Talk:Lex Fridman/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Reception Section

The following sentence should be removed from the reception section. I'll do it myself but I'm giving the few users determined to boost a particular perspective time to argue otherwise. The rest of the section is fair, though it should probably be reordered and expanded.

According to research experts interviewed by Business Insider in April 2023, Fridman "lacks the publications, citations and conference appearances required to be taken seriously in the hypercompetitive world of academia".

This statement has numerous problems. First, it is vague and subjective. What does "taken seriously" mean? This is just an insult. Fridman is currently employed by a university as a research scientist. Does this qualify as being "taken seriously" by academia? Is being a tenured professor the only way to succeed in academia? There's no way to make this determination because the statement is just an expression of subjective derision in a WP:BLP.

It asserts that he lacks "publications, citations and conference appearances". According to Google Scholar, Fridman has ~2000 citations. This is not exceptional but it's not nothing, and given that context the statement misleadingly implies he barely any.

The attribution of this quote is questionable. First, it is anonymous. Secondly, what is a "research expert". This is not a term used in academia. Also, the article attributes it to "experts" plural, but it reads like a quote from a single person. WP:BLP can do better than a questionable anonymous quote in an attack article.

The language of this sentence violates WP:BLP in multiple ways. It lacks precision and uses loaded language, when the policy requires that a person be commonly described that way in reliable sources. I am not aware of any other source that describes Fridman this way, other than the Business Insider article, which seems solely devoted to make him look as bad as possible. Chase Kanipe (talk) 11:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Chase Kanipe – this wasn't an "anonymous quote" (your words in your edit summary). It is a quote that can be attributed to Julia Black. It isn't up to you to evaluate which critique should not be included just because you do not like it, nor for you to make up your own analysis or arguments about the number of citations he has had. Likely compared to peers his own age, his research output is not impressive. "solely devoted to make him look as bad as possible"?? Hmm that's your opinion (!) and it is starting to look like you are WP:WHITEWASHING. Wikipedia allows for inclusion on sources deemed reliable, and this source has already been discussed on a noticeboard where consensus was gained that it was acceptable. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

You seem to think that a source being deemed reliable warrants the inclusion of any statement from it. It is not the job of WP:BLP to aggregate every negative statement made about a person in a reliable source. Doing so can result in an article that violates WP:BLP or WP:NPOV, as I have argued is the case here.

You misunderstand my objection. I did not argue against the inclusion of the Business Insider article, as you alleged. As I said before, the other uses of this source in the article are fair. I argued against the inclusion of this particular sentence, because it is an imprecise expression of derision that probably violates both WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.

You have described this quote as "criticism". If it was a criticism, I would not object to including it. It's not a criticism, it's an insult. I ask you again, what does "taken seriously" mean. This phrase is more than an assessment of his research record, it derides him as a person. If this derision was repeated in multiple reliable sources perhaps it would be notable enough to warrant inclusion, but the judgement is only expressed in a single source and is sourced to anonymous "research experts". As written it fails to conform to an impartial encyclopedic tone.

You have stated that "it isn't up to you to evaluate which critique should not be included". Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate compilation of information. You're correct it isn't up to me, it is up to a consensus of Wikipedia editors to make considered judgements about how to conform articles to Wikipedia policy, which is why I started this conversation here and given reasons this sentence is not up to standard. Chase Kanipe (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I argued against the inclusion of this particular sentence – that isn't a convincing argument. It's just you doing your own analysis, which isn't how Wikipedia works. If it's a quote from a reliable source, it's allowed to be included. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Wiki's rules are more layered than that. Not every quote from a reliable source is allowed to be included. Bobby Lawndale (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep it out until there is clear consensus to include (as for me I am on the remove side). The burden on inclusion is on the editor seeking to add it. I looked just now and the content has already been removed (or I missed it when I just looked). WP:BI is not a generally speaking reliable source and thus should not be used for this sort of controversial criticism, WP:NOCRIT and WP:BLPRESTORE apply, do not re-add without consensus. The arguments above that this is not criticism is laughable, its not a notable person making this statement, nor is it a notable publication, it is simply a junk website writing a hit piece and we do not include such junk on wikipedia, there is already plenty of policy on this. If you still disagree, run an RFC (I suspect it will fail miserably, but you never know...) Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  "The arguments above that this is not criticism is laughable" (what?) and "it is simply a junk website writing a hit piece and we do not include such junk on wikipedia" are WP:TENDENTIOUS disputes over the reliability of a source which was deemed reliable on the noticeboard (see WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH). Zenomonoz (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

We've already had this discussion, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_423#Business_Insider_on_Lex_Fridman there's consensus among established editors that BI is fine to use in this case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The quote from the computational biologist discussed there seems fine to me, particularly because it's attributed to Lior Pachter. So I agree with the consensus in that case, but I stand by my objection to the inclusion of the quote I brought up here attributed to "research experts". Chase Kanipe (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you, nor Jtbobwaysf understand how "consensus" works on Wikipedia. It does not work by vote. It works by strength of the arguments. Considering the source itself has already been deemed reliable by the noticeboard, there is already a consensus for inclusion based on experienced editors assessments of policy. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a bit uncharitable reading of Chase's comment. I still don't see a consensus to remove the quote though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks like you are replying to a few separate comments. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

This response (1) fails to engage with my comment, (2) contradicts your earlier statements, and then (3) repeats the same misunderstanding of my argument I attempted to correct earlier.

1. I never said anything about or related to voting. I never even referred to "consensus" to bolster my case - I only made reference to the RFC that Hemiauchenia and yourself also referred to as a consensus.
2. In your first comment to me you dismissed my argument saying Wikipedia is not for me to "make up your own analysis or argument". Now you're saying consensus is about the strength of the arguments. If so then I look forward to you engaging directly with the arguments I've made for why my preferred editorial decisions better conform with Wikipedia policy.
3. You say there is "already a consensus for inclusion". I will say it again: I have not once suggested that the Business Insider article shouldn't be used as a source as was decided in the RFC. I have only argued against the inclusion of one particular sentence that mixes a statement of fact with a personal insult. There is not a consensus about this particular sentence.

Chase Kanipe (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see any good reasoning here beyond your own "I don't like it". Nothing in BLP or NPOV guidelines suggests anything of the sort. It's from a source deemed reliable. You are misunderstanding neutrality to mean "50/50" which is not the point of the policy. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Again here you are projecting arguments onto me I never made and in this case it also appears you are also misattributing up quote? I've never made an argument on the basis of "50/50" and I never said the line you quote as "I don't like it", nor have I made a similar argument.

Please read my arguments again. The essence of my objection is that this sentence mixes a statement of fact with a personal insult against Fridman. I have argued it violates WP:BLP by labeling a person with a contentious label (as un-serious) when WP:BLP requires someone be commonly referred to that way in reliable sources. With this sentence the paragraph also fails to read as conservative or disinterested. Beside's that it personally insults Fridman, I have also argued that this case differs from the previously discussed quote because it is sourced from anonymous "research experts". It also violates the WP:NPOV suggestion that reputation comments are appropriate for inclusion when they're widespread (this opinion is only expressed in a single source), and it also qualifies as a disparaging statement that's "vague" (what does "not taken seriously" mean?). Chase Kanipe (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The short discussion that was linked to seems to be not clear the hurdle set by WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and as such isn't really much more than we are having again here. WP:BI is a dubious source and as such as yellow in RSP. There is a note over at RSP that there was a time period from 2021-2023 that this was an RS, when it was called only "insider" but this source link clearly states BI. Maybe this is more like a some type of opinion post written by Julia Black and we could consider over at WP:RSN if this is due for inclusion on this article, or do an RFC here on it as well. I think a good question is if this type of opinion piece is an RS and if such content clears the hurdle of WP:NOCRIT. Or is this simply a colleague of the article subject with an axe to grind. Its unfortunate that we have these discussions again and again here at WP, and about inclusion of this type of defamatory content on articles, where the source is often a blog post or an opinion source. X person says Y about Z person and thus we spend all this energy talking about it here at wikipedia (when is anyone else talking about it? Has NYT discussed this source and found this opinion piece interesting?) In my opinion, there is certainly no consensus that this is an RS for this type of CRIT content and as such its odd we are even having this discussion. Maybe we should delete this reception section entirely, the real question is if any of this is even due, let alone the opinion of a BI writer, which is obviously UNDUE. If we do feel that Julia's opinion of Lex is due, why not just state that in the article directly? I for one, dont think any of it is due. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

No Jtbobwaysf. It isn't a "local consensus", this particular BI article was discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 423#Business Insider on Lex Fridman) where it was determined acceptable by four independent users. It is nothing like the unreliable content the RSP aims to deal with.

Refusing to accept the conclusions of independent input from the noticeboard is a WP:NORFC comment, so it's best to stop making this argument. As for WP:CRIT, that is a Wikipedia editor's essay, it is not a real editing guideline. Nothing in the essay would even support removing all reliable source commentary on Lex's career, given that essay actually recommends having a "reception" section. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I didnt realize that was from RSN, I had thought it was a brief discussion on this talk page and now archived. Since RSN thinks it is kosher, then obviously local consensus doesnt apply and my above comments in relation to this article/content are moot. I retract my above comments about this content. I still think these commentary reaction sections are not encyclopedic, but that is a larger topic and not suitable for this talk page. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Lex is far better known for his podcasting than his AI research, and it's not clear he actually does any active research at MIT currently, given the lack of publications over the last several years. AI is also a very high citation field, which makes the 2000+ citations somewhat less impressive in that context. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

In the Boston Globe article it states that he's doing research he hopes to publish in 2024 and he's still employed as a research scientist. So I think he's at least actively attempting to do research. You're right his research record is quite limited especially for a 40 year old, but I think if the article's going to note that it needs to be phrased in a way that isn't a personal attack. I'm not sure how notable any information about his research is besides the autopilot debacle anyway. Chase Kanipe (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree pretty much entirely, it's nonspecific and vague and uses loaded language. Basically undue. SmolBrane (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• Just popping in to say that the existing consensus to include looks reasonable. We don't typically recognize a user's right to relitigate a recent consensus, per WP:CCC / WP:RECENTCONSENSUS (unless there is some genuinely new information to discuss), since doing so can suck editor time away from productive activities. Unless someone has a genuinely new argument, I'd suggest waiting for a while before taking another whack at this dead horse. Generalrelative (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, I was not arguing anything contrary to that consensus - that was Jtbobwaysf. I agree with source inclusion and the quote discussed there. I gave different reasons to exclude a different quote. Chase Kanipe (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

To reiterate, I am no longer arguing anything. I was confused about the link and thought it was an archived small discussion of this article's talk page (eg local consensus), until a user thankfully made it obvious to me that the consensus had been formed at RSN, not locally. RSN is exactly the forum for this sort of thing and we should follow that. I apologize for any confusion. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Russian-American?

What is the rationale for calling him Russian-American? He was born in what is now Tajikistan, spent 8 years in the Soviet Union, 3 years in Russia, before moving to the US. So wouldn't Soviet-American be a more accurate description?

He has also talked about how about half of his family had Ukranian origin, and the other half Russian, so it isn't clear that he is primarily Russian origins either. 81.231.10.129 (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Could you help with some WP:RS for this? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposing to change it to 'Tajik-American'. 2A02:A46A:194C:0:3535:788:EFF2:8E65 (talk) 08:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

He is an American. No sources say he is a Tajik citizen. It's simplest to say American. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2025

I would like to make an edit to Lex Fridman's private life and family relations Mamishko (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Lex Fridman Family and close relationships

Lex Fridman has been with Shivon Zillis for years. The neuralink episode, he didn't want to invite his girlfriend not to announce his relationship through her career. He wanted to protect her career and his relationship with her kids father. Mamishko (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there a source confirming this anywhere? I don't know if a podcast episode is suitable to cite. A secondary source would be suitable, like an article. Refer to WP:BLPPRIVACY. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

His birth name is Alexey Fedotov, Russian: Алексей Федотов and he was born in Buston, Tajikistan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I get that people may pick an artist name. But considering Alexey is a Russian propagandist that pretends to be an American born in Ukraine, maybe wikipedia should not present Alexey's spy cover as objective truth. I am changing his name and birthplace back to what it was it said on wikipedia back in 2023. Why should wikipedia help a Russian intel asset keep his cover? Especially when either he himself, or someone working for Russia changed the wikipedia article to say he was born in Kiyv and removing his birth name. I will let someone else fix the partial truths about how it misrepresents his academic career and is overall a glaze-fest to make it look like this guy got famous through his own merit, rather than being planted. --2A02:A46A:194C:0:D97A:276:C925:2993 (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Enough already. There is no evidence in any source that Alexei Fedetov is his birth name. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize this page. 2A02:A46A:194C:0:E1CB:6288:72F8:196B (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Other than him noting on his own twitter that he was born “Alexei” 174.231.134.162 (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

They redid the vandalization and now protected the page, so their vandalization remains. If you have a source, say a birth certificate, that lists his birth name as something other than Alexei Fedetov, please provide that source. If not, I think we can all agree that 'Lex' is not his real name. And the only real name, which EVERY OTHER SOURCE lists, is Alexei Fedetov. I have never ever seen any source claim his true Russian name is something other than Alexei Fedetov. 2A02:A46A:194C:0:E1CB:6288:72F8:196B (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Here is a tweet from Lex Fridman saying that his birth name is Alexei and that his mom's maiden name is Fedotov.

https://x.com/lexfridman/status/1871502609451778181 AlekseyFyodorovich (talk) 11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

He’s born in Russia, raised in America. Calling him Russian-American is fine as long as you note the name he was born with. 174.231.134.162 (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there a reason this page no longer lists Lex Fridman's (alleged) legal name? Like, it isn't in the infobox at the top, and it isn't in the lead sentence. Here is an archive link of this page from January 29, 2022. Is there a reason that information was removed? See also the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Here is a tweet where he says that his mother's maiden name is Fedotov. I can see an argument for there being no proof of his legal name being Alexei Fedotov, but would appreciate clarification! Finalgirlfall (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Finalgirlfall, as you mentioned "there being no proof of his legal name being Alexei Fedotov" is exactly why. For starters, his father is a professor at Drexel and has the last name Fridman. Why are editors assuming his legal last must be his mother's maiden name? Unless there is a WP:RS that explicitly clarifies that his last name is Alexei Fedetov, there is no justification for including the name on the page.

I can string together a theory of why this rumour started. It appears some journalists put in an information request for the name "Alexi Fedetov", perhaps to cover all bases (just in case he uses his mother's name). But that's all speculative, and it's irrelevant anyway. We go by WP:COMMONNAME on Wikipedia. Zenomonoz (talk) 11:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure the editors are already sick of this exchange. But He said the following on a facebook post to his verified page "My full first name at birth is Alexei, but from the very beginning everyone always called me Lex (Leks) or Lyoha or Lyosha or Leshenka 🤣 5." Evil genius fin (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, this is better. It may be acceptable to include this in the infobox under the "born" specifier. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I have done so. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lex Fridman's sponsors and funding

I would like to add a section discussing who funds Lex Fridman. I think the public should know if that information is in the shadows or, if not, where his money comes from. Lex talks a lot about being balanced and trying to be unbiased but the public needs to be able to ascertain that by seeing who funds him and his podcast. 2601:18F:881:9870:2C91:DD39:E75A:2D77 (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

To add to the above, I'm having a difficult time finding this information anywhere and I find that concerning. 2601:18F:881:9870:2C91:DD39:E75A:2D77 (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

He has links at the bottom of each show but I doubt that is sufficient to find his podcasts. If it was, other podcasts would be doing the same while in fact most have sponsor interruptions that are annoying but information about where the podcast might have conflicts of interest. 2601:18F:881:9870:2C91:DD39:E75A:2D77 (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Unless this is covered in secondary media sources, there is really no way this will be included on Wikipedia. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2025

Inaccuracy of Lex Fridman's current status/association with MIT:

``` since 2022 has worked as a research scientist at the MIT Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS).[6] As of February 2024, Fridman lives in Texas but is still paid by MIT and is on campus "regularly".[7](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/02/14/business/lex-fridman-mit-science-ambassador-podcast/) ```

You can contact the MIT department staff itself to confirm this yourself. He is in a *NON*-paid role, and *NOT* "regularly" on campus as of 2025. The article cited as a reference is not historically accurate according to the institute themselves, and is highly problematic to use for historical context.

This is a side note, as I have read the change logs for this document, I am sure this will face resistance as it seems a lot of the prior edits pertained to grooming this page(Like the efforts to oppose citing "non-peer-reviewed"), please do not do this here, this website is for historical accuracy, not to curtail a persons perception of academic grandiosity. 73.71.111.20 (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I have removed "and is on campus regularly" as that statement seemed to be the Boston Globe quoting Fridman, which was not clear(they start the article by saying "occasionally" in their own voice) and how often he physically visits MIT is not really something that needs to be in the lead, or I would argue, anywhere else in this article. But as far as him no longer being in a paid role, we need a WP:reliable source for that. Calling up MIT would be WP:original research and not something we could include in the article. Mr. Squidroot (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Appeal on Edit

I'd like to respectfully appeal the decision to remove my contribution, the three quotes by MIT professors in the reception section, on grounds that the subject's colleagues are not impartial.

According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources:

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

The opinions of three MIT professors are very relevant to the topic of an MIT researcher's reception.

The reception section of the article for the actor Nicholas Cage features quotes by Sean Penn, David Lynch, and Ethan Hawke. They all worked with Cage on films and were as much colleagues of his.

Surely respected academics would be just as impartial. Elghent (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm assuming you are referring to this. I agree it's probably fine to include. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I removed that paragraph for several reasons, the most notable of which being, honestly, my confusion as to whether or not the paragraph was being sarcastic. A statement like "Dr. Fridman has been a research scientist at MIT LIDS and in our research group. I have known him for many years, and been very impressed by his ideas and his research accomplishments" reads like standard job referral fare, and doesn't add much. Other statements of Fridman being "at a higher intellectual level" than others and "doing God’s work" is eye roll-inducing hyperbole. If this is the only positive material to be found online, please re-add it. Just keep in mind that I have no idea who Fridman is, and that I randomly stumbled upon this article after fixing errors in another. This content, as it stands, will likely leave a similar impression on the casual reader as it did on me. More in-depth and informative commentary should be incorporated. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I see what your are saying and agree.

I think the solution would be to remove the more dramatic quotes, and instead have a brief statement that covers the point being made, limited to one or two sentences. That way the information is covered more efficiently. Elghent (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good – do that. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I removed the text again, mainly per Homeostasis07. Ceoil (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

On what grounds? It's in an WP:RS, and it's a quote from an expert. This is fine. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Negative Bias in Article

This article places WP:Undue weight on opinions from a 2023 article by Julia Black which is highly critical of Fridman. For instance, the majority of the "Lex Fridman Podcast" subsection in his Career section is dedicated to his 2022 interview of Kanye West which was criticized in the article. The blurb refers to his rise to prominence in a negative manner, placing high prominence on critiques made by Black of Fridman's academic work, without any counterbalancing POVs. These and other parts of the article rely on this Business Insider piece to an extent that warps the article to be highly negative.

I have gathered several recent sources which should be included in the page, are credible, and can help improve the article. See below. The telegraph piece is fairly balanced, the times of india piece is biased in his favor, but this balances out the current undue weight given to the highly negative Business Insider piece.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/radio/podcasts/lex-fridman-podcast-putin-zelensky-modi/ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/education/news/lex-fridman-from-mit-scientist-to-global-podcast-icon/articleshow/119116962.cms

Donald Trump, Vladimir Zelensky, and Narendra Modi each made highly significant appearances on the podcast, which should be given equal if not more weight then the interview of West.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-lex-fridman-podcast-interview-b2606533.html https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/india/modi-lex-fridman-podcast-interview-trump-ukraine-pakistan-b2716343.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/01/10/ukraine-zelensky-lex-fridman-podcasts/

Look forward to hearing what other Wikipedians think. Note that I am NOT saying we should erase critical views such as the article by Black, but we do need to provide a better balance than is offered at present. AskYourselfWhy (talk) 09:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi there. Just to clarify, WP:UNDUE isn't really applicable here because we aren't giving weight to fringe views. The Insider piece is an in-depth piece interviewing numerous experts, and it has been established on an independent noticeboard that this source is acceptable and appropriate for use on this article. Please see: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 423#Business Insider on Lex Fridman

If the reliable sources focus on things that (some) readers might consider negative, then the Wikipedia will naturally reflect that (e.g. the article does cover praise by some colleagues in the reception area).

"The majority of the "Lex Fridman Podcast" subsection in his Career section is dedicated to his 2022 interview of Kanye West which was criticized in the article" – well this is only two sentences in the article. At the time this section was written, there doesn't seem to have been much secondary source coverage of his interviews. The Independent and Washington Post source can definitely be used to mention his interview with Trump and Zelensky etc. Edit: I've added a comment below about the previous mentions of his guests, which were removed.

The Telegraph article also seems acceptable. I'm less inclined to support including the Times of India pieces, because they have had some issues with AI written articles in the past and there is a lack of consensus on the outlets reliability. It is probably fine to cite it just to mention that he "interviewed Modi" though.

Zenomonoz (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see see we used to have a list of guests he interviewed. However, it was removed by administrator Drmies in this edit for namedropping.

I'm not really sure what the best approach is then. I would favour restoring the list, personally, since these have at least garnered significant secondary source media coverage. Perhaps Drmies can weigh in and clarify some thoughts here. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Zenomonoz I see your point but I do not believe we should simply reinstate it. I think more than half of them are sourced to only two articles, and in each of those two articles the focus is one one person, and the others are mentioned. So some, sure, but not all--hence my "namedropping" comment. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Drmies, I agree. Initially I and others agreed it would be best to only mention those discussed in secondary sources, which initially meant the list was very brief and prevented people just citing primary source podcasts etc. Over time, the number of secondary sources covering interviews has grown – so I don't exactly know what the best approach is to determining what is included or excluded in the article (and if some are excluded, no doubt some Lex fans will show up and attempt to add more in – which happened previously). Zenomonoz (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Zenomonoz Note that I am not alleging and have not alleged that the Black article is not an RS, but there are a number of other RS articles on the Fridman podcast, yet this article is cited 13 times here and characterizes the piece. I recommend we decrease reliance on this piece throughout the page by using some of the articles I mentioned above, none of which are in the article at time of writing, or others that have been published. I'd like to improve the article, but do not want to get into an edit war with wiki-editors critical of Fridman who appear prone to reverting instead of establishing consensus on the talk page...

Also, I see the Lex Fridman podcast section is still half about Kanye West interview. If we are not including any other guests in that section, I do not think we should include a paragraph on the West coverage and recommend deleting that paragraph. AskYourselfWhy (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Also, note that there are other problems with the content on the West interview because it cites an LA Times article about the interview in addition to the aricle Black, but despite the fact that this is an article about Fridman, the cite from the LA Times article solely mentions the article's discussion of statements made by West, not what the RS said about statements made by Fridman, namely that:

Fridman countered West’s antisemitic allegations of Jewish-run media, saying, “I grew up in the Soviet Union. I’m Jewish, parts of my family perished in the Holocaust of Nazi Germany, I have to push back.... When you say ‘Jewish media,’ there’s an echo of a pain that people feel.”

“The right thing is not to say there’s Jewish control of the media,” Fridman added."

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/music/story/2022-10-24/kanye-west-lex-fridman-antisemitism-podcast AskYourselfWhy (talk) 08:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)