Talk:Eric Weinstein/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Issues

I removed some nonsense. The page is entirely too self-congratulatory... anyone can call themselves a polymath or generously describe their work as high impact, but Wikipedia should not be written as a form of promotional materials. In addition, I removed the part about Weinstein's unusualness in not having an advisor. Clearly he has one as it is a requirement for the PhD. It may be that he didn't require the close supervision some students do, but there are actually many such independent people that get PhDs, so his situation is not so unusual. Additionally, I found his advisor was Raoul Bott (see list of PhD students in [1]). While Bott has had students like Stephen Smale that did not require much supervision, I think it's putting down the great man to view his mentorship as unworthy of even a mere mention. Advisors often do things that are not highly visible or readily appreciated by their advisees...could be a suggestion here and there, encouragement when things go badly, etc. --DudeOnTheStreet (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I added a "peacock" tag for now. One current concern is that the article makes multiple claims of how few scholars can understand how great Weinstein's contributions are, due to their limited backgrounds... if this can't be adequately sourced, it needs to be removed. --DudeOnTheStreet (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

I noticed that the uploader of the photo, who also wrote the article, claims to be the copyright holder. The photo is credited to Adil Abdulali; a Google search finds an "Adil Abdulali" who is a close associate of the subject of this article. This goes a long way to explaining the peacock language and credulity apparent in the article. I am only making this clear so that policy (WP:COI) will be followed here. I have no opinion as to the merit of the subject's work or appropriateness as a topic for Wikipedia. --DudeOnTheStreet (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Article "Eric Weinstein may have found the answer to physics' biggest problems"

"Eric Weinstein may have found the answer to physics' biggest problems"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/may/23/eric-weinstein-answer-physics-problems

"On Thursday in Oxford he will begin to outline his ideas to the rest of the mathematics and physics community."

- Obviously, this is most likely to prove just an interesting failure, but I'm sure we'll all know soon.

-- 186.221.163.211 (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. So he has given his lecture and hasn't really made any big impact other than a few mild "unlikely to be true, but some interesting maths". This leads me to believe that he is not really notable enough for a wikipedia article. If 3rd party commentaries start appearing from people who aren't friends or colleagues then I think he should be reincluded in the article. As it is, most of the cites are direct links to his own papers, which is a major red flag for non-notability. Anyone notable enough for a WP article will have lots of 3rd parties referring to their work. Please see WP:NOT. Ashmoo (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
He is notable due to the amount of media interest in his ideas in the areas of economics and physics. References include The Economist and New Scientist.--Racklever (talk) 06:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, please supply these references. As the only references so far as two mentions in the Guardian, by his friends and two blog posts (New Scientist and a personal blog at Columbia). Anyone who supports inclusion is going to need to do better than that to maintain the article. Please read WP:BIO for help in what you need. Ashmoo (talk) 09:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
There are quite a few more press sources [2][3][4] most just repeating the guardian article, so not worth citing but contributing to notability.--Salix (talk): 10:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Getting there. Sadly, these sources fail the 'intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]' clause of the Basic Criteria section, because they are all just commentaries on the initial report. Ashmoo (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
What's more 90% of the article ISN'T about the interest he received for his TOE claims. The mentions of his economic theories is all primary sources (if at all). As mentioned, this needs to be fixed up ASAP to avoid a Request for Deletion motion being tabled. Ashmoo (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Finance section

I am not an expert on Mr. Weinstein, but I do know his paper in Risk described in the Finance section. The write-up here strikes me as distorted to suggest that the paper anticipated or predicted the 2007 financial crisis. The paper proposes a method for risk-adjustment of hedge fund returns in which some of the positions have multiple noisy measurements of value (as opposed to assets with clearly-determinable price like liquid common stocks on the one hand, or little useful market information about price like real estate on the other).

Mortgage securities are used for the example, but the suggestions in the paper apply equally well to any position with moderate pricing uncertainty. Moreover the type of mortgage derivatives (inverse floaters, which have small credit risk but large interest rate risk) are only distantly related to the credit-based structured mortgage products (with large credit risk but little interest rate risk) which were so problematic five years later. Finally, the issues considered in the paper apply only to hedge fund reporting, not to large financial institution liquidity or solvency.

I don't think anyone reading this paper in 2002 would have been more likely to expect the financial crisis before it happened, nor to understand it better once it had. Therefore, mentioning that it was published five years before the financial crisis, and describing it as highlighting risks of mortgage derivatives, are misleading.

Since nothing is actually false and others may be more familiar with Mr. Weinstein, I will leave it alone for now. But if no one posts objections, or fixes it on their own, I will remove what I consider to be the misleading phrases.

AaCBrown (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, I made the changes.

AaCBrown (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

While I was in the neighborhood, I decided to add a short section on financial crisis talks given by the subject, based on a chapter in James Weatherall's The Physics of Wall Street. This forms the basis for much of the subject's reputation and media coverage, so I thought it should be in the article.

AaCBrown (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the perspective. The article suffers from mostly being edited by friends of the subject, so a more neutral opinion by someone in the field is greatly appreciated. Ashmoo (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


Article for deletion

racklever, if you read this talk page, I had talked about deletion multiple times and never received a satisfactory response. My old comments address the "17 references". Ashmoo (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Eric Weinstein. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Time to delete

It's now mid-2016 and it doesn't seem to me to have gotten any stronger in the face of WP:NOT. The lede still needs WP:RS to support the significance (if any) "observerse" stuff, but I don't think we're going to find them precisely because the whole Geometric Unity thing isn't remotely near mainline physics. (That's not to say it's wrong, but we need an RS -- or a few in this case -- that takes it seriously and speaks for it.) Finally, there's no mention of Weinstein's position at Thiel, which is probably the only uncontroversial fact. Given the time over which this issue has been present, I reckon it now meets WP:SPEEDY. The other option would be to just fix the thing, but I think there may even be a WP:BLP issue at stake. I've heard Weinstein speak, and from that admittedly only one session he sounds smart, reasonable, and pretty straight up. If I was him, I'd be embarrassed at this article and so I think we'd be doing him a favor by deleting it. In fact I'd even go as far as tagging for WP:BLPPROD, but it looks like that's only allowed for WP:BLP articles without any references. Tagging for regular WP:PROD. Sleety Dribble (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Sleety Dribble, why not take this article to WP:AFD? Jweiss11 (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
@Jweiss11: that would be a perfectly good approach too. I only tagged for PROD because, as I'd explained, the length of time that concerns over notability have been present suggested (to me) that there would be no opposition. As was pointed out when my tag was so rapidly (in under 2 hours) reverted, "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected", but as I say that condition was met and so I thought it worthwhile saving time and effort by going for a speedy. @Racklever: note that the policy is not (emphases added) "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is possible", but rather "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected". As I was the one doing the tagging, I am the only one in a position to say what I expected. Now presumably you *do* have an objection that is substantive (i.e. other than the inapplicable one concerning the suitability or otherwise of the PROD itself), so it would have been nice had you deigned to let us know what it is at the same time as removing the tag. Doing so, while not required, is recommended. Back to @Jweiss11: I only came by this page after listening to a talk by Weinstein, to find out more about him. Finding it in what I considered to be a bit of a mess, I started hunting down citations and other information (e.g. on his Thiel position), to try to help improve it and fix the problems. However, after a couple of hours or so of work, checking back and forth across umpteen sites, reading related articles and so on, I concluded that IMHO, fixing was not really possible, and that the concerns over notability, expressed for almost five years now and never really addressed (notwithstanding an assertion to the contrary by Racklever which I think was quite thoroughly handled by Ashmoo on this Talk page) were probably valid and that deletion was indeed warranted. That 2+ hours of work were discarded with what seems to me barely a thought (certainly little or no thought as to how the PROD rules actually work) by Racklever, and I hope you can understand that I'm reluctant to spend any more time, and that includes the time needed to nurse the thing through a WP:AFD, on something so non-notable when that time stands a high risk of being rendered wasted by another editor without much thought or any discussion. To be clear, my concern here is not with an objection being raised to my WP:PROD -- that's what it's there for, and the tag being removed is absolutely fine. My concern is that it was dismissed so glibly. If you think the concerns over WP:NOT have any merit, I'll leave it to you to attempt a WP:AFD. If not, no problem. Either way, I'm outa here. Sleety Dribble (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I did some editing of this page a few years back, but I have no strong feelings about its overall quality or importance. I don't object to either retention or deletion. As I mentioned when I did the edits, I'm not a Weinstein expert, I just corrected some of the stuff I knew about. AaCBrown (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I would support a deletion too. Ashmoo (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
As he is the propounder of the Geometrical Unity concept I would suggest this page should stand, though am not acquainted with the details of Wikipedia policy. AbruptlyObscure (talk) 12:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • FWIW, as a reader, a user of Wikipedia as a resource, I found the presence of this article useful. I came across Eric Weinstein speaking on a podcast to topics largely outside of his professional/academic fields and found it valuable to be able to look him up here on Wikipedia and learn of other aspects of his life and accomplishments. Hence, I support keeping the article as, at least for me (and by extension potentially for others), it has provided encyclopedic value. --75.188.199.98 (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Nominated at AFD. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:AfD result was 'keep'

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Weinstein for details

--A Fellow Editor (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

This page looks about right in overall tone as of May 8, 2018 [5]

Compare with the recent New York Times opinion piece summarizing the range of attitudes that Eric Weinstein and his core group provisionally include in the enterprise of the Intellectual Dark Web. (Bari Weiss, "Meet the Renegades of the Intellectual Dark Web," New York Times opinion piece, May 8, 2018.) [6] -- Rednblu (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The new 'Intellectual dark web' section is awful. Firstly, the first part seems trivial and is written in a poor style. The second part, especially the list of names suffers from an overuse of citations. This number of citations hints of WP:OR, since if the claims were fully supported, only one citation would be needed. Ashmoo (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Intellectual darknet

@Kleuske: just wiped out all my recent edits in the Intellectual Dark Web section, saying only "Source cited does not support this definition".

First of all, my additions involved about six of the citations present. I was very careful to use only words which were supported by the sources. I will at this point show the support for the first sentence Kleuske removed. Should they, or someone else wish to challenge something else in particular, I will be glad to do so.

First sentence Kleuske removed:

The term "Intellectual dark web" describes social commentators and philosophers who believe they are limited by the gatekeeping of mainstream media and academia.

"social commentators and philosophers", "academia" and "mainstream media" are supported by:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/media-liberals-mock-new-york-times-op-ed-for-promoting-dark-web-intellectuals where it says,

Bari Weiss, a right-leaning opinion writer for the paper, wrote in the column published Tuesday about several Web-based culture commentators and philosophers who feel shunned by academia and more mainstream media outlets.

Source said "culture commentators". I wrote "social commentators". I have just changed it to "culture commentators".

"Limited" is supported in https://life.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/the-intellectual-dark-web/

Of course the intellectual dark web partly thrives because it does not have the limitations of the traditional media. For any public intellectual or thinker the experience of a Newsnight or Channel 4 News studio is always the same. The evening is wrecked by having to travel to a studio where you will be given a maximum of three minutes’ airtime to correct a set of false presumptions which the presenter has already gathered against you. ‘So what you’re saying’ could be the epitaph for this form of journalism. There is no opportunity for nuance, not much opportunity for correction and very little to recommend it to anyone but the producers. Certainly not to viewers or participants. News broadcasts and political discussion shows have largely become a carousel of closely scripted talking points by people with predictable views.

Further support for those limitations, in the form of "Gatekeeping" is supported also in that article:

On such issues discussion has been shut down almost entirely. Not least because the mainstream media has become terrified of ever being caught on the ‘wrong side’ of any debate. As a result, the public has been starved of the full and frank discussion a healthy society should have if it is to arrive at remotely healthy conclusions. Before the internet, the resistance to this would have found it hard to be heard. Today, it can be heard above the noise of the one-time gatekeepers.

... and ...

As a result, the public has been starved of the full and frank discussion a healthy society should have if it is to arrive at remotely healthy conclusions. Before the internet, the resistance to this would have found it hard to be heard. Today, it can be heard above the noise of the one-time gatekeepers.


That's for my first sentence. Should you, or someone else, wish to choose something specific, I would be glad to show you where in the cited works my additions are supported. Marteau (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Using only words used in the sources does not add up to "the statement in the article is properly sourced".
The term "Intellectual dark web" describes social commentators and philosophers who believe they are limited by the gatekeeping of mainstream media and academia. They believe that free speech and thought are threatened by hypersensitivity and political correctness, and use web-based media to work around the limitations of traditional media.
That's an unfair and far from neutral summing up of the articles (especially the one in the Spectator), since it only stresses "believe they are limited by the gatekeeping of mainstream media and academia". The sources you cite, suggest the stance of this "collection of disparate thinkers" (Spectator) is more than frustration about "gatekeepers of traditional media". Hence my objection. Also, you were bold, I reverted, now we discuss. WP:BRD. Please do not escalate into an editwar. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
If it is "more than frustration about gatekeepers" then add additional the information. Wiping out properly sourced information is not the way to do it. What would you like to see added? What is inadequate? How would you phrase it then? Because my sentence is cited and correct, and all you are doing is saying "nope" without suggesting anything concrete. Marteau (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
(ec x2)"Wiping out" (excellent example of an appeal to emotion) is exactly the way to do it. Besides, you claiming "properly sourced" does not make it so. That's called "proof by assertion". I would not like to see things added, I want to see the section rephrased, since your incarnation is unfair and unbalanced. Kleuske (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, how would you re-phrase it then? Marteau (talk) 11:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
And how, exactly, is it "unfair" or "unbalanced"? Say something constructive, something more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Marteau (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll have to think about that. Now it's 1:35 here and I have obligations this afternoon. Kleuske (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
You have absolutely no concrete objections, or nothing to suggest for a replacement, or even a hint of what you would do, other than re do it entirely. All you are saying is "unfair" and "unbalanced" with not so much as even one suggested change, or even one thing you'd like to see added. Not. Even. One. Marteau (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore, I continued with They believe that free speech and thought are threatened by hypersensitivity and political correctness, and use web-based media to work around the limitations of traditional media. The idea as it is described by the sources cannot be summarized in one sentence. I used two. Perhaps you have a suggestion for at third. But my first sentence is a damned good one... but what would you use for a first sentence? Because the version you restored is objectively horrible. It in no way clarifies what the term actually means as it is used by reliable sources. Marteau (talk) 11:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

How about this

The Intellectual Dark Web is used to refer to a group of thinkers, academics and personalities who publish outside mainstream media, using channels like long form YouTube interviews, twitter and public lectures.

This summaries the following from the NYT.

Most simply, it is a collection of iconoclastic thinkers, academic renegades and media personalities who are having a rolling conversation — on podcasts, YouTube and Twitter, and in sold-out auditoriums — that sound unlike anything else happening, at least publicly, in the culture right now. Feeling largely locked out of legacy outlets, they are rapidly building their own mass media channels.

--Salix alba (talk): 12:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Your quote is from a NY Times opinion piece and as such we cannot use it as a source. Also, your proposed text says nothing about WHY they "publish outside mainstream media" and could just as easily be used as the definition of 'YouTuber' or 'Internet Personality'. The two sources I've used clearly and repeatedly make the point that these individuals are publishing outside of the mainstream in order to avoid constraints and limitations put on them arbitrarily. Your proposal says nothing about the nature of what they say, namely, that they tend to be opposed to political correctness. Those points were given great weight in the reliable sources I've cited, and to not include mention of them would be unbalanced and misrepresentative of the purport of the source. Marteau (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, @Salix alba: given that you have proposed new text, I have to assume you too think mine should not be used. Because for the life of me, I cannot find a flaw in my proposed sentences... I worked damn hard to polish those sentences so they accurately and fairly reflected what the sources said, and so far all I have heard is "unfair" and "unbalanced". I'm just not seeing where anything is unfair or unbalanced. Marteau (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
That's pretty much why we have WP:BRD. See below. Kleuske (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Objections

@Marteau: Thank you for giving me time to meet my Saturday afternoon obigations. Your patience is greatly appreciated.

The term "Intellectual dark web" describes social commentators and philosophers who believe they are limited by the gatekeeping of mainstream media and academia. They believe that free speech and thought are threatened by hypersensitivity and political correctness, and use web-based media to work around the limitations of traditional media.
  1. For one, that's factually wrong. Jordan Peterson, for one, might be described as a "social commentator", but is also an established academic in his field, Bret Weinstein (another proposed member) is a biologist and a teacher. Pretty much the same goes for Christina Hoff Sommers and Camille Paglia.
  2. Then the fact that the Washington Examiner piece is not more than a summing up of tweets, which hardly counts as a reliable source to base anything on, except perhaps the statement that an article in another paper was mocked on te interwebs by media and liberals.
  3. The term "social commentator" is a very broad one. Anyone with a YT-channel, Twatter-account or some-such counts as a "social commentator". Use of this term implies there's nothing more specific, especially since it's folloed by "and philosophers", hence reducing the members to that of run-of-the-mill Yootoobers with an opinion. The tem "academics" would be a much better one to use, since most are, and quite established in their respective fields, too.
  4. When a frase like "who believe", "they believe" appears twice in such a short paragraph, it's stylistically suboptimal at the very least.
  5. Moreover, this construct implies there's no substance to that believe, since there's no hint in that summing up of this "overarching idea" (Spectator) there actually is. The Spectator article, however, explictly points out violent campus protests and various attempts to shut people down. That is what I mean by "unfair and unbalanced". Kleuske (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
None of your objections invalidate my proposed additions. I could go into the reasons, but I'm not going to. I simply don't care enough about this to invest the effort required in refuting your objections. I'm taking this off my watch list. Marteau (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your constructive attitude. I really appreciate that. Kleuske (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Intellectual Dark Web

You are invited to participate in this AfD discussion about whether to delete Intellectual Dark Web. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Video

Per [7]. Two editors seem to want to include a WP:PRIMARY WP:SELFPUB YouTube video as a source. I dispute this because (a) it's primary and self-published and (b) it is therefore self-serving. Weinstein's claims are well established to be controversial and motivated by some personal investment, and we should not be citing his words without the intervening balance of independent third party commentary. Certainly we should not be using his propaganda as a source in this article. Guy (Help!) 06:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Social-media posts have no outside editors, and no fact checkers, either. There is no consistent way to tell the important information from passing trivia, and no consistent way to tell truth from errors or lies. Everything which is even remotely controversial, which is most things here, should be supported by reliable sources. Restraint is necessary. Grayfell (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
WP:SELFPUB does seem to shoot it down as a potential source where it says that self-published sources may be permitted as long as "the material is neither unduly self-serving..." and it is obviously self-serving. The case can be made for its acceptability as an external link in an External Links section where links to the subjects self published works are common... I'll make the case for that at first opportunity. LucklessPedestrian (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Linking to any specific video would be arbitrary and promotional. Normally we limit these kinds of links to the bare minimum, per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Since Weinstein hasn't updated his website in almost a decade and reliable sources discuss his social media output, I think a single link to his youtube channel would be tolerable here, per WP:ELPEREN. If there's a reason to favor another outlet, like twitter, let's hear it, but multiple links would almost certainly be excessive. It's not our job to help him spread his brand, after all. Grayfell (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

"Bypass"

This is regarding this edit, and surrounding edits.

All sources must be considered in context. That a word is used in passing a couple of times in one source doesn't automatically make it the best choice here. The source itself doesn't use it in a neutral way, either, but that's going to complicate things. In that sentence, who or what, exactly, was Jordan Peterson bypassing? Editors? Publishers? Fact-checkers? Peer review? We'll never know, and it doesn't necessarily matter. The gist of this is that Peterson has a "willingness" to use "new technologies" to disseminate his ideas. The source throws these words out there because it's a casual article, but Wikipedia isn't. "Eschew" seems like a perfectly neutral way to summarize this without the ambiguity and baggage of "bypass". Grayfell (talk) 04:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The source is clear. IDW types are not just "eschewing" traditional media... they are, according to the sources, bypassing the limitations and the "gatekeeping" inherent in old-school media.
By invoking WP:CONTEXTMATTERS you are actually providing support for the use of the word "bypass" rather than "eschew". The IDW, according to multiple sources on the web, is more than just a bunch of YouTubers and Tweeters. That's rather the point of the IDW... not that they are YouTubers, but that they use YouTube and Twitter to bypass the limitations of the mainstream media. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS would actually require the use of 'bypass' or a similar word and rule out 'eschew'.
In addition, "eschew" and "bypass" have different meanings. You are advocating we not use a specific word used by the source in favor of a word which has different meaning. What good is it to require rock-solid sourcing if we're just going to ignore the point of their articles and the words they use?
You ask, ...who or what, exactly, was Jordan Peterson bypassing? Editors? Publishers? Fact-checkers? Peer review? We'll never know,... I'm having a hard time believing you actually read that source completely. THAT they are "bypassing" and WHAT IT IS they are "bypassing" is the entire point of The Spectator's article. They are, according to the source, "bypassing" the "gatekeepers" of old-school media (the word "gatekeepers" occurs twice in the source).
"Thanks to the internet, millions now have access to views mainstream media considers ‘forbidden’." (emphasis mine).
Further support for what, exactly, IDW types are bypassing: "Not least because the mainstream media has become terrified of ever being caught on the ‘wrong side’ of any debate. As a result, the public has been starved of the full and frank discussion a healthy society should have if it is to arrive at remotely healthy conclusions. Before the internet, the resistance to this would have found it hard to be heard. Today, it can be heard above the noise of the one-time gatekeepers."
Further support: "Today, such would-be gatekeepers have lowered their own reputations and can no longer dictate the intellectual weather."
And then you claim 'bypass' has 'baggage' we must avoid. What are you talking about? How does using the exact word the source uses cause 'baggage'? How does adherence and representation of what the source says encumber us with "baggage"?
By not categorizing IDW as "bypassing" mainstream media, we would leave the reader with the impression that the sources say the IDW is nothing more than a group of YouTubers and Tweeters. The sources say they are more than that... they say that they are bypassing the mainstream media, and that is what makes them different from common garden variety YouTubers. LucklessPedestrian (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
The source, including those parts you've chosen to highlight, takes a... let's say "casual" tone with how they deal with this. Much of the language here is extremely loaded. This is fine for an opinion piece, but it is not fine for a NPOV Wikipedia article. You are free to agree that would-be gatekeepers have lowered their own reputations, but Wikipedia is not free to make that kind of claims as simple fact. Likewise, "gatekeepers" is loaded (to an almost comic degree) and there are plenty of other examples of this, as well. "Resistance": what are they resisting? Again, it seems to be editors, publishers, fact-checkers, and peer review. These things are not automatically bad just because scary words are used to discuss them. Words like these imply that there is something nefarious or negative about selective publishing. There is a lot that could be said about why the "IDW" and this source chose to present it this way, but we don't have to get into that. The source is starting from a set of extremely contentious prior assumptions before it describes the concept itself, and its description is based on these assumptions. This is not a neutral framework for discussion, and any source which contains this level of subtle (or not so subtle) editorializing should be treated with extreme care. As a starting point, these decontexualized phrases should not be used as an excuse to present a specific, controversial position using Wikipedia's voice. Grayfell (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
At the root of this issue is their claim that they are being censored, a claim which is, on the face of it, entirely without merit. They use self-published direct to consumer media out of choice. You can't make any determination at all about the willingness of the academic press to publish their work, especially, because at least half of them are just YouTube blowhards and have no academic credentials anyway. Guy (Help!) 07:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
If we're going to impeach the Spectator Life source, all we're left for that sentence is opinion pieces. I believe there is enough basis for the first sentence remaining (due to The Australian reference I added yesterday) that Weinstein coined the term and did so semi-ironically, but there will be nothing except opinion in support about YouTube, Twitter lectures or "eschew"ing and the sentence will have to go. LucklessPedestrian (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
And "eschew" needs to be removed now. There's nothing in the sources saying such a thing in any way, and I believe its incorrect and misleading. I'd remove it myself but I'm at three reversions. The problem I have with it is that the relationship IDW types have with the media is a defining characteristic of the alleged movement and one which is the subject of much criticism, commentary, and even ridicule from high profile thinkers (e.g. Paul Krugman). We cannot just blithely say they "eschew" the mainstream media without it being sourced, because the reality of the situation is more nuanced. If we cannot or will not go into those nuances for whatever reason, rather than mislead or oversimplify it's best we say nothing about their relationship with the mainstream media at all. LucklessPedestrian (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I think it's kind of silly to claim that "bypass" is more nuanced than "eschew". There is only so much meaning we can cram into six letters. Since we do not have agreement from sources as to why they have made this decision, but we do have sources describing it as a significant aspect, the simplest approach is to describe this without going into their unstated, unknowable motives behind their choices. I tried to do this, but you reverted me, so... Grayfell (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
This is the text you wanted: "The term refers to a group of academics and personalities who use social media, public lectures, and niche magazines such as Quillette instead of traditional media." That is in no way an adequate definition of "Intellectual Dark Web". I'm sure you or I could easily name dozens of "personalities" who only use social media, but that does not make them IDW. Our saying that's what makes "personalities" a part of the IDW... that they only use social media... is missing such significant pieces of the puzzle as to make it so overly broad that it cannot be considered anything but wrong. If we cannot do better than that, we'd be better off not trying to define it at all. It is clear to me that part of the definition of IDW is not just the fact they use social media but WHY they seek alternate venues, but you and Guy are having none of that. LucklessPedestrian (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Also, that proposed definition ignores the elephant in the room which is the spectacle of Peterson and others showing up at pretty much any mainstream broadcasting studio which will have him (e.g. Channel 4 with Cathy Newman). LucklessPedestrian (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Currently, the definition in our article is:"The term refers to a group of academics and personalities who eschew traditional media in favour of channels like YouTube, Twitter and public lectures,[1][4][2] as well as niche magazines including Quillette.[2][5]"

This sentence is supported by three sources:

First source: "Meet the Renegades of the Intellectual Dark Web". This source supports a motive for IDW types, namely: "An alliance of heretics is making an end run around the mainstream conversation." and "Feeling largely locked out of legacy outlets, they are rapidly building their own mass media channels." and "And third, some have paid for this commitment by being purged from institutions that have become increasingly hostile to unorthodox thought — and have found receptive audiences elsewhere." and "I get the appeal of the I.D.W. I share the belief that our institutional gatekeepers need to crack the gates open much more." The article in its totality supports my assertion that a defining characteristic of IDW is their goal to "bypass" the mainstream media.

Second source: Inside the intellectual dark web. This source explicitly says IDW seeks to "bypass" mainstream media, namely, "... a refusal to bow to the orthodoxies of the age (in his case on enforced gender pronouns) and a willingness to use YouTube and other new technologies to bypass traditional media to disseminate his ideas — are not his alone. Indeed, it is now such a pattern there is even a term for this collection of disparate thinkers: ‘the intellectual dark-web.’". Basically, the fact that IDW seeks to bypass mainstream media is the entire jist of the article.

Third source: 'Intellectual Dark Web' leads fightback against academic orthodoxy" The title is telling, but beyond that, the text "(Weinstein) used it to describe those whos ideas fall foul of governing liberal orthodoxies and who, largely locked out of mainstream media outlets, are having a rolling conversation on podcasts, YouTube, social media and in public lectures." Clearly, this article support a "bypassing" of the mainstream media.

That's what the sources we have now say. I think it's completely clear that my proposed text:

The term refers to a group of academics and personalities who bypass traditional media in favour of channels like YouTube, Twitter and public lectures, as well as niche magazines including Quillette.

... reflects the point the sources are making and unlike the current, completely inadequate, incomplete and misleading definition currently in the article, is accurate and as such is far more preferable. LucklessPedestrian (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I agreed with you above, before noticing the "arbitrary break". I do not agree with your replacement definition at all. If any of these proposals are not adequate, it's because the definitions provided by sources are not adequate. It's illogical to present this as "forbidden by the mainstream media" when they're on network TV, radio, blogs, the New York Times, Youtube... not to mention Peterson's reddit-based cult of personality. The behavior all these sources are cagily describing is simple enough. It seems like it's people who discuss and promot a narrow set of comparatively reactionary viewpoints without any of the oversight or accountability of academic channels. What's remarkable about that? Espousing status-quo viewpoints while claiming allegiance to leftism or "liberalism" or whatever is ancient. Self-publishing outside academia is almost as old as publishing. This is all old, old, old, so what, exactly, is the IDW? If all we have are obsequious editorials and incensed responses to them, we have nothing to work with.
You keep saying this is good enough, or more accurate, or the other one is incomplete, but the source are very messy, and very opinionated. Wikipedia has, by design, a mainstream bias. We favor the journalist and academic establishment to determine reliability, and we consider fact-checking and retractions to be a positive sign. If the problem you have is that my proposal makes it seem like these are just youtubers... that's not automatically a problem. That's a valid interpretation of the relatively few reliable sources we have for this buzzword. So maybe find new, better sources? Grayfell (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
If we're going to start insinuating that "traditional media" is an inconvenience, based on opinions published in mainstream media, something has gone terribly wrong. Say WHAT? I simply want to include the sourced idea that they intend to "bypass" traditional media as their motive. That "insinuates" NOTHING. It's sourced, it's part of what motivates them, and it is part of their beliefs, as reported by the sources and as anyone who has listened to any of those guys at all can verify. And it does not matter whether they are right or not... they do in fact feel the traditional media is a problem as anyone who's lisened to those guys for a moment can attest. That they do think they are "bypassing" traditional media with their shows and lectures, and that it is one of their defining motives, really is a non-controversial thing outside Wikipedia talk pages. LucklessPedestrian (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
But for now, I'm going to drop the stick. That our article no longer has that ludicrous assertion that they're just a bunch of social media gadflies is all I really should have hoped to expect and that will have to do. LucklessPedestrian (talk) 01:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
"Bypassing" is not a motive. It is not a belief. It's barely even a method. They are bypassing "traditional media" to disseminate their ideas, but they are partly doing this through mainstream media. Being generous, this is just semantics. I have listened to them enough to know the gist of what they are saying, but as I said, it seems completely unremarkable. Its adherents don't even seem to entirely disagree, since the name is tongue-in-cheek. Grayfell (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Opinions on removing the Intellectual Dark Web section

As it stands, the section is fairly useless and somewhat embarrassing. Currently, someone Googling "intellectual dark web" will not find this embarrassment until about four pages into the results, however, adding "wiki" or "wikipedia" as is commonly done, will naturally result in this subsection being returned. I don't think it's fair to the public to have them waste their time, however momentarily, coming here if they have no chance of finding what they are wanting, and I would like to see this subsection removed. It can, of course, be restored with ease once someone comes up with something useful to add which successfully runs the Wikigauntlet, but until then, I think it should go. Opinions? LucklessPedestrian (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. The one thing more embarrassing than a Wikipedia that fails to define a notable term is a Wikipedia that fails to even mention it. I agree that we shouldn't go into too much detail since some of the particulars are hotly debated and the dedicated article did not pass AfD. However, a single sentence giving the most common justification for the group, like the one I proposed, does not seem like too much to ask. It would also be an improvement over the current article to avoid mentioning opinions and define the group solely by who is in it: "According to a widely discussed May 2018 op-ed, it consists of..." or something like that. Connor Behan (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep it, but keep it short. We deleted the article as merge, so removing it altogether would probably be seen as an end-run around that, and also it would rapidly lead to re-creation of the IDW article. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • What non-opinion sources do we have which define the term? Are there any at all?
The NYT article has already been discussed by many other reliable outlets. The Washington Post opinion by Daniel W. Drezner says "I don't get it" and directly quotes a National Review opinion as saying I guess I’m just having a hard time getting how the Intellectual Dark Web is anything more than a list of people some anonymous author of a website likes. The NR opinion is by Jonah Goldberg, who is ideologically sympathetic to the IDW, but goes on to say he thinks the label is a bit overwrought, and Weiss’s thesis a bit off target. This Vox article by Henry Farrell, to his credit, doesn't try for a simple answer, but he does say: What they all share is not a general commitment to intellectual free exchange but a specific political hostility to “multiculturalism” and all that it entails. In previous decades, their views were close to hegemonic in the intellectual center. This analysis from the Columbia Journalism Review mentions how controversial Weiss's opinions are in general, and that op-ed specifically.
It goes on like this. Grayfell (talk) 01:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Lack of non-opinion sources was a credible rationale for deletion of the original article. It is less compelling here, where the discussion is in context. I am on the fence, but generally consider that brief coverage here is less of a problem than some of the alternatives. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Intellectual Dark Web

Discussion of this topic has snowballed to the point where will soon make sense to split this into a separate article. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Or... not. Blowhards blowing hard are not significant, your perennial fandom notwithstanding. Guy (Help!) 01:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • One reason why we will need to make this a standalone page is that it would be useful, the growing number of pages that use the phrase, cannot now be linked to an aritcle that would tell users what the "intellectual dark web is. A 2nd reason is that the the amount of SIGCOV has been steadily increasing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Expanding on this topic here, for the nonce.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
See WP:USEFUL. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Its a term which has continued media coverage for well over a year now. Now JzG opinion that they are Blowhards is not part of Wikipedia criteria. What matter is sources and there is plenty.
  • Amelia Lester (November 2018). "The Voice of the 'Intellectual Dark Web'". POLITICO Magazine. Retrieved 2018-11-12.
  • Tommy Collison (25 October 2018). "The rise of Jordan Peterson and the intellectual dark web". Independent.ie. Retrieved 2018-11-12.
  • Chotiner, Isaac (4 September 2018). "A Conversation with Meghan Daum About Her Journey Into the Intellectual Dark Web". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 2018-11-12.

There are also plenty of passing mentions in just about any article about Peterson. --Salix alba (talk): 09:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The obvious solution is to redirect to a section in shitlord, since the "dark" implies a degree of clandestine activity that is completely at odds with the noise these people make, and the word "intellectual" is laughably inaccurate. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

No papers on math or physics

@Dfsfscasdq: Since his career is not an academic one, the fact that he did not publish in fields X, Y or Z is irrelevant. Physics doubly so, since the article says nothing about that field of study. If you think otherwise, please explain and find me a source that expounds on its significance. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm fairly new to wikipedia editing so please forgive any mistakes. I'm genuinely trying to contribute to make this page, which has previously misled and confused me, clearer. On this page Eric is primarily and firstly described as a Mathematician, and he is supposedly notable enough to have a wikipedia page. Yet he has never published a single paper in mathematics. To me this seems clearly problematic. Wikipedia pages should describe people firstly for the thing they are notable for. Eric is not notable as a mathematician. Is there another example you can point me to of a wikipedia page of someone whose first descriptor is 'mathematician' but who has never made a contribution to mathematics? Thanks for helping with this. Dfsfscasdq (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
You could have removed the qualification with an explanation in the edit summary to that effect. Adding the fact that someone did not do X, Y or Z is not very useful. The usual procedure is be bold, but discuss when someone reverts you. If you don’t think he qualifies as a mathematician, strike the qualification. Kleuske (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok thanks I understand I should not have reverted it without discussing. What do you think? Other people seem to think he should be described as a mathematician. I think this is far-fetched. As a comprise, I suggest leaving in the descriptor, but adding clarification that he does not qualify in the usual sense. That is, there are zero examples of his mathematics. Not in a peer-reviewed journal, not on the arxiv, not on his blog. His page is like having a page for a 'musician' who has a music degree but who's never released a song. It's very odd and misleading, in my opinion. Maybe we should remove the word 'mathematician' then? Does anyone have a good reason against this? He is primarily known for being a commentator/podcast guest/writer on issues such as innovation and labour markets. Dfsfscasdq (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

What is important thought, is that dr. Weinstein holds a Ph.D in mathematics and is therefore a mathematician. The CV referenced as source mentions “selected publications” and cannot show the absence of anything. Moreover, his doctoral thesis was on mathematics, hence the Ph.D. Reverting per WP:BLP. Kleuske (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Also, please read WP:OR. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I've removed 'mathematician' Please give some reasonable reason to describe him this way. I don't think he is, but even if he was, he's also a Bay Area resident, a harmonica player etc etc. He is not notable for these things, so we don't write them on the first line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfsfscasdq (talk • contribs) 14:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

And I put it back. Holding a Ph.D. in mathematics, publishing papers on the subject, sources saying he is, amply qualifies him as a mathematician. I get a strong sense of WP:IDONTLIKEIT here. Kleuske (talk) 07:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Been following the discussion for a bit. While I don't like the way it was done, I do see the point of view that the person isn't notable due to being a mathematician. As such, the mention of holding a Ph.D. in Mathematics probably belongs down in the education section and not in the lede. He's certainly a mathematician, and that fact belongs in the article, just not the lede. --Btcgeek (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Should "Intellectual Dark Web" have its own article?

I really think so, because it appears to be a relevant collective of thought that has acquired notable coverage. Examples:

  1. New York Times
  2. vox.com
  3. reason.com
  4. thedailybeast.com

While Eric Weinstein coined the term, the school which the term has applied to is certainly larger than Weinstein himself. What do y'all think? Mungo Kitsch (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

It was deleted at AfD here. I think that these sources are too old for the article not to qualify for WP:G4. wumbolo ^^^ 19:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I just added "Intellectual Dark Web" to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Arts_and_entertainment/Internet_and_tech_culture#I and then I noticed the discussion here. I agree that the IDW should have its own article. If the sources that Mungo Kitsch posted are too old, here are a few newer sources: Politico, The Federalist, Psychology Today, Areo Magazine, BBC Radio 2600:1004:B10A:BA9:7DDD:887A:DE54:154C (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I think Intellectual dark web warrants its own article. Bus stop (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Notability?

I see nothing in this article that asserts the subject's notability. The article only has 2 references, both by the article's subject and one of them is his PhD thesis! Searching the web I could find nothing on him except a Guardian article which appears to be by a friend of his. As it stands, the article seems to be a simple vanity page. Anyone who feels the page should stay (preferably not Eric himself, or a friend) needs to address these concerns, otherwise I will push for deletion. Ashmoo (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this article does not pass notability, and should be removed. --DFRussia (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure recent events (i.e., Eric's rising profile as a public intellectual, prolific run as a frequent podcast guest, and originator of the intellectual dark web concept) demonstrate that this article strongly passes notability. --Kleinhern (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Ashmoo and DFRussia... the notability here is questionable. The citations are weak. I also have no idea why his personal life is of interest, except that it allows to link to his brother. That is social media hyperlinking for crawlers... not notability. I know you've many have done good work to arrive at NPOV, but notability and "due weight" just don't really seem to cut it here. 2604:2000:14C5:82E5:51DD:510:E078:7831 (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

No citations

Are we just gloating over the fact that there are no citations regarding his education or scientific accomplishments? Even a Google Scholar search brings up none of his publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrimas1 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, you see, like everything else IDW, the only citation we need is an opinion column by Bari Weiss. Simonm223 (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Economic Project

I don't think a project in someone's career is terribly notable. I propose that we remove this section. It's also strange that is placed here when it was funded by his wife's org. That's not bad, I just don't see how this is notable. That would mean that we would include all projects on BLP's, which is clearly not the standard. Unsigned as editing anonymously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.214.113 (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Restoration of unreferenced BLP material and "Physics" section

@JzG and Isingness: would you both care to explain your blanket reverts besides "mature content" and "bizarre method" (edit summary in the following edit)? There are different edits being reverted here without legitimate reason.

  1. Per WP:CHALLENGE, the onus is on the editor adding/restoring unreferenced material. Here, you have both re-added unreferenced BLP info to the article.
  2. Regarding the "Physics" section, as my edit summaries explicitly state, the entire section is about a single colloquium talk about an unpublished idea. That's entirely undue WP:PROMINENCE and not noteworthy.

You both know that content being old is never a legitimate reason to revert. — MarkH21talk 22:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I reverted because you removed sourced content without explanation; seems the other reversion you made yourself might have been an issue as it seemed to just remove negative material, but I have no comment on the actions of others. Have a good evening! Isingness (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
My edit summary gave the explanation. If nobody has any actual reason or further objection, I'll go ahead and remove the unreferenced BLP information + colloquium talk mention again. — MarkH21talk 02:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I would avoid edit-warring like that. You still removed cited content without significant reasoning. Regardless, you asked two people, at the very least perhaps it would be respectful to wait for the other individual you have pinged before reverting. Isingness (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
And the sources used here were both in-depth and significant, so I disagree with the assessment in your edit summary. Isingness (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Well yes, I am waiting for JzG's response - that's why I haven't done it yet. I've given plenty reasoning here, stop calling it without explanation and without significant reasoning. Even the wording of the passage currently in the article demonstrates that the unpublished theory that he gave one colloquium talk on is WP:FRINGE and undue WP:PROMINENCE. — MarkH21talk 03:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, he is a fringe figure. But Fringe as a policy only prevents the adding of non-notable Fringe ideas and sources; it does not prevent the writing about notable pushers of fringe ideas or their notable activities. Isingness (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
They're notable enough to be here as a person, which means including all the warts. Isingness (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not saying anything about his notability. Just that his single colloquium talk on an unpublished idea is not noteworthy for being in the article. — MarkH21talk 05:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I do get your point but though his idea is bunk, I see it as still notable due to the in-depth coverage of it. Like alchemy, you know? It's here even though it's a discredited idea. Isingness (talk) 07:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
MarkH21, that's a question for WP:UNDUE, best resolved through RfC. By default, the consensus is presumed to favour content that has been unchallenged in the article for a long time, absent a credible policy-based reason to remove. Since it's clearly factual and neutrally stated, that's not at issue. I get that you don't like it, that's a separate matter. Guy (help!) 19:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I don’t think it’s such an issue to bring multiple other editors in; fine. Although I disagree that WP:UNDUE isn’t a credible policy-based reason to remove. It’s part of NPOV.
@JzG: What about the unreferenced BLP info you also reverted back in? — MarkH21talk 19:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Birth date and age

Weinstein tweeted recently that he graduated high school in 1982. There might be a source for his birth date and age on his Twitter at some time. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

And until a reliable source is found, the unreferenced material should be removed particularly since it has been challenged. — MarkH21talk 22:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Just tweeted recently at the same time as these conversations? Seems pretty suspicious to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:402:CC29:3475:856B:9BD2:6220 (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
MarkH21, you can remove the dates iof you like. There are a lot of places on the web that include them, but it could be citeogenesis. Guy (help!) 19:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
@JzG: I’ll do that as well as the other unreferenced BLP info. Please just revert the edit you actually contest rather than all four next time. — MarkH21talk 19:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Favoring a podcast over the Notices of the AMS and Math Genealogy

@Forgotten Seer: Regarding your removal of references removed here, the Notices of the American Mathematical Society and Mathematics Genealogy Project are reliable sources for formal academic advisors, whether or not the subject himself wants to say in a podcast that he had no advisor. — MarkH21talk 13:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

General thoughts: We should at the very least report what the official record says. It happens often enough that a person who was officially a student's advisor did not do the actual mentoring work (I can think of a nonzero number of examples just among scientists I've worked with personally). In such circumstances, we might say something like, X's official thesis advisor was Y, though many years later, X told an interviewer that they received their real guidance from Z, and Y only signed the paperwork. We wouldn't remove Y's name; we'd just supplement with X's later statement. XOR'easter (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Agree that NAMS + MGP is reliable here and the statement about Bott should not be removed; the WP:SPAs removing it are editing in an inappropriate and disruptive fashion. As for whether Weinstein's comment should be included: we don't have WP:SOMETHINGSOMEONESAIDONCE but I think we should. Unless there is some evidence of significance (e.g., Weinstein has repeatedly made it this point in different venues, or the question has received secondary coverage) I would omit it. --JBL (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
JBL, that sounds fair. XOR'easter (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: I would listen to this[1] and consider implementing XOR'easter's proposal. Forgotten Seer (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't actually make a proposal for this specific case yet. And, having now listened to the podcast, I don't think we actually need to change anything. Weinstein gripes about The System, Man — and fails to explain adequately why the Notices of the AMS (and the Harvard Mathematics Department and John Baez, for that matter) would list him as one of Bott's students if he weren't. So, in the absence of further indication that this is actually a significant point, I concur with JBL that this is below the threshold. My proposal is that we stet the current text. XOR'easter (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
His claim that Math Genealogy requires an advisor is also false, with famous counter examples like Goro Shimura and Haruzo Hida never having even a formal doctoral advisor. We also have several examples where formal advisors are noted, like Bernard Dwork, where multiple secondary sources note his “real” advisor as well as his formal advisor.
I agree with JBL and XOR’easter that we can note the claim of Weinstein having no “real” advisor when it shows up in more prominent primary sources or in a reliable secondary source. I don’t know what the stetting proposal exactly entails in wiki formatting (footnote?), but I wouldn’t be opposed to something like that. — MarkH21talk 17:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I was just saying that we should leave the current text unchanged in this respect. (I might add the Harvard math department citation for good measure.) It's a well-known aspect of the culture that PhD advisors come in multiple varieties, some much more involved with their students' research on a day-to-day basis than others. One person's "I didn't have a real advisor" is another's "my advisor let me do my own thing". Bott's signature is on Weinstein's thesis (easily verified via ProQuest if your library has a subscription), which makes him Weinstein's advisor for our purposes, even if he didn't hold Weinstein's hand every day. XOR'easter (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIAZJNe7YtE&feature=youtu.be&t=8871
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eric_Weinstein/Archive_1&oldid=1210786134"