Talk:Eric Weinstein

"Podcast host" in lede

Thread retitled from 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 is not a physicist and is no longer an active academician, but is an Entertainer and host of The Portal podcast.

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 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:

[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).

[2]: "says Eric Weinstein, a mathematical physicist and managing director at Thiel Capital" (from The Financial Times).

[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).

[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 Financial Times (which makes only a passing reference to Weinstein in an essay about COVID conspiracy theories) and NYT sources are opinion pieces, which are reliable only for the authors' opinions and should not be cited for BLPs. The 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.

The most reliable source linked above is probably The Conversation. However, this predated his hiring at Thiel Capital, where he was managing director since at least 2017 according to Vox. That Vox interview and a 2017 article in GQ also describe Weinstein as a "mathematician".

I think the best descriptor here would be financial manager with the possible addition of mathematician. However, the latter term might unduly imply academic prestige. The Guardian noted in 2013 that Weinstein is in no way part of the academic physics community, having left academia more than two decades ago, which would be shortly after getting his PhD from Harvard.

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 "hedge fund manager", "economist", and "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) 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 economist, consultant, 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 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 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 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, 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, 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 primarily an investor, but also a self-styled public intellectual who is 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.

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 current notability is not necessarily any different from his earlier notability, since notability is not temporary. Nor is it the same thing as fame or notoriety. FWIW, Weinstein's 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 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 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 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 in 2021. I've changed was to is, but kept the {{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)

I don't know if this is still being discussed a year or so hence but Eric Weinstein has updated his LinkedIn profile so that it appears as though he is no longer Managing Director at Thiel Capital, it reads 2013-2022 for his employment there as Managing Director. For other ongoing employment or positions his LinkedIn profile reads, "(year) - Present." A man named Jack Selby is listed as the current Managing Director for Thiel Capital. Possibly they have more than one Managing Director? And possibly Eric Weinstein still works there in some other capacity but there is nothing indicating that. Griffinmills (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

@ComeAndHear The Independent 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)

The Wall Street Journal does describe Weinstein as a podcaster and former managing director at Thiel Capital, so I've added that description to the lead section. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Podcaster?

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 @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 "hedge fund manager", "economist", and "consultant" who had a fringe theory in physics long before he started a podcast. As late as 2021, Vice described him as "primarily an investor". Please supply published, reliable sources that describe Weinstein primarily as a podcaster, as required by WP:CATDEF. Also, appearing on 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 § Other ventures. This is about whether reliable sources 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)

See my latest comment under § "Podcast host" in lede, above. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Equations and predictions

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)

Why was my addition reverted?

i cited the actual paper, which makes the actual statement more clear

https://geometricunity.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/Geometric_Unity-Draft-April-1st-2021.pdf

can i refer you to wikipedias rules:

Wikipedia:Reliable sources DarkShroom (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

the media source you're choosing to use is deliberatly missleading as if to say Eric Weinstein conciders his work as "entertainment"... he says to concider this draft a "work of entertainment", you can't say that the a media article is literally more reliable than from the horses mouth, the actual quote which i linked — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkShroom (talk • contribs) 11:52, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

What Wikipedia:Reliable sources actually says is Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates to or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. The Vice article is one such secondary source, whereas Weinstein himself is a primary source.

Wikipedia doesn't exist to promote an agenda, especially fringe pseudoscience and self-serving claims, which is why we don't just parrot primary sources. That would give Weinstein's claims undue weight. Those are the rules.

The article literally uses the phrase "work of entertainment", so this argument seems pointless. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

@DarkShroom: Please re-read WP:RSPRIMARY, which clearly states that secondary sources are generally preferred over primary sources. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:24, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

the secondary media source "promotes an agenda" as it takes the quote out of context so as to misslead the reader. The full quote is:

"This work of entertainment is a draft of work in progress which is the property of the author and thus may not be built upon, renamed, or profited from without express permission of the author."

the appropiate honest quote so as not to manipulate the reader or to deal with the standard manipulation stratergy of an outlet like vice:

""This work of entertainment is a draft of work in progress" (a whole 6 extra lines)

Vice, are not concidered a Physics jourrnal or a reliable source, they are a media outlet as you can see obviously they are trying to misslead the reader. This is the main typical reason you can't rely on wikipedia anymore (extensive sourcing from unreliable media outlets) because if you read the article you think that he is working on an entertainment, he is not. Whether you think it is "fringe", and actually i'm not convinced one way or the other personally, what i have been misslead on reading your article is the intentions of the author DarkShroom (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how quoting it as a "work of entertainment" misleads the reader in any way, that is literally what Weinstein described it as way to weasel out of any real rigorous scrutiny - a Motte-and-bailey defense. He wants it both ways - to be taken seriously but then "oh its unfinished", "oh it's just a work of entertainment" when anyone tries to investigate it or test it. D1551D3N7 (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

you are deflecting the argument, it's not really any sort of place for wikipedia to make judgements about that... Vice is a tabloid journal with an absolute terrible reputation for factual accuracy and quite obviously using a deliberate stratergy to quote out three words to misslead the reader

whether Weinstein is doing that as a stratergy as you say that's for the wikipedia reader to decide.. from given presented facts... can't you at least find a source without the absolute dire reputation of Vice? DarkShroom (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the reliability of WP:VICE. If you think it's unreliable in this specific context, you're welcome to open a discussion at WP:RS/N. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Vice, are not concidered [sic] a Physics jourrnal [sic] – that's OK, since by his own admission Weinstein is not a physicist, and the quote This work of entertainment is a draft of work in progress has nothing to do with physics. The Guardian, New Scientist, and Scientific American, the other main sources cited in this section, are not physics journals either. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC) edited 17:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

most these arguments seem designed to deflect from my point, so okay put simply:

"This work of entertainment is a draft of work in progress" has a radically altered meaning from "This work of entertainment" you agree?

so why is the article here simply parroting from Vice? I came here to find out about this, it seemed obvious that the wikipedia article is inconsistant with Eric Weinstein's claims. I see it's Vice being taken as the source, so naturally have to fact check... now we have to waste every other reader's time and can't even provide them a link to the paper itself why?

you seem to be doing this with such voracity, and also defending other issues here, it's almost like you get paid to do this. It wouldn't hurt to provide the wikipedia reader context but no it must be a complete parotting of the vice article DarkShroom (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Weinstein can claim whatever he likes; the fact remains that geometric unity is a fringe theory according to recognized experts in physics. It's not our job to interpret the meaning of primary sources. That's what reliable, secondary sources are for. It would be fine to add a link to Weinstein's paper under § Further reading. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Geometric Unity section

Thread retitled from Geometric Unity section is undue.

The section on "Geometric Unity" is far too long. A long description of a fringe theory and a longer discussion of how it just a fringe theory does not belong in Wikipedia. This is all we need:

• In May 2013 Weinstein was invited to give a lecture at Oxford University's Clarendon Laboratory where he presented his theory called "Geometric Unity." The talk and followup podcast was covered in the popular press.

Add as many of the numerous redundant sources as needed. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I guess you mean the followup paper; there was no podcast specifically about GU. Covered in the popular press is far too vague. How was it covered? Who were the subject-matter experts who commented on it, and what did they have to say? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

The article says "appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience to discuss it" isn't that a podcast?

You could add a few words, but, no, we do not need to list everyone that the marketing folks for the podcasts contacted for comments. No we don't need to detail how it was covered beyond a representative example. The level of detail here is far beyond what is needed to summarize the knowledge about this fringe theory and the popular press reaction. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

This does not concern marketing folks for the podcasts. The article summarizes the responses of various notable physicists as reported on in the mainstream press. Feel free to present which one you think is a representative example and why. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Here is my summary. It's still too long given that the sources here are all citing each other and they have very little impact otherwise.

----

In May 2013, mathematician Marcus du Sautoy invited Weinstein to give a lecture at Oxford University's Clarendon Laboratory on a theory called "Geometric Unity"; Sautoy also wrote an overview for the The Guardian newspaper. Physicists David Kaplan and Jim al-Khalili as well as Joseph Conlon of Oxford express skepticism. Science writer Jennifer Ouellette criticized the favorable coverage given to the theory by The Guardian, arguing that experts could not properly evaluate Weinstein's ideas without a published paper. In April 2021, Weinstein self-published a paper on Geometric Unity on his podcast site and appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience to discuss it. In the paper, Weinstein stated that he was "not a physicist" and that the paper was a "work of entertainment". According to Vice, the paper generated "new interest in Geometric Unity and intense criticism from scientists who remain unconvinced".

Johnjbarton (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Losing the quotations from Easther and Nguyen makes the text less substantial and more he said/he said, in my opinion. I'd rather keep those and lose the bland remark from Vice. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I put my content in, swapping the Vice quote for Easther; I omitted Nguyen as not notable. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I restored the statement "[Physicists] criticized Weinstein and du Sautoy for not publishing any equations related to the theory, which is a normal part of scholarly peer review [...]" This is one of the most well-supported aspects of the reception to GU and is entirely WP:DUE. Otherwise, I agree the condensed version reads better and is more appropriate to the topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

That looks like a good restoration. I also agree that the condensed version now is a more appropriate treatment. Thanks. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

One thing we should cut is the passage beginning "Weinstein posits that..." at the end of the first paragraph. A pop-science news item is not a sufficient source for technical, mathematical details. And, in this particular case, the proposal in question is so incomplete that it is dubious whether we can say it "predicts" anything. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

References