Talk:Eric Weinstein#Restoration of unreferenced BLP material and "Physics" section

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. {{u|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)

{{old heading|Absurd lede?}}

Eric Ross Weinstein is an American podcast host who has not posted any podcast episodes since November 2020? ComeAndHear (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

:Where's the absurdity? He is famous for being a podcast host so that's what's in the lede. We can't say "was" as that implies he is deceased (MOS:BLPTENSE) we could say "former" or "retired" perhaps although there's no reason he couldn't start a new podcast or release new episodes in the near future. I think it's much like how an actor between movie roles doesn't stop being an actor. D1551D3N7 (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

::It's absurd because it's like saying that "Weinstein is a football quarterback who has not played a football game in 4 years". The analogy to acting is specious because acting is not something that's typically done on a regular basis (weekly, biweekly, etc.), and long hiatuses are more common (e.g. Daniel Day-Lewis). I think we're at the very least justified in stating that "Weinstein is a former mathematical physicist and podcast host" since he has a PhD in mathematical physics and has held research positions in math/physics. Numerous sources corroborate these claims. ComeAndHear (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

:::There have been no sources saying that Weinstein has had permanent (or even postdoctoral) research positions in math or physics. There has been consensus against describing Weinstein as a mathematician or mathematical physicist. His own preprint even says he {{tq|is not a physicist and is no longer an active academician, but is an Entertainer and host of The Portal podcast}}.{{pb}}I don't find any issue with describing him as a podcast host and former investment fund director. I have much less of an opinion about the inclusion or exclusion of the endnote {{tq|Weinstein has not posted any podcast episodes since November 2020}}. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

::::These are some of the sources I've been referring to:

::::[https://theconversation.com/einstein-to-weinstein-the-lone-genius-is-an-exception-to-the-rule-14998 [1]]: "American mathematical physicist-turned-hedge-fund-consultant Eric Weinstein is in the (very) early stages of revealing to the public his homemade theory of everything" (from The Conversation).

::::[https://www.ft.com/content/41f6f9ba-db82-4782-8ec0-bc952abb3836 [2]]: "says Eric Weinstein, a mathematical physicist and managing director at Thiel Capital" (from The Financial Times).

::::[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/may/23/eric-weinstein-answer-physics-problems [3]]: "Two years ago, a mathematician and physicist [i.e. Weinstein] whom I've known for more than 20 years arranged to meet me" (from The Guardian).

::::[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/intellectual-dark-web.html [4]]: "Eric Weinstein, a mathematician and managing director of Thiel Capital" (from The NYT).

::::But if, as you say, consensus has been reached on this matter, then I won't demur. I just found it absurd to call someone who hasn't posted any podcast episodes in 4 years a "podcast host", and thought "former podcast host, mathematical physicist, and investment fund director" was more appropriate. Just my $0.02. ComeAndHear (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

:::::Both the [https://archive.ph/XNTSk Financial Times] (which makes only a passing reference to Weinstein in an essay about COVID conspiracy theories) and [https://archive.ph/wpJi6 NYT] sources are opinion pieces, which are reliable only for the authors' opinions and should not be cited for BLPs. The [https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/may/23/eric-weinstein-answer-physics-problems Guardian article] is by Marcus du Sautoy, who is evidently a personal friend of Weinstein and has promoted his "Geometric Unity" theory, which raises WP:COISOURCE issues.{{pb}}The most reliable source linked above is probably [https://theconversation.com/einstein-to-weinstein-the-lone-genius-is-an-exception-to-the-rule-14998 The Conversation]. However, this predated his hiring at Thiel Capital, where he was managing director since at least 2017 [https://web.archive.org/web/20170725153522/https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/25/15998002/capitalism-socialism-peter-thiel-wall-street-eric-weinstein according to Vox]. That Vox interview and a 2017 [https://www.gq.com/story/eric-weinstein-pay-gap-women-hr article in GQ] also describe Weinstein as a "mathematician".{{pb}}I think the best descriptor here would be {{tqq|financial manager}} with the possible addition of {{tqq|mathematician}}. However, the latter term might unduly imply academic prestige. [https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/may/23/roll-over-einstein-meet-weinstein The Guardian noted] in 2013 that {{tqqi|Weinstein is in no way part of the academic physics community}}, having {{tqqi|left academia more than two decades ago}}, which would be shortly after getting his PhD from Harvard.{{pb}}The lead sentence should communicate a person's main reason(s) for notability as reported in independent, reliable, published sources. Due to his 2013 appearance at Oxford, Weinstein was famous as a [https://www.reuters.com/article/idUS3172763007/ "hedge fund manager"], [https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/may/23/roll-over-einstein-meet-weinstein "economist"], and [https://archive.ph/JGFYs "consultant"] with a background in mathematics who held fringe theories about physics long before he started a podcast. Are there more recent mainstream RSes describing Weinstein primarily as a podcast host? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC) {{small|edited 17:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)}}

::::::The current opening paragraph is more absurd than before in my opinion.

::::::Current text:

::::::Eric Ross Weinstein (/ˈwaɪnstaɪn/; born October 26, 1965) is an American financial manager. He was managing director for the American venture capital firm Thiel Capital, a position he held from 2013 until 2022.^{[citation needed]} He earned a PhD in mathematical physics from Harvard University in 1992.

::::::None of this explains his notability. He's not well known as a financial manager. He's not well known for his PhD attainment either. His twitter states "Interested in prebunked malinformation." with the selected category of "Entertainment & Recreation". His website https://ericweinstein.org/ just has his podcast on it. His main claim to notability I can see is for coining the term "intellectual dark web" and his podcast and podcast appearances. D1551D3N7 (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

:::::::Wikipedia is not a fan club or a résumé hosting service. Weinstein can put whatever he wants on his Twitter page and personal website, but we have to adhere to independent, reliable sources. There are a gaggle of published sources describing Weinstein as an [https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/may/23/roll-over-einstein-meet-weinstein economist], [https://archive.ph/JGFYs consultant], [https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3xbz4/eric-weinstein-says-he-solved-the-universes-mysteries-scientists-disagree managing director] of a venture capital firm, etc. Someone who knows more than me about that field could probably come up with a more descriptive term than "financial manager". However, Weinstein's academic background and role at various investing firms are the first things mentioned by published, reliable sources when describing him. Where are the {{em|independent}} RSes describing Weinstein mainly as a podcast host and/or guest? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

::::::::I'm okay with him being described as a financial manager or consultant etc but this doesn't change the fact that the lede does not clearly say why they are notable MOS:FIRSTBIO. If you look at the content of the articles none of them are about his successes as a financial consultant at Thiel, they're about COVID lab leak theories, his geometric unity theory, coining the IDW term or podcast appearances. I hate to compare him to Einstein but the opening paragraph for Einstein doesn't say "Einstein was a clerk at the patent office". I'm sure there's better examples of biographies where someone is notable for something that isn't just their primary occupation and those articles would state their reason for notability in the lede early on. D1551D3N7 (talk) 07:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::I agree he's probably most notable for the geometric unity theory. Only [https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3xbz4/eric-weinstein-says-he-solved-the-universes-mysteries-scientists-disagree Vice] covers his podcast appearances in any depth, and mainly in the context of the geometric unity theory itself. AFAIK the COVID-19 lab leak theory stuff was just a [https://archive.ph/XNTSk single opinion essay] quoting Weinstein in passing. Feel free to present additional sources that support your proposed addition. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

:::::::I agree that the opening paragraph is still absurd. It states that Weinstein is a financial manager, who as of 2021 is no longer a financial manager at Thiel Capital (which he was presumably notable for), without going on to specify how he's currently notable as a financial manager (i.e. post-2021). I think it's quite clear, as you say, that he's notable (at the very least) for his podcast and podcast appearances. For instance, [https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/534478-eric-weinstein-its-time-to-end-the-business-model-of-division/ this article] from The Hill, describes him not only as a "managing director", but also as the host of "The Portal" podcast. And as Sangdeboeuf mentioned, [https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3xbz4/eric-weinstein-says-he-solved-the-universes-mysteries-scientists-disagree Vice] covers his podcast appearances as well. ComeAndHear (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

::::::::The context of that coverage is important. In that Vice article, Weinstein is described as {{tqqi|primarily an investor, but also a self-styled public intellectual}} who is {{tqqi|the inventor of what he calls 'Geometric Unity,' a theory of everything}}. That's the context in which his appearances on Joe Rogan's show are mentioned. The invention of the theory should be given more weight than the specific venue he used to promote it.{{pb}}The article in The Hill is primarily a recap of an interview where Weinstein discussed political polarization in the US. It's probably worth a citation for Weinstein's podcast, but I wouldn't put it in the lead sentence, since it's just a passing mention.

::::::::Also, I'm not sure we have a citation for Weinstein no longer being with Thiel Capital, so I removed the word "former" from the infobox. Weinstein's {{em|current}} notability is not necessarily any different from his {{em|earlier}} notability, since notability is not temporary. Nor is it the same thing as fame or notoriety. FWIW, Weinstein's [https://web.archive.org/web/20240713094702/https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/galileo/people/eric-weinstein Galileo Project profile] still lists him as managing director of Thiel Capital as of 2024. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::Thank you for clarifying the guidelines around context and notability. I now understand the reasoning behind {{tq|investor and financial executive}}, as opposed to podcaster or podcast host.

:::::::::Regarding the word "former" in the infobox, I actually didn't notice it at all. I was referring moreso to the words {{tq|As of 2021, he was}} (in the past tense) in the lede. It sounds like the second sentence is saying that Weinstein was managing director at Thiel Capital, but as of 2021, no longer is. If, as you say, we don't have a citation for Weinstein no longer being with Thiel Capital, then wouldn't it be more appropriate, for the time being, to just say that {{tq|he is managing director for the American venture capital firm Thiel Capital}}, and to make the necessary corrections when we have RSs indicating the contrary? ComeAndHear (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::I read that sentence as meaning he was managing director {{em|in 2021}}. I've changed was to is, but kept the {{tl|As of}} template. Relative statements of time are prone to becoming outdated and introduce ambiguity as to the time frame indicated by the verb is. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

::::::::@ComeAndHear The Independent [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/jd-vance-children-women-audio-b2596492.html source] further adds notability: "Now, his appearance on ThePortal podcast with host Eric Weinstein in April 2020 has been thrust back into the limelight Vance spoke about his wife’s Indian family, noting that they emigrated to the US about a year before his wife, Usha Vance, was born." WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::I'm not sure that a passing reference in an article about an entirely different subject adds much WP:WEIGHT to the topic of Weinstein's podcast. There's no evaluation or interpretation of the fact that Weinstein had a podcast. The only reason this is in the news is that four years ago, he interviewed a person who happens to be running for vice-president today. (Weird how the story doesn't mention that both Vance and Weinstein worked for Peter Thiel at one time.) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Engagement between Weinstein and Thiel broke last year. Wiki trolls keep reverted this update. Mweewee (talk) 14:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

:They aren't trolls, they're just enforcing the Wikipedia policy and principle that everything needs to be properly sourced. It's a good idea (and required as part of the site guidelines) to assume other users are acting in good faith unless there is an obvious indication otherwise; two people both acting in good faith can disagree. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Weinstein is most famous for being a podcaster. Most people would not have heard if him if not for his podcast and appearances on other people's podcasts. Can we add him to podcasting-related categories?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

:@MagicatthemovieS {{done}} WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

::Sorry, I didn't notice {{ping|sangdebouf}}'s objection, but I think adding a category is a much lower bar than using the description in a short lead section. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

:As stated above, Weinstein was famous as a [https://www.reuters.com/article/idUS3172763007/ "hedge fund manager"], [https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/may/23/roll-over-einstein-meet-weinstein "economist"], and [https://archive.ph/JGFYs "consultant"] who had a fringe theory in physics long before he started a podcast. As late as 2021, Vice described him as [https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3xbz4/eric-weinstein-says-he-solved-the-universes-mysteries-scientists-disagree "primarily an investor"]. Please supply published, reliable sources that describe Weinstein primarily as a podcaster, as required by WP:CATDEF. Also, appearing on {{em|other}} people's podcasts is not the same as being a "podcaster". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

::@Sangdeboeuf From WP:CATDEF: "Be sure to include categories for all defining characteristics. For non-defining characteristics, editors should use their judgment to choose which additional categories (if any) to include." WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

:::In my judgement, we shouldn't be categorizing subjects based on dubious original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

::::I don't think the fact that Eric Weinstein is a podcast host is in any way uncertain but I will try to provide references anyway to counter this strange idea that it is somehow unfair to state that he is.

::::- "Eric Weinstein is an American podcast host and managing director of Thiel Capital." https://howthelightgetsin.org/festivals/winter/the-big-ideas/speakers/eric-weinstein

::::- "Eric Weinstein is a mathematician, economist, public speaker, podcast host, and ..." https://podcasts.apple.com/pg/podcast/eric-weinstein/id350580455?i=1000661092842

::::- "Eric Ross Weinstein is an American mathematician, economist, and podcast host." https://www.jrepodcast.com/guest/eric-weinstein/

::::- "A podcast hosted by Eric Weinstein" https://ericweinstein.org/

::::- "Now, his appearance on ThePortal podcast with host Eric Weinstein" https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/jd-vance-children-women-audio-b2596492.html

::::Per WP:BLPSELFPUB we can use Eric as a source for the fact he is a podcast host because its "not unduly self-serving", "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" and "the article is not based primarily on such sources." D1551D3N7 (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

:::::No one is saying we can't mention that Weinstein is a podcast host. in fact the article already does so under {{alink|Other ventures}}. This is about whether reliable sources {{em|commonly and consistently}} refer to Weinstein as a podcast host for purposes of categorization. Other people's self-published podcasts and a blurb written by the subject himself are not independent, reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

::::::What is it about putting Eric in the American podcasters category that irks you? I don't understand. I have already explained why for this specific fact the blurb about himself or his own website is sufficient for the fact he is a podcaster but you choose to ignore me.

::::::The article already states he is a podcast host as you have pointed out, you even AGREE that he is a podcast host therefore should he not be in the podcaster category? Being in the category does not prevent him from being in other categories. D1551D3N7 (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

:::::::I ignored the part of your comment that was irrelevant to the issue, and explained that your sources are not suitable for categorization purposes. I've already mentioned the problem as I see it with using non-defining characteristics. Here's another: this page is an encyclopedia article, not Weinstein's personal fan club page. The fact that some people here seem to be fans of "Eric" as you call him does not mean that every minor thing he does is relevant. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

How can this theory predict 150 new subatomic particles, if it doesn't even have any equations? If the theory is making predictions, then it can be evaluated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.37.174 (talk) 10:39, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:Are you suggesting that Jim al-Khalili, Edward Frenkel, and David E. Kaplan, among others, are just lying when they say GU contains no equations and cannot be experimentally verified? No offense, but I'll take the word of professional scientists over random Wikipedia editors any day. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)