This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Eric Weinstein article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
This page was proposed for deletion by an editor on 1 August 2016. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 29 October 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Intellectual dark web was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 25 April 2018 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Eric Weinstein. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
The Portal (podcast) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 3 August 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Eric Weinstein. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Syednaqvi94. Peer reviewers: Syednaqvi94.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikiguy2021, a new account with no other contributions, is very intent on adding Geometric Unity to the "known for" section of the infobox. This is contentious. There is no article on Geometric Unity because it is not a significant concept. "Geometric Unity" +Weinstein gets 137 unique hits on Google, mostly comments sections and unreliable sources. There's no credible evidence that he's "known for" this outside of a highly restricted circle of students of wrongness. Equally concerning is this series of edits which downplays Weinstein's involvement in the IDW (for which he is known), boosts "Geometric Unity", removes criticism, reintroduces blog sources, and restores primary-sourced references to his video on the subject. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Guy ( help! - typo?) 08:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion, one of the major values of Wikipedia is in aggregating information for its readers with appropriate references. It is not for JzG or any other editor to decide in advance which ideas are "wrong" and should not be on Wikipedia, which after all hosts articles on pseudo-scientific ideas, conspiracy theories, and the like. In the particular case of Geometric Unity, little harm is done by including it, and more is to be gained by having readers be more informed about it. Regarding the IDW, JzG did not seem to read my comment for my 16:45, 10 April 2021 edit, which states that the attribution to Weinstein for the term "Intellectual Dark Web" was erroneous - the article does not even mention Weinstein by name. I have no issue with attributing Weinstein with IDW, but the sources on Wikipedia need to be valid. I am therefore reverting the 08:24, 11 April 2021 of JzG because the reintroduces the problems raised by the cleanup edits I made, which JzG dismissed. Regarding blog sources, the blog in question is hosted by Sabine_Hossenfelder, an established and qualified physicist, who's done much more significant work in physics than Weinstein (a low bar). I do not see what JzG has against linking the videos and manuscript which Weinstein himself has released. Wikipedia is not endorsing them, but is presenting them as the main reference material. Wikiguy2021 ( talk) 15:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
References
Nguyen seems to be an ok source, given that we regularly include "skeptic" blogs when debunking claims. That said "Geometric Unity" seems to have attracted vanishingly little attention, it should only be included in the article de minimis. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Essential technical details of GU are omitted, leaving many of the central claims unverifiable. There are specific issues with the details that are given, but those are secondary. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
It seems that there is a much divided opinion on the status of Geometric Unity as evidence by the fact that I am not the only who has edited for inclusion of it in the article. I agree with WP:PARITY in including Youtube/blogs in this case. The main source of Geometric Unity is outside news articles and scientific documents, and consequently, so are the relevant recent commentary. The news articles currently cited are 8 years old, prior to current updates, and so are no longer informative and thus less valuable than the YouTube/blogs of present. It is disingenuous to denigrate the status of the latter when they offer more information than the former. So as it stands, the current description of Geometric Unity, at edit 18:52, 11 April 2021 , is incomplete and needs to be revised because it is wholly outdated and incomplete. At minimum, the Weinstein's own updated version of the theory as well as the expert criticism provided by Nguyen and hosted by Hossenfelder should be included. If there are other expert / primary sources that have arisen since then, they can also be included. JzG I accept your challenge to achieve consensus. I would like input from the recent commentors Hemiauchenia, User:XOR'easter, MarkH21 Wikiguy2021 ( talk) 19:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
if someone goes to the Wikipedia page wanting to know "What is the status of Geometric Unity?"Do such readers exist? Actual physicists have had their two moments of caring and then stopped. Fans of Weinstein will get everything they care to know from his podcast. That aside, giving a portrayal of "Geometric Unity" that is based on unreliable sources is far worse than giving a portrayal based on old ones. (Whether anything significant has actually happened since eight years ago is very much up for debate, since the splash made by Weinstein finally coming out with a paper has been, shall we say, minimal.) WP:SELFPUB does not permit Weinstein's own manuscript to be used as a source, as advancing a putative Theory of Everything while spurning the entire academic community is
unduly self-serving. Perhaps the commentary co-authored by Nguyen is acceptable, but there remain the questions of whether it is due the attention and, if so, of how to summarize it, which the text in dispute failed to do properly. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
There is more material on Geometric Unity than any other topic of Weinstein at present (including IDW) and there is now a recent reliable source covering the subject. Does it therefore make sense to reinclude Geometric Unity in the known for section / article headline? Wikiguy2021 ( talk) 18:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
"more" still amounts to virtually none. If we pay more attention to a scientific "theory" than the scientific community itself has, then we are doing the opposite of being informative. We don't write about people based on the size of their "following", but on what reliable sources have to say about them. We're an encyclopedia, not a fansite for Instagram influencers. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Should a brief section about Weinstein's work on economics (with his wife) be added? He has more publications and talks in economics and no publications in physics (despite most of the Wikipedia article being on his "contribution" to physics). Weinstein gave a talk at UChicago recently and it received a response from Nguyen on the arxiv, the same guy who debunked his Geometric Unity and is quoted in the Wikipedia article. See https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.03460 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiguy2021 ( talk • contribs) 02:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I’m highly confused by Wikiguy2021’s comment. I read Nguyen’s paper and it appears the only element of Weinsteins 2021 talk that was received positively (by Nguyen) was the idea of gauge-theory finding applications in Economics. It could be argued Nguyen applied a reductionist mathematical analysis to Weinstein et al. work. Stating the talk was delivered albeit with some criticism given in the aforementioned paper seems a good midpoint. Sadke4 ( talk) 05:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I've removed the following paragraph:
References
None of these sources demonstrate any lasting encyclopedic significance. The first is a routine event listing. The second is a WP:PRIMARY PhD thesis. The third is Weinstein's own "institute", which is both WP:PRIMARY and WP:SPS. The fourth is a pre-print rebuttal.
Our goal isn't to list everything Weinstein has done or which he has claimed is important, it is to contextualize why these things are important. The way we do that is via reliable, independent sources.
Lacking such sources, this doesn't belong at all.
Grayfell ( talk) 23:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
There has been iterations of edits adding and removing the notable child of Eric Weinstein. [1] [2] The child has been on the Lex Fridman podcast and on the podcast hosted by Eric Weinstein himself. On both podcast the hosts indicate that the guest is the child of Eric Weinstein and the Lex Fridman podcast the guest indicates he is the child of Eric Weinstein The reasoning given by @ Galobtter: in the first edit rejection is "No need to include name of child per WP:BLPNAME". However as noted in to include child " According to WP:BLPNAME ".. if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject", a direct source was provided about the family member. In addition the family member has been on the podcast https://lexfridman.com/zev-weinstein and active youtube https://www.youtube.com/c/GenerationZW." This was rejected again in the by @ Grayfell: with the following comment "We can include it, that doesn't mean we must include it". This appears to create a inconsistancy since the spouse of Eric Weinstein is included and is only subjectively more notable then the child of Eric Weinstein. So based on comment by @ Grayfell: one could argue that the spouse should also be removed, which seems to be an unfavorable editorial choice. I therefore recommend that the notable child of Eric Weinstein be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xirtam Esrevni ( talk • contribs) 21:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
References
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Eric Weinstein article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
This page was proposed for deletion by an editor on 1 August 2016. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 29 October 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Intellectual dark web was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 25 April 2018 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Eric Weinstein. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
The Portal (podcast) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 3 August 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Eric Weinstein. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Syednaqvi94. Peer reviewers: Syednaqvi94.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikiguy2021, a new account with no other contributions, is very intent on adding Geometric Unity to the "known for" section of the infobox. This is contentious. There is no article on Geometric Unity because it is not a significant concept. "Geometric Unity" +Weinstein gets 137 unique hits on Google, mostly comments sections and unreliable sources. There's no credible evidence that he's "known for" this outside of a highly restricted circle of students of wrongness. Equally concerning is this series of edits which downplays Weinstein's involvement in the IDW (for which he is known), boosts "Geometric Unity", removes criticism, reintroduces blog sources, and restores primary-sourced references to his video on the subject. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Guy ( help! - typo?) 08:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion, one of the major values of Wikipedia is in aggregating information for its readers with appropriate references. It is not for JzG or any other editor to decide in advance which ideas are "wrong" and should not be on Wikipedia, which after all hosts articles on pseudo-scientific ideas, conspiracy theories, and the like. In the particular case of Geometric Unity, little harm is done by including it, and more is to be gained by having readers be more informed about it. Regarding the IDW, JzG did not seem to read my comment for my 16:45, 10 April 2021 edit, which states that the attribution to Weinstein for the term "Intellectual Dark Web" was erroneous - the article does not even mention Weinstein by name. I have no issue with attributing Weinstein with IDW, but the sources on Wikipedia need to be valid. I am therefore reverting the 08:24, 11 April 2021 of JzG because the reintroduces the problems raised by the cleanup edits I made, which JzG dismissed. Regarding blog sources, the blog in question is hosted by Sabine_Hossenfelder, an established and qualified physicist, who's done much more significant work in physics than Weinstein (a low bar). I do not see what JzG has against linking the videos and manuscript which Weinstein himself has released. Wikipedia is not endorsing them, but is presenting them as the main reference material. Wikiguy2021 ( talk) 15:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
References
Nguyen seems to be an ok source, given that we regularly include "skeptic" blogs when debunking claims. That said "Geometric Unity" seems to have attracted vanishingly little attention, it should only be included in the article de minimis. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Essential technical details of GU are omitted, leaving many of the central claims unverifiable. There are specific issues with the details that are given, but those are secondary. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
It seems that there is a much divided opinion on the status of Geometric Unity as evidence by the fact that I am not the only who has edited for inclusion of it in the article. I agree with WP:PARITY in including Youtube/blogs in this case. The main source of Geometric Unity is outside news articles and scientific documents, and consequently, so are the relevant recent commentary. The news articles currently cited are 8 years old, prior to current updates, and so are no longer informative and thus less valuable than the YouTube/blogs of present. It is disingenuous to denigrate the status of the latter when they offer more information than the former. So as it stands, the current description of Geometric Unity, at edit 18:52, 11 April 2021 , is incomplete and needs to be revised because it is wholly outdated and incomplete. At minimum, the Weinstein's own updated version of the theory as well as the expert criticism provided by Nguyen and hosted by Hossenfelder should be included. If there are other expert / primary sources that have arisen since then, they can also be included. JzG I accept your challenge to achieve consensus. I would like input from the recent commentors Hemiauchenia, User:XOR'easter, MarkH21 Wikiguy2021 ( talk) 19:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
if someone goes to the Wikipedia page wanting to know "What is the status of Geometric Unity?"Do such readers exist? Actual physicists have had their two moments of caring and then stopped. Fans of Weinstein will get everything they care to know from his podcast. That aside, giving a portrayal of "Geometric Unity" that is based on unreliable sources is far worse than giving a portrayal based on old ones. (Whether anything significant has actually happened since eight years ago is very much up for debate, since the splash made by Weinstein finally coming out with a paper has been, shall we say, minimal.) WP:SELFPUB does not permit Weinstein's own manuscript to be used as a source, as advancing a putative Theory of Everything while spurning the entire academic community is
unduly self-serving. Perhaps the commentary co-authored by Nguyen is acceptable, but there remain the questions of whether it is due the attention and, if so, of how to summarize it, which the text in dispute failed to do properly. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
There is more material on Geometric Unity than any other topic of Weinstein at present (including IDW) and there is now a recent reliable source covering the subject. Does it therefore make sense to reinclude Geometric Unity in the known for section / article headline? Wikiguy2021 ( talk) 18:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
"more" still amounts to virtually none. If we pay more attention to a scientific "theory" than the scientific community itself has, then we are doing the opposite of being informative. We don't write about people based on the size of their "following", but on what reliable sources have to say about them. We're an encyclopedia, not a fansite for Instagram influencers. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Should a brief section about Weinstein's work on economics (with his wife) be added? He has more publications and talks in economics and no publications in physics (despite most of the Wikipedia article being on his "contribution" to physics). Weinstein gave a talk at UChicago recently and it received a response from Nguyen on the arxiv, the same guy who debunked his Geometric Unity and is quoted in the Wikipedia article. See https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.03460 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiguy2021 ( talk • contribs) 02:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I’m highly confused by Wikiguy2021’s comment. I read Nguyen’s paper and it appears the only element of Weinsteins 2021 talk that was received positively (by Nguyen) was the idea of gauge-theory finding applications in Economics. It could be argued Nguyen applied a reductionist mathematical analysis to Weinstein et al. work. Stating the talk was delivered albeit with some criticism given in the aforementioned paper seems a good midpoint. Sadke4 ( talk) 05:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I've removed the following paragraph:
References
None of these sources demonstrate any lasting encyclopedic significance. The first is a routine event listing. The second is a WP:PRIMARY PhD thesis. The third is Weinstein's own "institute", which is both WP:PRIMARY and WP:SPS. The fourth is a pre-print rebuttal.
Our goal isn't to list everything Weinstein has done or which he has claimed is important, it is to contextualize why these things are important. The way we do that is via reliable, independent sources.
Lacking such sources, this doesn't belong at all.
Grayfell ( talk) 23:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
There has been iterations of edits adding and removing the notable child of Eric Weinstein. [1] [2] The child has been on the Lex Fridman podcast and on the podcast hosted by Eric Weinstein himself. On both podcast the hosts indicate that the guest is the child of Eric Weinstein and the Lex Fridman podcast the guest indicates he is the child of Eric Weinstein The reasoning given by @ Galobtter: in the first edit rejection is "No need to include name of child per WP:BLPNAME". However as noted in to include child " According to WP:BLPNAME ".. if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject", a direct source was provided about the family member. In addition the family member has been on the podcast https://lexfridman.com/zev-weinstein and active youtube https://www.youtube.com/c/GenerationZW." This was rejected again in the by @ Grayfell: with the following comment "We can include it, that doesn't mean we must include it". This appears to create a inconsistancy since the spouse of Eric Weinstein is included and is only subjectively more notable then the child of Eric Weinstein. So based on comment by @ Grayfell: one could argue that the spouse should also be removed, which seems to be an unfavorable editorial choice. I therefore recommend that the notable child of Eric Weinstein be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xirtam Esrevni ( talk • contribs) 21:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
References