Talk:Lex Fridman/Archive 1

Archive 1

Podcast appearances

I noticed you reverted my edit removing the table containing podcast appearances. I removed it in good faith and recommend that you WP:AGF moving forward. It may appear that I have a vendetta against this article because I'm not entirely sure how it ended up in mainspace or why the article didn't go through the AFC process. To be honest, appearing on a podcast episode is generally not a significant event, and without reliable secondary sources making note of the appearances I believe it is promotional and unnecessary information about the subject. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm taking a break from this article for a short period but would be interested in seeing other editors opinions. I have added wikiproject YouTube to talk page. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll do the same. Sorry for any misunderstanding on my part. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with TipsyElephant. A sentence such as, "Fridman is a frequent guest on The Joe Rogan Experience Podcast" would probably be sufficient. But the table of appearances seems a bit much. The "Select bibliography" table also seems a bit much. A simple list of titles would be sufficient for a person like this. That's just my take, for what it's worth. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I've deleted the appearances section, and want to see a Selected Bibliography citing publications in a bulleted list that I can verify, not a puffed-up table. I'm happy for any editor to delete this after giving interested editors a week or so to fix it. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I revised the Selected Bibliography and started making it verifiable. I hope this helps a little, but more work on it is absolutely needed. In my mind this article is an edge case, as I do consider this subject notable as a podcaster with over a million subscriber, very notable guests and respectable scientific publications, but clearly see the issue with WP:THREESOURCES. WatkynBassett (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for working on the article - I simply chose the papers with the most citations in academia fyi. There are so many I don't know if they all need to be included in the article. CaffeinAddict (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources

With the tags at the front end of the article, it would be helpful to point out what sources are not reliable and to find suitable reliable sources for them. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Personal information

Alexander Fridman was guest at the 100th Podcast, My Dad, the Plasma Physicist (2.8M views). His father mentioned that Lex's grandfather was a WWII vet for Russia. Wounded (mentioned earlier, in the video, but more in depth at 1:02:44). WWII was at the core of his family. I am sure that this might be of interest to many, even if is put into a Sandbox or whatever. jmswtlk (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The article would benefit from information confirmed by secondary sources and not ones associated with or published by Fridman himself. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect birth year

Dr Alexander Fridman, Lex’s father, in a podcast, at 1:50:13 mentions Lex's birth in 1983 in Moscow.

Why the birth year here is 1986? Honeybrowneyes (talk) 08:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Honeybrowneye If you can find a reliable secondary source on his age that would be helpful. For now it seems like it's best to remove his age entirely. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

True. I will try to. Honeybrowneyes (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Request to add 'See also' section

I tried to add a 'See also' section but it was deleted. I think it would be a good idea to add a 'Seel also' section as in many Wikipedia articles, including people similar to Lex Fridman (for example people who make podscasts interviewing scientists). I added Joe Rogan and John Michael Godier, but they were deleted together with the entire section I tried to add. ExoEditor 01:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2022

change immigrated to migrated. There is no implication that the USA is the subject of discussion and it reads as overly americentric when Lex is described to be ethnically Russian. Boredposed (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Not sure how this is americentric or how the subject of discussion is anything other than Fridman, he moved with his family to the US and stayed. That fits immigrate perfectly. Cannolis (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Since Elon and Lex had a Twitter conversation about Lex possibly taking over as CEO of Twitter, this page has been repeatedly vandalized. Lex is complaining about it himself now.

Please reconsider Sybau (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like you're trying to request semi protection of this page and not requesting that someone make the edit proposed by this IP 2 months ago. If so, see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to request semi protection. Cannolis (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

See link: https://twitter.com/lexfridman/status/1605313821744041984?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1605313821744041984%7Ctwgr%5E8abe29b1fa71807cfeb3651638eab0f1d43016b5%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpublish.twitter.com%2F%3Fquery%3Dhttps3A2F2Ftwitter.com2Flexfridman2Fstatus2F1605313821744041984widget%3DTweet Sybau (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Serious Sourcing Issue Regarding Referring to Lex as a researcher at MIT

There are no credible sources to say that Lex Friedman is a researcher at MIT. This article is deeply misleading referring to him as such. The only reliable sources refer to him as a Research Affiliate. This is distinctly different from a researcher at MIT. He is not paid by MIT for research. He was not hired by MIT. And he was not paid for his non-credit course at MIT. Why is this misleading context allowed to remain in the article? I've seen numerous attempts at fixing this error being reverted. It makes no sense. At least put citation needed on the claim.

MIT Research Affiliate

The academic appointment of Research Affiliate recognizes the status of an individual with whom the Institute wishes to acknowledge some degree of association. Appointments to this rank are not normally intended to be long-term or of indefinite duration. Appointments to this rank are without salary. Research affiliates are not employees of the Institute and do not participate in staff benefits programs. Appointees to this rank must report their outside professional activities to their department head annually. Appointees to this rank are required to sign an Invention and Proprietary Information Agreement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.115.44 (talk • contribs) time, day month year (UTC)

I have updated it to "research affiliate" and added a citation from IEEE. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the Staff List for the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems at MIT, he is listed as a Research Scientist. This is in the Research Staff section, and not the Affiliates or Visitors section, that might indicate a looser relationship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salix alba (talk • contribs) 05:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

No credible sources? Shameless

https://www.mit.edu/directory/?id=lexfridman&d=mit.edu Ttrrr (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

MIT is the source. https://www.mit.edu/directory/?id=lexfridman&d=mit.edu Sybau (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Citing MIT as a source is a WP:PRIMARY situation. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:B86A:88DD:2E7D:1CBC (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY permits the use of primary sources for "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts". Schazjmd (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

He tweeted confirmation that he has been a security researcher with MIT since 2015. They confirm it on their directory.

Case is closed.

Sybau (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

MIT listed under Scientific Career is misleading

It gives the impression his Ph.D was from MIT and not from Drexel University. 177.92.104.146 (talk) 08:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

https://www.mit.edu/directory/?id=lexfridman&d=mit.edu He works for MIT, it is not misleading. Sybau (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@Sybau: Their issue appears to be how the infobox appears, specifically with the Alma mater field not being under the Scientific career part, which would make it a problem to potentially be brought up again at the infobox's talk page. If they feel that a discussion is warranted after two months, they should bring it up there. --Super Goku V (talk) 13:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Super Goku V I see. it appears correct to me... Sybau (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Sybau: I guess I explained it poorly. Sorry about that. While the information is correct, the issue they appear to be claiming is that the Alma mater part should be placed just above the Thesis part in the infobox. As it stands at the moment, it might appear to some that his thesis was done while at MIT which would be misleading. That is despite the fact that the Alma mater field is visibly labeled in the infobox. (Regardless, the problem doesn't lie with the article, but with the template, so the issue cannot be fixed here.) --Super Goku V (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Super Goku V Thank you. I understand. It doesn't give me that impression but I can see the issue now. Apologies to OP. Sybau (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Please be honest about Lex Fridman. Removing his time at MIT damages Wikipedia’s integrity. I won’t donate to bias.

Please be honest about Lex Fridman. Removing his time at MIT damages Wikipedia’s integrity. 2605:59C8:41A6:1810:D043:C55F:1785:8642 (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

100% agree. It's disappointing to see activists trying to vandalise this page - we need to be wary of them. Beachy (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Note re: possible vandalism, Lex encouraging Twitter followers to edit his Wikipedia entry

See https://twitter.com/lexfridman/status/1605313821744041984 2001:569:57B2:4D00:B86A:88DD:2E7D:1CBC (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Where did he encourage anyone to edit his page? He pointed out it was being vandalised? Sybau (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

False, he didn't encourage anyone to edit his page. 75.204.33.13 (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect link to the city of birth

Hyperlink to the city of birth should be changed to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buston,_Sughd In the interview with his father he said that he had been born in Chkalovsk, Middle Asia, close to Khujand. 98.213.50.97 (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@98.213.50.97Hi, could you provide the source link of the interview? Lemonaka (talk) 07:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqZitmHG4Ao&t=237s&ab_channel=PodCutsClips look at ~3:45 2601:246:0:E70:9405:29C9:5623:3641 (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

 On hold, waiting for users who is familiar with this topic. Lemonaka (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done, for a few reasons. First, the (now deleted) reference currently used did state that he was born in Chkalovsk. Second, a few minutes after the given timestamp (which does not mention Lex's birth, by the way) he states that they were "now in Moscow" around the time of Lex being born (but does not state specifically where). Until there is better evidence to replace what is in the article, it should either be removed or left as-is. Primefac (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, look at 1:16 - 2:21

The man is saying: "Your mum was from the Middle Asia...", "..she was born, she lived in the area of the most important uranium mines in Soviet Union. So that's she is from... AND THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE BORN" 165.124.85.47 (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Middle Asia is a big place. Let me put it another way - unless we have a source that specifically gives a city and ties it to Lex, then it will not be added. With the old source being nuked off of Web Archive, we might just have to remove it entirely. Primefac (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you know any other Chkalovsk in Middle Asia close to Khujand?

Anyway, that Chkalovsk in Nizhny Novgorod Oblast is clearly a wrong link, so removing it would be a good idea. 165.124.85.47 (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Lemonaka (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Request to add 'Criticisms' section

On January 1st, 2023, a Twitter exchange occurred between Lex Fridman and Nassim Nicholas Taleb. The exchange began when Fridman announced on Twitter that he would be reading a book a week in 2023. In response, Taleb stated that Fridman's reading list would provide a succinct explanation for why he had turned down multiple requests to be a guest on Fridman's podcast between 2019 and 2022.

Taleb also criticized Fridman's use of the name of MIT to build an image and sending mail with heading "Quick Note From MIT" when podcast has nothing to do with MIT.

Fridman responded with an apology, but did not provide an explanation for his use of MIT's name. Fridman then blocked Taleb on Twitter.

Further digging pointed out that Fridman has a history of blocking individuals on Twitter, including for seemingly minor reasons. The guy was blocked for saying saying "it’d be tough to finish Brothers Karamazov in a week". This one is a real heart-breaker.

Requesting to add a 'Criticisms' section with two points:

• Not able to handle dissenting opinions or pushback. Advocate the need of healthy debate in his podcast, but cannot handle the slightest criticisms.
• Use of MIT name for reach.

Eleg6a (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

If you can support this information without original research using self-published sources, then write out the text you want to add more specifically.      — Freoh 01:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggest it is added first to your talk page or sandbox prior to this article. WP:NOCRIT applies FYI. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

To respond directly to the OP's suggestion in as few words as possible: no. Primefac (talk) 09:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Eleg6a No. How is this noteworthy? this is also a bunch of original research... Sybau (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand that Fridman has a strong fan base, but he is a much-criticized figure, so I think a Criticisms section is appropriate here. Insider just published a detailed article bringing together a number of the things I've seen mentioned about him. https://www.businessinsider.com/lex-fridman-podcast-anti-woke-elon-musk-ai -- William Pietri (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between a Twitter "fight" and an article written giving concerns about his podcast and activities. Primefac (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• See WP:NOCRIT, we are generally not doing these sections. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2023

I'd like to add in more of his podcast guests + discussion of controversy over his MIT affiliation Draemeth (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2023 (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. Primefac (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Clarification on who Lex isn't

Given that there's another podcaster and human named Lex Friedman (spelled with the "e" in the last name), is it worth adding a "Not to be confused with Lex Friedman" to this page? 74.90.56.211 (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

"Lex Friedman" is a redlink. What page do we have about this other person? DMacks (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

"Lex Friedman" shows up as a reference in many articles, though, as the source. Examples include Pocket Devil, iSteve, iDrive Inc., iPhone accessories, Tweetbot, iOS 5, iOS 4, Earwolf, Messages (Apple), and List of Bose shelf stereos. 74.90.56.211 (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The "not to be confused with" hatnote is only meant to be used when there is actually an existing article about someone else on Wikipedia whose name might be confused with Lex Fridman's name. The hatnote is not meant to be used to distinguish between someone who has an article on Wikipedia from every other person who might come up via a regular web search with the same or similar name. As DMacks pointed out, Lex Friedman doesn't have an existing article on Wikipedia, therefore there is no need for the hatnote. Marchije•^speak/_peek 18:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

And making an article for that other person is a great solution! DMacks (talk) 05:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

LIDS

To add more current context, I suggest adding a second paragraph in the computer science section: "Fridman works as a research scientist at the MIT Laboratory For Information & Decision Systems (LIDS)" source: https://lids.mit.edu/people/research-staff. A WIKI for LIDS exists and can be linked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Laboratory_for_Information_and_Decision_Systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.98.34 (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Notability/resume tags

Instead of tagging and running away TipsyElephant - do you wish to try to improve the article? CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@CaffeinAddict: I didn't run away. In your edit history you mention that the article was reviewed, but I don't see an AFC banner. Was it reviewed by the new page patrol? Who reviewed the article? Did this article exist in a different namespace or different title? The edit history only goes back a couple days, but you mention in your first edit that the draft has been thuruoughly revised. Normally a page would be moved with an intact edit history or a link to where the content was copied from would be provided. TipsyElephant (talk) 11:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, after doing a little searching I see that there were two drafts: Draft:Lex Fridman and Draft:Lex Fridman Podcast. Neither of these were linked to per WP:COPYPASTE. The page currently doesn't appear much different than the draft and the two drafts have been declined a total of 10 times. It does appear that the article was reviewed by New Page Patrol, then unreviewed, speedy deleted under WP:G12, recreated by you, and then reviewed again. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@CaffeinAddict: would you mind providing WP:THREESOURCES that you believe best demonstrate that Lex Fridman passes WP:BIO? TipsyElephant (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a new editor, but I may have skipped a few steps out of disinterest in bureaucracy. I'll await other editor's opinions. I believe that Fridman is cumulatively notable as an academic, scientist and podcaster/youtuber. Other opinions are yet to be revealed. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Definitely not notable as either academic or scientist. But yes, probably notable as podcaster and coverage of him as a podcaster in reliable sources. AncientWalrus (talk) 12:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Overwhelmingly Male

The podcast's guests are overhwhelmingly male. My edit to that effect was summarily reverted. Why? This is a fact. Some of us see gender.

-- aynrandspeaks.

Aynrandspeaks (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Unless it is something that has been mentioned or otherwise discussed in reliable sources, it is both OR and UNDUE to include that. Even then I think it's probably undue and could use further discussion. Primefac (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The article currently uses the word "diverse," which makes gender appropriate to raise. It cannot be a diverse variety of guests when they are overwhlemingly male (look at the photos here https://lexfridman.com/podcast/). So either remove "diverse" and "variety" or add "overwhelmingly male." This is not OR or UNDUE. -- aynrandspeaks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aynrandspeaks (talk • contribs) 16:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Aynrandspeaks This is pretty ridiculous OR. Sybau (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The concern is not ridiculous. It is however both WP:OR and also true (but not reported on), that most guests have been male. I've listened to the podcast a fair amount. In the early days of the show (when it was just the Artificial Intelligence Podcast), the interviewed guests were predominantly scientists and researchers from the MIT community, then the selection of subjects expanded to include folks from broader areas of study and different fields & expertise once Lex started trying to do a more Joe Rogan kinda thing.

I didn't see the word "diverse" anywhere in the article after doing a search, maybe that has been changed already. The phrase "wide variety of guests" is included twice in the article, without any further qualifiers. I would suggest to keep the phrase in the lede, but to perhaps change the second instance a bit. Under the Lex Fridman Podcast section of the article, it says "The podcast is known for its wide variety of guests and has featured ..."; maybe this could be modified to say something more like "The podcast includes guests with a variety of professional expertise and has featured ..."

But then, is this also WP:OR? Even the existing phrase in the lede "... in which he interviews a wide variety of guests" is not necessarily backed by a source. A majority of citations in the Lex Fridman Podcast section of this article link to primary sources, with many references to the YouTube channel, or to Fridman's own website, lexfridman.com, rather than WP:RS.

So what can we say that is both true and not WP:OR? We need more reliable sources for this article anyway, so that could be a good starting point. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this line of thinking is more appropriate from a "what do we write in the article" standpoint; if we cannot include the "mostly male" because the sources don't say it, we probably shouldn't be saving "diverse group" if the sources don't say it. Primefac (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I just ran a search and the word "diverse" does not appear in *any* of the 490 accessible revisions of this article. (That number excludes the six RevDeleted revisions from 31 October.) -- ToE 20:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

But it still says "wide variety" which suggests a wide variety. In fact the guests are overwhelmingly male. Aynrandspeaks (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe a "wide variety" refers to the type of person he interviews, not the gender; i.e. he does not only interview physicists or basketball players. Primefac (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Variety has nothing to do with gender variety has everything to do with a point of view of thinking Lexi yarbrough (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

To emphasise something like this, implying malice, is editorial and completely inappropriate Beachy (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Um WP:AGF, Beachy. There is nothing inappropriate about pointing out facts on an encyclopedia site. And it is a fact, whatever your view of gender. Someone interested in listening for the first time might be interested in this fact. Aynrandspeaks (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Beachy: There are no implications of "malice" or wrongdoing. I enjoy the Lex Fridman podcast. Definitely early on with this show especially, when Lex was interviewing mostly scientists, programmers, and AI researchers, a majority of his guests were male. That's because a majority of folks in those fields are male. It's just a fact. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

What is the case *against* putting in "overwhelmingly male?" Aynrandspeaks (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

As sarcasm: the lack of reference to one-eyed lesbian monks and their contributions to AI is outrageous, and so too is the so not subtle vacuous sexist babble about gender that crowds all social media. 2601:643:C000:6BD0:F034:C2CB:EBBB:F9F8 (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• This is a WP:BLP and we use very tight WP:RS for this (no blogs, reddit, twitter, WP:OR, etc). You cannot insert your own original research into the article. General discussion of this subject (without sources) WP:NOTFORUM applies. Unless there are high quality sources to discuss here, this discussion must stop now. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I cut out the (unsourced) "wide variety of guests." A lot of this section seems to be based on self-published sources. Freoh (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Good move. I agree also with the tag. I'm hunting for secondary sources that discuss the history of the podcast and who has been interviewed. This piece in Forward lists a few guests, saying "he often interviews controversial newsmakers". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

somehow I also just cut it out. Do we want to list every guest he has, or we just stick to guests that have been covered in WP:RS. This article should not be promotional or a list of shows. If a show hasnt gained attention in the press, why would we mention it here? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that this was already discussed, but only appearances that have been covered in RS should be included; for example, Destiny is only referenced to the podcast itself, and so should either have a reference update or be removed. Primefac (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if previously discussed, I dont much follow this article. But yes, for sure this is general principle. I think a much shorter list of guests and only those that got secondary coverage would be sufficient. We dont need to promote this or any other podcast. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Why list the guests at all? It is too much like a promotion. Can soemone do this? Aynrandspeaks (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

In some cases there might be a notable episode that received coverage. Otherwise, agree not needed. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Freoh (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect Referencing + possibly Agree to put in directly verifiable facts only

The current state of the page looks concise, however as it is being disputed I would like to offer these suggestions:

1. A Wikipedia page is a biographical article, and what's mentioned should be within the scope of this.

2. Incorrect referencing: these have been removed/replaced accordingly as references listed here were completely unrelated to what was being stated and is against wikipedia rules. explanations in edit history as well. The argument made in a previous edit that those interviewed need to proven as notable is what the hyperlinks to their individual wikipedia pages is for

- Reference 17 is for an article about Elon musk on Neuralink, and it being put as a reference on the the first sentence of the heading Lex Fridman Podcast:

Fridman began his podcast in 2018, initially as part of the MIT course 6.S099 on artificial general intelligence. Its original title was the Artificial Intelligence Podcast, which was later changed to the Lex Fridman Podcast to reflect the wider range of topics it would address. - This should obviously have a reference link to the MIT course, very easily found & verifiable: deeplearning.mit.edu

- References 19-31 all listed in these 2 sentences below have absolutely no baring to the statement being made in the article. The references all separate articles/opinion pieces about these people mentioned when the statement is just saying these are an example of notable people who have been interviewed on the podcast.

The podcast has featured guests such as musician Kanye West, 16th world chess champion Magnus Carlsen, hedge fund manager Ray Dalio, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and technology moguls Jack Dorsey, Elon Musk, and Mark Zuckerberg. Fridman has also interviewed many athletes including UFC world champion Georges St-Pierre, Olympic Judoka Travis Stevens, Roger Gracie, John Danaher, and Craig Jones.

This is all directly verifiable on the link to the podcast itself where they were interviewed which is already mentioned in the side description. There's really no need for a reference however if you want to include one you can just put 1 reference to the youtube channel or if you wish individually link to the interviews.

- Under Computer science heading, statement: He currently is a research scientist at MIT. - reference 15 is correct, link to MIT directory validating statement. Reference 14 is a Forbes article, irrelevant to verifying the statement.

3. Some of the articles listed in the Talk topic above are sources of information, however they are also making character/political inferences which aren't supported by any specific or easily verifiable actions or sources. If an article is biased without anything concrete/logical facts to substantiate its bias, it doesn't legitimize the bias because it's published. One would have to actually parse through those articles to see what is being stated as fact and what is an opinion inferred by the writer that has no source backing to their claims. However that being said, I think the most substantial are the last 2 from the independent and telegraph - they are legitimate news sources (regardless of people's opinions about them and their political leanings) and they are reporting specifically on the on the training that occurred with Elon and Mark Zuckerberg. This can be added as a notable event under it's own heading for example, including the speculation that there might be a fight between them as this is easily verifiable in the public domain.

4. With regards to the references of the biographical information, maybe a reasonable agreement can me made on this. Short of digging up his birth records, maybe we can take his place of birth as something self verifiable.

5. If there are people who want the opinions made within certain articles to be referenced as fact, the onus is on them to do the journalistic research to verify the sources of information/claims within those articles. If such work isn't done or can't be done, then they should just simply be omitted for the time being. However, some ideas that actually fall within the scope of a biographical article could be:

- to expand on the variety of types of guest he's had on, and how this variety has evolved over time since the beginning of the podcast. Some are political and/or controversial figures, many times from opposing camps.

- He has stated some opinions and feelings about the war in Ukraine, this is easily verifiable and we already have a reference to the youtube clip within the article where's he's talking about this.

- He has been public about having friendships with certain public figures, including Elon, and this can be stated and easily referenced in an unbiased way. The suspected implications of that friendship or what that says to his character isn't something we can verify and we shouldn't use opinions inferred within articles as references just because their written in print. It's also beyond the scope of a wikipedia article to infer those biases.

I hope this helps to settle some of these disputes. Pixiedreamgirl390- (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC) — Pixiedreamgirl390- (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Regarding the podcast, we determined in #Overwhelmingly Male above that we should only include guests who were given in RS (not just the podcast listing) in order to only give the ones that said RS found important. Primefac (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

As you are new to Wikipedia, @Pixiedreamgirl390-, there are a number of policies worth reading that give context on a lot of your statements re what should and shouldn't be in the article: WP:BLP, WP:RS. In short, at risk of oversimplification, if something is in a reliable source, it can be included. If it isn't, it usually can't (with a few exceptions). Podcast links are not reliable. This talk page is not the right place to discuss Wikipedia policies in general. In general, it's good to learn about them first, then bring your criticism up in the right forum. AncientWalrus (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up the state of referencing of the "podcast" section. I've gone through and pruned unreliable sources and statements not backed by reliable sources. Statements made on websites under control of the subject are neither independent nor reliable and are thus best avoided. AncientWalrus (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-Protection requested

Repeat vandalism Sybau (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I gave it WP:PC1 for now. While there are IPs being clearly disruptive, there are also legitimate content/sourcing disputes being hammered out and seemingly moving towards improvement including viable edits by multiple IPs. If the balance tilts more strongly towards vandalism or BLP violations, any admin is welcome to upgrade it. DMacks (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@DMacks thank you Sybau (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree. This page needs protection from activist editors. There are people trying to smear Lex due to his association with Elon Musk (and it's currently trendy to hate Elon Musk) Beachy (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

When I first read this page on 7 Oct. 2023, the article read as biased and was using an opinion piece article from Business Insider as three different references to repeat derogatory claims about Fridman. I've deleted and rewritten several sections of the wiki page in an attempt to remove bias and state the facts of Fridman/his podcast.

I agree that Semi-Protection should be implemented for this page. Fridman is a controversial figure because he intentionally has recorded/published conversations with highly controversial public figures. He interviewed the president of Israel and then interviewed a Palestinian poet/activist... CONTROVERSY OBVIOUSLY ENSUES and the Lex Fridman Wikipedia page is susceptible to the outrage of those who don't care about facts, but instead propagate sensationalist clickbait articles and generally inaccurate, biased information. Uhhhum (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Removal of reliably sourced criticism

Editor @User:Uhhhum has made a number of edits removing criticism of Fridman that appear to represent WP:ADVOCACY: [1][2][3][4][5]. Per WP:NPOV criticism should be included in the article if it is present in reliable sources. The edit summaries provided and talk page comments suggest bias and a lack of understanding of policy. I will revert the removal of criticism. AncientWalrus (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Good work, also the criticism of him is tame and balanced. It includes a positive statement from Sertac Karaman. Editors removing things because they heard Lex complain about Wikipedia need to read Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The criticism isn't "tame" or "balanced". It's taken from a clearly biased article. Uhhhum (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Your reaction to my edits displays your own bias and lack of willingness to discuss the article that you're using as a key reference. Uhhhum (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Relevant transcript from the Lex Fridman Podcast #385

The following is a transcript taken from Lex Fridman's website (https://lexfridman.com/jimmy-wales-transcript) of his podcast with Jimmy Wales, specifically the section where Fridman talks about his Wikipedia page (this Wikipedia page we're talking about):

(Redacted)

Uhhhum (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Posting such a long transcript is possibly a violation of copyright. In any case, per WP:SELFPUBLISH such sources are usually not usable. There are some criteria for when a self published source can be used, see WP:ABOUTSELF, but one has to be careful. AncientWalrus (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

It isn't a violation of copyright.

I didn't suggest we use this transcriptase a source for the wiki page, but that we use it as a reference point in a further search for reliable sources proving what the transcript clearly states: information about the facts of Lex Friedman's history, as stated by Lex Fridman himself. Uhhhum (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

It is a word-for-word copy of non-free content (unless Fridman has made an explicit open-license release of the podcast or the transcript?). I have redacted it. DMacks (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Im sorry, I didnt understand the Talk page was public to all.

In the transcript I posted, I had emboldened the relevant points in which Lex Fridman describes where he was born and his position at MIT. This information is relevant to this wiki page and has been the subject of controversy on the talk page.

I encourage you to read the transcript starting at around 19 minutes: Fridman clarifies where he was born and that he has been a paid employee of MIT since 2015. Uhhhum (talk) 05:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Fridman's current role at MIT

AncientWalrus, the Business Insider article states that Fridman moved from AgeLab to an unpaid role at MIT AeroAstro. He currently is at LIDS as a Research Scientist, as per the MIT website.

Research Scientist is a paid role at MIT, unpaid researchers are given the title Associate or Affiliate. Those who are unpaid but receive a stipend are titled Fellow.

So my edit does not contradict the Business Insider article. Fridman moved from AgeLab to AeroAstro (Unpaid), and then from AeroAstro to LIDS (paid). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elghent (talk • contribs)

Please add reliable sources to back up your statements. LIDS is associated with AeroAstro per MIT_Laboratory_for_Information_and_Decision_Systems so there's no evidence for a second move from the initial unpaid role. To state that he's paid, we'd need a reliable source saying so as Wikipedia states what the most reliable sources say. AncientWalrus (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Fridman is not currently at AeroAstro. He was not listed in the LIDS directory until 2022. It is pretty clear that his current position is distinct from the one described in the Business Insider article.

As to paid vs unpaid, here is what the MIT website has to say about Research Scientists:

"Appointees receive benefits as described in Section 7.4 Benefits for Faculty and Staff Members and accrue 15 days of vacation for the first year of employment and 20 days of vacation thereafter."

Furthermore:

"The benefits do not, however, apply to graduate or undergraduate students, to postdoctoral or research fellows or affiliates"

Also, and I acknowledge that this isn't a legitimate source, but it's also how it works at my university, UC San Diego - Research Scientists are salaried staff members, Affiliates and Fellows are unpaid and usually temporary. MIT also posts job openings for the Research Scientist role that advertise salary and benefits. Elghent (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I propose the following edit:

In the same year, he left AgeLab and took up an unpaid role in the MIT department of aeronautics and astronautics. Fridman has since left AeroAstro[1] and currently holds a salaried[2] staff position as a Research Scientist[3] at MIT Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems[4].

[1] Cite AeroAstro directory that he is absent from, demonstrating he no longer is at Aeroastro.

[2] Cite MIT web page that demonstrates that Research Scientists are salaried employees of MIT.

[3] Cite MIT directory which lists Fridman as a Research Scientist.

[4] Cite LIDS directory which lists Fridman as part of their staff. Elghent (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Your argument that he moved on from an unpaid to a paid role amounts to original research (WP:OR). The article currently only states that he moved from AgeLab to AeroAstro - attributed to Business Insider (I removed the mention of LIDS as it is not something that Business Insider actually stated in article voice). AncientWalrus (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, I do recognize that saying he left AeroAstro for a paid role at LIDS is an implied conclusion and forbidden as original research. Would it be acceptable if I remove the part about the move and keep the statements of fact directly supported by MIT without any analysis or assumptions on my part? Elghent (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Ancientwalrus, the Business Insider article is not a reliable source and it should be removed. Elghent's request is logical and should be considered without dependence on the Business Insider article's information.

Fridman himself stated that he has had a paid role at LIDS since 2015 (read the relevant transcript I posted). I agree with what you wrote earlier that we should avoid using self-published interview transcripts as sources... but they should absolutely be considered in the search for other, reliable sources. Uhhhum (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Given that Fridman's employment at MIT is controversial, with reliable sources stating some position was unpaid, and no reliable source stating that he currently holds a paid position there, it is prudent to not rely on implicit sources. We could say something like Fridman has since left AeroAstro and for a position of Research Scientist at the MIT Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems. AncientWalrus (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Isn't claiming that Fridman left AeroAstro for LIDS Original Research, as it is implied by his change of listed department as opposed to something directly stated by a source?

But on the point of him being paid, MIT (a reliable source) states that he is a Research Scientist & on a separate web page states that Research Scientists are paid employees of MIT. Even if we can not say directly that he is paid, would it be acceptable to state his current title, and then state that role comes with a salary?

I am thinking something like this:

"In the same year, he left AgeLab and took up an unpaid role in the department of aeronautics and astronautics. Currently, Fridman is not listed in the AeroAstro directory. He is now at the MIT Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems as a Research Scientist, a salaried position."

This contains no speculation and is purely facts verified by MIT. Elghent (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I would appreciate an experienced editor's take on this, maybe @Zenomonoz, who is the only one who has made recent content edits alongside the other people in this discussion. AncientWalrus (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Too much opinion, not enough FACTS

The Business Insider article should be removed and better sources should be used to verify the information on this page. The page reads as though someone who has a personal dislike for Lex Fridman is editing the page. The wiki page appeared BIASED against Fridman when I first read it. I've deleted several sections and will continue to be active in any discussion resulting.

Uhhhum (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I've finished reading the Business Insider article again... and it absolutely does not belong in the sources for this wikipedia article.

THE BUSINESS INSIDER ARTICLE IS A BIASED ARTICLE THAT READS AS A VEILED HIT-PIECE AGAINST LEX FRIEDMAN. THERE ARE NO SOURCES LISTED AND MUCH OF THE INFORMATION IN THE ARTICLE IS NOT VERIFIABLE. Uhhhum (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH AncientWalrus (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I read it, thank you for linking it. I assume good faith in you and hope you assume same for me.

I will continue to assert that the Business Insider article is an opinion piece that doesn't have any cited references and it is an inappropriate reference for this article.

Am I wrong?

If there are other editors who see this, I ask that you read the Business Insider article by Julia Black and then discuss with Ancientwalrus and myself as to whether or not it's an appropriate source. Thank you. Uhhhum (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The business insider article is currently listed three times as reference number 2, 3 and 10... UMMMMM that doesn't make sense.

I can't figure out how to delete a reference but will continue trying to learn... the Business Insider article is an inappropriate source and should be removed from this wikipedia page ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uhhhum (talk • contribs) 00:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you to the person who removed the repeated reference as 3 and 10. The Business Insider article is now only listed as reference number 2. Uhhhum (talk) 05:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

That was me - both causing the source duplication and fixing it. AncientWalrus (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources to be used instead of self-published interview transcripts

Per WP:SELFPUBLISH, self-published sources are strongly discouraged: Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources.. The article relies to a large extent on statements made by Fridman himself on his podcast. This is a violation of WP:ABOUTSELF point 5, and to an extent also point 1. I did a thorough web search to identify potentially more independent and reliable sources. These are the best ones I could find:

Fridman is notable but the article has to be heavily edited to satisfy WP:NPOV. AncientWalrus (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC) AncientWalrus (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The first Business Insider article isn't a reliable source. I haven't read the other articles you listed, only the first article written by Julia Black.

That Business Insider article is currently listed three separate times in the Reference section of this page... I'm attempting to remove it but I'm still struggling to teach myself how. I'd appreciate any help doing so from you or anyone. Uhhhum (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The term "reliable source" has a special meaning here that may not be the same as what you intuitively think. Have a look at WP:RS. Then, if you still believe it is not reliable according to the definition of "reliable" listed there, explain why. New editors should generally try to stay away from potentially controversial articles such as biographies of living people WP:BLP. AncientWalrus (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Bias of editors and unwillingness to discuss sources

Hello, I'm attempting to raise awareness that some of the editors (not sure if they're admins or not) of this page are ignoring my requests for an analysis of the sources being used for the information presented in this wikipedia article. Specifically and primarily, @Ancientwalrus continues to assert that I'm wrong, biased, etc., when I believe the opposite is true and that Ancientwalrus is propagating biased information and using a biased article from Business Insider to assert the legitimacy of their claim. Uhhhum (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP: NOT CENSORED. The sources are reliable, and critique can be included – especially when it is coming from former MIT colleagues who felt he sold out academic rigour in pursuit of fame. Likewise, the article also includes balance, including praise from one former colleague. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

But it isn't balanced. The article in its current state, with my edits removed, clearly shows five instances of negative comments about Fridman vs. only the one "praise" comment. Uhhhum (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The specific source that I've brought into question isn't reliable (from Business Insider), though I'm being dragged through bureaucracy as I make that claim. I'm all for including critique on Fridman/his podcast but there is clear, unbalanced bias in the current state of the article against Fridman. Also, the "critiques" of Fridman are all taken from the same Business Insider article: there are no other sources to verify these claims.

One of the critiques references to the Business Insider article but it's talking about a drama that Fridman had on "Twitter". Uhhhum (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."

The current state of this wiki page is that there are five negative comments about Fridman/his work and only one positive comment at the end of the page.

All five negative comments are referenced to the same Business Insider article. The positive comment is also from the Business Insider article.

The Business Insider article is apparently a piece of "tabloid journalism": it uses sensationalist language and displays clear bias against Fridman and his asssociates.

Other sources are required in order to validate the negative comments as well as the single positive comment. There is only one source being used and its reliability is in question.

I will look for alternative sources to add depth to the article, for both the good and bad of Fridman, but the current state of the article is unbalanced and dependent on a questionable source. Uhhhum (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

You've left a large comment, but I'll try and respond as best as I can.

Balance is established by coverage in secondary sources. If secondary source coverage includes substantial criticism, especially from academic peers, it is not unreasonable to include it. Fridman is well known for the Tesla study and thus that deserves a reasonable amount of coverage. Balance does not mean viewpoints be represented 50/50.

You quote WP:VERIFIABILITY policy, specifically bolding parts that read: "challenged or likely to be challenged" and "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion" but you ignore the text that surrounds it. Material is not contentious and removable because you personally do not like it. The policy specifically says that quotes must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. They are attributed to the Business Insider report, and three quotes are attributed to researchers including Missy Cummings, Lior Pachter and Anima Anandkumar. In other words, the content on the page is in line with WP:VERIFIABILITY. Just because you do not like what is said does not give you the right to remove it. It would be a problem if statements lacked a source or were not attributed to the publication or people saying them.

I agree the article could be expanded if there is other coverage of Fridman in secondary sources. Zenomonoz (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

"Just because you do not like what is said does not give you the right to remove it."

In response to this point: emotion was not informing my decision to make the removal edits that I did. This isn't personal for me. I'm engaging with this talk/wiki page because I saw room for improvement. I'm trying to help add balance and neutrality to this wiki page.

I'll stop pursuing a decision on the removal of the Business Insider article and the content referencing it in this wiki page. Instead, I'll add more sources and help in the effort to give this page neutrality and an accurate representation of the notable events/accomplishments/opinions about Fridman, his podcast and his career in general.

Thank you for your time in your responses. I appreciate your help to learn better how to engage with this website and the editors here. Uhhhum (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Teahouse

I noticed that talk page viewership jumped from the usual 10-20 to 195 yesterday. The reason appears to be Uhhhum starting this discussion there. AncientWalrus (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Fridman's implicit WP:AUTOPROB requests

I have reviewed Fridman's podcast episode with Jimmy Wales where he discusses this article. He makes certain comments that I understand as implicit WP:AUTOPROB requests. In line with our WP:BLP policy I'm attempting to review his requests here. Fridman published the podcast on the 18th of June. This is the article at the time:

• Just to clarify, I am a research scientist at MIT. I have been there since 2015. I’m there today. I’m at a prestigious, amazing laboratory called LIDS, and I hope to be there for a long time. ... Unlike Wikipedia says, it is not an unpaid position. There was no controversy.

1. I added that he is at LIDS in [6], citing MIT LIDS directory and the podcast section, this is a reasonable case of WP:BLPSELFPUB

2. Wikipedia didn't say at the time of recording nor now that the current position at LIDS is unpaid. It does state that a previous position was unpaid because that is what a reliable source says. If there is an equally reliable source that states that the position at the department of aeronautics and astronautics was paid then we might drop the unpaid or state that it is disputed whether it was paid or not.

3. I consciously choose not to state in the article whether the current position at LIDS is paid or not as I could not verify this statement directly and claiming that he is paid is self-serving, and hence WP:BLPSELFPUB cannot be used to justify insertion.

• The other thing, because I am half-Ukrainian, half-Russian- ... I also want to clarify personally, I use this opportunity of some inaccuracies there. My father was not born in Chkalovsk, Russia. He was born in Kiev, Ukraine.

1. In June the page didn't state that he is half-Ukrainian. Now it does. It's possible that his claim to be half-Ukrainian is self-serving due to his statements on the invasion of Ukraine but I give him the benefit of the doubt here and won't remove self-sourced claims about his origin. I can see arguments for both sides here, would be curious what others thinks.

2. Article used to state that his father was born in Ckalovsk, now it doesn't anymore.

The rest of that section of the episode does not address specifics of the article. AncientWalrus (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Ancientwalrus for this review and your thoughts.

In the "Fridman's current role at MIT" talk page, @Elghent made a suggestion of how including that Fridman's role at MIT is a "salaried position" is original research and also included an example of how to include that in the wiki page.

Besides that, I don't understand how Fridman's attestation to having a paid role at MIT is "self-serving". He had nothing to gain by making a statement that his current position at MIT is a paid position.

On your other point on possible argument over his Ukrainian heritage: I don't think this qualifies as a self-serving statement either. I'm glad you agree to keep these self sourced claims on his origin. Uhhhum (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Why does it matter if Fridman's claim of being paid is self-serving if the claim is independently verifiable by MIT? Elghent (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

This is WP:OR. If there is a reliable source stating clearly that Fridman is paid in his current role then this will be added to the article:

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented.

The link you provided is about research staff appointments in general, not about Fridman in particular. AncientWalrus (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I do not think we should claim in the article that Fridman is paid for that reason. Instead we should present two separate facts:

1. Fridman holds the title of Research Scientist.

2. Research Scientists receive pay and benefits from MIT.

These are direct statements of fact taken from MIT's website, not our own analysis or conclusions.

I also agree that we should not use Fridman's own statements as a source for the same reasons you gave. MIT's website provides sufficient information on his current role that it is unnecessary. Elghent (talk) 02:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The first fact is already included and the second is unrelated/undue and primary. AncientWalrus (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on the point of it being unrelated/undue? I am reviewing the page on relevance, and it definitely seems, to me at least, that a reader would want to know what exactly the title of Research Scientist means at MIT. It is no less relevant than the claim that a role at AeroAstro was unpaid.

The article on rice mentions that Chloroxylon is a pesticide commonly used in India. If the geography of a pesticide is relevant to an article on a cereal, then surely a fact about MIT Research Scientists is relevant to an article on a MIT Research Scientist.

The primary source is a reputably published, straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. There is no analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. Elghent (talk) 03:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Trying to associate oneself with Ukraine is clearly self-serving if the purpose is to be able to deflect criticism that one might be pro-Russian.

Making it known that one is paid is also clearly self-serving as being paid by an institution means in generally being more closely associated with it. Fridman is clearly advertising his MIT connection so that's why it is self-serving. AncientWalrus (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

"if the purpose is to be able to deflect criticism..."

What evidence do you have, from verifiable sources, that Fridman is using his Ukrainian heritage in this way? You say that it's "clearly self-serving" but it's not at all clear.

"Fridman is clearly advertising his MIT connection so that's why it is self-serving."

This isn't clear either and there are no sources showing that Fridman has a self-serving interest by his association with MIT. In the transcript, Fridman is specifically stating that his role at MIT is a paid position, in direct response to this same Wikipedia article we are talking about: his clear intention for this statement is the correction of a mistake in this Wikipedia article. Uhhhum (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Forget about what Fridman is saying. What do the references say? is the only question we should be answering. And potentially the follow-up question, are those references reliable and/or up-to-date? For the MIT thing, if we have a reference that is five years old that says he was in an unpaid position, and his "paid" status is under dispute, then just remove that part of the sentence. For his heritage, we should use what the references state. As a minor point, I will note that Fridman apparently can't read his own article, as it states that he was born in Chkalovsk, not his father. Primefac (talk) 10:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC) Struck as incorrect; my apologies. Primefac (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

On the point of his father's birthplace, i think he was discussing an earlier version of the article but im not certain.

I agree with you in part: we need reliable/up-to-date sources separate from any transcripts of Fridman's podcast. However I disagree that we should ignore Fridman's own words entirely: we should pay attention to any living person who's biography exists on Wikipedia: Fridman is affected by this wiki page and if he is making clear, public statements about innacuracies of this same wiki page, then his concerns should be considered only so far as a reference point for further research and validation, or disproval, of the claims he's making. Uhhhum (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Uhhhum this is exactly what I have been doing. We are not ignoring his words at all. I have carefully considered his concerns as if they had been made directly here per WP:BLPCOMPLAINT. I'd encourage you to have a look at WP:BLUD. AncientWalrus (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration of the transcript/Fridman's concerns about this page.

I read WP:BLUD and I apologize if my edits have been disruptive. My intentions are to bring balance/neutrality to this wiki page. I will be more careful in the future.

Thank you for continuing to educate me as to the subtleties of Wikipedia policy. Uhhhum (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for these points @Primefac and apologies for not linking to the article at the time of the episode's airing, I thought I had done so but realized it must have gotten lost. At the time of the episode's airing, the page did say: His father, plasma physicist Alexander Fridman, was born in Chkalovsk, Russia.

The Business Insider source stating the MIT position he left for/took in 2019 was unpaid is around 6 months old, so recent. As far as I understand, the disputed point is not really whether the position he took in 2019 was unpaid (the most reliable source states so, if this is not correct, Fridman should take it up with Business Insider and I'm sure they will correct) but whether he transferred to yet another position at MIT and if so, whether to mention that that position is paid. There are essentially three options: a) only mention what the published independent sources say, i.e. not mention transfer to LIDS; b) mention that he transferred to LIDS but not mention explicitly that that position is paid; c) mention that he has since transferred to a paid position at LIDS. In any case, I don't think that the statement that he transferred to an unpaid position should be removed. That is not disputed by any credible, non-self(-serving) sources. AncientWalrus (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding original title of Fridman's podcast

I made an edit that's been reverted but I contest that it's an important addition and should remain in the article. The first paragraph of the "Lex Fridman Podcast" section currently reads as:

"Fridman began his podcast in 2018 and by April 2023 had recorded more than 350 episodes which have been described as "hourslong conversations" by Business Insider."

I propose it be changed to:

"Fridman began his podcast in 2018. It was originally titled "The Artificial Intelligence Podcast", but changed to "The Lex Fridman Podcast" in 2020. By April 2023, Fridman had recorded more than 350 episodes which have been described as "hourslong conversations" by Business Insider."

(The original podcast name and the change date of 2020 are sourced from the same Business Insider article being used as the source for the original sentence.)

Uhhhum (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

You were reverted for adding an external link to Sertac Karaman, not because of the sentence on the podcast. You are welcome to restore that sentence, but using external links for peoples names is not the standard. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes I was just educated as to that policy and I won't forget it.

I'll go ahead and make that edit only to the sentence I proposed.

Thank you. Uhhhum (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposed new references/additions to article

Hello. I would appreciate any feedback from other editors on my proposed references/additions.

Below is a rough draft of my proposed addition (intended to be placed at the end of the current "Lex Fridman Podcast" section):

Fridman has publicly stated his intention to interview controversial figures, across political divides, with an emphasis on empathy and compassion for whomever he interviews. [7]

He’s made clear his invitation to separately interview both Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy,[7] current leaders of countries at war.

However, the most recent, actualized example of Fridman’s trans-political podcasting is his sequential interviews with Benjamin Netanyahu, Yuval Noah Harari and Mohammed El-Kurd. In these interviews, among other questions and points of conversation, Fridman discusses the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict with the current president of Israel, an Israeli author/historian and a Palestinian activist opposed to Israel. Nasim Ahmed of MEMO described the podcast with El-Kurd as humanizing of the Palestinian people, different from how Palestinians are described in Israeli media. [9]

Nathan J. Robinson of Current Affairs wrote that, “Fridman is not an idealogue and seems genuine in his desire to empathetically understand leftists (he has also interviewed Richard Wolff, Steve Keen, and Noam Chomsky) and to be fair to all sides (he has hosted a debate between “skeptical environmentalist” Bjorn Lomborg and climate journalist Andrew Revkin.” However, Robinson goes on to criticize Fridman, saying that “the Fridman podcast is an excellent way to see how the posture of neutrality actually fails to adequately challenge falsehoods and toxic beliefs.” [7]

[7] currentaffairs.org (contains quotes from Fridman as well as critique of his failures as an interviewer of controversial figures, as the author explains in the article. Has other relevant information woven throughout.)

[8] time.com on further research i didn't find any other substantiating articles for the connection between Fridman and Huberman's podcast

[9] middleeastmonitor.com (controversy of Fridman's interviews regarding Israeli and Palestinian conflict)

[10] latimes.com (Kanye West interview controversy)

Uhhhum (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for digging these up. Please format your post so that it takes up less space (there's a lot of unnecessary whitespace/newlines). You can also use the following template {{Refideas}}. AncientWalrus (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  I've just attempted to format along those guidelines, though after adding descriptions of each link I've actually made it longer than it was before. I'd be happy to delete most of my text and leave the links. I've added so much text as I'm trying to be absolutely clear with my intentions and avoid making any disruptive edits. I don't want to proceed without consensus from other editors. Uhhhum (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for reformatting! The best way to discuss changes you'd like to make is to suggest what exactly you would like to add to the article. It's hard to give feedback otherwise. AncientWalrus (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Understood, I'll start to reformat this topic to show my suggestions specifically. Thank you for this feedback. Uhhhum (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  That's great! Ideally, when making significant changes to a talk page comment that others have already replied to, you underline your additions (in addition to striking out if you want to delete something, which you already did). And add a new signature to the end of the comment so that people can see when you made the changes. Right now, for example, it would be confusing why I asked you to remove whitespace and for having more extensive explanation for additions below a post of yours that already does so. That's not a big deal at all, I'm just giving tips as you appear to have appreciated similar suggestions I made previously. AncientWalrus (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  I do appreciate it! Thank you. I think at this point I'll just leave this page as I have nothing else to add/remove unless someone suggests something. I will attempt to be clearer and follow your suggestions for future edits to talk pages. Uhhhum (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll now add my proposed additions. Please comment here with any feedback on this addition. Thank you. Uhhhum (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding Jiu Jitsu section

Lex Fridman is notable for his involvement/accomplishments in the sport called Brazilian Jiu Jitsu.

I propose we add a section, or insert somewhere into the existing format, a mention of Fridman's connection to this sport. Specifically that he's attained "black belt" in the sport: a notable achievement for any practitioner of this sport.

https://jitsmagazine.com/lex-fridman-promoted-to-first-degree-bjj-black-belt/

https://www.bjjee.com/bjj-news/lex-fridman-promoted-to-1st-degree-bjj-black-belt-thank-you-for-the-pain-love/

I would appreciate any feedback on where to insert this datum or if there's agreement that a new section should be created.

Also, Fridman has recently been connected with both Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg by training/sparring with both of them in anticipation for a possible fight between the two tech billionaires.

https://jitsmagazine.com/elon-musk-has-bjj-training-session-with-lex-fridman/

Uhhhum (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

That can be included. It's normal to put things like this under a "Personal life" section. Probably put this section underneath the career section. I think the Jits magazine source is fine, but the bjjee one is a little spammy for my liking. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this feedback!

I'll make this addition later when I can. Uhhhum (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Fridman´s podcast

Someone has deleted my edits, with a strange explanation, this section would be about Lex Fridman as a person, and not about his guests. So why do we have section like this, nota bene about Fridman´s main activity in these days? Such an "explanation" for reverting of edits lacks any substance. A number of guests have been already mentioned, have been included in this section. So there is only one consequence, to add another important personalities as Fridman´s guests, e.g. Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia (even Wales was not spared from this extirpation), Jared Kushner, and John Mearsheimer. Zbrnajsem (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

As I said in one revert of your additions, the consensus currently is to source "notable guest appearances" only to those individuals who had received secondary coverage in RS, and not to use his own podcast as a reference for someone appearing on the show. Primefac (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I removed your edit. I have re-included a number of those guests because they were actually covered in a secondary source here: [11]

Wikipedia isn't a directory of information, so it's only appropriate to include mention of the guests on the podcast if their appearance was covered in other independent media. I hope this explanation is clear. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Poor quality sourcing

Noamthinks, hi thanks for your edit. Primefac did a partial revert because using primary sources and podcast links aren't appropriate. The article already included reliable secondary sources for the guests, and I have gone and put it on each guest mention to make this clearer to editors in future.

I reverted your edit in full as your paragraph in the reception was inappropriately sourced. I think the the net influencer article looks to like a weblog style source which appears strongly promotional in nature, and is unclear regarding editorial oversight. See WP:USENET. Cheers. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

In this context, podcast links are an appropriate source. It is not as if they are being used to source a random claim, but rather to source the fact that certain guests appeared on the podcast, many of whom are highly influential academic figures and thought leaders. The secondary sourcing for guests on the podcasts includes an inherent bias since it focuses on the most controversial of the guests, since those are the ones that attract mainstream media attention. By taking this approach, the article is skewing highly negatively and seems aimed to discredit Lex Fridman's podcast, since as an independent media outlet, it is unsurprising that he attracts negative attention from more mainstream sources.

It seems to me highly unusual that an article about one of the most popular and influential podcasts in the world is unable to muster up a single unambiguously positive review. If you dislike the sourcing I supplied, you should replace it with a better source instead of replacing the paragraph entirely. There is a massive gap in this article in explaining why this podcast is so popular and what it supplies to its audiences, which, I felt was well explained in the paragraph you reverted.... Noamthinks (talk) 09:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Noamthinks, links to podcast episodes are not an appropriate source in the same way that YouTube is not, WP:RSPYT. You should to spend more time reading the editing guidelines. As for "The secondary sourcing for guests on the podcasts includes an inherent bias since it focuses on the most controversial of the guests" – that is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which reflects what is reported in the secondary sources, including that which is critical. It isn't your place to editorialise, WP:WHITEWASH and dispute content from WP:RS that you dislike. As for "the article is skewing highly negatively and seems aimed to discredit Lex Fridman's podcast" – the article is hardly "highly negative", but to clarify, if the reputable outlets are critical of an individuals work and claims, then yes, Wikipedia will reflect that. As for a lack of positive comments, there is clearly one from Sertac Karaman, but it isn't the job of other editors to go and seek out positive comments. As for the removed paragraph, I think you would be better off using the business insider report for a short paragraph on why the podcast is popular. I don’t have time to go through more editing policy clarification but I hope this clarifies a few things. Zenomonoz (talk) 11:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Zenomonoz If you read the link you supplied on using YouTube as a source, WP:RSPYT, it states that the problem is due to the anonymous nature of YouTube channels and the possibilities of copyright violation. However, it notes "Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability.", since these podcast episodes are uploaded by Lex Fridman and this is an article about Lex Fridman, it seems ridiculous to claim that these videos cannot be used to source guests that appear on the Lex Fridman podcast. Noamthinks (talk) 11:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Noamthinks, it means content uploaded by outlets like the BBC, but even then using YouTube is generally discouraged. You might occasionally use it alongside a secondary source if it’s relevant. It might “seem ridiculous”, but it isn’t. If WP allowed people to source using all manner of self published content, articles would expand into a large index of information that isn’t WP:DUE or particularly notable. It isn’t encyclopaedic to list a bunch of podcast guests because Wikipedia isn’t a CV. See WP:NOTCV, and the other content in that article might be useful too. Zenomonoz (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

to clarify, the current list is fine because those ones are covered in reliable secondary sources. There is no need to link to the episodes, Wikipedia isn’t a WP:SOAPBOX. Zenomonoz (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify, primary sources are usually acceptable, however following this discussion the consensus on this article is to not use his podcast for sourcing guest appearances. Primefac (talk) 12:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Generally, if they were reputably published in a journal or outlet, then yes per WP:PRIMARY. But this is self published. You can sometimes use a primary and self published source (as a podcast episode is) on a BLP, WP:BLPSELFPUB: but in this case it adds little to the article and runs afoul of guidelines against becoming a CV/index and might be considered self serving. I’m all for using BLPSELFPUB for non-controversial statements of fact, such as the subject’s date of birth or place of birth. Zenomonoz (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Problems with Career section

The Career section starts with "MIT" and then goes on to "Lex Fridman Podcast" and then ends with "Reception".

The "reception" for both his academic career (MIT) and his podcasting career (Lex Fridman Podcast) are both included in the Reception section.

The problem: there are two sentences in the MIT section that should be moved to the "reception" section. Both sentences critiquing Fridman's "Tesla Autopilot" study are sentences that describe how his study was received.

These are the sentences I propose be moved or reformatted for clarity within this greater career section:

"The study's methodology was criticized by Missy Cummings, a professor at Duke University and advisor for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, who described it as "deeply flawed". AI researcher Anima Anandkumar suggested Fridman should submit his study for peer review before seeking press coverage."

I don't propose removing this critique, I propose this critique be moved to the "Reception" section. Any feedback welcome. Thanks. Uhhhum (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, the reception heading is a subheading underneath "Lex Fridman Podcast" so I'm not sure I agree. Most of the reception is about his focus on podcasting. If he were a regular researcher without a podcast, that article would not have been written in the first place. Also it's pretty normal to have the academic response to a particular study within the same place/paragraph where the study is discussed. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I see, I didn't understand that italicized meaning.

If the "Reception" section is specifically in regards to the "Lex Fridman Podcast" section, then I see a problem in the first paragraph of the Reception section.

The first paragraph is currently this:

"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". Computational biologist Lior Pachter said "some scientists and academics fear Fridman is contributing to the 'cacophony of misinformation'", while another AI researcher thought that Fridman may have "abandoned academic rigor in pursuit of fame". In contrast, his former colleague Sertac Karaman, LIDS's director, stated: "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."

This paragraph is focused on the Reception of Fridman's academic career and it is confusing to include this if the "Reception" section is specifically for the Reception of Fridman's podcast.

None of these quotes add substance to the understanding of how the Lex Fridman Podcast is being received by critics. This paragraph is focused instead on Fridman's reception by the academic world.

I now propose this paragraph be removed or moved to a separate section that is specifically dedicated to the Reception of Lex Fridman's academic career. Uhhhum (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I have changed the subheading level so it is just 'reception' in general about career and podcast. I understand you think the whole part about lacks the publications, citations and conference appearances required to be taken seriously in the hypercompetitive world of academia belongs under career, but it seems they're talking about it within the context of his podcasting. It is probably more fair to Lex to just include the 'general reception' here, but the context about the Tesla study next to the part it is discussed. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The whole article does read like a bit of a character assassination, doesn't it? Written by somebody with an inferiority complex, or? 37.188.190.125 (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

If you would like to seek further opinions on the balance of the article ask at WP:BLPN. Enter the name Lex Fridman in the the box underneath To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below. Generally, we include what is written in secondary sources however. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Because the "Reception" subheading is now denoting the reception of both the "MIT" and "Lex Fridman Podcast" sections, my original point has renewed validity: there's misplaced "reception" of Fridman's autopilot study at MIT within the "MIT" section. The two sentences showing Missy Cummings' and Anima Anandkumar's critique would be better placed in the "Reception" section.

Cummings says the autpilot study is "deeply flawed". Anandkumar says that Lex Fridman "should submit his study for peer review before seeking press coverage."

Both comments are related to the autopilot study, but it doesn't make sense to include them within the "MIT" section when there's a "Reception" section that's specifically describing the reception of Fridman's MIT and Podcasting career together. Uhhhum (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

It might be good for you to ask on WP:BLPN for more input, especially as this is a biography of a living person. That way we get a broader consensus than just the few editors (us) who pay this article much attention. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

On second thought, WP:BLPN might be for more serious concerns, so proceed if you think necessary. However, I think the reception of the Tesla study is fine under career, because that is about reception of the study. The 'reception' subsection is about reception of Fridman as a whole, not his study. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I just made the change. I feel it's more appropriate moved into "Reception" section and that this reorganization helps the flow of the article as a whole. I think this helps to resolve the "balance" issues.

Thanks for your feedback @Zenomonoz! Uhhhum (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Someone reverted my edits and put the "Reception" of Fridman's study back into the MIT section.

We have a Reception section, so "Reception" belongs there.

I'll change this myself, but I'd like to leave this comment here for a bit first to give the editor responsible an opportunity to explain why they disagree with me. Uhhhum (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Uhhhum I did. It's pretty standard to arrange a Wikipedia article in a chronological fashion and include critique of a study when it is mentioned. It is strange to mention the study and then only find out it was criticised multiple paragraphs below. It also contextualised how and why Lex rose to prominence. There is no rule that requires all reception go under one heading. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

There has been a pattern of editors coming to this talk page and expressing concern over the balance of this article.

The balance issues are raised because there's an over-dependence on the Business insider article by Julia Black. Before you, a user named @Ancientwalrus was the instrumental editor in the push back against the editors who'd come to this page expressing concerns over the balance of the article. And then AncientWalrus posted on your talk page and asked for you help in the push back against the editors who were finding balance issues in this article.

That aside, I don't understand how this particular critique of Fridman's study is beneficial to a reader's understanding of Fridman's career at MIT.

The paragraph in question currently reads as this: In 2019, Fridman published a study on Tesla Autopilot finding that drivers using semi-autonomous vehicles stayed focused, contrasting with established research on how humans interact with automated systems. Following his Tesla Autopilot study, Fridman was flown to Tesla offices for an interview with Elon Musk. Fridman's study on Tesla Autopilot was criticized for its methodology by Missy Cummings, a professor at Duke University and advisor for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, who described it as "deeply flawed". AI researcher Anima Anandkumar suggested Fridman should submit his study for peer review before seeking press coverage. One former MIT collague stated "Lex was relatively excited to get in touch with Elon Musk and get into his good graces". Following the interview with Musk, his podcast episodes saw significant growth and millions of views. The study was later removed from MIT's website.

How is it helpful to a reader to know that Missy Cummings opinion of the study is that it's "Deeply flawed"? How does that add value to a reader's understanding of Fridman's career, particularly his career at MIT?

Why do we need to know that Anima Anandkumar tweeted a suggestion to Fridman? " Anandkumar suggested Fridman should submit his study for peer review before seeking press coverage." What does that teach a reader about Fridman's career at MIT?

How is this sentence helpful: One former MIT collague stated "Lex was relatively excited to get in touch with Elon Musk and get into his good graces". It isn't and I'm removing it after i send this comment.

The point here is that there's an imbalance of negative critique of Fridman's study that distracts from the simple facts of the matter. This is an encyclopedia! this is supposed to be factual. I think that the description of Fridman's career should be the description of his career: any Reception of his career should be put into the Reception section. This is the simplest way to address the issues of balance that editors are continually commenting on through this talk page. So again, I propose we move all "reception" into the "Reception" section. Uhhhum (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Uhhhum I have tried to explain how this works, also shown through the talk page archives. You do not get to remove content reported in WP:RS as "irrelevant". There is now a long history of your editing that appears WP:TENDENTIOUS. "This is the simplest way to address the issues of balance that editors are continually commenting on through this talk page", no it removes the context of the study and makes it confusing for the reader. There wasn’t consensus on this, I suggested it made more sense having it with the first mention of the study. Having things in chronological order is pretty standard practice, and gives context. It is unusual to have to read for multiple paragraphs to finally read peer reception of the study. As for your argument: "How is it helpful to a reader to know that Missy Cummings opinion of the study is that it's "Deeply flawed"? – uh this is how Wikipedia works. People publish stuff, it gets critiqued, and it gets reflected on Wikipedia. This isn't LinkedIn, and it isn't a WP:SOAPBOX for promotional purposes. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Here is your comment on my moving the reception in MIT section to the Reception section:

"On second thought, WP:BLPN might be for more serious concerns, so proceed if you think necessary. However, I think the reception of the Tesla study is fine under career, because that is about reception of the study. The 'reception' subsection is about reception of Fridman as a whole, not his study. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)"

I think it's necessary, and so I made the edit, and now you've reverted it and posted to my talk page saying that I'm disruptive editing. Please discuss this with me instead of posting templates on my talk page and throwing WP links at me. I read every page you link and oftentimes they're not applicable.

you wrote:

"no it removes the context of the study and makes it confusing for the reader."

It doesn't, because im moving the critique to the Reception section, not removing it entirely.

you wrote:

"Having things in chronological order is pretty standard practice, and gives context."

I'm not arguing that. You seem to be misunderstanding my intentions with this edit. I'm trying to move this critique into the Reception section and in my attempted edit, I maintained chronological order.

Here is an excerpt from WP:NOTOPINION

"Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view."

I'm trying to give this article a neutral point of view. Please WP: assume good faith

The article currently reads as biased against Fridman. I understand that there are some positive critique of him, but the critique is unbalanced.

I'm suggesting: the solution to this is to move all critique into the Reception section.

It's unhelpful to the MIT section to spend more than half of the section on critique of the study: when reading about Fridman's career at MIT, a reader should be able to read the facts. If the reader wants to know how the study was received, then it makes sense to continue reading into the "Reception" section. Uhhhum (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

overdependence on Business Insider article

there are currently sixteen references to the Business Insider article by Julia Black. Uhhhum (talk) 05:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Uhhhum, no that's not really true, it was used multiple times in the same paragraph after each sentence. After tidying it up, it is cited 9 times. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for tidying it up.

I still see there being an overdependence on this source. Uhhhum (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

This article currently doesn't represent a neutral point of view.

I understand that there is valid critique of Fridman, his autopilot study at MIT, and his podcast. I don't suggest removing this critique.

I suggest re organizing the information so that it represents a neutral point of view.

There is a focus on the timeline of Fridman's study, Elon Musk's reaction to that study, Fridman's interview with Musk, and then an increase in popularity of Fridman's podcast. If there are reliable sources that show that connection, then it should certainly be included.

The imbalance comes from the inclusion of critique by Missy Cummings, Anima Anandkumar, and other anonymous sources in the MIT section of the article.

The criticism placed in this section takes away the balanced representation of the facts of Fridman's career at MIT.

I suggest this critique be moved to the "Reception" section, where it can be seen not as an aspect of Fridman's career at MIT, but instead as the reception of Fridman's career at MIT.

Uhhhum (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

That isn’t how the neutrality policy works. Also, you need to declare if you have some kind of conflict of interest with Lex Fridman. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

i dont have any conflict of interest with Fridman.

im not trying to "soapbox" or "advocate" for this person or his podcast, as you suggested about me earlier. im trying to make edits that will add neutrality to the article.

you write:

"That isn’t how the neutrality policy works."

can you please continue to discuss this with me?

do you see the balance issues that im bringing up? do you understand why im interpreting this article as unbalanced and lacking a neutral point of view? Uhhhum (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

No I don’t see how it is unbalanced. The reliable sources are clear that a) his Tesla study was controversial and critiqued by peers and b) that the study played an important role in him becoming famous. How a study is received by peers doesn’t need a separate section on a BLP. It is common practice to put things in chronological order, which means reporting academic work in the order it occurred, and how it was received by peers. The reception of the study is a part of his career/work at MIT. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

If the reception of the study belongs in the MIT section, then maybe we need to re organize information in the Reception section.

For instance, this sentence:

In contrast, his former colleague Sertac Karaman, LIDS's director, stated: "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."

Does that belong in the MIT section instead?

There's also an overdependence on the Business Insider source.

You say:

The reliable sources are clear that a) his Tesla study was controversial and critiqued by peers and b) that the study played an important role in him becoming famous.

But there's only one source that makes that connection: the Business Insider source. Uhhhum (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

So what? I have serious reservations about your intentions here, and your history of white washing. Youre complaining about a lack of sources but it is you who deleted reliable source content which hasn’t been restored. Example here. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

well I've taken a step back from making any further edits on this page because of my history.

That source and some of the content was restored. I can't find the example and a link, but that source by Haretz was restored and later removed by a different editor. Look it up if you want, Im not myself because I'm on my phone and don't have time for this.

My intentions have always been to add balance to what I saw as an imbalanced, poorly structured article.

I've made additions, such as adding the personal life section, or the critique from N Robinson of Current Affairs.

What I learned from the WP links you sent me was that "burden of proof" for something included on an article is the responsibility of the editor who wants to include it.

You seem to want to include this narrative that, to put it simply, Fridman wanted fame, did a tesla-related study to get Elon Musk's attention, was taken in by Musk and made famous for his efforts on the autopilot study... and I just don't see any evidence of these connection beyond the Business Insider source. This entire theory about Fridman is taken from a single source and is dominating a significant section of this article, so I think it's worthy of examination/discussion. I also think that the burden is on you to "prove it", however I'm going to stop engaging with you so it's up to other editors to continue or stop this discussion.

I'm not involving myself here anymore.

I'll now step back completely and cease my involvement on this page.

Take care all. Uhhhum (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The burden of proof requires that what is written is stated in the reliable sources. It is. Wikipedia does not require that pages be 50% praise and 50% critique. If the reliable sources include a lot of critique, then the Wikipedia articles will often feature it. Zenomonoz (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I've never clicked on one of these 'talk' sections before, but did today as this article seemed so biased and made no sense.

There's no talk of his podcast or guests or rise at all, it reads like he did the autopilot thing and he was suddenly a youtube hit.

The guys had hundreds and hundreds of people on there, I can't grasp why Musk is such a focus. Sacredteal (talk) 04:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I can re-order it to make the study and podcasting chronological. Cheers. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Also I did actually advise you to ask on WP:BLPN if you have concerns about the article. You can do that. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Fridman made a bit of a mention of this when talking about his Wikipedia article on his podcast. here is the episode, at 22:00 onwards, for ideas on what could be improved. —Panamitsu (talk) 05:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• I removed the "controversial" text from the WP:LEAD per WP:NOCRIT and also started to cleanup the reception section, then noticed it seems to have a single source. Do we have others than this business insider junk? We are going to need a better source for this than business insider, see WP:BUSINESSINSIDER. Do not re-add this content without consensus here or take to WP:RSN if you like, per WP:ONUS and WP:BLPREMOVE. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  Jtbobwaysf, nocrit is an essay, not an editing guideline. The source itself describes the study as "controversial", meaning this label is acceptable. However, I have rephrased it so it can be read in the body. We do not "need" a better source as business insider is not considered unreliable. Rather, it is evaluated on a case by case basis (edit: there is actually a WP:RS that describes it as a "controversial study"). The author of the BI piece is a senior correspondent at Insider, which itself is an WP:RS so we can be confident this piece is acceptable. You also appear to misunderstand what consensus means. Consensus is determined based on the merits of the arguments, not vote count. You also misunderstand BLPREMOVE and guidelines. This material is absolutely not contentious. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I see you re-added the controversial word to the WP:LEAD. As for WP:BUSINESSINSIDER it is not an RS for this type of content. Feel free to open an WP:RSN and we can discuss there. If you simply re-add the content you will be in violation of WP:BLPREMOVE Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  Jtbobwaysf, no I did not restore the word "controversial" to the lead. Also it is described as a "controversial study" in this reliable source. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  by the way, can you please clarify which bullet point of WP:BLPREMOVE applies here? I am not seeing it. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  Apologies, I may have conflated two issues in my explanation. I have struck the lead comment. In regards to this edit you have restored controversial and disputed content where I have explained it violates #1 bullet of WP:BLPREMOVE says "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced;" WP:BUSINESSINSIDER says "There is no consensus on the reliability of Insider. The site's syndicated content, which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher" which should tell you clearly that adding content that is contentious and is sourced by BI, is not ok. Then you go on to revert that content back on to the article, in violation of BLPRESTORE and continue to argue your point here, and argue on your talk page here that is it my ONUS to instead put on BLPN instead. You seem to be confused about ONUS here and the policy. I only jumped in on this as I see another editor Uhhhum raising NPOV claims, and then I saw that the most non-NPOV comments are coming from a junk source and you are reverting to re-add that to the article. Becoming clear yet? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  When a source has no consensus, it does not mean it must be removed: see WP:MREL. This particular Insider article appears to cross over between the tech and the culture sections on Insider, and the source is a WP:RS on culture. This isn't syndicated content (written by a contributor), which is what the perennial sources page discusses. It is written by a senior correspondent at Insider, so the work is subject to a far higher standard of editorial. This article is clearly not a "junk" source. The author is well known for high profile articles on tech leaders, and she spoke to a wide range of experts for the article. I opened a discussion here where Hemiauchenia agreed the source is absolutely reliable: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Business Insider on Lex Fridman.

  I also find it questionable to remove content that includes quotes from notable scientists like Lior Pachter. This isn't some random person critiquing Lex's work. So nope, sources like this need to be evaluated on a case by case basis and it seems pretty clear to myself and another experienced editor that the source is both reliable and worth citing.

  Zenomonoz (talk) 09:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  Nice work, I'd be more inclined for inclusion based on what you've added. I think that we need to be more careful about the "according to research experts" which we really should have attributed. —Panamitsu (talk) 10:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Content removal / vandalism

Due to the recent number of IP/new editors who are attempting to remove reliable critique of Lex, and Lex's tweet which references the wikipedia page, I have requested increased protection for the page, currently pending.

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED nor is it a WP:SOAPBOX. The critique comes from individuals with credentials. Complaining about your Wikipedia article only creates a streisand effect. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

That's not what vandalism is, @Zenomonoz. If people remove sourced content without comment, you won't be at fault for reverting but since it's a BLP, when you do so, you must seriously consider whether what was removed contained BLP issues. The subjects of BLPs are afforded protections and they should be taken seriously when they object to how we cover them. You should also invite those editors to discuss their concerns on the talk page, and advise them that offwiki coordination is not allowed. It's not improbable that multiple individuals come in independently after a public event without there being any coordination, so reasonable amount of good faith ought to be extended as well. They could still be interested in working within Wikipedia guidelines and with some help, may help improve the article, and even go on to become regular editors. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool illegitimate blanking is a listed form of vandalism on WP:VANDAL, so that is what vandalism is. I do not have to "seriously consider" these repeated attempts to remove content again and again given the source itself was already discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard and these users do not provide any convincing argument. "They could still be interested in working within Wikipedia guidelines and with some help" – did I say otherwise? Did I say they should be banned? No, I said I have requested protection which is a standard procedure in cases like this. IP editors can still make requests on the talk page. There is a reason that controversial articles often do not allow brand new editors to edit. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I am guessing you didn't read the second paragraph. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_423#Business_Insider_on_Lex_Fridman This has already been resolved. The BI article has been deemed a usable source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Still doesn't make it vandalism, or any content citing it beyond challenge. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Not including an edit summary when blanking, is vandalism. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not. Please make a habit of reading policy pages, especially when engaging in arguments over them. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a platform for "reliable critique". The "reception" section of the article should be removed as it does not fulfill the function of providing neutral information. Devoting a large portion of an article about a person to the opinions expressed about the person qualifies as gossip. The articles for other prominent controversial media figures do not contain sections involving "reception". BonsaiBonzai123 (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

How would you know what Wikipedia is for if you've never edited it before? This kind of stuff is standard in Wikipedia biographies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons BonsaiBonzai123 (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper BonsaiBonzai123 (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Uh no, Wikipedia:Criticism#"Reception" type section: An acceptable approach to including criticisms in Wikipedia articles is to separate the description of a topic from a description of how the topic was received. Suitable section titles, depending on case, include: "Reception Zenomonoz (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

"However, sections dedicated to negative material may violate the NPOV policy and may be a troll magnet, which can be harmful if it leads to users with strong opinions dominating the article but may simplify maintenance of the article if unhelpful edits are limited to a single section." BonsaiBonzai123 (talk) 05:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstand. It isn't dedicated to negative material, it is dedicated to reception (which includes praise). It's just that the sources include a lot of critique. "Sections dedicated to negative material" is in reference to BLPS in which a user might attempt to create a section exclusively about critique (even when reliable sources include lots of priase) Zenomonoz (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Also Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone – the section includes both critique and praise, and it's also coming from reputable scholars, not randoms. Pretty standard on BLPs, especially for 'academic' figures. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe the reception section violates NPOV. Have a look at the Jordan Peterson article, there is no reception section, presumably because it became/would have become a gossip section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson BonsaiBonzai123 (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

So? The Jordan Peterson article is formatted to weave some reception of him through the article. E.g. the "influences" section there is some of it. We also don't format this article based upon the Peterson article (or any other). "There is no reception section, presumably because it became/would have become a gossip section" well if there are WP:RS with peer commentary on Peterson (praise or critique), they can certainly be included on the Peterson article. Reception is often more logical under a separate header rather than weaved through the article. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe the material is presented responsibly or conservatively. The opinions expressed are strong and controversial. I think it is a troll magnet. BonsaiBonzai123 (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

"I don't believe the material is presented responsibly or conservatively" – responsibly and conservatively just means to attribute, i.e. X said X, which is done. So yeah.

"The opinions expressed are strong and controversial" – just because you do not like them does not mean they should be removed. The opinions of peers/experts in their respective fields are hardly controversial. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

" Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral." Praise/criticism is not neutral. BonsaiBonzai123 (talk) 05:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

That is why we use the heading "reception", which is acceptable on Wikipedia. Nowhere does the page include the heading 'praise' or 'criticism'... Zenomonoz (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

For examples of articles that are "broadly neutral" you may refer to Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, Bernie Sanders, - basically any public figure. You will find no sections titled "reception" or anything devoted to what the the media says about them. BonsaiBonzai123 (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

No. I have already linked you an essay page showing that a reception section is acceptable. The Joe Rogan article includes plenty of media commentary on him, the word "misinformation" is included a total of 12 times, and "controversy" 6 times. Different articles can be arranged in different ways.

If you are going to keep arguing about this you are going to end up looking like a WP:SPA and somebody WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia. I think you might consider that I have been here a while and I am giving you some constructive feedback. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The reception section is used for books and works of art or when the original article grows to large:

"This approach employs a separate article that includes both positive and negative viewpoints. This approach is often taken when the primary article on a literary topic grows too large and is subject to a content fork."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism#%22Reception%22_type_section BonsaiBonzai123 (talk) 05:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Then read the page relevant to biographies of living persons WP:BLP. Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone – which it is. So your argument that critique cannot be included is incorrect.

A large number of new editors like yourself have attempted to raise these kinds of arguments before and they never end up going anywhere. It's not a good look when you show up after Lex's off wiki canvassing. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

It is not presented responsibly or conservatively or in a disinterested tone. For models of how to write an article that fulfills these criteria you may refer to any articles of any public figure. BonsaiBonzai123 (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

It is presented in a disinterested tone, because the tone refers to what is written in WP:WIKIVOICE, not what other persons said about Lex. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Fine but since the content itself is inflammatory and occupies roughly 1/3 of the article it is not responsible or conservative and violates the neutrality of the article as a whole, please remove it and integrate criticism in a way that does not violate NPOV. BonsaiBonzai123 (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:Criticism is an essay, which means that it is not Wikipedia policy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Please keep your bias out of people's wiki pages. This is a pathetic article about lex. Just because you sourced "a reliable source" doesn't make it right. It paints a mostly negative picture of him. Most people don't agree with this, even those who may not like lex. Rewrite the page in non-biased manner. 41.81.128.187 (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Maybe, but. If the Wikipedia:Criticism#"Reception" type section section is just to include criticism content and lacks NPOV then it is not reception in anything other than section name, and is rather criticism. If we cant have a section with NPOV, then move the content into other parts of the article. A laundry list of the mainstream media thinking the article subject is bad, is not at all NPOV. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  That isn’t how it works, and it doesn’t “just include criticism content”. It includes positive/indifferent discussion of his work. And even if there were zero sources positively discussing him, that isn’t a reason to exclude critique. It would only be an NPOV if there were positive reception sources but they were purposely not included and not represented. That isn’t happening. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  The person who wrote the reception section cherry-picked the contents of the Elizabeth Lopatto article. The article describes Lex's interview style as ideal but this aspect is omitted in the summarization. Here is the full paragraph:

  "Fridman’s podcast is ideal because it has a following among the tech elite, and because Fridman is a softball interviewer. (He couldn’t even get Bezos to divulge how much he curls!) But that’s not the only thing it’s got going for it. Fridman has a close association with Elon Musk — he rocketed to fame on the back of a controversial study of Tesla, followed by an interview with Musk himself."

  This is the problem with dedicating a section to reception aka gossip. It invites this kind of activity. BonsaiBonzai123 (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  They are using the term ‘ideal’ in a skeptical way. They are suggesting it is ‘ideal’ (for the tech elite) because they will not face much scrutiny from Lex. Also the second part about the ‘controversial study’ is hardly positive, and is already covered under MIT. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  I see that now! I'm not used to reading this type of content! BonsaiBonzai123 (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Tabloid journalism is not allowed.

  "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Balance BonsaiBonzai123 (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  The article isn’t using tabloid sources. So no. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criticism#"Reception" type section "include both negative and positive assessments." So if we cannot find positive content to put in the section, then the section is misnamed. I would note that in the case of Lex_Fridman#Reception I do note that there seem to be both positive and negative reviews of the article subject, so it seems fine to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the of whether the assessment is neutral positive or negative, this type of source is not allowed. Sometimes it is even hard to tell what the author is saying because in this style of journalism it is the custom to employ a shifty ironical tone to excite strong emotional response!

Please adhere to this standard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Balance

"Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."

Please inform yourselves as to what tabloid journalism and assess the content, tone and motivations of the sources being used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabloid_journalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensationalism BonsaiBonzai123 (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Biographies of Living Persons are held to a higher standard. Tabloid Journalism is not acceptable. The sources being used in the reception article are Tabloid Journalism.

Regardless of whether the of whether the assessment is neutral positive or negative, this type of source is not allowed. Sometimes it is even hard to tell what the author is saying because in this style of journalism it is the custom to employ a shifty ironical tone to excite strong emotional response!

Please adhere to this standard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Balance

"Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."

Please inform yourselves as to what tabloid journalism and assess the content, tone and motivations of the sources being used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabloid_journalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensationalism BonsaiBonzai123 (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but can you read what I have patiently written to you already? The source was already discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard where it was agreed to be reliable/acceptable and it is attributed so there is no issue. Often new editors have some questions, but you have written an excessive number of replies and refused to accept independent input. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I just think you need to read the guidelines a bit more clearly. When the source is deemed reliable (which it was) and verifiable (which it is), then it can be used. This does not count as ‘tabloid’ journalism. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)