert is soon to leave here, and is taking with him half my life." To Einstein in 1901: "How beautiful the world will look when I'm your little wife, you'll see.")

3. "Mileva entered Einstein's life in a crucial period of his scientific achievements." The facts are that the pair met at the start of their four-year course at the Zurich Polytechnic, when Einstein was 17 years old.

4. The view of John Stachel, "keeper of Albert's letters" (i.e., General Editor of Einstein's Collected Papers), is set against the views of Evan Harris Walker and a couple of others'. A perusal of Walker's claims reveal him to be someone with a propensity to present material in a tendentiously distorted fashion. See, for example, his two letters to "Physics Today" in February 1989: http://philoscience.unibe.ch/lehre/winter99/einstein/Walker_Stachel.pdf

5. It is not the case that "Biographer Abram Joffe claims to have seen an original manuscript for the theory of relativity which was signed, "Einstein-Maric". The original document shows that Joffe made no such claim.

Re the PBS "Einstein's Wife" link below. This website must hold some kind of record for the greatest number of false or tendentiously misleading assertions. http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/4/2/1

John Stachel comprehensively refutes the claims about Mileva Maric's having made a substantive contribution to Einstein's achievements in physics in two articles reprinted in:

Stachel, J. (2002). Einstein from 'B' to 'Z'. Boston: Bïrkhauser, pp. 26-38; 39-55.

Stachel totally demolishes all the claims made about the Soviet scientist Joffe having seen Mileva's name on the manuscripts of the 1905 papers in an Appendix to the Introduction to:

Stachel, J (ed.) (2005). Einstein's Miraculous Year: Five Papers That Changed the Face of Physics. Princeton, pp. liv-lxxii.

References:

Stachel, J. et al (eds.) (1987): The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein: Volume 1. (With English commentary).

Havas, P. (ed.) (1987): The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein: Volume 1 (English translation).

Popovic, M. (ed.) (2003): In Albert's Shadow: The Life and Letters of Mileva Maric.

Martinez, A: "Handling Evidence in History: The Case of Einstein's Wife," in School Science Review (March 2005).

--- According to a BBC News publication today, there comes the question if Mileva got any money at all? "Despite reports that Einstein transferred the Nobel Prize money directly to Switzerland following a divorce agreement in which it was assigned to his first wife, Mileva, the letters reveal he instead invested the major part of it in the US, where he settled after being driven out of Nazi Germany. Much of the money was later lost in the Depression." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5168002.stm

According to the AP report in July 2006, under the terms of the divorce agreement the Nobel Prize money was supposed to have been deposited in a Swiss bank and Mileva was to draw on the interest. A spokeswoman at the Albert Einstein Archives stated that "ultimately he paid her more money than he received from the prize". http://www.wtop.com/?nid=105&sid=845293

Under the "Timeline" topic (1921), it states Mileva used the Nobel prize money for care for son Eduard...I have read (one source, I believe is "Einstein: His Life and Universe") that Mileva invested the prize money in a set of apartment building(s) in Switzerland. Obviously, she would have used some of her income - from whatever source - to support the children. But the way the "Timeline" reads in the Wiki article it sounds like she was forced by circumstances to spend it on care for their mentally ill child.
If she in fact invested in real estate, then the 1921 "Timeline" remark is not accurate....Engr105th 18:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What's he quoting?

I almost stated that as "what's he smoking"? This article is one of the more well-written dramatic texts I've seen on Wikipedia - but that's about all that is good about it. It looks as if it's copied more or less verbatim from some weekend tabloid's account of Einstein's wife - complete with speculation about wife-beatings, gang-rapes, hidden money being burned.... and no inline sources for any of it, or any sign of critical evaluation, either in the source or by the editor. Yes, this needs attention. --Alvestrand 08:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Google's good at this sort of thing. It's the PBS documentary. Copyvio? --Alvestrand 08:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:BB - I deleted the PBS documentary; the article has information without it.

Answer to prize money

You give the answer to your question yourself. The article you cite for reference tells us that Mileva Maric received the entire prize money. I quote your reference:

"See, for example, his two letters to "Physics Today" in February 1989: http://philoscience.unibe.ch/lehre/winter99/einstein/Walker_Stachel.pdf "

-- cellulesolaire 13:50, 27 Jan 2006

Well, it dosnt means that she made the entire work,half of the work or even part of the work...great physicans which had a scientific contacts with Einstein have reject any kind of this arrguments . there is a wishful thinking that Mileva is the real mother of the works attributed to Albert.but this is truely far from the facts and the motivs for such of thinking are varinig from a need to belive in this kind of theories trough femenisem and ending with Jewish haterd.--Gilisa 08:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

a refrence to be trusted?

the refrence cited for the pro and contras on the origin of the papers around 1905 seems to me not very trustworthy ( http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/4/2/1 )

A US person talking about a russian physicist, about books in russian. The "Einstein Scolar" has probably not read the original in russian, he depended on the translation of Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist by Christopher J Bjerknes (2002, XTX Inc). Of course, Alberto Martinez claimes to have come up (by magic?) with the exact same translation. But is that true?

The following book states that A.Joffe has seen the original article, signed by Einstein-Marity. Danin and Joffe speak russian. Daniil Semenovi Danin: Neizbezhnost´ strannogo mira, Gosudarstvenaja biblioteka SSSR, Moskva 1962.

A.Joffe Writes himself in his book, that he had seen the original article, signed by Einstein-Marity. the book only exists in russian, as far as i know:

" Pamjati Ejnâtejna / Ejnâtejn i sovremennaja �zika " , Gosudarstvenoe izdatel stvo techni esko-teoreti eskoj literatury, Moskva written in 1956, a year after Einsteins death.

Finally, a scolar from eastern europe searches for the evidence and describes very precisely in her book, who has said what, where, when and how. The scolar reads russian and contacted family members of both Mileva Maric and Einstein. The book states clearly that the the original article was signed Einstein-Marity. Refrences are clearly cited. The english version of the book probably exists too, here the german details:

Desanka Trbuhovic-Gjuric: Im Schatten Albert Einsteins. Das tragische Leben der Mileva Einstein-Maric, Bern und Stuttgart (Paul Haupt) 2. Auflage 1983; 4. Auflage 1988. - Zitate im Text nach der 2. Auflage.

How can a so called "Einstein Scolar" argue on reports on TV? Cite incorrect facts (without commenting) about Swiss traditions, where men should add their spouse's name to their own name after marriage? make statements about other authors, whose books he has not read correctely? or whose book he could not read? I would expect some more detailed research of a scolar, or suggest that we do not use his article as a base for a serious encyclopedia.

Cellulesolaire 07:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ with "Cellosolaire", on the following grounds. Bjerknes' translation shows that Joffe did not in 1955 claim to have seen the original papers, and that he attributed the three most celebrated 1905 papers to one author, who "was a bureaucrat at the Patent Office in Bern" – namely Albert Einstein:

"For Physics, and especially for the Physics of my generation -- that of Einstein's contemporaries, Einstein’s entrance into the arena of science is unforgettable. In 1905, three articles appeared in the 'Annalen der Physik', which began three very important branches of 20th Century Physics. Those were the theory of Brownian movement, the theory of the photoelectric effect and the theory of relativity. The author of these articles – an unknown person at that time, was a bureaucrat at the Patent Office in Bern, Einstein-Marity (Marity – the maiden name of his wife, which by Swiss custom is added to the husband's family name)."

Note that Bjerknes provides the original Russian text: http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/Response.htm

Likewise, Bjernes' translation of the words of Danin in 1962 shows that Danin also attributed the 1905 articles to a "a third class engineering expert in the Swiss Patent Office":

"The unsuccessful teacher, who, in search of a reasonable income, had become a third class engineering expert in the Swiss Patent Office, this yet completely unknown theoretician in 1905 published three articles in the same volume of the famous 'Annalen der Physik' signed 'Einstein-Marity' (or Maric – which was his first wife's family name)."

Danin was a popular science writer, and his writing that the 1905 articles were "signed" 'Einstein-Marity' is evidently a misreading of Joffe's report. (Joffe says nothing about any signature.) See: http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=183

"Cellusolaire" writes that in Desanka Trbuhovic-Gjuric's book "Im Schatten Albert Einsteins. Das tragische Leben der Mileva Einstein-Maric" references are clearly cited. The contrary is the case. The book is almost entirely without references, and many of her contentions are based on unverifiable third or fourth hand reports by Maric family members and friends obtained more than fifty years after the events in question.

"Cellulesolaire" writes that Trbuhovic-Gjuric's book clearly states that the original article was signed Einstein-Marity. More precisely, Trbuhovic-Gjuric writes that Joffe stated that the three celebrated 1905 articles were signed in the original "Einstein-Maric", whereas the above translation shows that Joffe does not claim to have seen the original papers. (Trbuhovic-Gjuric, 1983, p. 79; Trbuhovic-Gjuric, "Mileva Einstein: Une Vie" [French translation], 1991, p. 111)

As John Stachel writes at the end of his meticulously detailed examination of the issue in "Einstein's Miraculous Year" (Princeton University Press, 2005, pp. liv-lxxii): "We have seen that, in order to give credence to Trbuhovic-Gjuric's claims, we are forced to pile one improbability upon another..." Esterson 10:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Stachel also asks pertinently: "How do we pass from these claims - that the 1905 papers had *one* signature (Einstein-Marity) - to the claims that this *one* signature represents *two* authors?

Esterson 19:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

the link below was delete as it contain racist arguments.for my opinion,much of the unsupported claims that Einstein work was helpd or done by mileva coming from the same state of mind , but with a more sophisticated appearance.

Reference to the Bjerknes claims above, I have now posted a comprehensive critique of all his contentions on the Einstein/Maric issue: http://www.esterson.org/Critique_of_Bjerknes.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esterson (talk • contribs) 12:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to reconsider

The introduction of the article says: Mileva Marić (19 December 1875 – 4 August 1948; Serbian Cyrillic: Милева Марић) was a Serbian mathematician, and Albert Einstein's first wife.

• Anybody knows what she considered herself to be?

Born in Titlis, Serbia, yes. But she married Einstein, which means she changed her nationality. Einstein was first German, later refused this nationality, became Swiss, and eventually added the US citicenship. If we have no refrences, I think we should drop the nationality.

• Mileva Maric is the maiden name, but this woman got married.

The correct name then would be Mileva Einstein-Maric.

• The article says she was a mathematician only. How come then, she studied physics at ETHZ? She was a physician and mathematician.

• I think “subject to many polemics” is a very strong choice of word. Yes, arguments between experts are going on. But this is normal for important questions.

• ”the degree of her participation to his discoveries” suggests that he discovered, she participated. The actual discussion however is: who was the original author of the published articles in 1905. I suggest to replace “discoveries” by “publications”.

I propose to change the introduction to something like:

Mileva Einstein-Marić (Serbian Cyrillic: Милева Марић; 19 December 1875, Titlis/Serbia – 4 August 1948, Zurich/Switzerland) was a mathematician and physician. She was Einstein's first wife and former classmate at University. The exact degree of her participation in his publications is up to present day unknown and is subject of discussion.

Cellulesolaire 02:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I like your paragraph. Notes on English:

• physician -> physicist. A physician is a doctor.
• delete "former" before "classmate". That only makes sense when talking in the present tense.
• "up to present day unknown and is subject of discussion" -> "is unknown and a subject of discussion"

Also use the more-or-less standard format for intro line: name (cyrillic) (birth – death) was blablabla

about content - I wonder whether she could be considered a mathematician and a physicist when she did not finish her degree and never held a job where she practiced those jobs. But it's probably reasonable to say it this way.

Makes sense? --Alvestrand 04:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Was she a mathematician at all? That is , the math she took all the physics students took. She was in the physics program. She was a physicist, just without completing the PhD. Is it not so? --GangofOne 06:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

She gave up her plan to write a PhD thesis on heat conduction in 1901 after failing, for the second time, the Zurich Polytechnic diploma for teaching physics and mathematics in secondary school. Esterson 11:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

To whoever is in charge of editing the Mileva Maric webpage:

Mileva Maric twice failed her Zurich Polytechnic diploma exam for teaching physics and mathematics in secondary school because of her very low grade in the mathematics component, the theory of functions, which is fundamental to any advanced mathematical work. There is no evidence that she ever produced any original work in mathematics, or studied at a higher level than required for this diploma course (which she failed). By what criterion is she called a "Serbian mathematician" in the Introduction? The claim is almost entirely based on an article that is a travesty of scholarship, "Mileva Einstein-Maric: The Woman Who Did Einstein's Mathematics", by Senta Troemel-Ploetz. I have written an article that exposes Troemel-Ploetz's claims as completely unsustainable, her "scholarship" unworthy of the term, and her knowledge of Einstein's achievements close to zero: http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=218

To whoever is in charge of editing this website. Please examine the article I have just cited, note that while Maric obtained excellent grades on graduating from high school her record in mathematics at Zurich Polytechnic was mediocre, and consider whether there is any ground whatever to describe her as a "mathematician". The issue here is essentially this: Should Wikipedia entries be the playground for ideologically motivated speculations or be based on solid evidence? If the latter (as of course it should be), then Maric should not be described as a mathematician.

N.B. If you go to the PBS "Einstein’s Wife" website you will see the editor has added a note to the home page stating the website is under review. If you then click the link to the Ombudsman’s report you will see why this is so:

http://www.pbs.org/opb/einsteinswife/

http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2006/12/einsteins_wife_the_relative_motion_of_facts.html

Esterson 15:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I read thru the "einsteinswife' and 'ombudsman' links above. Thanks to Esterson for posting that...These opinions seem to come and go with the tide, and the tide now seems to swing away from the possibility that Mileva was significantly involved in Einstein's major breakthrough work. I believe the Wiki article ought to reflect that. There is simply no hard evidence that Mileva was ever the scientist (genius) that Albert was....Engr105th 01:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, the information on Wikipedia should not depend on "the tide", but on documented evidence. Contrary to the evidence-free claims to be found on numerous websites, there is no serious evidence that Marić made any contribution at all to physics. This has now been reflected in this Wikipedia entry, but there still remain significant errors in the introduction, which I don't know how to amend.

(i) "Mileva Marić was a Serbian inventor, scientist and also Albert Einstein's first wife…"

Marić was not a "scientist". She twice failed the Zurich Polytechnic diploma exam for teaching physics and mathematics in secondary school. There is not a single piece of documentary evidence for any ideas of her own in physics; no articles, nothing in any letters, no mention of any specific ideas on physics in letters by other people. Nor does the supposed 'evidence' that she collaborated with Einstein on his early papers withstand scholarly scrutiny. There are no grounds on which a failed University student with no documented scientific work should be described as a "scientist".

(ii) Marić was not an "inventor". The claim to this effect is contained in the deeply-flawed biography of Marić by Desanka Trbuhović-Gjurić, and uncritically recycled in the even more deeply-flawed 1990 article by Senta Troemel-Ploetz, "Mileva Einstein-Marić: The Woman Who Did Einstein's Mathematics". I have examined the claim and found it to be without substance, as I recount in the fourth paragraph after the sub-heading "Senta Troemel-Ploetz's Claims" in my article Mileva Marić: Einstein's Wife": http://www.esterson.org/milevamaric.htm

To provide evidence of the value of my scholarship on these matters, I quote comments by specialists in the field: From John Stachel, physicist, historian of physics, founding editor of the Albert Einstein Collected Papers, 13 October 2007: "Once again the Einstein-scholars community in general, and I personally in particular, are heavily in debt to you for your spirited and accurate defense of our work." From Gerald Holton, physicist and historian of physics, 2 November 2007: "Thank you for your important work and persistence."

I therefore propose the first sentence in the introduction be amended to read:

"Mileva Marić (....) was the Serbian-born first wife (1903-1919) of Albert Einstein, and mother of three children with him."

I also propose that the third sentence in the introduction be amended. The words "the exact degree" [of her participation in his discoveries is uncertain] imply there was *some" participation, for which there is no documented evidence, while there is compelling evidence to the contrary. I therefore propose the sentence should read:

"There are some claims that she may have contributed to Einstein's early research, but scholarly scrutiny of these claims indicates that they cannot be substantiated." Esterson (talk) 09:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now seen how to amend the introduction, and have done so. I have also changed the inaccurate entry for Occupation to the more correct one of "Occasional teacher". (Marić did some teaching after she ceased to care full-time for her children.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esterson (talk • contribs) 09:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I note that under "infobox person" is: | website = http://www.pbs.org/opb/einsteinswife/

This PBS website, even as recently re-written, is a travesty of the documentary record. See: http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=290 http://www.esterson.org/einsteinwife3.htm

I therefore propose it be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esterson (talk • contribs) 09:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As I don't know how to introduce a new heading, I'm adding here a comment about my amendment to the Time Line, 1896, 1897, 1898. I have made small changes, including a correction to the syllabus for Heidelberg University, which should have been for Zurich Polytechnic. Esterson (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Divorce

Hi, one thing I think the article should include is some information on the background to the divorce, assuming this is known 82.69.28.55 23:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Any material on Maric's life following the divorce would also be interesting. PedEye1 01:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Boskovic

I have removed the following text from the intro:

Yet as a Serbian she was quite familiar with Roger Joseph Boscovich's work, who pioneered the doctrine of point atoms and the theories of the relativity of space and time- note however that Boscovich's works are unknown since up to 1800 and there is evidence that Western scholars would have been unfamiliar with any of Boscovich's works. The Boscovichian point-atoms, or atomic theory and his theory on the relativity of space and time were well known from 1770 through the early 1800's and directly or indirectly influenced the development of many branches of physics, chemistry, and mathematical physics including current particle theory. Roger Boscovich's kinematic atomic theory is easy to understand in the present day, thanks to the works of Einstein, Faraday, Kelvin, Eddington, Milne, Bohr, and J.J. Thomson, among others.

It is not clear to me that this would be relevant even if documented, and as it stands, it's not documented at all. Please provide sources. And unless it's proved to be really core to her life, it should not be in the intro. --Alvestrand (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

so much of this article is bullsh-- I don't understand how it isn't labeled as controversial (at least) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.83.183 (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The Boscovic paragraph above seems to be based on (if not the work of) Christopher Bjerknes, who in his online book "The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein" states that Einstein and Maric read his books. However, it is simply an assertion, with no references to support it. See http://www.esterson.org/Critique_of_Bjerknes.htm Esterson (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Religion

I am removing the “Jewish” identification. According to http://www.pbs.org/opb/einsteinswife/milevastory/early.htm she was not Jewish. --teb728 t c 09:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Residence

What is the source for these periods associated with the various nations she resided? I think she lived in Switzerland much longer than shown and only for a relative short period of time in Germany, certainly dying in Switzerland not Sweden. 67.101.249.26 (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mileva Maric (nee Einstein).jpg

Mileva's image has been tagged with {{di-no source}}, but it matches the photograph dated 1896 used in Highfield and Carter's 1993 book "The Private Lives of Einstein" (ISBN 0-571-17170-2), between pages 172 and 173. Here is the caption from that book:

• Mileva Marić in 1896, aged twenty-one, when she went to Switzerland, first to study medecine at Zurich University and then to the Federal Polytechnic School.

The book acknowledges the image source as Schweizerische Landesbibliothek Bern. That places the date of the photograph as 1896, but I guess the location was either Serbia or Switzerland (Mileva started in Zurich in the summer of 1896). I don't know if this helps determine whether the image is public domain or not, since the photographer is unknown. -84.222.0.142 (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Role in physics

I have rationalized and extended the section on Maric's "Role in physics" to include more details about the contentions, with reference citations. 86.144.36.120 (talk) 08:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have rationalized both Einstein's and Maric's names for consistency. Except in specific circumstances there seems no reason to use first names in a Wikipedia entry in place of surnames. Esterson (talk) 10:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have modified the last paragraph of this section as I think appropriate. More specifically, I have removed the following sentence as it is unreferenced (and I don't recall coming across it in the literature): "When Einstein's surviving son was asked about his own mother's scientific contribution to the Theory of Special Relativity he couldn’t recall any."

I have replaced it with a similar one that I have referenced. Esterson (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added information, supported by a reference to John Stachel's meticulous examination of the Einstein/Maric correspondence, in response to the claim that Maric's collaboration is shown by Einstein's occasional use of "our" in his letters. 86.144.36.120 (talk) 08:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of her life

I've now realised how to make a new section, so I'm copying my 20 August 2008 comment from "Introduction to consider" to this section:

Amendment to the Time Line, 1896, 1897, 1898. I have made small changes, including a correction to the syllabus for Heidelberg University, which should have been for Zurich Polytechnic. Esterson (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Further amendment: I have added the date 1899 to include Maric's intermediate exam result. This is important, because it shows a consistency between her moderate mathematics entrance exam grade in October 1896, her grade in the intermediate diploma exam, and her final diploma exam grade in 1900. These indicate that, despite her excellent high school grades, she found higher level studies (at least in mathematics) rather more demanding. Esterson (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have rationalized both Einstein's and Maric's names for consistency. Except in specific circumstances there seems no reason to use first names in a Wikipedia entry in place of surnames. Esterson (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have rationalized and clarified the 1901 entry. I have also removed the two links to http://www.politikforum.de/forum which were inappropriate (and in one case inaccessible), replacing them with an alternative reference. Esterson (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

1901 The information about the birth of baby Liserl required an additional note about her fate. Esterson (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

1919. I have corrected the information about the divorce settlement, providing a reference to the divorce settlement document in the Einstein Collected Papers. I also corrected a couple of typos, and tidied up some references. 86.144.36.120 (talk) 04:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

External links

I have slightly extended the reference to the PBS "Einstein's Wife" film and website, with relevant reference links. Esterson (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added to, and modified, the information about the PBS "Einstein's Wife" film and website to provide information about the Ombudsman's report and the subsequent rewriting of the website. Esterson (talk) 08:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Notable Wikipedian Notice

I would like to make the case that this talk page needs a notice identifying Esterson as related to its subject. It is customary to add such notices to article talk pages when an individual significantly related to or covered by the article has edited Wikipedia, and in my view that is the situation here. I am not going to add the notice without prior discussion. Skoojal (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal writes: "I would like to make the case that this talk page needs a notice identifying Esterson as related to its subject."

I do not know what Skoojal means by a notice, or by my being "related to its subject", but I am perfectly happy to acknowledge that I have done an immense amount of research on this subject in the last three years. My work has received support from four Einstein specialists with a special interest in this topic. Two of them were, respectively, founding editor and associate editor of the early volumes of the Albert Einstein Collected Papers, and the third, Gerald Holton, was awarded the Abraham Pais Prize for History of Physics in 2007: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Holton

See: http://www.esterson.org/Critique_Einsteins_Wife.htm

The fourth Einstein specialist, Alberto A. Martinez, has links to my website on his webpage: https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1/m/Maric.html

Exchanges between me and Senta Troemel-Ploetz, one of the main proponents of the thesis that Maric co-authored the 1905 papers, can be seen here: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/11/03/10621.aspx

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/11/20/15370.aspx

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/11/27/15908.aspx Esterson (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

By a notice, I mean the kind of thing that appears on this talk page, [1], or (for another example) this one [2]. You are related to the subject of this article insofar as the article mentions you. I added the mention, identifying you as the person who made the complaint about the PBS film. I assume you have no objection to this. Skoojal (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. Skoojal himself adds my name to a paragraph citing a complaint to the PBS Ombudsman about the "Einstein's Wife" film and website, and then uses his identifying me in this context to suggest there should be a Notice on the grounds that "It is customary to add such notices to article talk pages when an individual significantly related to or covered by the article has edited Wikipedia."

I have no objection whatever to your identifying me as the person who made the complaint to the PBS Ombudsman (which he upheld to the extent that he recommended the "Einstein's Wife" website be "pulled"). In the posting in question it seemed to me immaterial who had made the complaint. I certainly didn't omit it to conceal the fact that it was me – why would I when the Ombudsman agreed with me? (And anyone reading the linked article would soon find out who made the complaint.) Elsewhere I had posted links to articles on my website (now removed), which shows I was not concealing that I have researched this subject in depth. Is the fact that someone has spent a great deal of time researching a topic a ground for that person to be the subject of a Notice? Esterson (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

My personal opinion is yes, it is, if the person is mentioned by name in the article about the topic in question. But as I want to avoid any appearance of attacking you, I'm not going to add the notice if, for whatever reason, you object to it. Skoojal (talk) 08:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I object: (a) because it's unjustified, and (b) because you yourself placed my name in the article, and the following day cited the fact that my name is in the article as a reason for your suggestion there should be a Notice about me. Esterson (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Restoration of sentence in amended form

I have restored in amended form a sentence in relation to the PBS film "Einsten's Wife". It was removed on the grounds of "rm non-notable self promotional content". In fact the original posting by me (Allen Esterson) did not have the name of the complainant. This was posted in an amendment by Skoojal, who followed this by posting a Notable Wikipedian Notice on the Mileva Maric discussion page, thus revealing his motivation for doing so. Skoojal wrote: "I would like to make the case that this talk page needs a notice identifying Esterson as related to its subject." In other words, Skoojal posted my name, and then promptly recommended a Notice about me on the grounds that my name is in the article!

Skoojal has since been temporarily blocked on numerous grounds from editing Wikipedia pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Skoojal#Blocked

I think it is appropriate in relation to the PBS "Einstein's Wife" film to note that PBS's own Ombudsman recommended it be withdrawn and the associated website be taken down pending an investigation. (He later recommended that the revised version of the website posted in September 2007 be "pulled", but this was ignored by PBS.) Esterson (talk) 09:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That bit of drama is about PBS (and you) and not about Marić. The link to the PBS docu is there, and that is all that is needed. The back story is minor and peripheral to an article about Marić. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 13:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat: If this matter is looked into, it can be seen that the PBS Ombudsman's Column (15 December 2006)[3] to which I linked is not essentially about me, but about the film "Einstein's Wife" which is cited on the Mileva Maric page. I think it is entirely pertinent to note that the PBS Ombudsman (Michael Getler) recommended the film cease to be shown and the associated website be taken down pending an investigation.

I was the catalyst for the Ombudsman's investigation into this matter, but eminent historians of physics provided information to Getler about the film. Here is what Getler reports in his column:

"John Stachel is Professor of Physics Emeritus, Center for Einstein Studies, Boston University. In an email to me he has referred to 'the whole series of entangled falsehoods' that form the basis of the documentary."

"This from Gerald Holton, Professor of Physics and Professor of the History of Science, Emeritus, at Harvard University:

"'I told them [the film makers] how I felt to have been tricked into appearing in this awful film, because the film people said it was to be about Albert Einstein — not a word about his wife being made the main character, with entirely false claims. Thereby they also demeaned Mileva, about whose true, respectable role I and others have written.'"

In the message received by Getler from Gerald Holton the latter also wrote:

"The film’s falsification of Maric’s role in the work of Einstein, well explained in Esterson's postings and in other sources by knowledgable historians of science, brings to mind two points: One is that if such a false product were published by a scientist, he or she would be deprived of eligibility of further funding, and (in the USA) punished by the Office of Research Integrity. Equally bad is that the falsification of Maric’s role is really an insult to her..."

The Ombudsman wrote:

"Rather than put my comments at the end of this long column, I'm going to say at this point that, after watching and reading, hearing both sides and a lot of back and forth, my view is that Esterson, with the support of scholars cited, presents a more convincing and well documented case that this is a factually flawed and ultimately misleading combination of film and Web presentations."

And his recommendation:

"I would recommend, pending a more scholarly assessment, shutting down the Web site until errors or statements that could be misleading are dealt with and greater context is provided. I don't know how you deal with the film except perhaps to not offer it for sale any longer until a further review is in hand."

As I say, the Ombudsman's Column is essentially about the film "Einstein's Wife", and I think it is entirely pertinent that the film's citing on the Mileva Maric page should have a short note directing attention to the fact that PBS's own Ombudsman recommended the suspension of its sales and of the PBS "Einstein's Wife" website.

I shall invite other editors to give their opinion on this. Esterson (talk) 11:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The posting that Boodlesthecat deleted read as follows:

(Note that in response to a complaint contending there are numerous errors in the film, the PBS Ombudsman recommended it cease to be shown and the website be taken down pending an investigation by PBS.) [4] Esterson (talk) 12:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

My opinion was asked, and I think that It is appropriate to include major critical comment about a reference or external link. If something used as an external link or reference is withdrawn, but remans important, it should be stated. As for the wording either modify to

(Responding to the allegation of numerous errors in the film, the PBS Ombudsman recommended it cease to be shown and the website be taken down pending an investigation by PBS.) [5]

or, and I think better:

add an indented line: **Review: Responding to the complaint that there were numerous errors in the film, the PBS Ombudsman recommended it cease to be shown and the website be taken down pending an investigation by PBS.) [6]

The indented line has the advantage that this is the way we usually list reviews. "Review" is the standard wording. Alternatively, "Ombudsman's report." DGG (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

However, ultimately the website was not taken down; it was revised and corrected. This is not uncommon for many sources--books, documentaries, etc, and we don't note every detail of a source's publishing history when listing it. The site had critics--why is this so noteworthy? If the criticisms are indeed noteworthy, we could add reliably sourced criticism of the site--but I don't see any. The footnote is readily available on the PBS website for anyone to follow the drama; it seems unnecessary in the links, and a bit self promotional on Esterson's part to insist on its inclusion. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Boodles is right on this one. The real issue is that there are competing and conflicting representations of Einstein's relationship with his first wife. It is important that all notable views be presented. I do not think that the omnbudsman's column rises to our standard of notbility but surely there have to be articles in peer-reviewed journals, or books, on Einstein or his work that provide opposing views. Those in my opinion are the sources and views we should find to put in the article, they would add much more to the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat wrote: "However, ultimately the website was not taken down; it was revised and corrected."

1. The film that has been subjected to withering criticism by historians of physics (see above) and with which the website is associated is still being promoted on the website.[7]

2. PBS commissioned to rewrite the website an author (Andrea Gabor) whose book chapter on Mileva Maric had previously been described by two Einstein specialists as containing "flights of journalistic fancy".[8]

While some of the more blatant historical and scientific errors were corrected, the revised website still contains numerous erroneous or misleading statements[9], to such a degree that the PBS Ombudsman wrote the following to David Davis, vice president of national production at Oregon Public Broadcasting, on 26 December 2007:

"I find Esterson's evidence about Maric's situation, as in the previous case, quite convincing and far more detailed than the alternate view. I thought he summed things up well in his paragraph beginning..."The truth actually revealed by the documentary record..." As to the larger context, I still feel this film and Web presentation has a bad odor to it and ought to be pulled."

So the Ombudsman was also in favour of "pulling" the revised website (a recommendation ignored by PBS).

3. It is not immediately evident, but a glance at the link for the film I cited above indicates that it was actually a joint production with Australian Broadcasting Corporation. After receiving early in 2007 my complaint about the film, accompanied by the statements by the three Einstein specialists whose edited comments had been in the film, ABC investigated and then acted with commendable integrity. On 20 July 2007 the ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs spokesperson reported:

"Due to the breaches of the ABC's Code of Practice which you have identified, the ABC will not broadcast 'Einstein's Wife' again. In addition, the ATOM 'Einstein's Wife' study guide has been removed from the ABC website."

Slrubinstein wrote: "The site had critics--why is this so noteworthy? If the criticisms are indeed noteworthy, we could add reliably sourced criticism of the site--but I don't see any."

I did not write this. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Slrubinstein: Apologies for my error. It was Boodlesthecat who wrote it.Esterson (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that it is noteworthy when the critics are historians of physics who have knowledge in depth of the subject and who express their views in no uncertain terms, e.g., Gerald Holton wrote that "if such a false product were published by a scientist, he or she would be deprived of eligibility of further funding, and (in the USA) punished by the Office of Research Integrity". This is not just ordinary criticism of a film and the website material associated with it.

I'm not suggesting for one moment, of course, that any of these details be made available on the Mileva Maric website. But as all the above (including the devastating criticisms of the film by historians of physics who have looked closely into the documentary material) relates to the "Einstein's Wife" film with which the "Einstein's Wife" website is directly associated, I fail to see why a brief sentence along the lines suggested by DGG is inappropriate.

Slrubinstein wrote: "I do not think that the omnbudsman's column rises to our standard of notbility but surely there have to be articles in peer-reviewed journals, or books, on Einstein or his work that provide opposing views. Those in my opinion are the sources and views we should find to put in the article."

If you look at the article you will see that references to the views of Einstein specialists who published relevant articles and book chapters, namely John Stachel and Alberto A. Martinez, are there. But this issue is specifically about the citing of the PBS website directly associated with the "Einstein's Wife" film that has been subjected to devastating criticism by eminent historians of physics, and recommended for withdrawal by PBS's own Ombudsman. Surely in such a case, as DGG writes, "It is appropriate to include major critical comment about a reference or external link." Esterson (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I really must add that I am dismayed by Boodlesthecat writing of me that it is "a bit self promotional on Esterson's part to insist on its inclusion".

Leaving aside that I am not "insisting" on its inclusion, I am arguing for it, I object to it being said that I am doing this in any way for "self-promotion". I have not the slightest interest in self-promotion, only on Wikipedia being open to the fullest relevant information on a subject. The fact that I happened to have been the catalyst for the Ombudsman's investigation is irrelevant. In my posted sentence I cited only a complaint, with no mention of my name. Esterson (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think quoting and citing relevant articles and book chapters by John Stachel and Alberto A. Martinez would be more effective. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest a compromise that I think is consistent with Slrubinstein's suggestion. Here is a journal article by A. A. Martinez, an historian of physics who has published journal articles on Einstein (relativity theory)[10] and also this article on "Einstein's Wife"[11]

The "Einstein's Wife" film has been widely shown on PBS outlets across the States since 2003. A Google search brings up over 10,000 citations, virtually all of them about the film. I think it is appropriate that a critical review of it be noted against the citing of the "Einstein's Wife" website, along the lines of:

(The contentions in the "Einstein's Wife" film are critically examined by A. A. Martinez[12]in the UK School Science Review, March 2005, 86(316), pp. 49-56.[13]) Esterson (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

to whom it may concern: corrections "Residence" and more

→ see also: "Residence: What is the source for these periods associated with the various nations she resided? I think she lived in Switzerland much longer than shown and only for a relative short period of time in Germany, certainly dying in Switzerland not Sweden. 67.101.249.26 (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
have found the article looking for certain informations, and been surprised by the incredibly wrong informations given on marić's places and dates of residence, even though they are linked to those of a certain albert einstein, whose wherabouts between 1896 and 1914 are not exactly a secret, and seen that 67.101.249.26 has objected to it on 21 March 2008, and as nobody has bothered to aswer her or him or make the necessary changes, i have made them, and reading the article, i have noticed quite a few innacuracies, that i have changed as well:

• Personel Information: Residence: marić only lived in the austrian-hungarian empire - her native vojvodina (and prague) were part of at that time, and in switzerland, with a few months in the german reich (one semester in heidelberg in winter 1897/98 and less than five months in berlin in 1914). she never lived in italy, and heaven only knows how sweden got into the list, and how anybody could want to add all those flags of countries that did not even exist at that time.
  Children: lieserl "einstein" has to come first, and her name cannot have been einstein.
  
• Introduction: it's a suggestion, that may be improved: because, with all due respect, neither mileva marić nor any other woman can be introduced as X's wife and mother of his children in the year 2009, when we know for a fact, that she was one of the first women beeing admitted to a university and university type school in europe. the fact that she failed her final exam should not be overrated. she would have had to be twice as good as the male students to get the same marks they got, and einstein only got a 4.9, that was rounded to 5, the minimum for passing!
  
• the zurich polytechnic was not "the only University in the area to accept women for the final exams": it was not even a university at that time, that is why they all studied for a teacher's degree, and why einstein got his doctorate from the university, not the polytechnic, which could only grant accademic degrees some years later. marić would have had less difficulties had she remained at the university in zurich. changing to the polytechnic was an unnusual decision, even more so, if she really had to pass an entrance exam.
  --Ajnem (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

the question of the entrance exam to the polytechnic has to be checked, as marić had a swiss "matura", and i think that the scale was 1-6, not 1-12, so please check where that came from.

• i did not change it, but i think that it is not correct, that she "sat the intermediate diploma exam one year later than the rest of her group". if she sat the final exam in 1900, she did so at the same time as einstein, which is not likely, if she had lost a year earlier, so please check your sources.
  
• reducing the years from 1903 till 1913 to: "In 1903, Marić married Einstein, and gave birth to two sons: Hans Albert in 1904, and Eduard in 1910" is strange, to put it midly; i have only added a minimum, so that it makes more sense.
  
• i could not check the accuracy of "Afterwards Einstein wrote to Marić urging her to move to Constance in Germany, later Durlach and then Darmstadt, offering to help her hunt for a house. (Highfield 218) Marić, who was then living in a flat at Gloriastrasse 59 on the Zürichberg, refused to move", but unless you can explain why einstein wanted her to leave switzerland for germany, the passage should be deleted, because it is irrelevent.
• what is relevent, is that their son eduard was a patient at the university clinic burghölzli in zurich. first, because the burghölzli was quite famous at the time and second, because something has to explain, why he cost her all that money. taking care of him at home cannot have been that expensiv.
  
• i deleted the whole paragraph "children", because it is just a repetition of what was said above.
  
• people only "pass away" in the usa, in the rest of the world: they die.--Ajnem (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Some belated remarks on Ajnem's comments:

1. Mileva Marić did exceptionally well to overcome institutional and other obstacles to acquire a scientific education, but the Zurich Polytechnic was progressive for its time, and John Stachel has reproduced some of the records of the Polytechnic, showing that in 1895-96, the year before Marić started her course, there were 8 women out of 32 studying in the mathematics and science section for teacher training. In her first year (1896-97) there were 9 out of 42. [Stachel, J., Einstein From 'B' to 'Z', 2002, p. 30] As Stachel remarks of Marić's time at the Polytechnic, "there were always several other women" in the section, "some of whom did graduate".

2. Ajnem states that Einstein's 4.91 final exam grade was rounded up to 5, the minimum for passing. Stachel has searched the records at the Polytechnic and has found no evidence of any such regulation. This is nothing more than an assertion, apparently made first by Senta Troemel-Ploetz [Stachel, 2002, p. 32]. Troemel-Ploetz has not provided any reference to support the assertion, and did not include it in her 1990 article on Marić [Troemel-Ploetz, S., "Mileva Marić-Einstein: The Woman Who Did Einstein's Mathematics", Women's Studies International Forum, 1990, pp. 415-432]. (For the record, Einstein's grades in the final diploma examinations (scale 1-6) were 5, 5, 5½, 5, and, for his dissertion, 4½.) (Collected Papers, vol. 1, doc. 67.)

Ajnem's statement that Marić would have had to have been twice as good as the male students to get the same grades can only be an assertion. It is worth noting that, as Stachel points out from the Polytechnic records, "women had been graduating from the Poly for decades by the time Marić took the exams (twice) and failed, and continued to do so after she left." [2002, p. 33]

3. Ajnem writes: "the question of the entrance exam to the polytechnic has to be checked, as marić had a swiss "matura", and i think that the scale was 1-6, not 1-12, so please check where that came from."

I have corrected the presentation of Maric's final diploma grade from 5 (grade 1-12) to 2½ (grade 1-6). The error arose from the fact that in the document providing the diploma results for the students in Maric's group the grades in some topics were doubled for the purposes of arriving at the final grade average. [Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, vol. 1, doc. 67.]

N.B. Ajnem mentions the entrance exam to the Polytechnic. The sentence on this (now unnecessarily deleted) read: "Marić sat the Zurich Polytechnic (later ETH) mathematics entrance examinations in October 1896, obtaining an average grade of 4.25 (on a scale 1-6).[Trbuhovic-Gjuric, 1988, p.60]." This is recorded on a facsimile of a Zurich Polytechnic document. (Having obtained her Matura (school leaving certificate), evidently she was only required to sit the Polytechnic entrance exams in mathematical subjects.)

4. It is in fact the case that Marić sat the intermediate diploma exam in 1899, one year later than the rest of her group (presumably because of the semester she spent at Heidelberg in 1897-98). [Trbuhovic-Gjuric, 1988, p.63; Renn, J. & Schulmann, R., 1992, Albert Einstein/Mileva Marić: The Love Letters, letters 9, 10, 11, 12]. It is also the case that she sat the final diploma exam in 1900 [Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, vol. 1, doc. 67] (and again in 1901).

Esterson (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Was Maric a "mathematician"?

I would like to re-open the discussion on whether Mileva Maric can justifiably described as a "mathematician". She twice failed her Zurich Polytechnic diploma examinations for teaching physics and mathematics in secondary school, and it was her poor grade in the mathematics component (Theory of Functions) that let her down. In the 1900 examination she obtained only 2½ on scale 1-6 [Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, vol. 1, doc. 67], and in 1901 her grade was 3½ [Stachel, J., Einstein from 'B' to 'Z', 2002, p. 29].

There is no evidence that she ever produced any original work in mathematics, or studied at a higher level than required for the Zurich Polytechnic teaching diploma (which she failed). At the end of a discussion of Maric's prowess in mathematics, John Stachel writes:

[T]here is no evidence that she was particularly gifted mathematically, while there is some evidence that she was not. It is no service to the memory, to an understanding of her difficult situation, or more generally to the real problems confronting women trying to start a career in science at the turn of the century, to make exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims about Maric's abilities. [Stachel, J., Einstein from 'B' to 'Z', 2002, p. 30]

For more detailed discussion of the claims about Maric's mathematical abilities, see: Who did Einstein's mathematics?

Esterson (talk) 09:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Annus Mirabilis papers

On July 18 2009 the following sentence was added at the end of the last paragraph: "Do you seriously think he would have kept them?"

From the context it can be seen that this sentence makes no sense:

In two cases where there are surviving letters from Marić in direct reply to ones from Einstein in which he had recounted his latest ideas, she gives no response at all. Her letters, in contrast to Einstein's, contain only personal matters, or comments related to her Polytechnic coursework. Stachel writes: "In her case we have no published papers, no letters with a serious scientific content, either to Einstein nor to anyone else; nor any objective evidence of her supposed creative talents. We do not even have hearsay accounts of conversations she had with anyone else that have a specific, scientific content, let alone claiming to report her ideas."[32] Do you seriously think he would have kept them?

If there is no response to this posting I shall revert the 18 July editing. Esterson (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Grades Average

I find the comparison between Mileva and Einstein grades to be highly doltish and strongly indicating that some one want to imply that the same average they got in physics courses (while in all other components Einstein grades were significantly higher) are a kind of "proof" that they were in the same level of abilities in physics..It may confuse someone who have absolutely no idea about the almost endless distance between grades and the ability to think on the greatest sicentific work ever. More, Mileva have later failed repeatedly in advance courses. If she was not married to Albert Einstein, by no doubt she would not have a wikipedia article on her name and she was died as total anonimus.--Gilisa (talk) 09:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with what Gilisa writes, and entirely agree with her that many people who have little knowledge of the physics involved have no comprehension what is required to contribute as Einstein did to the highest levels in theoretical physics. But providing actual grades at least rebuts some of the false information widely circulating.

In regard to Ajnem's 21 September 2009 "correction and precision on her grades": I am going to revert Ajnem's new version, as there are some errors and misconceptions.

1. The grade scale for the mathematics component was not 1-12, it was the standard 1-6. In footnote (2) for Document 67 of the A. E. Collected Papers Vol. 1 [German language edition] it is explained that it was only for the purpose of computing averages that the grades were doubled in some subjects.

2. It is not the case that in the mathematics component of the final diploma exam all the male students obtained grade 11 [5½]. Kollros obtained grade 12 [6].

3. The subject of the mathematics component was "Theory of functions" – see English language edition of Vol. 1. ("Functional theory" is not the way it is usually expressed in English.)

4. The reason for Marić's low average of 4.00 compared with Einstein's 4.91 was not only her very poor result in theory of functions. She obtained a lower grade than Einstein in four of the five final diploma exam topics. The exception was Experimental Physics, in which they both obtained grade 5 (scale 1-6).Esterson (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

She failed to advance, not to complete a test of her intelligence. There is a distinct difference... 99.236.221.124 (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It is confusing to put the latest comment in this section at the top rather than at the bottom, as it makes commenting difficult, so I have transferred GabEuro's recent comment to here: Esterson (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The attempt of describing in detail the marks obtained by Marić is really confusing, heavy and irrelevant for most of the general audience. It reminds me of secondary school children competing for the recognition of their teachers. In those years there were far unequal conditions for ladies than for men, even those originated by the differences of human physiology. We can not approach to analyse marks with criteria of our days. I suggest to re-edit the content to a text similar to the following:

"Marić sat the intermediate diploma exam in 1899, one year later than the rest of the group because of the time that she had spent in Heildelberg. Her academic results were lower than those of her male colleagues[9], among whom A. Einstein had come top with an average grade of 5.7 of 6 possible points [10]. Remarkably, in physics she got 5½, the same mark as A. Einstein.[11] In 1900 Marić failed her Zurich Polytechnic teaching diploma examinations.[12] Her main trouble was Theory of functions, in which her grade (2½) was rather lower that the average of the rest of candidates (5½). Her average grade this time was 4.00 whilst that of Einstein was 4.91."

If not getting any reaction after few days I'll proceed to replace the text.

--GabEuro (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

GabEuro: If you read the comments that preceded yours under this section (now above) you will see the reason why the exam grades were given, namely, that erroneous statements about Einstein's and Marić's relative success in their examinations are in wide circulation. If you have any evidence that Marić's grades at Zurich Polytechnic (where several women graduated before her) were awarded in any way differently from the men's, please supply it.

It's difficult to see how your reporting of the exam grades is essentially different from the one you replaced. However, I shall do a little tidying up. Esterson (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Abram Joffe

Ajnem has modified the passage on Abram Joffe in a manner I consider misleading, for reasons I shall explain here. Ajnem posted the following directly under the sub-heading "The case which has been presented for Marić as a co-author of some of Einstein's early work, putatively culminating in the 1905 papers, mostly depends on the following evidence":

>The testimony of the well known russian physicist Abram Joffe who stated that the name of the author of the three annus mirabilis-papers was Einstein-Marity, erroneously attributing the addition of the name Marity, Marić's official name, to an unexisting swiss custom.<

This gives the impression that what Joffe wrote lends some support to the case for Marić as a co-author, when in fact it does not. But first I challenge Ajnem's saying that the addition of the wife's maiden name is "an unexisting swiss custom". I have been informed by the historian Robert Schulmann that this was a custom in some Swiss circles, and indeed this is confirmed by the examples of the Swiss scientists Friedrich Miescher-His, Johannes Friedrich Miescher-Rüsch and Julius Wagner-Jauregg.

More important is that Joffe unambiguously stated that the author (in the singular) of the papers in question was "a bureaucrat at the Patent Office in Bern", which could only be Albert Einstein.

This was demonstrated in two articles the footnotes to which Ajnem removed, but which I shall reinstate.

Here is the translation of the Joffe passage:

"For physics and especially for the physics of my generation – that of Einstein's contemporaries, Einstein's entrance into the arena of science is unforgettable. In 1905, three articles appeared in the "Annalen der Physik", which began three very important branches of 20th century physics. Those were the theory of Brownian motion, the photon theory of light, and the theory of relativity. The author of these articles – an unknown person at that time, was a bureaucrat at the Patent Office in Bern, Einstein-Marity (Marity – the maiden name of his wife, which by Swiss custom is added to the husband's family name)."

Joffe mentioned Einstein on numerous occasions in his writings, and did not suggest that the author of the 1905 papers was anyone but Einstein alone, for example, in his chapter on Einstein in his 1967 book "Begegnungen Mit Physikern" (Meetings with Physicists), p. 88. Esterson (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Gender of historians of science rejecting collaboration claims

The first sentence under the subheading "Annus Mirabilis papers" gives the impression that only male historians of science reject the claim that Marić contributed to Einstein's 1905 papers ("The consensus among male historians of science is..."). However this is not the case, for instance I can name Diana Kormos Buchwald and Alice Calaprice, and also Barbara Wolff of the Albert Einstein Archives, Hebrew University at Jerusalem. For this reason I shall delete "male" from the sentence, and add another citation, for a book co-authored by a female Einstein historian. Esterson (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

@Esterson

esterson is missing the point concerning the joffe testimony about einstein-marity, and proving it by his above remark: in switzerland, married men only add/ed their wives maiden names to their own to distinguish themselves from others bearing the same name, either because they have a very common name, or in a case like the "Friedrich Miescher" and "Johannes Friedrich Miescher" he mentiones, or if their wives belong/ed to important families or were/are otherwise important. einstein was hardly a common name in switzerland at that or any other time. the mystery is not, what joffe thought, that is obvious, but how the -marity got into his testimony in the first place! esterson also insists on putting his own website into the article countless times, allthough he is very well represented on the PBS ombudsman website. i wish esterson would stop his crusade-like engagement and his overrating his own importance and reliability. there is no need for it: the article gives mileva marić very little credit as it is. --Ajnem (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I am perfectly happy to accept Ajnem's emendation of what I wrote above about Swiss husbands' (in certain circles) attaching the hyphenated maiden name of their wives to their own family name. However what I had posted remains true, that "Joffe explicitly indicates that he thought the hyphenated addition of Marić's maiden name (in Hungarian form, as on her Swiss marriage certificate) to Einstein was common Swiss practice." Why does Ajnem object to that statement?

Ajnem posted his/her item about Joffe immediately following the words: "The case which has been presented for Marić as a co-author of some of Einstein's early work, putatively culminating in the 1905 papers, mostly depends on the following evidence:" The wording as of 6 November can only give the reader the impression that what Joffe wrote (with reference supplied) supports the case "for Marić as a co-author". Since this is not the case, I had reworded the original posting to supply published information, with references and links, that indicates that it is simply not true that what Joffe wrote supports this contention.

Now to the substantive points about Joffe writing Einstein-Marity as the author of the three most celebrated 1905 papers in his 1955 memorial article to Einstein. On one thing I can agree with Ajnem: "the mystery is not, what joffe thought, that is obvious, but how the -marity got into his testimony in the first place!" It is indeed a mystery why on that one occasion of a formal memorial to Einstein Joffe wrote "Einstein-Marity" (note, however, that he unambiguously referred to "Einstein" at the beginning of the paragraph in question). But that doesn't mean this is evidence that the papers were co-authored by Marić. I repeat, Joffe wrote explicitly that the author (singular) was at the time a bureaucrat at the Berne patent office, i.e., Albert Einstein. Elsewhere in his writings he ascribes the 1905 papers to Einstein alone, most notably in the high praise he gives Einstein for these achievements in his book "Meetings with Physicists" (referenced above). If the statement is left as posted by Ajnem the reader will not know that the widely circulating claim that what Joffe wrote supports the "co-author" contention (usually with the added false assertion that Joffe saw the original manuscripts) is in fact not the case.

I'm perfectly happy for Ajnem to retain his/her version of the Joffe item in the context which suggests Joffe's article supports the "co-author" thesis, as long as I am allowed to point out that examination of the article in question does not support this contention, with references and links for the reader to see the documentary evidence in full.

Incidentally, I have examined very closely the argument that the very fact that Joffe included the hyphenated "Marity" somehow shows he was indicating that Marić was a co-author here: http://www.esterson.org/Critique_of_Bjerknes.htm

Ajnem writes: "i wish esterson would stop his crusade-like engagement and his overrating his own importance and reliability. there is no need for it: the article gives mileva marić very little credit as it is."

I am not engaged in a "crusade", but I am concerned about the numerous erroneous contentions circulating on the internet, and have endeavoured to correct these when they appear on Wikipedia. Having spent many, many hours familiarising myself with the contentions, the original sources, and the relevant literature, I do have a justified claim to some degree of expertise on this topic: I have in writing (emails) commendations about my work from numerous historians of physics/Einstein with close knowledge of the subject: John Stachel, Gerald Holton, Michel Janssen, Diana Kormos Buchwald, and Barbara Wolff. I would also add that a Wikipedia page should not be about giving Marić credit or not giving her credit, but about supplying information on the basis of reliable documentation.

Ajnem writes: "esterson also insists on putting his own website into the article countless times…" I suggest we can judge the reliability of Ajnem's assertions by the easily ascertainable fact that there are only two references/links to my website, and neither of the contents of these was written by me. They were extracts from chapters published by John Stachel, which I reproduced with the permission of the author.

In relation to the recent occasions I made changes to the Mileva Marić page I provided an explanation, with documentation, on the Discussion page. I also contacted Ajnem through his/her talk page to invite him/her to contribute to the discussion. Ajnem has had every opportunity to provide documentation that refutes the factual information I provide in the above Discussion items under the relevant topic headings, but has chosen not to do so.

Esterson (talk) 10:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Was Mileva Marić a scientist?

In the introductory sentence to the Mileva Marić webpage, Mmrkic has added that Marić was "a Serbian scientist". I would like to revert this addition on the grounds that there is no justification for describing Marić as a scientist. She twice failed the Zurich Polytechnic examination for a diploma to teach mathematics and physics in secondary school, and there are no authenticated articles or writings by her on physics other than in relation to her Polytechnic studies. As John Stachel has pointed out, "in her case, we have no published papers; no letters with a serious scientific content, either to Einstein nor to anyone else; nor any other objective evidence of her supposed creative talents. We do not even have hearsay accounts of conversations she had with anyone else that have a specific, scientific content, let alone a content claiming to report her ideas." (Stachel, 2002, p. 36)

If anyone thinks there are substantive grounds for describing Marić as a scientist, I would be glad to hear them. If these are not forthcoming, I propose to revert the added words. Esterson (talk) 11:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I notified Mmrkic's talk page about my questioning the statement that Marić was a scientist, but as there has been no answer to my request for evidence that she was, I am reverting Mmrkic's addition.

Esterson (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Disputed material

Esterson asked me to help resolve a dispute here, but after reading the recent entries and reviewing article edits I'm not sure exactly what is disputed here. Could editors make a brief statement (100 words) describing what they believe to be the disputed issues? Once that is done then we can discuss them and see if a resolution is possible.   Will Beback  talk  15:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Will: For details of the situation in question, please see what I wrote under the topic heading "Abram Joffe" above, where I explained why I was making the change immediately following the sentence: "The case which has been presented for Marić as a co-author of some of Einstein's early work, putatively culminating in the 1905 papers, mostly depends on the following evidence":

Prior to 5 November 2009 the passage read:

The testimony of the well known russian physicist Abram Joffe who stated that the name of the author of the three Annus Mirabilis Papers was Einstein-Marity, erroneously attributing the addition of the name Marity, Marić's official name, to an unexisting swiss custom.[Ref. to Joffe 1955]

On 5 November I modified the passage to:

The testimony of the well known Russian physicist Abram Joffe who, in a memorial article to Einstein gave the name of the author of the three most celebrated annus mirabilis papers as Einstein-Marity.[Ref. to Joffe 1955] However, Joffe explicitly indicates that he thought the hyphenated addition of Marić's maiden name (in Hungarian form, as on her Swiss marriage certificate)[Ref.] to Einstein was common Swiss practice, and he unambiguously describes the author (singular) of the 1905 papers as "a bureaucrat at the Patent Office in Bern", namely Albert Einstein.[Two references/links giving full passage from Joffe 1955.]

On the same day Ajnem reverted what I had written so it again reads as the single sentence above.

Although I see nothing wrong with my amendments to the first sentence, and the information at the beginning of my second sentence, I'm perfectly happy to leave his/her sentence as it stands (though I think my amendments present the situation more clearly than as given by Ajnem). However, by removing the substantive content of my second sentence, Ajnem has left readers without any knowledge of what Joffe actually wrote. Moreover he/she has removed the two references/links that would have enabled the reader to see this, and make up their own minds about whether it supports the "co-author" thesis.

What I propose is a compromise. The sentence to which Ajnem has reverted should be left as it is, while I add the last part of my second sentence in which I quote briefly from what Joffe actually wrote, and add the two references/links to enable readers to see for themselves the relevant Joffe passage in full, thus:

"However, Joffe explicitly described the author (singular) of the 1905 papers as "a bureaucrat at the Patent Office in Bern", which could only mean Albert Einstein.[Two references/links.]"

Esterson (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

To illustrate that there is indeed a more general problem, I have just noticed that Ajnem has removed one of my references (Calaprice, A. & Lipscombe, T., 2005), both from the text and also in the Bibliographical references. [End of second sentence under "Role in physics".] He/She has also removed a link to a Martinez reference, and the link to an extract from a book by Stachel, presumably on the grounds that the latter link is to my website, though the article is not by me. (N.B. I distinguish between references (text citations) and the Bibliography)

See above for the background here, this being that Ajnem recently added the word "male" to describe the historians of physics who reject the "collaboration" thesis. I reverted this change, pointing out (above) that I can name three female historians of physics/Einstein who also reject the thesis, and I provided an additional reference to those rejecting the thesis, this being to pages in a book co-authored by a woman. I can see no grounds whatever for Anjem to remove this reference. (The link to the Martinez article is in the Bibliography, but if Ajnem objects to links in the citation references, why doesn't he/she remove the several other links among those references?)

As far as the removal of the link to the Stachel item is concerned, although the link is to my website I personally can see no objection to it, as it consists of nothing more than a reprinting (with permission) from Stachel (2002), with no commentary from me. In other words, it is purely a link to an article by Stachel.

Esterson (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

disputed issue

hello will. let me first make one thing clear: i am neither a physicist, nor an einstein – albert or mileva – expert, and do not claim to be, nor a sexist i hope, although that statement doesn't mean anything, as (almost) nobody admits to being a sexist nowadays, just as nobody admits to being a racist or an anti-semite, and i am not an anti-feminist (or a feminist) either. i came across the (english) mileva marić article in the context of the article about berne, switzerland, and was quite schocked to see what the english article looked like, and made some edits and left some questions on the talk page. i have kept the article on my watchlist, noticed that it is quite often vandalised, and may remain so for a while. but recently i decided, that the article needs some editing badly, particularly the paragraph "role in physics", which is not up to wikipedia NPOV-standard, to put it mildly. the (main) reason for this, as you may have seen by now, is esterson, who unfortunatly is not satisfied with adding his own website and/or articles as references into the mileva marić articles, although he does that profusely – a quick and not exhaustive count results in 7 esterson-edits containing a reference to his own article/website in the english, 5 in the french, and 3 in the german mileva marić article – but has deleted practically all of the "case which has been presented for Marić as a co-author of some of Einstein's early work" in the english article on july 13, 2009. but, not being satisfied with that, he keeps making his highly biased edits (see his website), and that is what causes the "dispute", he wants you to solve. i sincerely hope you'll be able to do so. (see also esterson's note on my talk page and my answer to it above.) --Ajnem (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

It appears that some of this dispute concerns Esterson citing his own writings. Would Esterson be willing to stop citing himself, and would that help resolve the dispute? Also, this edit [14] has the summary "Paragraph on letters slightly modified", but in addiiton to slight modificaiton of one paragraph four others were deleted outright. Was that a mistake? If not what was the reason for the deletion of sourced content?   Will Beback  talk  18:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Will: You write "Would Esterson be willing to stop citing himself." Ajnem has previously written "esterson also insists on putting his own website into the article countless times…" He/she now writes "a quick and not exhaustive count results in 7 esterson-edits containing a reference to his own article/website in the english [Maric webpage]". However, as I wrote above (under "@esterson"), there are only two references/links to my website, and neither of the contents of these was written by me. They were extracts from chapters published by John Stachel, which I reproduced with the permission of the author.

So I ask Ajnem, please cite a single instance where I cited an article written by me. In fact there is not a single citation to any article written by me in the whole of the Mileva Marić webpage!

On the question of the links to articles by John Stachel reprinted on my website, by all means let's discuss these. They are straight reprintings with no commentary from me, so my view is that they are valid citations. They are from Stachel, J. (2002), Einstein From B to Z, pp. 31-38, and Stachel, J. (ed.) (2005), Einstein's Miraculous Year, pp. lxv-lxxii.

Esterson (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion Part 2

Will: You point out that I deleted four paragraphs on July 13, reiterating Ajnem's statement that I "deleted practically all of the case which has been presented for Marić as a co-author of some of Einstein's early work" in the english article on july 13, 2009."

I'm having to cast my mind back to last July, and can only assume that I deleted them in error. However the implication made by Ajnem that these indicated a deliberate attempt to remove items that support the case for the "collaboration" thesis doesn't hold water. If you check the deleted four paragraphs, most of the material was written by me! The items were:

Divorce agreement: The second sentence (of three) was written by me. (I shall reinstate the paragraph.)

Troemel-Ploetz claims. All of this was written by me.

Joffe story. All but the first sentence was written by me. (The Joffe item has now been reinstated in a fresh form.)

General paragraph: The whole of this lengthy paragraph is a rebuttal of the collaboration thesis. The first three sentences were written by someone else, with the addition of citation references by me for the first sentence. The last three sentences were added by me. (I shall reinstate this paragraph.)

I apologise for the erroneous deleting of these paragraphs, a bad error on my part. But please note again, most of what was deleted was written by me. Esterson (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion Part 3

Ajnem writes that he/she has made a number of edits in the past, and I can see that these are valuable additions and cleaning-up exercises. But as he/she has taken issue with recent amendments made by me, I shall discuss these specific complaints here.

Ajnem writes above that I keep making my "highly biased edits (see his website)", and that is what causes the "dispute"...

Note that for my substantive recent changes I indicated that I would comment on them on the discussion page. Ajnem has had the opportunity to provide documentary evidence on the discussion page to challenge what I recently added to the Mileva Maric page, but the only point she made was to correct me in relation to what I wrote on the discussion page about Swiss men in certain circles having added (hyphenated) the maiden name of the wife to their family name. I accepted Ajnem's correction, but pointed out it didn't make any difference to what I had written on the Mileva Maric page. I quoted what I had written, namely "Joffe explicitly indicates that he thought the hyphenated addition of Marić's maiden name (in Hungarian form, as on her Swiss marriage certificate) to Einstein was common Swiss practice", and asked "Why does Ajnem object to that statement?" Ajnem has yet to reply to my question.

Ajnem refers to my "highly-biased edits" and for evidence links to my website. I can only assume that by "bias" he/she means material which he/she disagrees with. In fact all the articles by me on my website (there are a few by other authors) are closely argued and profusely documented. I certainly can't expect Ajnem to have read even a small number of these, but for him/her to link to them as evidence of bias while not even providing documentation to challenge the few items I recently discussed above suggests that the allegation of bias is not based on an examination of what I have actually written.

So I can only ask Ajnem to provide two or three specific items on the current Mileva Maric page that he/she considers to be biased or POV. I shall be only too happy to discuss them. Esterson (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion (Part 4)

Ajnem also writes about the German and French Mileva Maric Wikipedia pages. I'm not suggesting there should be any discussion of this, as it is not relevant to the English language webpage, but as Ajnem raised the issue, I shall respond here.

Ajnem writes: "…a quick and not exhaustive count results in 7 esterson-edits containing a reference to his own article/website in the english, 5 in the french, and 3 in the german mileva marić article…"

In October I thought it might be of interest to check out the German and French "Mileva Maric" Wikipedia pages. (My knowledge of French – to read at least – is reasonable, and of German, very sketchy.) Taking the German page first: I added references/links to three items on my webpage, not one of them written by me. They were all reprintings from published works by John Stachel. There is a link to an article by me (a critique of Troemel-Ploetz) among the weblinks, but I didn't put it there. (Had I wanted to link to this article I would have given a different link, not to my own website.)

On the French "Mileva Maric" web page I provided links to three items on my website, not one of them written by me. (Again, they were reprintings from books by John Stachel.) As someone had cited my critique of Troemel-Ploetz on the German "Mileva Maric" webpage, I thought it would be acceptable to cite the same article on the French one – but it was not a link to my own website, it was to the website mentioned above that carried the same article.

As I've said, there's no point in discussing this further on the English Wikipedia, but I have posted this as an indication that Ajnem's assertions about my linking to my own articles are highly misleading. Esterson (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

?

hello will. well, what next? or rather, do you need me any longer? if so, what do you suggest i do? sincerely, Ajnem (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

How about responding to the points I made in response to your assertions above?

1. Provide one single example of an article written by me cited/linked on the Mileva Maric website.

2. Provide example(s) of bias or POV in my recent edits.

3. More generally, provide two or three examples of bias or POV on the Mileva Maric website so we can discuss them.

Esterson (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

hello. i didn't realise that Esterson's first name is also 'will'. my question is meant for Will Beback. ajnem (talk) 10:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ajnem: Apologies – but if you had spelled "will" with a capital "W" I'm sure I would have spotted it was addressed to him.

Regardless of that, if you make allegations against another editor, don't you think the least you can do is to back them up when asked to do so? Esterson (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Will Beback: i'd appreciate it, if you'd tell me, what you expect me to do, if anything. but i'm not going to recount the number of times, the esterson-website, which is imo not a reliable source by wikipedia standard, and includes material, that should not be touched with a 100-foot pole, is cited as reference in mileva marić-wikipedia-articels, or indulge in any other similarly asinine pastimes, sorry. it's the marić-wikipedia-articles, particularly the one in english, that imo need editing, not the marić-talk-page. sincerely, ajnem (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not paying attention. The only link to esterson.org that I see on the page now is to a excerpt reprinted from a book, Einstein's Miraculous Year: Five Papers that Changed the Face of Physics, published by a prestigious university press. Is that a problem?   Will Beback  talk  22:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Will Beback and Esterson: in the part of the world where i live, people learn to read and count to ten in first grade; in switzerland that is at the age of seven – "in certain circles" earlier. so i'm going to let you go on with your counting the references to "esterson.org" in the marić-article until you arrive at approximately the correct number, while i, instead of discussing side issues on the talk page, shall just try to do some editing of the marić-article. maybe it will eventually become clear, what the problem is, if any. hoping that that meets with both your approvals, sincerely, ajnem (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ajnem: I guess this will be another waste of words, as you never respond to my replies to your assertions, you simply repeat them without any regard to what I have written. Nevertheless I repeat: There is not a single citation/link to an article written by me on the whole of the Mileva Maric webpage. There are links to two articles on my webpage, but these are to reprintings of articles by John Stachel from reputable publishers. (There are several links to these two articles for the simple reason that they are each of relevance in more than one context. If the links are removed, the citations will remain; it will just mean that readers will not have easy access to what John Stachel has written.)

I invited you to discuss these links, but you ignored my suggestion. Please do not delete these until they have been discussed on the Discussion page. Will Beback has already asked in regard to one of them if you have a problem with it, but you ignored his question. (You can see above that when I made recent changes of any substance I explained the reason on the Discussion page, sometimes inviting discussion before making the change.)

I have to admit that I did miss a third linking to my website, though again the article is not by me. It is a translation of an article in the bibliographical references by the Einstein biographer Albrecht Fölsing in Die Zeit. It seemed valid to me to provide the translation, as the great majority of visitors to the Maric webpage would not be able to read the article in the original German (also linked). But this, like the other instances, is a matter for discussion. Esterson (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)