Talk:Stephen Wolfram

Ruthless undermining and bad habits of stealthy recording business partners

Mathematica's Wolfram sued, accused of secretly recording calls

"SWolfram has been sued by a former CEO of one of his companies who alleges he promised a stake in the firm and then reneged."

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20141104/NEWS04/141109944/mathematica-s-wolfram-sued-for-allegedly-reneging-on-partnership-promise

He plays many of his business partners and associates against one another. Soupnero (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

"before he had earned his undergraduate degree"

It says earlier in the text that he never actually earned an undergraduate degree and left Oxford early:

"by the time he had earned his undergraduate degree, he had published ten such papers"

Is the phrasing just incorrect then? 87.150.85.110 (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Gaps in Wolfram physics

I've noticed that the section on Wolfram's physics project is pretty scant, especially descriptions of its (largely negative) critical reception. I've prepared a revision of the section if any would be interested. Cavanbgon (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

RFC Proposal to update lead and body to reflect DOJ EFTA disclosures

I am proposing a brief mention in the lead regarding the DOJ EFTA releases to summarize a new "Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein" section. I have used neutral language ("past associations" and "public scrutiny") to comply with WP:NPOV and linked it directly to the factual section below.

Following the 2026 release of Department of Justice records, Wolfram's past associations with Jeffrey Epstein received public scrutiny. Thumberwartz (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

• Don't include. The WP:BLPPRIMARY policy issue is decisive here. But even if it weren't the emails between Wolfram's assistant and Epstein's really don't show any meaningful association between the two. At most, they show that the two people may have met at one point, but we don't know the circumstances of that meeting (e.g., a meeting at a social function, or indeed whether it occured at all), and there is no evidence that a follow-up meeting actually took place. Indeed, the most straightforward read of a meeting that was repeatedly delayed and rescheduled by Wolfram's office is that it never did take place. But as I said in the beginning, all of this is kind of irrelevant: it merely serves to underscore why we have strict policies around the use of primary sources in BLP articles. Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:41, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Sławomir, your argument rests on a subjective determination of what is "meaningful" which is a direct violation of WP:OR (Original Research). On Wikipedia, we do not act as judge and jury to decide if a documented meeting "likely never took place."

1. Addressing WP:BLPPRIMARY: The DOJ EFTA releases are official, unclassified government records. While policy cautions against using primary sources to make interpretive claims, it does not bar the mention of verifiable, high-profile public records.
2. Neutrality (WP:NPOV): The proposed text does not allege a "close relationship." It neutrally states that records of contact were released. To exclude these records entirely while the same files are being used to update the biographies of other public figures is a failure of WP:DUE.
3. The "Meaningful" Fallacy: It is not the role of an editor to weigh the significance of a request for personal contact info or a scheduled meeting. If the records exist, we report them. Excluding them based on personal intuition is a form of editorial sanitization. Thumberwart0 (talk) 09:23, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

My "argument" relies on nothing of the sort. The content violates black-letter policy. Absent secondary sources, we have nothing but "subjective determination" to go by. This, by itself, is a strong argument for exclusion: it highl8ghts why the policy exists in the first place! Sławomir Biały (talk) 09:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Sławomir, claiming your argument 'relies on nothing of the sort' is a circular contradiction: you are using a personal, interpretative dismissal of the records' significance to preemptively declare them 'meaningless,' which is the very 'subjective determination' you claim to avoid. By substituting your own analysis for the existence of the records, you are engaging in editorial gatekeeping rather than adhering to WP:DUE weight. Thumberwart0 (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I am not making an argument of any sort. Your proposed content violates black-letter policy. Period. That is not a subjective opinion. I gave you my read of the primary sources, and on my reading, they fall well short of anything suitable for this article. But that isn't the argument: it is a justification for not making an extraordinary exception to the policy here. I.e., not only does the policy demand secondary sources, but the reason to be so insistent is clear: there is no there there. As for DUE weight, if you believe that some secondary sources are not adequately represented, you should present them. If there are no secondary sources, I suggest you reflect on why that is the case. Wikipedia isn't the place to break news, particularly regarding living persons. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Sławomir, you claim there is 'no there there,' yet you admit to giving the records your own 'read.' By deciding they 'fall short,' you are performing the very WP:OR you accuse me of. You are asking for secondary sources to 'interpret' the records, but as a matter of WP:NPOV, we do not need a journalist's permission to note a decade-long (2009-2019) span of documented contact in an official federal release.Thumberwart0 (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Without prejudice, and solely to eliminate any residual ambiguity:

(1) I did not, at any time, allege that you have committed WP:OR as that term is operative for purposes of article-space inclusion. To the contrary, my position is that the dispositive defect is antecedent to (and independent of) any dispute about interpretation: the proposed content is barred on sourcing grounds.

(2) Your characterization that we do not "need a journalist’s permission" is, in practical effect, incorrect under the controlling BLP framework. For contentious, guilt-by-association material about a living person, Wikipedia requires—as a condition precedent to inclusion—independent, reliable secondary sources that (i) discuss the matter in relation to the subject, and (ii) thereby establish notability and due weight. Absent such sources, we do not "note" a decade-long span of primary documents merely because they exist.

(3) The primary/public records you cite are, ipso facto, inadequate to carry the proposed biographical assertion(s) in this context. WP:BLPPRIMARY (read together with the general WP:BLP sourcing regime) operates as a prohibitory rule here: do not use public documents to support assertions about a living person on a contentious topic, except under extreme caution and typically only where reliable secondary sources have already framed the matter.

(4) Accordingly, if you contend that inclusion is warranted, the burden is straightforward: identify and provide the relevant independent reliable secondary sources. If such sources exist, list them and we can assess (a) whether they actually address Wolfram, (b) whether they confer due weight, and (c) what the least-undue placement and wording would be. If no such sources exist, that absence is itself dispositive.

(5) My prior discussion of the contents of the primary documents was not offered as the operative basis for exclusion. It was offered only as an explanatory justification for refusing to create an extraordinary exception—i.e., to illustrate why the policy’s strictness is not an arbitrary formalism in this particular fact-pattern. You may disregard my reading entirely; doing so changes nothing about the policy outcome.

(6) Finally: while original analysis is not categorically forbidden on talk pages as discussion, such analysis does not transmute otherwise noncompliant sourcing into compliant sourcing, nor does it supply the missing secondary coverage required for BLP inclusion. The absence of qualifying secondary sources remains the decisive point.

In sum: no secondary sources have been provided; therefore the proposal remains non-actionable under BLP. Any request to set that aside would require an exceptionally strong showing, which has not been made. Sławomir Biały (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Sławomir, your Point 2 is a fabrication of policy. WP:BLPPRIMARY mandates "extreme caution," not a "journalist's permission" or a "condition precedent" for inclusion. By using your own read (Point 5) to declare the records "meaningless", you are performing the exact Original Research you claim to avoid. You are attempting to weaponize BLP as a gag order to suppress a verifiable, federal news event, which violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED. The existence of the records is a descriptive fact, not an "assertion," and your personal threshold for "significance" is not a substitute for Wikipedia's verifiability standards. I am proceeding with a neutral, descriptive mention of the DOJ release.Thumberwart0 (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

@Thumberwart0, help us understand this.

You say: These are "public records", so (you claim) we can use them.

BLPPRIMARY says: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person", so other editors think we can't use them.

Are you trying to argue that these "public records" are somehow not "public documents"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, your reading of WP:BLPPRIMARY dilutes two distinct things: using a document to support an assertion vs. reporting the existence of the document. The policy says: 'Do not use... public documents to support assertions about a living person.' I am not asserting that Wolfram is a criminal or that the meetings were nefarious. I am proposing we report the administrative fact of the 2026 DOJ EFTA release. A 'public record' of a contact request is a historical event. Reporting that 'the DOJ released records detailing contact' is an assertion about the DOJ's actions, not a character judgment on Wolfram.Thumberwart0 (talk) 06:54, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

@Thumberwart0, GPTZero says that it is "highly confident" that your comment was AI-generated. If you are using an AI or LLM to generate your arguments, please read WP:LLMTALK. This is expressly forbidden and may cause your arguments to be discarded from this discussion. We want to hear what you have to say, not what your chatbot has to say. CodeTalker (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

CodeTalker, while I am flattered that my predisposition for structured logic mirrors an LLM's, these are my own arguments. I suggest we focus on the WP:BLP merits rather than speculating on my drafting process. The latter is a distraction from the editorial impasse.Thumberwart0 (talk) 06:52, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• Don't include: First here is my 3Opinion from below copied and pasted I have looked through the discussion and the policies again and I am of the 3rd Opinion that placing the paragraph that was added and removed twice sourced only to the primary sources cited in this discussion is inappropriate on this page. If this was on an article about the documents and there was a list of every figure with a Wikipedia article whose name is in the released documents then a one sentence mention would be acceptable. Because this is a charged and fraught topic compared to something like "When is Stephen's birthday?" I think it is important to have that secondary source that says "Hey this connection is actually important" before it is added. I would like to add a bit of policy from the BLP page which I think is important: When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. This is the last sentence in the WP:BLPSOURCE section. I think a valuable comparison to make is with Stephen Hawking. The section in his biography has 6 (six) secondary sources that talk about how the only mention of him is when he emailed Epstein to publicly disprove rumors that he was implicated; I don't need six but I would certainly like at least one secondary source. There are 3 million pages with probably tens of thousands of names (idk guessing) so it might take a little while for reporters to dig through everything but they will get there if there is something Notable.

On the topic of WP:BLPPRIMARY, that is a restrictive policy not a permissive policy so it's not really allowing us to do anything and the rest of WP:BLP still applies and I think the phrase "relationship with Jeffrey Epstein" is (at this time) contentious so it needs to be backed up by a strong source and I don't think primary sources are appropriate for that job. Moritoriko (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Don't include, bad RFC - per WP:WRFC, [t]he RfC question should not include arguments supporting or opposing any particular outcome, unless included as part of a brief summary of all sides of the argument. Your own opinions should be posted in a separate comment, not in the question itself. [...] Poorly written questions can reduce the perceived authority of the RfC result, increase the chance that other editors will misunderstand the question, and make it harder for the closer to assess consensus. As to the meat of the question, WP:BLPPRIMARY says that extreme caution must be used, and WP:BLPPUBLIC says that If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. Until we have those multiple, independent, and reliable sources talking about Wolfram's association with Epstein, WP:BLP suggests leaving this information out. Also, having a whole section titled #Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein that boils down to "Wolfram and Epstein corresponded and met" violates WP:UNDUE: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to [...] prominence of placement. If independent, reliable sources begin to discuss their association, without additional allegations appearing, this level of association would be better suited to a subsection. mdm.bla 16:32, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  I acknowledge the procedural critique regarding WP:WRFC. My intent was to provide clarity on the proposed text, but I accept that the framing could have been more neutral. In the interest of building consensus and adhering strictly to WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, I propose the following compromises:

  • 'Relationship' may imply a level of intimacy not supported by the primary records. I am moving to replace all instances with 'documented associations' or 'professional contact,' which is a neutral, descriptive fact of the DOJ EFTA records.

  • While you cite the need for multiple third-party sources, WP:BLPPUBLIC specifically targets 'allegations.' The DOJ EFTA release is an administrative fact, not an allegation of misconduct.

  • While WP:BLPPRIMARY cautions against using court records to support 'assertions' about a person's character, it does not bar the mention of the records' existence. By listing the specific items (the 2011 voicemail and 2012 contact request), we are reporting unclassified government facts. We are not 'breaking news.' We are documenting a public release that has already occurred.

  • You correctly noted that a standalone top-level section may violate WP:UNDUE. I propose instead placing a brief, a brief, three-sentence subsection within 'Professional Affiliations' or 'External Contacts'. This avoids the 'prominence of placement' issue while ensuring the article remains comprehensive. This placement reflects the nature of the records,administrative scheduling, without giving them top-level prominence

  • If we omit a decade-long span of documented contact (2009-2019) found in official DOJ files, we are essentially saying that Wikipedia only reports 'favorable' administrative history. That is a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED and creates an imbalanced biography. This draft is clinical, date-specific, and avoids any 'allegations' not found in the primary text.

  The proposed change is this.

  Following the January 2026 Department of Justice release of records under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the article should note documented points of contact between Wolfram and Jeffrey Epstein from 2009 to 2019. These administrative records include a 2011 voicemail left at Wolfram’s residence by Epstein's staff regarding a meeting, a 2012 request from Wolfram's office for Epstein’s personal contact information, and internal references to previous meetings.

  This content would be placed as a subsection under 'External Contacts' or 'Professional Affiliations' to ensure WP:DUE. It adheres to WP:BLPPUBLIC by providing a summary of the records without drawing conclusions. It avoids the 'meaningful association' by sticking to verifiable administrative actions: a voicemail, a request for information, and a date range. To exclude these specific details while the records are in the public domain would be an act of editorial suppression of documented facts.Thumberwart0 (talk) 06:34, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• Don't include, of course. These documents are in the same "do not use" category as trial transcripts. If and when reliable secondary sources interpret for us, then the discussion of the secondary sources can be included. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  Russ, the DOJ EFTA release is distinct from trial transcripts. The latter contains contested testimony, while the former contains unclassified administrative logs. Stating that these logs exist is a neutral report of a public event, not an 'interpretation' of character. To wait for secondary sources to 'bless' the existence of a government document is a form of WP:CENSORSHIP that leaves the biography incomplete. I have refined the text to be a purely descriptive summary of the records to ensure zero interpretive bias. Thumberwart0 (talk) 06:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Neutral, but since this concerns BLP, (default: don’t include) feel free to interpret that as don’t include unless there’s a decent amount of people here who think this passes the bar. Slomo666 (talk) 08:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  Slomo666, the 'bar' for inclusion is satisfied by the shift from biographical interpretation to administrative documentation. By using strictly neutral language ('documented points of contact') and placing it in a minor subsection, we fulfill our duty to WP:NPOV without violating the safety of WP:BLP. Excluding verifiable DOJ records creates a sanitization bias that is just as problematic as undue weight.Thumberwart0 (talk) 06:38, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  Dear Thunderwart, I am not experienced enough in the sphere of BLP, which is why I made my comment a form of conditional consent.

  That said, I have now looked a bit more into the discussion than I had when I was merely responding to to the feedback request bot:

  your text “recieved public scrutiny” should be backed up by secondary sources. If you cannot do this, it is already not notable. The kind of sources this would need are newspaper articles that essentially say the same thing you are alleging. (*that* it received scrutiny. The publication itself scrutinising would not be enough to make this statement.)

  As for “associations with” and the use of a link there, I think that is a separate discussion entirely. The section to link to must be entirely (and separately) notable and adequately sourced. If that is the case, the exact phrasing used in the wikilink is ancillary. (But may still be subject to debate)

  Looking at what other editors (who I assume know more than I do) have said in this thread, I fear the conditions I have given for my consent (the “bar”, so to speak) have not been met. (Not a single editor besides yourself stated they think this is acceptable)

  I think it is sad. You seem unwilling to work with the people criticising your plans. If what you want to say is notable, it should be possible to find secondary sources for it. You have been provided a third opinion, and you rejected it. Rather than using this (kindly worded, constructive) input, you resorted to calling an RfC, without trying other means of dispute resolution.

  I do not think this is how we form consensus on Wikipedia.

  Please reconsider. As others have said, we may have the sources we need in the future. (Perhaps we already do, but the onus is on you to find them). I strongly urge you to back out, consent to a unanimous closure of the RfC, and to find sources for your change. That will save everyone a lot of time. I do not think this RfC is a useful endeavour.

  Slomo666 (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support if provided with evidence from a reliable source, otherwise oppose. Reasoning should be self-explanatory. Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  Wikieditor662, the evidence provided is the official 2026 DOJ EFTA release. Per WP:RS, government records are the definitive source for documenting administrative actions (like the 2011 voicemail and 2012 contact requests mentioned). By sticking to a clinical summary of these files, we provide the 'reliable evidence' you requested without venturing into speculative interpretation.Thumberwart0 (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  But aren't these primary sources? Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• Don't include. I checked Google News and found no independent reliable sources mentioning this. (I assume it's too early to be finding books/other slower sources.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  WhatamIdoing, the 'Google News' test is not a policy requirement for inclusion. The DOJ EFTA release is a verifiable, official event. To omit documented administrative facts (2009-2019) while waiting for secondary 'interpretation' creates a sanitization bias. I have moved to a clinical, record-based draft that satisfies WP:V without needing a third-party news filter.Thumberwart0 (talk) 06:40, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• Don't include if the only source is DoJ records. This clearly violates WP:BLPPRIMARY. If reliable secondary sources become available this can be reevaluated.
  The OP's arguments show a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies, such as saying "If the records exist, we report them". Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and it is absolutely the role of editors to weigh the significance of information and decide whether it belongs in the encyclopedia. CodeTalker (talk) 05:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  CodeTalker, while I agree Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection, WP:DUE requires that we do not omit verifiable, significant public records to the point of sanitization. By moving the content to a minor subsection and sticking to a strictly descriptive summary of the DOJ EFTA logs, we respect WP:BLPPRIMARY by avoiding interpretive assertions while fulfilling our duty to provide a complete, neutral biography. Significant? Yes, the significance is derived from the duration of the contact (>5 years) and the official nature of the DOJ release. These are not leaked rumors; they are authenticated government records. To deem a federal record of this nature 'insignificant' is a subjective editorial judgment that facilitates biography sanitization. Thumberwart0 (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  No, that is not what WP:DUE says. WP:DUE includes nothing about "sanitization". It instructs us that Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Here, there are no reliable sources, because WP:BLP rules out using the DOJ releases directly. There are no viewpoints to represent. Your own subjective evaluation of the "significance" cannot override basic Wikipedia policy.

  Since you have replied to every other editor who has voiced an opinion here, please be aware that you may be seen as bludgeoning the discussion. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

• Do not include. The proposed addition fails WP:BLPPRIMARY, obviously, evidently, manifestly. Wikipedia is not a forum to try and raise the salience of a particular person appearing in the Epstein files, and it is not the place to record every name that shows up there. Articles like Martin Nowak and Seth Lloyd demonstrate what is necessary in order to have an "Association with Jeffrey Epstein" section. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein

In January 2026, the Department of Justice released records under the Epstein Files Transparency Act detailing contact between Wolfram and Epstein from 2009 to 2019. The documents include a 2011 exchange where Epstein's assistant recorded leaving a voicemail at Wolfram's home residence to coordinate a same-day meeting. Other records include a 2012 meeting request for a visit at Harvard, in which an assistant described the two as having met on previous occasions, and a request from Wolfram for Epstein's personal contact information.

Policy Justification

I disagree with the potential removal of this content based on the following Wikipedia policies:

• **WP:PRIMARY**: Policy specifically allows for primary sources to be used for "straightforward, descriptive statements of fact that can be verified by any educated person." The DOJ records explicitly list meeting dates and the request for a home voicemail. These are not interpretations; they are documented events.
• **WP:BLP**: While BLP policy is strict, it does not mandate the exclusion of verifiable public records. By using neutral, non-judgmental language ("past associations," "recorded contact"), the text avoids **WP:LIBEL** and **WP:EDITORIALIZING** concerns.
• **WP:NOTABLE**: The **Epstein Files Transparency Act** (EFTA) is a matter of significant public record and congressional mandate. The disclosure of a subject's association within these specific files meets the threshold for biographical inclusion as it has "received public scrutiny."

I have avoided any **original research** or synthesis by not drawing conclusions about the nature of these meetings. I invite further discussion on how to phrase this neutrally rather than a blanket removal of verifiable government records. Thumberwartz (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2026 (UTC) Thumberwartz (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Using public documents as primary sources is ruled out by WP:BLPPRIMARY. If the subject had significant connections with Epstein, Wikipedia must wait for secondary sources before determining whether and how to cover it. ~2026-79479-1 (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

While WP:BLPPRIMARY typically cautions against adversarial court records, these DOJ disclosures under the Epstein Files Transparency Act are mandated public records that provide the "straightforward, descriptive statements of fact" expressly permitted by WP:PRIMARY. My proposed text already adheres to WP:NPOV by using strictly clinical language ("recorded contact," "meeting request") without drawing inferences, thereby satisfying WP:BLP's requirement to avoid editorializing. Insisting on a secondary source for a verified, high-profile DOJ event is an over-application of policy that creates an omission of significant, publicly mandated data; let's focus on the wording rather than a total blackout of verifiable records. <span data-dtsignatureforswitching="1"></span> Thumberwart0 (talk) 08:23, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Since we are at a stalemate regarding the application of WP:BLPPRIMARY vs. WP:PRIMARY, I am going to request a Third Opinion to help us reach consensus. I believe the neutral, descriptive nature of the DOJ records justifies inclusion, but a neutral third party will help clarify the policy application. Thumberwart0 (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Good idea, I support a third opinion. ~2026-65122-5 (talk) 08:36, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I have looked through the discussion and the policies again and I am of the 3rd Opinion that placing the paragraph that was added and removed twice sourced only to the primary sources cited in this discussion is inappropriate on this page. If this was on an article about the documents and there was a list of every figure with a Wikipedia article whose name is in the released documents then a one sentence mention would be acceptable. Because this is a charged and fraught topic compared to something like "When is Stephen's birthday?" I think it is important to have that secondary source that says "Hey this connection is actually important" before it is added. 13:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC) Moritoriko (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

your input is appreciated but given the complexity of the WP:BLPPRIMARY policy here,

I believe this requires a broader community consensus. I am escalating this to a formal

Request for Comment (RfC) to ensure a wider range of perspectives.Thumberwart0 (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)