Talk:Antony Garrett Lisi

Revert from 12 Feb 2008
I've just reverted an edit for the same reason as given on An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everything (talk). In addition, this edit here appears to be a mere duplication, which should be avoided. If there would be more about Lisi the person, then it should be added here; but the new article appears more to be about the general realm of the theory, and therefore would not belong here. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Lisi's theory of everything based on E8
Maybe one should add some of the initially rather enthusiastic comments of Lee Smolin and the less encouraging ones of  Jacques Distler? Discrepancy (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Or at least a reference to the recent summary in Scientific American by Graham Collins: Wipeout? A hyped theory of everything sinks from sight. Scientific American, April 2008, pp. 16-17. Discrepancy (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Chronology of biographical articles and interviews
Hi. There's been a lot written about Garrett, so I'm going to add a "Chronology" like the one in An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything to keep track of them. Then these sources can be used to spruce up the article.SherryNugil (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Biography and rewrite
There seems to be a lot of interest and material in the media on Garrett's life story, particularly the balance between his physics research and adventure sports. I'm going to attempt a rewrite that uses these media sources to flesh out his biography, while incorporating some of the existing material. Also, I think less can be said about the theory here, since that's covered on the theory page.SherryNugil (talk) 05:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Partisan lines
An anonymous editor, IP 169.231.42.148, is claiming that the "New Yorker article does not support the claim" that "favorable and unfavorable views largely falling along the partisan lines of the detractors and proponents of string theory." The New Yorker discusses these partisan lines in detail, and the Men's Journal article discusses them as well. The strongest unfavorable views are attributed to string theorists Lubos Motl and Jacques Distler, while favorable views are attributed to Lee Smolin and Peter Woit, as detractors of string theory. Peter Woit in particular discusses, in the New Yorker article, the political nature of the reaction to Garrett and his theory. The New Yorker article makes several references to criticism coming from string theorists. Since the New Yorker article discusses this political element at length, spanning several pages, this sentence is justified, and should not be deleted. Even though there are some critics and proponents of Lisi's work not in either camp, these sources describe the criticism as largely falling along partisan lines.SherryNugil (talk) 09:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The New Yorker article describes a few instances of criticism, some by string theorists, but also one by David Finkelstein. The article, mainly being a profile of Lisi, doesn't spend a lot of time on the scientific mertis of the idea. However, the Outside Magazine article contains criticism by Frank Wilczek and Shelly Glashow, neither of whom are string theorists. "Largely partisan lines" is a sweeping statement -- are the parties involved string theorists and non-string theorists? -- and needs more support than a few examples of string theorists criticizing Lisi's theory. 169.231.42.148 (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

A large part of the New Yorker article is about these string theory partisan lines, and how they relate to Garrett.SherryNugil (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No, one section of the article is about how Lisi believes that to be true, and maybe Peter Woit. But that is not the same as a factual assertion that it is true. The article supports the statement that some string theorists are against the theory, but it provides no analysis of the statement that the opinions of the theory divide on "partisan" lines. As I noted above, it's easy to find references to see that that statement is false.169.231.42.148 (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It is the dominant subject of the whole article. The New Yorker piece starts by describing Garrett attending a conference in Loop Quantum Gravity, "which had emerged as a leading challenger to string theory." The article says "His supporters include prominent physicists, but some of his antagonists, particularly among string theorists, thought his math was fishy and found the entire episode outrageous. When I asked the Nobel laureate David Gross, a professor of physics and an influential string theorist at the University of California at Santa Barbara, about Lisi, he said that he was 'extremely reluctant to add fuel to this silly story.'" The New Yorker article continues along these lines, with more statements like this. There is more than enough material to support this statement about partisan lines.SherryNugil (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As I cited above, there's plenty of evidence to support the fact that it is false. The New Yorker article is a secondary source and includes quotes from very few people. In fact, the sentences you quote do not support the statement that the debate has divided on partisan lines. It only supports the statement that the people quoted in the article are "partisans". If you look beyond that article, you can easily find critical quotes from people who do not work in the field of quantum gravity.169.231.42.148 (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The New Yorker is a reliable secondary source, with many pages describing the favorable and unfavorable views largely falling along the partisan lines of the detractors and proponents of string theory. It is the main focus of the article. There is no statement that "all" views fall along these lines, just that they "largely" do. If you have a different reliable secondary source that states the views do not largely fall along these lines, please cite it. Otherwise, you shouldn't remove this part of the sentence.SherryNugil (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I gave one above: the Outside magazine article.


 * http://outside.away.com/outside/culture/200805/garrett-lisi-1.html


 * I don't see what the sentence adds to the page. Instead of simply describing Lisi's theory, it needlessly embroils it in a controversy and reduces theoretical physics to "parties". It is trivializing. It's also factually incorrect, supported at best in part by the New Yorker article, but contradicted by the quoted statements of many other scientists. If you want to say that "some" views, I'd be okay with that, but "largely" is misrepresentative and kinda calumnious. 169.231.42.148 (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think if we were to compile a list of Lisi's supporters and critics, most would correlate with these two parties. And this is important enough to have been mentioned by prominent references. But "some" is fine for now.SherryNugil (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with your first statement, and thank you for going with a compromise.169.231.42.148 (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey guys, seriously, ask physicists, not the new yorker. It's not just string theorists, they aren't on a crusade. Particle physicists aslo don't like Lisi's theory, and particle physicists don't necessarily like string theory. It would be way closer to reality to say that the "supporters" are very few in terms of percentage and almost all are in the Loop Quantum Gravity community. There really is no weird sides here. Physicists don't like Lisi's theory because is much more incomplete than other theories, it is worse defined, it offers little to no prediction, and so far is extremely less developed than other better working theories. The theory, to be very clear, doesn't introduce anything new in terms of unification, and doesn't introduce anything new in terms of E8 or group theory in general. What is new is the idea that fermionic degrees of freedom are also generators of the lie groups. This means that they would belong to the coset(s) identified by the symmetry breaking(s) and that they would then be in the adjoint representation of E8 while fundamental representation of the subgroup identified as the standard model interaction part of E8. Normally, in other unified theories the fermions would not be part of the group but they would be in its fundamental representation. It is not surprising that the quantum numbers "can" work out well, because that is a normal property of cosets in symmetry breaking. It would be a little surprising if actually all the standard model particles (all 3 generations) would fit into such a representation and if the math worked out fine. But so far not even Lisi has a working prototype, and the idea in general seems not to be working. Other parts of his theory have been commonly in use in particle physics for decades. The other somewhat innovation is the inclusion of gravity in the Lie group part, but the validity and the practicality of that choice is still debated and it's not been shown to be mathematically well founded yet (see Coleman-Mandula theorem and discussion in Percacci's paper on it). The idea of partisan lines is actually more used by non physicists and Lisi fanatics to distract the normal reader from the fact that there isn't much interest about this theory in the physics community. And that's not because he's not in academia or because they don't like him or because they are string theory fanatics. It's because there is a lot of theories that need work and Lisi's seem to be mathematically wrong and not even really promising, so particle theorists tend to dedicate their time to models that work better and that seem more promising. Every particle physicist would like to win the Nobel Prize, and because nature doesn't care about partisan lines, if physicists believed that there was some truth in Lisi's theories they would have worked on it, because it's obvious that if the theory is right that will eventually appear clear to everybody. It is very silly to believe that a physicist would give up on a promising opportunity if they had the chance. It's that they don't believe it's promising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.136.253.158 (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Kuhn Reference
I'm a little concerned about this line 'The controversy surrounding his theory appears to match the "period of revolutionary science" described in Thomas Kuhn's seminal work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.' It does not seem to be neutral as it seems to be implying that Lisi's work is starting a paradigm shift. There is also nothing to back up this statement-- not all controversy matches the "period of revolutionary science." 129.82.97.149 (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Personal details
The section about adventure sports is totally unnecessary not so serious.


 * There's a lot here about AGL's personal tastes and activities - it resembles a fan page. I suggest it be toned down. Kasyapa (talk)Kasyapa —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC).


 * I have to reiterate this. While the biography needs to exist, not every move and address of his every home is really encyclopedic. 72.129.92.179 (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears that this major rewrite by 76.200.188.75 is introducing their opinion, making a hash of the article, and cutting out many sources. Their edits include unsourced opinions such as "the scientific community has generally rejected E8 theory," as well as throwing out more recent biographic material and references from Symmetry, Outside, Men's Journal, The New Yorker, Center for Science Writings, O'Reilly, SEED, Financial Times, Telegraph, etc., as if the Scientific American article of March 1, 2008 was the last word. The bot was right, this looks like vandalism. The article should accurately reflect the content of these sources, which are about more than physics.66.8.159.57 (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am one of Garrett's fans, but I am doing the best I can to maintain a neutral tone, only include material from verifiable sources, and keep the content of the article in agreement with those sources. I'm making more edits to tone down the language and make the article more encyclopedic, and will ask Kasyapa if it meets his or her approval. --SherryNugil (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the current bio has far too much info and reads like a fan page. Can you find another article on Wikipedia where every conference or every news reference to an academic is listed? I am going to cut down on some of the non-relevant/non-notable parts of the bio (who cares that he went heliskiing in Alaska in April? Was this an encyclopedia worthy event?) --DFRussia (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The "Personal articles and interviews" section is completely pointless. I am working on removing it, but since the reference tags are used elsewhere it takes time to move them up into the text. --DFRussia (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Theoretical Physicist?
Isn't calling this person a theoretical physicist a bit generous?

On a somewhat related note, this page is strangely long considering this person hasn't actually done anything, and his only claim to notability is a paper on arXiv. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.149.143 (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * He can be called a theoretical physicist because of his degree, and because of what he is famous for (i.e. posting a paper on the ArXiv about theoretical physics and surfing). Although having a paper on the ArXiv is not reason enough to be notable, the wide amount of media coverage Lisi generated makes him notable. However, the article should really make it clear that the reason Lisi is notable is because of the media attention... I definitely agree that the article is far too long and has a lot of irrelevant text. --DFRussia (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

An Explicit Embedding of Gravity and the Standard Model in E8
Another Lisi paper has surfaced.

An Explicit Embedding of Gravity and the Standard Model in E8 at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1006/1006.4908v1.pdf

I'm not touching the article until I've had time to read & digest both papers. Hotfeba (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism
I'm surprised that there isn't a substantial "Criticism" section. Thinkers like Lisi are natural targets for academic professionals. After all, no one can try to usurp the priesthood's position without being punished and labelled a "crank."Lestrade (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Lestrade


 * You'd be surprised how little of a fuck was given. Mostly a media-ho-bag, but there you go.137.205.183.109 (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

look through the history and you will see that lisi and his full-time sock puppets remove all criticisms. why, i bet one of his sock puppets even posted this! or maybe not. but that it the great thing about wikipedia! it is impossible to tell one way or the other! which is why lisi uses wikipedia to advance his career, and not physics journals nor the publishing of papers in journals. i would estimate that his fifteen minutes are about over... but what a grand wikipedia page to show to his grand children regaridng his non-theory which was never published, thusly violating wikipedia's rules! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.1.200 (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Major Abuse of Wikipedia
It would be one thing if Lisi were able to publish a single paper in an academic journal, but he has so far only published where he himself is able to upload in a non-peer-reviewed manner. The amount of time and effort put into his wikipedia pages, and the lack of a single publication, is hilarious. This is what happens when the Smolins of the world get a few thousand dollars.

The article violates wikipedia's rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.222.103 (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Seriously? You consider this "abuse"?


 * Come on. There are thousands of pages out there on phony alternative medicine scams, discredited physics postulations, and conspiracy theories. This guy at least pushed forward a theory which seems to be garnering SOME recognition from the professional academic community.


 * I don't have an axe to grind in this fight. I'm interested in physics from the perspective of someone who isn't highly trained in the subject, and wouldn't likely notice if this guy dropped off the face of the planet. But the job of Wikipedia is to report notable people and their achievements. Just because this guy got famous due to his academic work being exposed through unorthodox channels doesn't mean that his work is automatically invalid, much less unworthy of a mention on Wikipedia. Further, I would expect that his critics would EXPECT a fair amount of work to go into a page like this. Less work would have been, "He created a cool theory with a catchy name and some people think he might be on to something." Would that make this page of higher quality?


 * I think the above paragraph could have been written by a sock puppet. If you're interested in what constitutes abuse here, please read the 5 pillars, because it doesn't seem like the author cared about NPOV, due weight, or notability. And just because other poorly sourced articles exist, it does not excuse this one. Unsigned, editing anonymously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.214.113 (talk) 06:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

A Sci Am Dec 2010 E8 article typo?
Greetings, Great going on the assembly of E8, I'd like to see your face when the LHC provides proof of the proposal that you've posited by producing the particles that you've promised!

If it is an error it is one of substitution. My explanations are unneeded as you will know sooner than immediately the result. So here goes: "A Geometric T. O. E." - Section 3 - 'DIFFERENT CHARGES FOR DIFFERENT FORCES' - paragraph 3: "Exactly half of ... " - and then my proofreader jammed on the third sentence / 16th word 'neutrino' - that is to say that the sentence seems to read better, for two reasons, when neutrino is replaced with 'electron' - as in "... the left-handed up quark and {[electron]} having weak charge +1/2. and the left-handed down quark and electron having weak charge -1/2." & 2) Neutrinos haven't a charge. Yea, or ... yea? Aloha ~ Betaclamp (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

All resolved. ~ Betaclamp (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Science isn't just a discussion between fans, journalists and popular articles
This page is strange. There is a pretty big push from some people embracing Lisi's theory even tho so far it has no prediction and it has produced no important results. Most of the techniques used by the theory are all well known in physics and used in models that actually work. The remaining techniques are instead dubious because they seem at the least not working if not even wrong. Wikipedia should not support somebody's theory of the universe, but only the actual results, that so far are very few. Physics isn't a matter of sides, so if this theory is ultimately right or wrong it will become clear to everybody as soon as we have more technological progress ot experimental results from LHC, Fermilab or other experiment like neutrino or dark matter experiments. If this theory has raised little interest amongst physicists it's certainly not because they hate the theory, it's just that there is many many theories that need work and actually mimic our world much better. Allowing people to support this idea in a partisan line kind of approach we are disfavoring the main purpose of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.28.8.212 (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This article has turned into a Fan Page
I have highlighted this article for general revision with a Fanpov template.

Lisi is a living researcher and his biography should be short, brief, neutral and do not include details about his "sport adventures" for he is no professional sport player or whatsoever. The length of this article compared to other biographies of well-known researchers is ridiculous (e.g. David Deutsch, Andrew Wiles, Peter Shor, Scott Aaronson). More than a criticism section, what we need is a shorter article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrapito (talk • contribs) 20:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Undue
By policy of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE I will start shortening this page leaving all the important information. A list of interview to Lisi is certainly undue following the policies above. If we have to list each interview to each famous physicist on the planet then WP would become a search engine instead of an encyclopedia.

I will leave the most important interviews listed in the references of the page. But it's ridiculous, and incompatible to wikipedia's standards and policies to have a page on Garrett Lisi longer than physicists who won Nobel Prizes. The current version has a clear POV weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.128.58 (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a biography page, and care needs to be taken with it. The articles about Garrett that you are threatening to remove show that this article exists with due weight. And Garrett is not just a physicist, he is now also a television personality, hosting a show on the History Channel. We should be accurate, but this is not the place for excessive disparaging remarks on his theories. --SherryNugil (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes SherryNugil/Garrett Lisi/Scientryst, we understand that you edit this article and abuse wikipedia in an attempt to leverage Lee Smolin's media firestorm into a media career for Lisi. We understand that money and fame are more important than truth, honor, and science for SherryNugil/Garrett Lisi/Smolin/Scientryst, but unfortunately for SherryNugil/Garrett Lisi/Scientryst, truth is more important to Wikipedia than money/fame for Smolin/SherryNugil/Garrett Lisi/Scientryst. Also, the press new press releases for Lisi are also filled with hype/misreprsentation, as Lisi follows in his mentor Lee Smolin's footsteps into a lucrative pump'n'dump media career. Well, wikipedia is not to be used as a tool for this sordid, fallen pursuit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.167.55 (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Please let's be serious. Please indicate any other article of a person of the same fame or more than Garrett Lisi that has an inclusive list of interviews and articles including blog discussions, forums, magazines, televisions and so on. There is no disparaging on his theories. If the theory is mentioned, so should its receptions and results be. Also, calling Lisi a television personality doesn't change the fact that the statements should be accurate. Undue should be applied because otherwise each television personality would have a list of articles about them, which is, of course, not the case.

Plus, I'm not threatening anything, and certainly not a full removal. I'm saying that the list like it is is ridiculous and with a hardly NPOV weight. The list should be shortened, leaving just the most important articles, we should leave the less important but still noticeable in the notes. And we should remove the not important. Think of what would happen if for each personality we would include ALL THE INTERVIEWS, ARTICLES, AND BLOGS. Please, let's be serious and constructive.

98.244.54.152 (talk) 09:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

People come to this page to find out about Garrett. To this end, including the articles about him is useful. What do you mean by "leave the less important ones in the notes"? Also, if readers want details on one of his theories, they can go read about it on that page. What a critic says about a theory does not belong in the introduction to a biography. --SherryNugil (talk) 09:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, people come to this page to find out about Garrett. To this end, including FEW articles about him is useful, like for EVERY OTHER PERSON in Wikipedia. Including ALL THE ARTICLES about him is not useful, it's a violation of wikipedia policies. WP is not a search engine, so people can look for interviews and blogs on google or bing or any other search engine of their preference.

What I mean with "in the notes" is this. To rewrite that paragraph that is clearly promotional, trying to show how many articles talk about Garrett, we need to make it in a more proper wikipedia format, describing the fact that Garrett was interviewed by many famous magazines and stuff, to list the major ones, and to say that many other magazines or newspapers talked about him, linking those less important ones just as references. At this points, if readers want, they can go and read the articles starting from the references. ALL OF THEM is not necessary nor allowed. What a critic says is important if the critic is well known and if the status of the theory is not currently accepted by the scientific community. Because Lisi became famous after publishing his theory, it is indeed important to briefly describe its status. My current version reflect all these things in a referenced and NPOV way. 98.244.54.152 (talk) 10:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
I will be requesting for arbitration the modification for this page. The user:SherryNugil seems to be POV and trying to revert all the modification that don't agree or aren't pro Lisi. It's easy to look at the history and see his modifications and edits Special:Contributions/SherryNugil (I never trust users whose only actions are on a page to "defend" somebody, they make me think of the policies WP:Autobiography and WP:Conflict of interest. There have been similar problems in the E8 theory of everything article with another user (Scientryst) and I'm sure admins will be able to judge whether or not there is some sock puppeting here going on to present articles in a POV way. Even admin Qwyrxian expressed the idea that Lisi himself or people close to his research might be editing the page with POV edits misrepresenting the state of things. This has to come to an end.

All the changes I made are carefully referenced, are true, and are well balanced along the wiki policy of weight Neutral_point_of_view.

It is also against to wikipedia policies to revert a change without responding or motivating here a previous revert. It starts an edit war and can be reported.

Specifically, my changes are:

1) Status of the theory: the words are reported by Lisi himself. It's not POV and there is many other references that state similar things (if not much worse). The main page on the theory can provide all those references and any attempt to hide this information calling it POV bomb can be easily reported.

2) Lisi's theory doesn't match the standard model and blah blah blah with "part" of E8. It matches part of E8 with "part" of the Standard Model. There is enormous evidence about this. Stating the opposite is just a risible attempt to make it look like the whole standard model matches E8, when this is not true.

3) "unifying Albert Einstein's general relativity with the standard model of particle physics." Lisi's theory hasn't accomplished this yet. Until this is not done, we should call it an attempt. Otherwise we would be misrepresenting the status of the theory.

4) A comment about the theory, present in the theory page, giving an idea of the response given by the physics community and well referenced was removed for no reason. Probably because it feels not supporting Lisi, but it is a NPOV well referenced statement. And it can't be removed without a full discussion here.

5) The Distler and Garibaldi paper, which is the most important paper in response to Lisi's, was removed without any reason. It is a true statement, present in the theory page, and well referenced.

6) "with Albert Einstein's general relativistic description of gravitation." This sentence is almost redundant. There is no need so say more than general relativity. There isn't a general relativistic description of gravitation. General relativity is pretty much already gravitation. I feel like the understanding of the sentence improves if we just write general relativity. The meaning is, after all, the same. And this way it's easier to read and understand. All the people who know what the general relativistic description of gravitation means will also understand just the words general relativity to mean the same. All the people who don't understand just what general relativity means, won't be helped by a more complex description given as general relativistic description of gravitation.

98.244.54.152 (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Your changes may or may not be appropriate on the theory page, but they are not appropriate in this biography. And cutting and pasting from the theory page into the biography is counter productive. --SherryNugil (talk) 09:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The changes are appropriate because the status of the theory and its importance in physics is as important as the existence of the theory itself. Or do you think that if I write a theory that I call revolutionary that is shown to be at the least problematic I should still include it in my page as revolutionary without any of the criticism about the accuracy, the problems or the mathematical inadequacies? This is important and I'm ready to request for an arbitration because this page is clearly POV and it's trying to hide some of the problems Garrett Lisi had with his theory, which is the also the main reason why he became famous. And also the main reason why he is being interviewed and appeared in TV. 98.244.54.152 (talk) 09:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking at your 1-6 in more detail, you are quoting parts of sentences as being false, out of context. Are any of the complete versions of these sentences false? --SherryNugil (talk) 09:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Please respond to each of the points. I've never used the word false. Please respond because I will start the report for arbitration including the 6 points above. I will also try to see if there was ever any sockpuppeting or overlap between the edits of Garrett's page and his theory's page 98.244.54.152 (talk) 09:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, watch out for the 3RR, you are in clear violation of this if you revert again. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See below for exemptions. I'm reporting this page for Tendentious_editing as well. 98.244.54.152 (talk) 09:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

As for policy. Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

All my changes are not biased or unsourced or libelous or poorly sourced, you are clearly breaking the 3RR. I am reporting you right now. 98.244.54.152 (talk) 10:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You requested a point-by-point addressing of your issues: 1) A long criticism of his theory is not appropriate in the introduction. It's too long. Just a brief description of the theory is fine. 2) The full sentence is "On June 9, 2007, Lisi realized that the algebraic structure he had constructed to unify the standard model of particle physics with general relativity matched part of the algebraic structure of the E8 Lie group." Is this not correct as written? 3) The full sentence is "This unified field theory attempts to describe all fundamental interactions observed in nature, as a possible theory of everything, unifying Albert Einstein's general relativity with the standard model of particle physics." Is this not correct as written? 4) A long critique of a theory should not be cut and pasted from the theory page to a BLP. 5) A long critique of a theory should not be cut and pasted from the theory page to a BLP. 6) The lay reader, who, say, may be coming to this page after watching a tv show about inventions, may not know that general relativity refers to gravity. --SherryNugil (talk) 10:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

1) It's not criticism, it's Lisi's words. You find a shorter way to deliver the same CRUCIAL information.

2) It is not correct. Not the entire standard model is present in E8, like admitted by Lisi and pointed out by many other physicist. Part of the standard model matches part of E8. This is a correct statement.

3) It is not correct. The literal interpretation is that the theory is an attempt to describe blah blah blah and it does it unifying Albert Einstein's general relativity with the standard model of particle physics. This interpretation doesn't make clear the fact that the unification isn't complete and that at the moment there is no such unification. It's still work in progress.

4) It is not a long critique. It is not even a critique, it is a statement, important to give the right idea, on how the theory is being received. It is crucial information, and unbiased. It's not a matter of cut and paste. You can rewrite it as you prefer as long as the same information is passed.

5) The Distler and Garibaldi paper is the most important paper in response to Lisi's. It is a true statement, present in the theory page, and well referenced. It makes no sense to say that it can't be in both pages. Its consequences are huge for Lisi's theory and hiding it clearly shows your POV. You can find a way to better rephrase that. You can't just erase its existence.

6) That reader will also not understand what the general relativistic description of gravity is. So he must open the general relativity link to understand. This is a minor point. But your phrasing is certainly not helping such reader. It's just a series of complicated words that scare a reader more than instructing them.

You have been reported for tendentious editing, conflict of interest, sock puppetry with Scientryst and edit war. 98.244.54.152 (talk) 10:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

1) It's criticism in Lisi's words. 2) "algebraic structure he had constructed" So, you are wrong. 3) "attempts" So, again, you are wrong. 4) It is not a critique of Lisi, it is a critique of the theory, and belongs there, not on a BLP. 5) Once again, these technical critiques of a theory do not belong in a BLP. 6) These words have existed happily on this page for years now. We should get some input from other editors. You need to be careful when editing a BLP. --SherryNugil (talk) 10:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

1) No, it's *truth* and crucial information in Lisi's own words. You are hiding it.

2) This means nothing. What is this algebraic structure, are you doing original research? It's not allowed. Show clear references. Also, it's not true, not even his structure matches with part of E8, in fact, even Lisi admits that there is no direct match. Please don't be ridiculous. It can be easily proven just reading Lisi's page discussions. Your attempt not only is POV, but clearly you are trying to play with words. In fact, your phrasing would make the readers think that Lisi's theory actually has the whole standard model in E8, something that is obviously not true. In fact, not even Lisi would every say so.

3) again, no, your phrasing is trying to hide the unsuccessful, so far, attempt for a unification. Otherwise what's wrong with my phrasing, it would be describing the same thing as yours, if I have to believe the way you want to interpret it. So, why would you want to change my phrasing? You are hiding true statements because you don't like what they mean.

4) No, it is a critique of the theory, and it should be everywhere the theory is mentioned, especially because Lisi became famous because of the theory. Also, why shouldn't a reader be interested in knowing that Lisi's theory currently doesn't work. Why do you think your phrasing isn't hiding crucial information.

5) They do, and it's complete information, with crucial information missing in your version. You say that it doesn't belong here because you don't like it.

Look at Ptolemy's page. Do you think we shouldn't say that his model was wrong in his personal page? Do you think Lisi is more important than him? And in his case the theory is mentioned even before his life. Do you think that readers don't want to know that Ptolemy was wrong about his model and that Lisi's theory currently doesn't work. Your POVity is pretty obvious...

6) Do you want a list of pages that have had awful sentences for years? I think my version improves the readability, yours makes it look cool and so smart just to charme the readers, not to teach them anything more than my version would. Otherwise let me phrase it so that I'll make it more simple mentioning both general relativity and gravity. Also, it makes clear how often and for how long you have been editing this page. You care so much about the reader's understanding but still you haven't found a way to communicate the same reader that Lisi's theory at the doesn't work and doesn't reproduce the known particles and masses.

Your edits are blatantly POV, I hope the page will become under admin review soon. Your way of editing is a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.54.152 (talk) 11:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I too have been noting this for quite some time, and am now speaking out. Could the wikipedia admins please check the IPs of user:SherryNugil and Scientryst? Each of them only exists to edit the Garrett Lisi autobiography page and the Garrett Lisi "Theory" page. Both of them violate wikipedia rules on multiple levels, beginning with the supression of basic truth and facts, and ranging to NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH, SOCK PUPPETRY, UNDUE WEIGHT, FRINGE, AUTOBIOGRAPHY, POV, 3RR policy, SELF-EDITING, CONFLICT OF INTEREST (COI), and more. It's one thing for Smolin/Lisi to take advantage of Smolin's high-profile unsuspecting media contacts, but quite another thing to leverage that abuse by abusing Wikipedia with the same pump'n'dump media firestorm strategy. Please, somebody, bring this flagrant abuse of wikipedia to an end. Thank you. Up with science and truth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.167.55 (talk • contribs) 26 Dec 11


 * The level of dispute here does not seem to warrant a request for arbitration although other forms of WP:Dispute Resolution might be appropriate. If we are to go down that route could people here observe some wikipedia basics. Please sign your post with --~ so people know who said what when, could people please use edit summaries. So other editors can have a broad idea what each post is about. As we have a number of IP editors involved in these discussions it would make things easier if some got proper logins just so we can distinguish who is who.
 * Now a lot of accusations seem to thrown about with one IP accusing several different people of being Lisi or someone closely connected. I can see no compelling evidence of this, nothing this user has done uses any knowledge/material which cannot be freely found. The amount of time this IP has been going on about this is getting close to the level for Harassment and certainly ignoring WP:AGF. If you wish to try a sockpuppet/CU case you can try submitting at WP:RFCU, but I'm not confident it would be accepted and it would not be able to identify the real identity of editors which is strongly against policy see WP:OUTING.
 * There are certainly POV's among many parties here, there is certainly pro-Lisi edits and there are anti-Lisi edits. Having people with different POV's is common on wikipedia and it is through discussing the content that a good NPOV page is reached. Accusations about the editor is not the way to resolve the issues.--Salix (talk): 18:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Salix, I agree with part of what you say. The problem is that there is two different anonymous IPs, but we have completely different style and goals. I want this page to respect the truth, which is to say, clearly and upfront, in the lede, that the theory has been criticized, and that even the author himself says is not complete (and he could not say otherwise, because the theory is not complete, easy). Now, this user always revert without giving any reasonable proof of why he's reverting, given that xe just gives their opinion, and given that their only point is that xe believes those parts should not be here. Xe never says they are not correct, xe says they are critical and shouldn't be here. Also, there is two different requests about the sock puppetry. I don't care whether or not this user is actually Lisi. What I care is that it's looked a little closer that there is another user, identical in many ways to this one here, that edits Lisi's theory page. This is the sock puppetry I'm talking about. It's the same user trying to hide the fact that he's always editing pro-Lisi on both pages. I'm not harassing and I'm just trying to find all possible ways to report this. Because when somebody really understands the physics behind this, all these attempts result very clear. I have tried many times to talk, and even if above it's obvious that all my modifications are well motivated, well sourced, and true, still I'm not allowed to include them. Also SherryNugil clearly violated the 3RR using improperly the BLP exception, as above shown. This requires action of an admin, which I have requested. It is unacceptable that the current status of the theory cannot be stated in the main author page, especially when that's the reason why the author is in WP. If you find any of the above 6 points that I mentioned POV in any way and would like to talk about it, I am available to discuss all the details. 24.7.128.58 (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes there are at least two IP, one is clearly identifiable the other IP number seem to jump about a lot and I'm not sure if its multiple users. I an an admin and I could block SherryNugil, but I can't say there behaviour is bad enough to block as they have discussed things on the talk page. I've now issued a warning on his talk page.--Salix (talk): 19:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Salix, you write, "Accusations about the editor is not the way to resolve the issues." So please stop Lisi/Scientrist/Smolin trying to make accusations about the IP editors. Lisi is leveraging his massive Smolin-hyped/funded media fanbase, utilizing social media tools such as google+ and facebook, to attack the IP editors. Does wikipedia support such behavior, especially when Lisi is sockpuppeting under numerous names here? Which would you prefer, Salix. Honorable IP addresses speaking Truth and Science, or multiple sockpuppet names/handles reistered to a single user violating a myriad of wikipedia rules including, but not limited to: NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH, UNDUE WEIGHT, FRINGE, AUTOBIOGRAPHY, POV, 3RR policy, SELF-EDITING, CONFLICT OF INTEREST (COI), and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.167.55 (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, what I'm saying is file the WP:RFCU or shut up about this issue. You continue repetition of this issue is disrupting the dialogue on the talk pages. I've a mind to bring your behaviour to WP:ANI.--Salix (talk): 19:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Salix, "shut up" seems rather harsh, no? Accusing me of being disruptive is not only harsh, but completely false, unfair, and untrue. The Truth is by definition, NOT DISRUPTIVE of wikipedia's greater mission, while sockpupptery and violating central wikipdia rules such as NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH, UNDUE WEIGHT, FRINGE, AUTOBIOGRAPHY, POV, 3RR policy, SELF-EDITING, CONFLICT OF INTEREST (COI) are quite disruptive of wikipedia's greater mission. I think you need to redirect your sanctimony and anger towards Lisi/Scientryst/Smolin/SherryNugil ? No? Happy 2012! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.167.55 (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Something to think upon
This guy, for the world of research, is a complete nothingness. He is not worthwhile a Wikipedia article at all. This bio appears here just as an aside of string war and because this guy come out with a wrong theory, unpublished as happens to all wrong theories, for a possible unification that got some fuss for a while. We have to keep here these craps while bios of respectable researchers are somewhat ignored or overlooked. It is a kind of shame to see this way to manage science on Wikipedia. In these days, to ascend to fame all you need is to be cited somewhere in the media and get some rumors about. Contents are not the main concern anymore.--Pra1998 (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, if 15 mins of fame is all you want, go give a vacuous TEDtalk and blow the editor in chief of Sci Am so they'll do a feature on you. I suspect that you will not find it very satisfying.137.205.183.109 (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, as so many reputable scientists have small or no wikipedia pages, why does an irreputable non-scientist get multiple pages on wikipedia, including one for his failed theory? Wikipedia is giving the greater scientific community the middle finger with every Lisi sockpuppet edit that is allowed to exist here. Remove all the Lisi sock puppet edits recycling the dead Goldman-Sachs-funded Lee Smolin pump'n'dump Lisi hype, and these articles would not exist. Does Wikipedia really want to go down the road as a megaphone for pump'n'dump non-science Lisi/Smolin hype and sockpuppetry, violating Wikipedia's rules on countless levels? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.167.55 (talk) 16:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Anonymous contributions cannot help here. It is time that some administrator takes the situation over and works out the right action. E.g. a poll for removal. Thanks.--Pra1998 (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I vote that these pages and their chief sockpuppet contributors are removed from wikipedia. If the articles have any merit, people other than Lisi/Smolin will replace them with better versions.  For instance, Richard Feynman did not edit his own wikipedia page, and yet it is doing quite well, as is Albert Einstein's.  Since Lee Smolin hyped Lisi as the next Einstein, why can't Lisi let others edit his page, like Einstein does?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.167.55 (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Both Einstein and Feynman were dead when Wikipedia was born. They could not possible edit their articles. I invite you to cite some well alive physicists to support your point. Let me repeat again: Anonymity cannot help, just get in touch with an administrator.--Pra1998 (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The anonymous editors have the same right as everyone else. The important thing is what they say. As far as I understand there is two editors here. 71, and myself. Sometimes I use different IP's but it doesn't mean that what I say isn't correct. I'm not hiding, but there is no reason to back up my statements with a nickname or a real name. The statements are what is important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.128.58 (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

But the editors are all anonymous here too. :) Who is not anonymous? And yes, that is my point, "Both Einstein and Feynman were dead when Wikipedia was born," demonstrating that real wikipedia articles do NOT NEED COI sockpuppet proponents such as Lisi/Scientryst/Smolin editing their very own self-hyped articles.  If they are famous/accomplished enough, others will take note and create/edit the articles.  As it stands, Lisi/Scientryst/Smolin/Sockpuppets creating and editing their very own pages or pages they are financing/hyping violate Wikipedia rules on multiple levels.  Best in 2012. :)

From Garrett Lisi's google plus public profile: "Merry xmas, someone's furiously messing with long-standing wikipedia pages on me and E8 Theory. I must have angered a wiki elf."

Again in a comment Lisi states: "The weirdest thing to me about the wikipedia drama has been how it has connected back and forth to outside forces. Jacques Distler complained early on about the E8 Theory wiki page on his blog, and a wiki editor (the same one responsible for recent edits?) commented there with a call to action. I guess they didn't have good sources backing up Distler's criticism of the theory though, so now appears Michael Duff's hit piece on me and E8 Theory in an editorial paper that is ostensibly a defense of string theory. You know, until now, I've tried to be nice to string theorists, attempting to largely steer clear of the string controversy, but the political maneuvering of this particular string contingent is reprehensible."

Almost to laugh, if it wasn't so similar what Scientryst, SherryNugil and Lisi say, and the words they all choose. BTW, this to me looks like a lot more a call to action than the one on Distler blog, where it was explicitly asked to be NPOV and not offensive. 24.7.128.58 (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Dude, we're not String Theorists any more than Lisi is a real physicist. It's cool how Scientryst and SherryNugil are taking the day off here, as Lisi focuses his hype energies on his google + and facebook pages for the day, realizing that he needs other unsuspecting "fans" to come eidt his pages, now that everyone sees that Scientryst, SherryNugil and Lisi are one and the same, following in their mentor Lee Smolin's pump'n'dump media-firestorm tradition of hype. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.167.55 (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The Lead
To focus on the content issues here I'm starting a section on point 1) above.
 * 1) Status of the theory: the words are reported by Lisi himself. It's not POV and there is many other references that state similar things (if not much worse). The main page on the theory can provide all those references and any attempt to hide this information calling it POV bomb can be easily reported. (98.244.54.152 (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC))
 * 1) A long criticism of his theory is not appropriate in the introduction. It's too long. Just a brief description of the theory is fine. (-SherryNugil (talk) 10:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC))
 * 1) It's not criticism, it's Lisi's words. You find a shorter way to deliver the same CRUCIAL information. (98.244.54.152 (talk) 10:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC))
 * 1) It's criticism in Lisi's words. (SherryNugil (talk) 10:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC))
 * 1) No, it's *truth* and crucial information in Lisi's own words. You are hiding it. (98.244.54.152 (talk) 11:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC))

The two versions in question are
 * Lisi is known for "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything," a paper proposing a unified field theory based on the E8 Lie group, combining particle physics with Einstein's theory of gravitation.

and
 * Lisi is known for "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything," a paper proposing a unified field theory based on the E8 Lie group, combining particle physics with Einstein's theory of gravitation. At the current status the theory is, using Lisi's words, "not complete and cannot be considered much more than a speculative proposal. Without fully describing how the three generations of fermions work, the theory and all predictions from it remain tenuous.“

Too me it seems like the lead should cover something about the current status of the work. This is backed up by WP:FRINGE. The policy does not specifically say where is should appear but a short note in the lead seems right. I'm not particularly happy with using a quote though, this seems like a rhetorical device trying to use the authors own words to undermine the theory and influence the reader. All we need in the lead is to simply say the theory is not widely accepted by the scientific community.--Salix (talk): 18:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Salix,

The "theory" is NOT ACCEPTED by the scientific community in any way, shape, nor form. It has been refuted in peer-reviewed journals, and it HAS NEVER BEEN published in any peer-reviewed journal. Ergo, the Lisi "theory" is not accepted, at all, by the scientific community. Perhaps you were mislead by all the Goldman-Sachs-funded Smolin hype, which Lisi is trying to keep alive as that it is his bread and butter? The truth must be published on the page. The truth is "The "theory" is NOT ACCEPTED by the scientific community in any way, shape, nor form. It has been refuted in peer-reviewed journals, and it HAS NEVER BEEN published in any peer-reviewed journal.  Ergo, the Lisi "theory" is not accepted, at all, by the scientific community. "  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.167.55 (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Salix, I agree, but it is important also to mention that this doesn't mean that there is part of the scientific community that accepts the theory. In fact, even the supporters, say, and Lisi himself say that at the current stage the theory is incomplete. Now, I'm ok with any other phrasing that makes this clear. Both that the theory is recognized even from the author to be still incomplete and work in progress, and that it's not widely accepted in general as a whole. I honestly used the quotation because it's present in the main page and well referenced. But any other clear statement is fine with me. Thanks for taking the action on this. 24.7.128.58 (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Does this mean that whoever has a theory could write down a page on WP? Has Lisi a special status for this either? I have fought a battle about this matter some years ago with published material while here there is a guy with an unpublished and not widely accepted theory with a WP page in all its glory. Is this material for an encyclopedia?--Pra1998 (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Pra1998,

You are spot on. How is unpublished, disproved, unscientific hype and its promoters, who/which violate a myriad of Wikiedpia's sacred rules on numerous fronts, allowed to abuse wikipedia so? Lisi/Scientryst/Smolin/SherryNugil are currently violating central wikipdia rules such as NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH, UNDUE WEIGHT, FRINGE, NO Sockpuppetry, NO AUTOBIOGRAPHY, POV, 3RR policy, SELF-EDITING, CONFLICT OF INTEREST (COI), as well as many other rules. And now Lisi is leveraging his facebook and google+ accounts to try and out us (A VIOLATION OF WIKIPEDIA'S NO OUTING POLICY) and to insite his massive Smolin-funded fanbase to come here and try and intimidate us into "shutting up." Really? Is this really the atmosphere wikipedia wishes to foster? Happy 2012! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.167.55 (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a real danger here of portraying Garrett as a crackpot. Contradicting what 71.106.167.55 is saying, Garrett has published on his theories. On his e8 theory, this article already describes it as incomplete in the short section on the theory. More criticism is not appropriate in this BLP, but belongs on the theory page. --SherryNugil (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I find all this very annoying because here some people is violating some sacred principles of WP but also of what should be put on an encyclopedia. This is basic matter. I invite you to read this preceding discussion. Here there are sound reasons to remove this article: Firstly, there is no publication on a peer-reviewed journal (and this is already enough to not put anything on WP) and secondly, this theory is not widely accepted at all. Rather, it underwent severe criticisms (these ones published on peer-reviewed journals) that disproves it. Nobody says that Lisi is a crackpot, I am just saying that what he did so far is not enough to gain him an article here. There are smarter researchers with a large body of very good published material that are worthy an article.--Pra1998 (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is portraying Lisi as a crackpot. The fact that his theory is incomplete and doesn't reproduce the standard model has absolutely no relation to being a crackpot. Even if it will become 100% accepted that the theory cannot work it wouldn't mean that Lisi is a crackpot. It would mean simply that he didn't find the theory of everything. Like many other physicist. Why do you want to hide this? Several theories are not complete or incorrect. Lisi has published only one paper on his E8 theory of everything, that paper clearly states that the three generations cannot be derived from the model in the current version. The publication is not in a physics journal but in a conference proceedings. Also, that paper doesn't cover his entire theory, but only the embedding of the standard model, gravity and one generation of fermions in E8. The same result was already published in Distler and Garibaldi's paper. The only difference is the interpretation that Lisi gives to it (everyone is free to interpret results). In their paper, D-G also show that Lisi's framework cannot contain 3 generations. Even though in some popular magazine Lisi has stated that they made unnecessary assumptions, in no paper or journal, or article, or blog, it's indicated what mathematical assumptions are unnecessary and why. Nor it's stated how Lisi can fix that missing part of his theory, in fact, even his own quotations clearly explain that he doesn't have a way to implement the second and the third generation. Because of this, he cannot reproduce the standard model and all the masses and mixing angles. This are facts. The only realistic thing said about it is that it's work in progress. We don't need to include all these details here, but we have to mention the theory and the fact that currently doesn't work. The biography needs to report that the theory is not complete and that the theory isn't widely accepted either. Especially given that Lisi became famous for his theory. It all started from that and there is no reason why this shouldn't be in the page.

Also, that complete list of each blog entry, forum, newspaper, tv show, journal and magazine clearly violates wikipedia policies. We can't have all the places that talked about Lisi listed. If we did this with all the other notable persons Wikipedia would become just a list of links to interviews and videos.

24.7.128.58 (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear SherryNugil/Scientryst/Lisi Associate/Sockpuppet, why are you using the work "crackpot" when referring to Lisi? Lisi's Smolin-hyped "theory" has never been published in a peer-reviewed physics journal. Is this why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.167.55 (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Garrett Lisi speaks, from his Google Plus public profile.
Regarding the last few events, Lisi wrote about it in his blog https://plus.google.com/108405429084641270297/posts. Among the things said, there is:

Lisi: "someone's furiously messing with long-standing wikipedia pages on me and E8 Theory. I must have angered a wiki elf"

Lisi: "The weirdest thing to me about the wikipedia drama has been how it has connected back and forth to outside forces. Jacques Distler complained early on about the E8 Theory wiki page on his blog, and a wiki editor (the same one responsible for recent edits?) commented there with a call to action. I guess they didn't have good sources backing up Distler's criticism of the theory though, so now appears Michael Duff's hit piece on me and E8 Theory in an editorial paper that is ostensibly a defense of string theory. You know, until now, I've tried to be nice to string theorists, attempting to largely steer clear of the string controversy, but the political maneuvering of this particular string contingent is reprehensible."

Lisi: "you will of course form your own opinion, but anonymous attacks of people which whom he disagrees is very much Distler's style, as is back-room dealing, deception, and extortion. There was such an incident on Peter Woit's blog, where he outed him. I suppose I shouldn't let it bother me, but the main material that's been cut from the wikipedia page on the theory (a week or so ago I think) was the mathematical description and the graphical description. Interested people can read my papers for that, but that description seemed like an OK mathematical summary. The IP's (mainly one person as far as I can tell) vigorously editing the theory page, since April or so, I don't think is Jens Koeplinger. I think it was the same physicist or physics student from UC Davis who posted the last comment to Distler's blog as "Dan" back in July: http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/002233.html"

Should these sentences or a summary of those included in the page?

Dear Garrett Lisi, Wikipedia is not the place where to directly describe your own theory or your own person.
Dear Lisi, dear user:Scientryst, dear user:SherryNugil, being clear that you all follow very closely Lisi's pages on wikipedia (and for the latter two, you edit almost only those), it's probably time to start thinking about policies.

Instead of trying with ridiculous and laughable bullying methods to out editors, you should try to see how you see the world. Was yours a threat by the way? In your google plus blog, dear Lisi, you wrote material that can easily end up in a lawsuit. You should watch your mouth when accusing people of "back-room dealing, deception, and extortion". Do you really think that there is a conspiracy here against you instead of just editors loving physics and trying to simply write the truth about your theory (both good aspects and bad aspects). Why do you think that a NPOV necessarily coincides with your POV?

Specifically, it doesn't matter if the mathematical summary "seemed OK to you". It matters whether or not the material is WP:UNDUE and the weight in presenting it is unbalanced towards your personal POV instead of a N(eutral)POV. Also, given that you amusingly follows all the IPs around here and all their actions, you should probably also recognize that I'm the one that re-included the graphical representation of the algebraic breakdown. Proving you wrong about my intents, other than proving you obsessed about your own page.

You should look into the wikipedia policies about writing your own page, wikipedia is not your personal server or webpage, conflict of interest and all that. There is a lot written that you might find useful. About it, I would like to copy and paste a few sentences from Autobiography:

Just because you honestly believe you are being neutral doesn't mean you are. Unconscious biases can and do exist, and are a very common cause of the problems with autobiographies—which is why we discourage autobiographies themselves and not just active, deliberate self-promotion. Not only does this affect neutrality but it also affects the verifiability and unoriginal research of the autobiography. One may inadvertently slip things in that one may not think need to be attributable even though they do, due to those very same biases. Even if you can synthesize an autobiography based on only verifiable material that is not original research you may still not be able to synthesize it in a neutral manner.

It is difficult to write neutrally and objectively about oneself (see above about unconscious biases). You should generally let others do the writing. Contributing material or making suggestions on the article's talk page is considered proper—let independent editors write it into the article itself or approve it if you still want to make the changes yourself.

In clear-cut cases, it is permissible to edit pages connected to yourself. So, you can revert vandalism; but of course it has to be simple, obvious vandalism and not a content dispute [...] Be prepared that if the fact has different interpretations, others will edit it.

So, Garrett, trust a little more the intent of others that aren't necessarily evil just because don't share your vision about yourself or your theory. 24.7.128.58 (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Warning
The next person who calls for this article (or the Exceptionally Simple article) to be deleted will be brought to WP:ANI, and I will request that you/your IP/an IP range be blocked. The next person who accuses someone else of sockpuppetry here (instead of at WP:SPI with evidence in the form of diffs) will be taken to ANI and I will request you be blocked. The next person who accuses someone else of being a principle in the dispute (i.e., of being Lisi, or Smolin, or Distler, or a part of an off-wiki campaign) here (instead of at WP:COIN or at WP:DRN) will be taken to ANI and I will request that you be blocked.

There is no policy based reason to delete this article. Lisi has received more than enough discussion in reliable sources to meet WP:N, and thus an article on him is appropriate. We don't say "Oh, he's a bad scientist, and good scientists don't have articles, so Lisi shouldn't have an article." All we do is ask, "Has this person been discussed in detail in multiple, independent, reliable sources?" Since the answer is yes, an article (so long as it is neutral, well-sourced, etc.) will be here. Even if tomorrow an international panel of physics experts got together and wrote a formal paper that said that Lisi is a bad scientist whose theories are all worthless, we'd still have an article on him. Yes, the article needs to accurately reflect Lisi's views and the views of others on him (i.e., it may well be that the article is mostly negative points about Lisi, if that matches the prevailing scientific opinion, though of course we'll include the positive comments from the non-scientific sources as well, along with any positive sources within the scientific community.

But all of the accusations are disruptive, and making it impossible to actually discuss what to do with the article. If anyone has serious accusations backed up by appropriate evidence, take it to the appropriate noticeboard for administrative action (if you don't know what that is, ask me on my talk page). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Interviews
Thanks for fixing my mistake, Torumen. I was too sloppy and quick, not checking to see if that broke any of the other references. Thanks for moving those into the proper place in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Qwyrxian removed section with comment "Completely inappropriate for a WP article--if there is useful info in those interviews, include it in the article in prose, but a list of his interviews has no business here (borderline SPAM", but this broke some 15 named reference links. I reverted temporarily, moved the named references to the first occurrence, and moved the chronological sections below, in case anyone would like to integrate any of the contents into the article prose, as Qwyrxian suggests. Any named refs below already have (moved) named links in the article as-is. Happy editing! Tom Ruen (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Article length - try to be constructive, please
I came to my own conclusion that this page is creating a lot of problems because of the excess of details. I think that it's possible to shorten the page and make it more readable. I believe that giving Lisi his credit and mentioning clearly some limitations and criticism can be done without having to discuss about very very advanced math and physics. For example, the fact that the theory isn't accepted and is work in progress because incomplete can certainly be stated without looking offensive or dismissive of Lisi, please, help me find the best phrasing.

It must be obvious to any reasonable person that such information is much more relevant in the lede than saying that Lisi is a supporter of balance in life, why would such a comment even be in the lede in the first place?

If we look at the physics side, the E8 stuff has had a page as long as QCD and longer than the Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa_matrix page. Lisi's page before cutting the interviews was longer than Murray Gell-Mann. And those are respectively a fundamental discovery of the last 50 years and a Nobel Laureate!

Makoto Kobayashi and Toshihide Maskawa also are Nobel Laureates and their pages are shorter. Evaluating the importance of scientific papers using Google's PageRank algorithm identifies Nicola Cabibbo's paper "Unitary symmetry and leptonic decays" as the top ranked out of 353,268 articles published by the American Physical Society since 1893 in journals such as Physical Review Letters. The same research shows that most of the authors of the top-ranked papers are also Nobel Prize winners. And Cabibbo's page is shorter than Lisi's.

Even if now Lisi is a TV person, SherryNugil's version of Lisi's page was as long as Larry King's.

Now, do we realize that it must be possible to write a page about Lisi and this E8 stuff in a acceptable size, given that so far the theory hasn't accomplished a whole lot compared to the gentlemen above?

The more we want to explain the tiny details the further away we go from the purpose of having such a page on wikipedia. This page should be honest and NPOV, but at the same time it should not require edit wars and an amount of effort that is minor than mainstream working theories. I'm confident that we can find a compromise if *everybody* stops trying to defend or change even the smallest sentence to make Lisi look better or worse. 24.7.128.58 (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Theory status in the lede
Qwyrxian, I think you are incorrect that the theory "hasn't been widely accepted in any way." Lisi has published his recent work, alone and with others. His papers have some positive citations. He's been giving talks at universities. His theory even inspired a mathematical physics conference. It is true that Lisi and his theory have gotten much more attention in the popular scientific press than is warranted by citations alone, but it's wrong to describe this as a theory that the scientific community has not accepted at all. It has been accepted as an incomplete theory with some problems typical of such unification efforts. Clarifying that this hasn't been widely accepted as a complete theory of everything is reasonable, but leaving it as it is, implying that Lisi's scientific work hasn't been accepted at all, isn't right.-Scientryst (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you tell us how many times the paper has been cited in Web of Science? As above, Google Scholar cites are very slender. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC).
 * Slender, yes, GS currently gives 64. Non existant? No.-Scientryst (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you will find it is 46 cites, not 64 in Google Scholar. A very small value compared with some papers cited in this field. For example search for Michael Duff (physicist); his papers have vastly more. What are Lisi's cites in Web of Science? Xxanthippe (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC).
 * But not widely accepted? Yes. Note that the lead doesn't say "Completely debunked". It says, "not widely accepted". This described exactly the situation of a scientist who has been only rarely cited, and who hasn't published many high profile works. I'm fixing the phrase again, and unless you can show a consensus for your version, please don't re-add, because the prima facie evidence speaks clearly against your position. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is the most charitable interpretation. The most straightforward interpretation of "not widely accepted by the scientific community" is that the theory is not been widely accepted by other scientists as a work of science. And that is false. Whether the theory is right or wrong, and even whether other scientists think it is right or wrong, it is a scientific work. To say it is not widely accepted by the scientific community is to say it has been rejected as not being science. And if that is not what is being implied (and it should not be, because that would be false) then we should clarify that it has not been widely accepted as a complete and true theory of everything. What is your reason for not accepting the clarification? What, precisely, do you think is made incorrect by adding "as a theory of everything"? Do you honestly think Lisi's work has not been widely accepted as a (probably wrong) work of science?-Scientryst (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your edit implies that, in other ways, the theory is accepted. But, as far as anyone has been able to prove, it has only a very small acceptance, if any at all, in mainstream science.  Your claim that people don't think it's science is, well, I can't think of a civil way to put it.  If I say, "I don't accept string theory," that doesn't mean I think string theory isn't science, but simply that I think it's incorrect/wrong/insufficient science.  As always, though, should consensus show that my interpretation of this sentence is wrong, I will bow to that position.  Qwyrxian (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If the line in the lede was "incomplete and not widely accepted," then I might agree with you. But the line now is "incomplete and not widely accepted by the scientific community," which sounds, to me, like scientists don't think it's science! My edit is intended to clarify that it is accepted in the scientific community as a work of science, but not as a complete and correct theory of everything. The way it is written now would be as if one said "the scientific community does not accept string theory," implying it is not acceptable as a work of science. Does that make sense?-Scientryst (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have hundreds of citations and I give talks to international conferences. Can I have a wikipedia article for me and my favourite theory as happened to this guy?--Pra1998 (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If your favorite theory is MDT, maybe you can.-Scientryst (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I can't until I have given a contribution to the community that is widely accepted. So, this article should be simply removed. There is plenty of physicists and mathematicians with hundreds of publications and a lot of citations whose work is not recognized in wikipedia while this guy has such an article. I think that this is unacceptable. There has been a similar dispute here and published material was removed even if published in respectable journals and this is not the case for the person in this article. I think that rules should be the same for everybody and, until Lisi's work is not widely accepted, we have to treat him as anybody else.--Pra1998 (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Lisi Theory NOT Accepted: New Developments! Lee Smolin is now also admitting, in 2012, that Lisi(Scientryst/SherryNugil) and his "theory" are not accepted by the physics community and never were: In 2012, Lee Smolin concludes, "No one I know of “gravitated to Lisi." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4323#comments In 2007-2011, Lee Smolin funded/hyped Garret Lisi in numerous publications in an unprecedented media firestorm. Now, Lisi's once-chief proponent Smolin (worried about his name/legacy/reputation as a pumper'n'dumper of physics hype) is stating that not a single scientist has been attracted to Lisi's ideas, despite the massive, unprecedented Smolin media firestorm. Also, Peter Woit now agrees and states that Theoretical Physicists have taken NO stock in Lisi nor his "theory", writing at his blog in 2012, "Also, I don’t know why you think “so many people gravitated towards Garrett Lisi when he came out with his theory of everything. That’s not true if you’re counting theoretical physicists.": http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4323&cpage=1#comments Peter Woit is acknowledging that while the press and blogosphere swallowed the Lisi media firestorm, it meant nothing to physicists nor the theoretical physics community. Peter Woit and Lee Smolin were only ever using Lisi to satarize String Theory, but now that they are done with him and he is no longer useful to them, but only embarrassing to their name/legacies, it is time to throw him under the bus in 2012 by speaking the truth, and distance themselves from the Lisi media hype they created. Woit and Smolin were once Lisi's two biggest proponents, fanning the flames of the Lismania media firestorm, around which Lisi's wikipedia pages were entirely buit, as Lisi's sockpuppets harvested the fallout from the nuclear Smolin media firestorm, and filled a couple wikipedia pages with the unadulturated hype: Discover Magazine Reports: http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar/13-e-nste-n : "With Smolin’s aid, DISCOVER has scoured the landscape and found six top candidates who show intriguing signs of that Einsteinian spark. 1. Garrett Lisi: Age 40, holds no faculty position but earned a Ph.D. at UCLA; lives off grants and software consulting." http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar/13-e-nste-n The Telegraph Reports: "The ideas were described as "fabulous" by Lee Smolin, of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario, Canada." --http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6532614/Surfer-dudes-theory-of-everything-the-magic-of-Garrett-Lisi.html Smolin also sat on the FQXI funding committee which financed the Lisi hype numerous times. "As a case study, let’s consider the Sunday Times article. From the article: “Could Lisi have cracked a problem that has defied some of the finest minds in history? While it has in no way embraced this lofty claim, the scientific community has given it a surprising amount of respect. Lee Smolin, founder of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Canada, is full of praise: “It is one of the most compelling unification models I’ve seen in many, many years.” ” The journalist assumes that the views of someone of Smolin’s stature surely signify respect from the scientific community at large — a completely understandable and excusable mistake. (Normally the views of someone in Smolin’s position would signify that, and the journalist can’t be expected to know that there is an anomaly in this case.)" --http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/11/16/garrett-lisis-theory-of-everything/ It appears that Smolin doesn't want his legacy tied to Lisi(Scientryst/SherryNugil) now. It may be too late for that, but it is nice to see Lee SMolin speaking the truth in 2012 with: "No one I know of “gravitated to Lisi." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4323#comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.167.55 (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All that is fascinating, but useless for the article, because Smolin's blog does not meet WP:RS. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was gone for a few days. I don't think Smolin means what you are trying to say. I think he's saying that he doesn't think that there is physicists gravitating around Lisi, not that he's disowning Lisi or that he regrets to have published an article with Lisi.

About the issue, Scientryst, although I agree with you that it would be wrong to say that the E8 stuff is not part of science, at the same time the problem is that it's wrong also that the community hasn't widely accepted it as a TOE. As far as the community goes, the aspects that haven't been widely accepted are more than only the TOE claims. For a list: the fermionic/bosonic formal addition isn't explained and a working example isn't provided, the three generations aren't included (this is an aspect of unification, but it's a necessity to have the Standard Model, not just to have a TOE), the Coleman-Mandula theorem is hinted towards a loop-hole but the rigorous proof that it doesn't apply in its extensions to curve spacetimes and de sitter and blah blah blah isn't provided at the moment. Chirality issues, masses for particles, antigenerations and mixing angles as a consequence aren't generated yet. So it's a little more than what kind of problems people have in string theory or loop quantum gravity. And there is a little less results. If you think about it, the actual results are *only* the fact that there is an embedding of the standard model gauge quantum numbers, the gravitational quantum numbers, and one nonchiral generation of bosonic degrees of freedom identified in the coset of the SM+GR subset. That, even if it might be an interesting starting point for working on the problematic aspects of the theory, isn't comparable to what's been achieved in LQG and ST. The main (in case it worked) contribution to particle physics would have been the way to get fermions from nonchiral fermions and to use the triality to generate the three generations, the mixing angles and the mass matrices. But so far this is not *only work in progress*, it is actually considered *wrong*.

So, even though it was a physics work, the physics presented is currently not widely accepted. And actually, when it comes to fermion embeddings, I'd say that it's widely not accepted. No peer reviewed journal would ever publish that way to generate fermions unless one actually provides a specific example or toy model where that works, even in a smaller version of the theory that doesn't have E8.

This is why I thought that the original Lisi quotation and the D-G paper was a better way to represent the status of the theory. But if we have to vote for a more compact version, then the current phrasing is rather accurate. Because it's not the E8 attempt to unify the theory that isn't accepted. It's the way that the physics works in the attempt that isn't accepted.

For example, if I talk about String Theory I could also say that the theory isn't widely accepted. About string theory, wikipedia even says: "The theory has yet to make novel experimental predictions at accessible energy scales, leading some scientists to claim that it cannot be considered a part of science." So Scientryst, it's a waste of everybody's time trying to fight about the lede when even in string theory we have such a bold claim. Not being part of Science is present in string theory and you are complaining about an unlikely interpretation that would actually say the same words said about string theory. I don't think this line of reasoning can go anywhere.

But in general we shouldn't forget that wikipedia cannot be something were we say something or not just if we really understand a theory. It's a place were we should mainly rely on *numerous and different* unbiased reliable sources. And I think Qwyrxian is using the right approach. Understanding too much of the details isn't helpful when trying to have a general impression about the level of acceptance of a theory. ~GT~ 98.244.54.152 (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

To Ohnoitsjamie
There is no way it will be possible to say that the theory has had mixed reception from the scientific community, compared to 'is not widely accepted'. First, not even string theory or loop quantum gravity are accepted theories, and they are accepted ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more than Lisi's theory. Secondly, we have had plenty of discussions about it, and keeping reverting will bring you to infrage the 3RR. There is no hope to prove with any reliable source that Lisi's theory is not "not widely accepted", simply because it is not widely accepted, period. This, of course, is different from saying that the theory is garbage. We aren't saying that, we are saying the simple documented truth, that the theory simply hasn't been widely accepted by the scientific community. Before you take any other action on it I invite you explicitly to read the last three-four months of discussion pages here and in the theory's page. If you are in good faith like I assume you will find plenty of answers in the discussions. ~GT~ (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Given the intro should only summarize the contents, Ohnoitsjamie's adjustment (a mixed reception) was an honest attempt from the statement below, "Lisi's theory has been applauded but also criticized in the scientific community." So the intro/body seem in contradiction. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In fact, I'm assuming good faith. The problem is that the statement you mention is one statement that refers to a few years ago and refers to few people that talked about it with mixed responses, certainly not to the whole scientific community. There is a pretty big number of sources that can clearly be cited to use the sentence "not widely accepted". It is just a waste of time to really be talking about this, since it is obvious and undeniable that the theory isn't widely accepted. If the body seems in contradiction with the lede, then we need to recover some of the changes attempted before (when User:SherryNugil was 'defending' the page). Those changes should make clear that the theory currently doesn't even reproduce the known fermions, and this by definition can't be a theory widely accepted since it doesn't even explain the particles we know and that lots of other models instead include successfully. ~GT~ (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Comical
The article reads like a vanity page edited by Lisi himself or persons very close to him. It is replete with earnestly footnoted howlers such as, "While living in a customized van with his girlfriend, Crystal Baranyk, Lisi taught physics classes at University of Hawaii – Maui College.[9]"

I hope people here will realize that leaving the article up in its present form is the most painful embarrassment to the subject that one could conceive of. So, please don't change a single thing :) 82.113.106.201 (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Second that!137.205.183.109 (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antony Garrett Lisi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828221732/http://outside.away.com:80/outside/culture/200805/garrett-lisi-1.html to http://outside.away.com/outside/culture/200805/garrett-lisi-1.html
 * Added tag to http://sciencepond.com/garrettlisi/statuses/2533216255
 * Added tag to http://www.stevens.edu/csw/cgi-bin/blogs/csw/?p=187

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)