Talk:Eric Weinstein/Archive 2

Physics Section Again
My problem with the section is that it is just odd as it is not explained relative to anything else, what is the point that is being made? That this guy gave a talk that he thought was smart and no one else did and didn't come? I have nothing against including the information if it is notable but said notability needs to be explained. Did this event create a huge backlash against him? Was this talk super widely known before? Was its undue importance to the field widely spread in the popular media before it was debunked by physicists? I could imagine any of these to be true and I would agree that it would then be notable, however if that is the case it needs to be explained. Otherwise it just is embarrassing rather than embarrassing and notable. You need to differentiate between a story like Tom Cruise went to the bathroom in his pants and everyone laughed at him, to Tom Cruise went to the bathroom in his pants and everyone laughed at him which sources relate gave him the initial motivation to become an actor.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * See footnotes 11 through 16, they show the kind of coverage you are talking about.Isingness (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, who cares if its in the footnotes? the relevance to his notability is not explained in the body. If it is not clear to the reader why this is here and why they are reading this, it shouldn't be their job to have to scour the sources in the footnotes to figure out why. Secondly, yes I see that it was publicized but to what extent? One article was praising it before it came out but how many people listened? Was he known before? There is so little context to this it is actually aggravating. I get that you want this to be here but the failure of you and two other editors to acknowledge that the lack of context is a problem is perplexing. Even if you only want the info here because you dislike the guy and want to convince others to see him as a buffoon it would still be more effective to add context.  Did this happen because it was originally too laudatory and others wanted to add information to show that he didn't actually discover a new theory of everything? I get that but it just seems so odd and without explanation in its current state.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I disagree. This actually shows exactly the kind of academic Weinstien is: he is put up to promote a theory-of-everything (almost universally a crank ploy), a few people listen, and it gains zero traction. That places his insights rather nicely in the spectrum of scientific debate.
 * Now, if you want to argue that if that's the best we can do, he's not notable, and the article should be deleted, I might well agree. But we're not in the business of hagiographies of fringe figures. Guy (help!) 20:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a false dichotomy; there is a middle ground between deleting the article and creating a hagiography. I am unsure of his notability but there's plenty written about him online.  Truth be told I only know about him because he appeared in my youtube feed before and he didn't leave much of an impression.  Though I do have to say that the little bit I saw about him did not mention he created a "theory of everything" so in my limited experience I don't necessarily believe that that is his claim to fame.  But again, if you think the information is notable because he is seen as an academic but his only contribution was this conference then that would be enough context, however you would also need a reliable source to make that connection.  Based on your response though I am not sure if you are seeing this objectively.  It seems like he might be controversial among people who don't like who he associates with and this whole thing might be a manifestation of that dislike.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , in this case, no. If the only data on his career is excluded, then it's WP:BLP1E for coining a single neologism. Guy (help!) 22:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a clear exaggeration. Google his name, there is not a single hit on the first page of results about either said neologism nor this talk except this Wikipedia page. There is only a single hit on one of those topics on the second page.  If you want to keep mentioning Wikipedia rules you should look at NPOV first.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , then the solution should be very simple: restore balance by adding detail about his career from those sources, not by removing a well-sourced and rather singular event. Guy (help!) 22:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * That doesn't make any sense, you as the party arguing for inclusion should have the burden of contextualizing why this event is notable. The sources only indicate that this event happened.  I am aware of no rule that says if something is written about there is a presumption of notability. Your argument might make sense if I were insisting that his theory be included without any criticism, I am not doing that. I am saying neither the theory not the response is notable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * He's saying that he believes (as do I) that the event you are discussing is indeed notable, but that while there is no consensus to remove the content, you can feel free to add properly sourced content about the rest of his career if references exist to support it. I agree, that would be a much better path to balance (though I personally feel the balance of the page is fine). Isingness (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue here is that it is not writing more about him that would make sense, it is writing less in this case. You and Guy seem to have a desire to make the subject look ridiculous while I only came across this article and noticed a problem with POV. The solution is not to add an opposite POV extolling him, the solution is to remove the POV content.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree. What little is written about this topic on this page is perfectly appropriate and is not WP:Undue. Though you are certainly right that any new content should not be added to simply "extol" him, but no one here is arguing for that. Isingness (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Instead you are arguing for inclusion of information that does the opposite, sorry about the upcoming equivocation but that is really just as bad.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , the information is well cited, indicating a degree of significance in the view of the kinds of sources that Wikipedia trusts. Your argument is functionally indistinguishable from WP:IDONTLIKEIT on that score. At present we have two competing versions of the article: one which includes the disputed text and establishes a degree of notability, and one that excludes it and fails WP:PROF][] and [[WP:BLP1E so should be deleted. Feel free to produce a third version by including some of this moutnain of sourced material you seem to think is out there. Guy (help!) 10:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , exactly that. Guy (help!) 10:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing your logic here as being very sound within the context of Wikipedia's content dispute policies, but no matter. There is a consensus for not removing this content. Isingness (talk) 06:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I don't see a clear consensus here. My understanding is that you and think that the material should remain, while  thinks that the material should be removed, and I raised the issue about removing it two months ago (although for an almost opposite reason compared to the one being raised here, and I'm now ambivalent about it). — MarkH21talk 06:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * One part mischaracterizing the debate, one part straw man of what I am arguing, and one part condescension, a real triple play. But regardless I will bite and try to explain my position again in terms of wikipedia rules. The WP policies about notability make it clear that the a subject's notability does not only apply to the subject as a whole but also to everything in the article in relation to what makes him notable.  Here based on his google results if the subject is marginally notable for anything it seems to be related to a meme he created not having a talk that was sadly not attended by scientists. You can continue to play the confusion angle but it certainly is not going to change my mind that the information just seems contextualized and out of place.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * MarkH21: if you see it that way, then let's move to an RFC then, as that's the next step if you feel strongly about it. Moshe: your logic still doesn't mesh with notability or reference rules, and please be careful of Forum Shopping. Isingness (talk) 07:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Part of my point was that I don't feel strongly about it, I'm quite ambivalent about the inclusion of the material from the "Physics" section now. But if Moshe feels strongly about it, they can open an RfC; that was my advice in the ANI thread. — MarkH21talk 07:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Isingness (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Notability (May 2020)
Given that an intellectual dark web page exists and mentions Weinstein as coining the term, what is the purpose of this page? He seems to have zero notability outside academia separate from the IDW meme. There are lots of people who have some (in this case, limited) notability in particular corners of academia who are not notable in a general sense. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 246.232: Consensus was found to keep the article. Could you read Articles for deletion/Eric Weinstein and formulate your question in terms of issues not raised there? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't think we had an article on the IDW at the time, because in the early days it fell below the GNG threshold. It is by now considered notable bollocks, so that does raise a legitimate question about this article. Guy (help!) 21:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A new AfD may be worthwhile. — MarkH21talk 21:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, might well be. I have to say I am struggling to find the compelling evidence that people claim exists of his notability as a professor. But then, my threshold of notability is notoriously high. I am old school. Multiple reliable independent sources primarily about the subject. Guy (help!) 22:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Guy, am not agreeing or disagreeing at this point but are you mixing up Eric and his brother Bret, who was on staff at The Evergreen State College? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing the criteria of notability being met here, but I am not entirely sure. I don't find the previous AfD convincing at all. At the very least someone should add those sources to the current page. Currently notability seems to only be for IDW, and therefore this should perhaps only be a redirect to that article. Bodole (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There's little notability within academia either. His most talked-about economics project appears in the literature merely as a chapter in his wife's thesis that he contributed to (see reference [8] here). I'd say the most notable thing, if anything, is his podcast. Due to his popular punditry he is the sort of person people would look for a Wikipedia article on; however there's little to say other than how little there is to say. The way he talks about himself would lead people to believe he is a notable scientist so in a sense having an embarrassing article that prominently mentions the tepid response to his theory of everything serves a purpose but perhaps a more appropriate solution is no article at all. 174.112.90.6 (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

As someone who has no interest in editing wiki pages whatsoever, nor is a fan of Weinstein, this page is a mess. It reads like a smear campaign and almost nothing else. An irrelevant talk given years ago that no one attended is a weird attempt at humiliation,there are referrals to others as merely podcasters (like Sam Harris, for example, is that what is typically known as??) and the wording sounds unprofessional.

Born in California, Russian Roots?
In a Video interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIAZJNe7YtE with Lex Fridman, Eric Weinstein mentioned that he started to speak initially Russian with the previous Chess World Champion Karpov. He is born in California. Maybe he has Russian Roots. Klaus zinser (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe! But this is not a forum for random speculations.  So unless you have a reliable source that says something about that question, there is nothing to do about it. --JBL (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Reference to Raoul Bott
Weinstein has stated that during his time at Harvard he actually had no advisor and directly stated that the information on Wikipedia is incorrect. See this video at around the 00:01:44 mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjOg-OP_69Y (I apologize if I have introduced this issue incorrectly, I've never used Wikipedia in this way before) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:803:8280:77F0:30FA:DC43:122E:EDBE (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources are pretty solid. Harvard's own list of students and their advisors. It might be the case that Bott was a hands off advisor and let Weinstein pursue his own path. It might be worth getting a look at his thesis to see if there is any mention of his advisor there. --Salix alba (talk): 18:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed at length above. --JBL (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining. I suppose I will leave it up to you whether or not to remove my discussion here. I know it's offtopic, but could someone point me towards where I can learn more about contributing to Wikipedia? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:803:8280:77F0:30FA:DC43:122E:EDBE (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's notable that Weinstein doesn't like the term "advisor". Kurtisreed (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)