`  You previously claimed that ``Einstein did not introduce [Maxwell's equations] as an explicit postulate, any more than he did the rest of classical physics``, but now you conceed (finally!)that he adopted Maxwell's equations as one of his ``principleS`` in his paper giving a heuristic argument for mass-energy equivalence, and you also conceed the obvious fact that this is (as Einstein noted with the ``of course`` that you're so fond of) tantamount adopting the principle of lightspeed invariance.   To really appreciate this you have to ask yourself what it means to adopt Maxwell's equations as a principle. Those equations can be reconciled with the principle of relativity in (infinitely) many different ways. To give this principle meaning, we must assert (among other things) that the parameters appearing in those equations take the same numerical values when evaluated with respect to any system of inertial coordinates, as operationally defined. Now, the key parameters characterizing Maxwell's equations are the electrostatic and magnetic units, whose ratio is the speed of light, so the only way of postulating Maxwell's equations in a sense compatible with special relativity is to assert that the speed of light has the same numerical value with respect to any system of inertial coordinates. If you do not explicitly stipulate this, the postulate of ``Maxwell's equations`` is hopelessly ambiguous, and does not suffice to single out the Minkowski metric. Conversely, if you DO stipulate the invariance of the ratio of electric to magnetic units, then none of the remaining assumptions entailed in Maxwell's equations (some of which are invalid) are needed. This is why, as Einstein specifically said, he avoided postulating Maxwell's equations in the derivation of the Lorentz transformation. So, your claims are falsified in several different ways (so many that it is becoming tedious to enumerate them).  Look, the result from the first paper on which he bases the second paper is the equation for the energy of an electromagnetic wave with respect to relatively moving systems of inertial coordinates. This comes from Section 8 of the first paper, which is in the ``Electrodynamic Part`` of that paper, in which he applies the Lorentz transformation  - derived in the ``Kinematic Part`` of the paper, based on the two postulates - to Maxwell's equations. At the conclusion of the Kinematic Part he says  We have now derived the required propositions of the kinematics that correspond to our two principles, and we will now proceed to show their application in electrodynamics.  So you see, he has already derived the Lorentz transformation, which as he repeatedly stressed is the entire content of special relativity, and he is proceeding to apply this to one particular class of physical phenomena, namely, Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamics. In this part of the paper he derives the relativistic expression for the energy of an electromagnetic wave (in accord with Maxwell's equations), and it is this result that he uses in the second paper. This is why he says in the second paper, referring to the first, ``There I based myself on the Maxwell-Hertz equations``. He is saying this is the basis of the expression for the energy of an electromagnetic wave, but of course the relativistic form comes from applying the kinematics of special relativity, which was derived in the first part of the earlier paper based on the two postulates of relativity and lightspeed invariance.  If you have any understanding at all of the actual content of those two papers, his statements are perfectly clear and cannot possibly be mis-interpreted. Your claims are falsified in so many different ways that is becomes ever more tedious to enumerate them. You conspicuously decline to reconcile your claims about Einstein ``dropping the second postulate`` with the fact that in over a dozen papers written over the next fifty years of his life he consistently asserted the primacy of the lightspeed postulate, often listing it first rather than second. And you refuse to comment on why he repeatedly made statements explaining why he based special relativity on those two postulates and NOT on Maxwell's equations. And on and on.  All we're doing here is proving the wisdom of the Wikipedia rules designed to suppress physics cranks. It does no good to argue with physics cranks. All we can do is insist that the article contain ONLY sourced statements from reputable publications. My version is thoroughly sourced. The alternate version is essentially just an unsourced statement of some editors opinions. The repeated reversions to that unsourced POV original research is beginning to look a lot like vandalism.  `