Talk:Eric Weinstein

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Syednaqvi94. Peer reviewers: Syednaqvi94.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Geometric Unity

Wikiguy2021, a new account with no other contributions, is very intent on adding Geometric Unity to the "known for" section of the infobox. This is contentious. There is no article on Geometric Unity because it is not a significant concept. "Geometric Unity" +Weinstein gets 137 unique hits on Google, mostly comments sections and unreliable sources. There's no credible evidence that he's "known for" this outside of a highly restricted circle of students of wrongness. Equally concerning is this series of edits which downplays Weinstein's involvement in the IDW (for which he is known), boosts "Geometric Unity", removes criticism, reintroduces blog sources, and restores primary-sourced references to his video on the subject. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, one of the major values of Wikipedia is in aggregating information for its readers with appropriate references. It is not for JzG or any other editor to decide in advance which ideas are "wrong" and should not be on Wikipedia, which after all hosts articles on pseudo-scientific ideas, conspiracy theories, and the like. In the particular case of Geometric Unity, little harm is done by including it, and more is to be gained by having readers be more informed about it. Regarding the IDW, JzG did not seem to read my comment for my 16:45, 10 April 2021‎ edit, which states that the attribution to Weinstein for the term "Intellectual Dark Web" was erroneous - the article does not even mention Weinstein by name. I have no issue with attributing Weinstein with IDW, but the sources on Wikipedia need to be valid. I am therefore reverting the 08:24, 11 April 2021‎ of JzG because the reintroduces the problems raised by the cleanup edits I made, which JzG dismissed. Regarding blog sources, the blog in question is hosted by Sabine_Hossenfelder, an established and qualified physicist, who's done much more significant work in physics than Weinstein (a low bar). I do not see what JzG has against linking the videos and manuscript which Weinstein himself has released. Wikipedia is not endorsing them, but is presenting them as the main reference material. Wikiguy2021 (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

We have articles about pseudoscientific notions, conspiracy theories, and other varieties of bunkum because we have reliable sources that document them. When such sources do not exist, we do not write about that particular example of bunkum. When such sources exist but are few and far between, we cover the topic proportionally in articles on broader subjects. See WP:FRINGE. "Geometric Unity" has attracted vanishingly little serious interest. By going into excessive depth about it, we would be treating it more seriously than the scientific community itself has, which is contrary to our site's purpose. The history of the term "Intellectual Dark Web" is documented in detail at the article about it; none of that documentation indicates that the sentence here should be changed. XOR'easter (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with XOR'easter on this, primary sources and podcasts are insufficient WP:WEIGHT. Publications like an NYT article or a published review in an academic journal would provide more weight. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Wikiguy2021, you have that the wrong way round. You, a single-purpose account, are attempting to take ownership of the article and refusing to defer to vastly more experienced editors. You want to change long-standing text (e.g. your persistent removal of the sourced content around the IDW, your persistent reintroduction of the SciAm blog, and your persistent reintroduction of the paragraph highlighted below), so the onus is on you to achieve consensus for that change.

I highlight the following as a glaring example:

On April 2, 2020, Weinstein posted a video to YouTube which describes his Geometric Unity theory. Technical problems, both mathematical and physical, have been identified with this theory. On April 1, 2021, Weinstein released a draft of Geometric Unity in paper form. The paper qualifies that “the author is not a physicist” but is an “entertainer”. The paper also reveals that supporting details are missing for various claims of Geometric Unity, most noticeably those surrounding the “Shiab operator”, an objection that had already been previously raised.

References

Sources are: the YouTube video itself (primary and fringe), a blog (unreliable), and a personal website page of the supposed paper (self-published, fringe). This completely fails RS, and it seems to me that Wikiguy2021 is not far from a pageblock for this tendentious editing. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• About IDW, this already cited source supports the claim: https://web.archive.org/web/20180617015310/https://www.pressreader.com/australia/the-australian/20180523/281977493282862 —PaleoNeonate – 18:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  PaleoNeonate, well done, thanks. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Nguyen seems to be an ok source, given that we regularly include "skeptic" blogs when debunking claims. That said "Geometric Unity" seems to have attracted vanishingly little attention, it should only be included in the article de minimis. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Probably acceptable per WP:PARITY, —PaleoNeonate – 18:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, and there's the rub: coverage of "geometric unity" appears to fall below the threshold for inclusion. I get a little over 100 unique Google hits, and the closest to a RS is an op-ed by a friend of his. At least eight years, plus an additional two decades in the making, and not a single peer-reviewed publication of the theory. That's beyond fringe. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I could be convinced that the Nguyen source is acceptable per WP:SPS. However, the text of the paragraph quoted above doesn't really reflect that source well. The big points are that "Geometric Unity" does not use any quantum physics, which instantly disqualifies it from being a theory of everything, and that Essential technical details of GU are omitted, leaving many of the central claims unverifiable. There are specific issues with the details that are given, but those are secondary. XOR'easter (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems that there is a much divided opinion on the status of Geometric Unity as evidence by the fact that I am not the only who has edited for inclusion of it in the article. I agree with WP:PARITY in including Youtube/blogs in this case. The main source of Geometric Unity is outside news articles and scientific documents, and consequently, so are the relevant recent commentary. The news articles currently cited are 8 years old, prior to current updates, and so are no longer informative and thus less valuable than the YouTube/blogs of present. It is disingenuous to denigrate the status of the latter when they offer more information than the former. So as it stands, the current description of Geometric Unity, at edit 18:52, 11 April 2021‎ , is incomplete and needs to be revised because it is wholly outdated and incomplete. At minimum, the Weinstein's own updated version of the theory as well as the expert criticism provided by Nguyen and hosted by Hossenfelder should be included. If there are other expert / primary sources that have arisen since then, they can also be included. JzG I accept your challenge to achieve consensus. I would like input from the recent commentors Hemiauchenia, User:XOR'easter, MarkH21 Wikiguy2021 (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikiguy2021, the division is between you, and everyone else. See WP:1AM. I don't think you're qualified to opine on WP:PARITY as a SPA with 17 edits total. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with leaving all the more recent stuff out, as I'm not convinced that Nguyen's blog post and the associated more-detailed PDF actually represent significant attention being paid to "Geometric Unity". And even if it is usable, the text that cites it would have to be rewritten pretty much completely. XOR'easter (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I respect your opinion XOR'easter but to my greater point, if someone goes to the Wikipedia page wanting to know "What is the status of Geometric Unity?", an incomplete answer is in some sense worse than no answer. It seems only consistent that if there is to be any mention of Geometric Unity at all, it should be revised to be current. From a practical perspective, I would not be surprised if the Geometric Unity section keeps getting revised by outsiders who want to update it so it would make sense to pre-emptively make it updated. Wikiguy2021 (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

To the point about fringe theories, the Treatment_of_living_persons section of WP:FRINGE states "However, the WP:BLP policy does not provide an excuse to remove all criticism from a biography or to obscure the nature of a person's fringe advocacy outside of their field of expertise". My interpretation of the description of WP:SELFPUB suggests that Weinstein's own public release of his manuscript is acceptable as a source. And the description of a reliable source in WP:SPS reads "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications", which according to my interpretation, makes Hossenfelder and Nguyen unquestionably reliable sources. I realize these are different issues than "notable" and "attention", but we should be clear about what's on the table here. Wikiguy2021 (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

if someone goes to the Wikipedia page wanting to know "What is the status of Geometric Unity?" Do such readers exist? Actual physicists have had their two moments of caring and then stopped. Fans of Weinstein will get everything they care to know from his podcast. That aside, giving a portrayal of "Geometric Unity" that is based on unreliable sources is far worse than giving a portrayal based on old ones. (Whether anything significant has actually happened since eight years ago is very much up for debate, since the splash made by Weinstein finally coming out with a paper has been, shall we say, minimal.) WP:SELFPUB does not permit Weinstein's own manuscript to be used as a source, as advancing a putative Theory of Everything while spurning the entire academic community is unduly self-serving. Perhaps the commentary co-authored by Nguyen is acceptable, but there remain the questions of whether it is due the attention and, if so, of how to summarize it, which the text in dispute failed to do properly. XOR'easter (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to presume Wiki readership and that physicists or podcast listeners will do this or that. Wikipedia is a frequently used source of information and should be evaluated as such. While unreliable sources are worse than no sources, that's only if unreliable is used in the spirit of the term (poor scholarship), not unreliable in the narrow Wikipedia sense. The "unreliable" source that is the Nguyen article or Hossenfelder blog is not unreliable in the pejorative sense, and adds more to the discussion not less. While I agree that Weinstein's manuscript is self-serving, I think it has to be evaluated in the greater context of its purpose. Weinstein's platform is all about his suppression, how he's been ignored, etc., and having this open discussion of dismissing him falls right into that ploy. Let him have his wish to be considered alongside the response he was given - even if minimally. In my opinion, debunking that contorted logic is more valuable than adhering to some rigid Wikipedia standard that is missing the point. As to whether anything significant has happened since 2013, yes, Geometric Unity is no longer unpublished. If this were some truly marginal phenomenon, I agree that ignoring it is better than showing it the light of day. But at present, I think only talking about the 2013 event and not the present is giving undue weight to the past and not enough to the present. In 2013, there was no podcast and no following. Today, Weinstein has a large following through his podcast and Clubhouse (totaling over a million last I checked). I realize this is not an scientific following, but scientists are few in number and it seems unfair to upweight the former community and downweight other groups outside of it - that kind of weighting can't hold up in general. So to summarize, my opinion is that the greatest social good is to give Geometric Unity a brief and updated status - that's it's now officially published (video and paper form), contrary to what's implied on the Wikipedia article, and that it has received a critical response from experts, which others can go read and make an informed decision about. The paragraph on Geometric Unity that has been deleted seemed more or less to accomplish that in minimal language, but if there is another suitable variation, we can discuss that as well. Wikiguy2021 (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Fringe theories which have received little note in reliable sources should only be minimally covered in relation to what to they have said about them, which is what is in the article already. Maybe a brief, "In 2021 Weinstein published a paper on the topic" sourced to Nguyen might be due, but the surrounding paragraphs surrounding the paper namedropping podcast hosts are pure puffery and were rightly removed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I would be fine with a brief sentence or two about the current GU publication status (video+paper) and its refutation in Nguyen's response. The podcast puffery was only because it seemed JzG wanted verification that Geometric Unity had any relevance to pre-existing Wikipedia items (in this case, established physicists), but now that we are closer to seeing eye to eye (I hope), there is no need to reinsert that part. The sentences about the video and paper release can be merged into one and then Nguyen's objection can be referenced with its current level of description. Would that be acceptable? Wikiguy2021 (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

We write about science using scientific sources. Eight years ago, Weinstein had not produced a mathematical definition of his "theory". Now, eight years later, Weinstein ... still has not produced a mathematical definition of his "theory". As far as actual serious developments go, this article is already up-to-date. In the past, fringe figures of many types have complained that our policies exclude them; that is part of their victim narrative, not an argument we need to take seriously. XOR'easter (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikiguy2021, Why would anyone come here to look for "Geometric Unity"? It has virtually zero Google footprint. There's no credible evidence at this point that anybody would look for it. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

An interesting turn of events. Just found this article: https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3xbz4/eric-weinstein-says-he-solved-the-universes-mysteries-scientists-disagree It mentions Nguyen's response and that of a professor Richard Easther. I believe we now have a recent, reliable source that can be cited? Wikiguy2021 (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

That might bring it closer to relevance, but I'm still doubtful. Fringe science attracts splashes of interest in media outlets that may or may not have adequate standards for covering such topics (compare the uncritical coverage that greets every claim of a physics-violating space drive). XOR'easter (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Having read the article, I see nothing wrong or sloppy about what was written. I think it's unfair to scapegoat media outlets in general while we're on the topic of assessing the reliability of a specific source. This article is clearly of higher quality than DuSutoy's article on Geometric Unity, which had no other input from scientists and had a clear conflict of interest. If that article met the bar of reliability from the current editors, I can't see a valid argument that this up to date article does not meet the bar. Wikiguy2021 (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

That's a better argument to remove the direct pointer to Marcus du Sautoy's opinion piece than to regard it as the standard to meet. Sometimes, things exist in Wikipedia articles only because nobody has bothered to remove them yet. XOR'easter (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I have yet to see a valid argument against the Vice article. Your argument talk was about media outlets not being critical - this article is critical and has independent high quality expert sources. If I may say so, I feel the burden has shifted from me providing a reliable source to the editors showing that the Vice article is unreliable in a way that is consistent with prior actions and with the Wikipedia status quo. I am confident that there are many sources on Wikipedia of far lower quality than the Vice article that have been admitted and unless those articles are also deemed unworthy and removed, than the Vice article should be admitted. Wikiguy2021 (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

My argument all along has been that we write about things to which attention has been paid. I was never convinced that Nguyen's blog post constituted significant attention; the Vice story is a point in its favor, but even so, we're not a news ticker and we're not on a deadline. I did not argue that Vice's reporting was poor; the point of my comparison a few comments back is that pop-science news coverage tends to the sensational, and we have to maintain a high standard of scrutiny about whether a story in such a place actually counts toward the topic being significant. For a more direct comparison, there was much more press about Steven Wolfram's latest go at a "theory of everything", and we only give that a short paragraph in Wolfram's bio. XOR'easter (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

In light of our recent discussions, I added the Vice article (as a reliable source) and made sure the Geometric Unity section was brief (which included removing old criticisms now made obsolete by more recent ones). Wikiguy2021 (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Old criticisms may be supplanted by newer ones, but the fact that they were made is an important part of the history. PaleoNeonate was right to restore that material. XOR'easter (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good, I have no objection. I erred on the side of brevity in light of the Wolfram comparison and previous pushback for considering GU at all. Wikiguy2021 (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

There is more material on Geometric Unity than any other topic of Weinstein at present (including IDW) and there is now a recent reliable source covering the subject. Does it therefore make sense to reinclude Geometric Unity in the known for section / article headline? Wikiguy2021 (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikiguy2021, That "more" still amounts to virtually none. I'm not convinced we should even have an article here. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

JzG I did a search for shortest wikipedia articles and e.g. stumbled upon Arturo_Pellerano_Alfau, Steven_Walske. What's the rubric for judgments on what is sufficient for an article, known for section, etc? Seems to me the precedent is for inclusivity, reasonableness, and informativeness. By any measure, some obscure historical figure / academic is dwarfed by the reach of modern living persons, especially those with a large following. Wikiguy2021 (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I concur with JzG that the "more" still amounts to virtually none. If we pay more attention to a scientific "theory" than the scientific community itself has, then we are doing the opposite of being informative. We don't write about people based on the size of their "following", but on what reliable sources have to say about them. We're an encyclopedia, not a fansite for Instagram influencers. XOR'easter (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

XOR'easter, exactly. My worry here is that we have the article primarily because he is a figure of ridicule: an obviously uncancelled victim of "cancel culture" whose complaint is that an unserious theory is not taken seriously. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

XOR'easter, and dear editors, does anyone else think that Wikiguy is a Pup Socket for someone else?

Someone with an emotional stake in this issue? The passionate, special pleading arguments seem weird and out of tune with the editorial standards of an encyclopedia. Rainbow-five (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Economics

Should a brief section about Weinstein's work on economics (with his wife) be added? He has more publications and talks in economics and no publications in physics (despite most of the Wikipedia article being on his "contribution" to physics). Weinstein gave a talk at UChicago recently and it received a response from Nguyen on the arxiv, the same guy who debunked his Geometric Unity and is quoted in the Wikipedia article. See https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.03460 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiguy2021 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

In the absence of usable third-party sources, no. I have not found anything other than social media commenting upon Weinstein's talk at UChicago or Nguyen's arXiv post. With the physics "contribution", there was at least a news story. XOR'easter (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I’m highly confused by Wikiguy2021’s comment. I read Nguyen’s paper and it appears the only element of Weinsteins 2021 talk that was received positively (by Nguyen) was the idea of gauge-theory finding applications in Economics. It could be argued Nguyen applied a reductionist mathematical analysis to Weinstein et al. work. Stating the talk was delivered albeit with some criticism given in the aforementioned paper seems a good midpoint. Sadke4 (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I think a good midpoint would be to link to Weinstein's official talk listing at UChicago https://economics.uchicago.edu/content/money-and-banking-workshop-fall-2021 and then note that the work received criticism from Nguyen with a link to the arxiv paper. I strongly expect that a technical arxiv paper from a qualified expert meets the bar for a reliable source. XOR'easter do you object to this midpoint? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiguy2021 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I still can't figure out what he does for Peter Thiel's hedge fund.--FeralOink (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Economics (again)

I've removed the following paragraph:

On November 10, 2021, Weinstein presented at the University of Chicago a proposal for how gauge theory could be used to calculate economic inflation indices based on prior work with his wife Pia Malaney. A month later, a rebuttal was published by Timothy Nguyen (a frequent Weinstein critic) on the arXiv.

References

None of these sources demonstrate any lasting encyclopedic significance. The first is a routine event listing. The second is a WP:PRIMARY PhD thesis. The third is Weinstein's own "institute", which is both WP:PRIMARY and WP:SPS. The fourth is a pre-print rebuttal.

Our goal isn't to list everything Weinstein has done or which he has claimed is important, it is to contextualize why these things are important. The way we do that is via reliable, independent sources.

Lacking such sources, this doesn't belong at all.

Grayfell (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

On keeping of notable child

There has been iterations of edits adding and removing the notable child of Eric Weinstein. The child has been on the Lex Fridman podcast and on the podcast hosted by Eric Weinstein himself. On both podcast the hosts indicate that the guest is the child of Eric Weinstein and the Lex Fridman podcast the guest indicates he is the child of Eric Weinstein The reasoning given by @Galobtter: in the first edit rejection is "No need to include name of child per WP:BLPNAME". However as noted in edit to include child " According to WP:BLPNAME ".. if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject", a direct source was provided about the family member. In addition the family member has been on the podcast https://lexfridman.com/zev-weinstein and active youtube https://www.youtube.com/c/GenerationZW." This was rejected again in the edit by @Grayfell: with the following comment "We can include it, that doesn't mean we must include it". This appears to create a inconsistancy since the spouse of Eric Weinstein is included and is only subjectively more notable then the child of Eric Weinstein. So based on comment by @Grayfell: one could argue that the spouse should also be removed, which seems to be an unfavorable editorial choice. I therefore recommend that the notable child of Eric Weinstein be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xirtam Esrevni (talk • contribs) 21:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

There is a cost to adding personal information to any article, so we need to weigh the benefit against that cost. In general, the names of spouses are not treated the same as the names of children, although there are similarities. Weinstein's wife is mentioned prominently by name in an NPR news article, which is significantly more substantial than a podcast. She is also an adult who has collaborated with her husband on projects which ostensibly contribute to his encyclopedic notability. This necessarily indicates that her name is not a privacy issue, nor is it a trivia issue, and further, it is useful information for readers who are researching "Eric Weinstein" as an encyclopedia topic. If their child is similarly important, please cite a reliable, independent source which demonstrates this. To put it another way, we probably can mention this person's name, but our goal is to explain things to readers. Mentioning a name without any context makes this into a factoid. Being a youtuber or podcast guest is not a claim to fame, so this is not, by itself, enough to show importance. So, according to reliable sources, why does this matter to readers of an encyclopedia? Grayfell (talk) 03:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

References