Talk:Antony Garrett Lisi/Archive 1

message: I would love to see a explanation of his work.
:Abstract: All fields of the standard model and gravity are unified as an E8 principal bundle connection. A non-compact real form of the E8 Lie algebra has G2 and F4 subalgebras which break down to strong su(3), electroweak su(2) x u(1), gravitational so(3,1), the frame-Higgs, and three generations of fermions related by triality. The interactions and dynamics of these 1-form and Grassmann valued parts of an E8 superconnection are described by the curvature and action over a four dimensional base manifold.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.22.97.219 (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of theory

message: There are two articles with identical titles but different URLs.
Note the full URLs.  This article (URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Lisi) has the same title, and similar content as the main article (URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Garrett_Lisi).
You get to the false page by searching on "garrett lisi".
I recommend deleting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Lisi
Navy.enthusiast (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need to delete :Garrett Lisi, it already re-directs to Antony Garrett Lisi. As his name has been given both ways in news and scholarly sources, having both articles (with the short name re-directing to his real name) makes a whole lot of sense. --健次(derumi)talk 20:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Garrett Lisi is a redirect to Antony Garrett Lisi.  It has been since the 15th. --Not big and not clever (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  URL duplication 

message: Reading over the article, and the recent dispute here, whether an inconsistency was "demonstrated" or "claimed", I wonder whether it's a good idea to go into any detail of the physics model on a personal page. I suggest to remove all detail from the model from this page, and merge content into the page of the model itself (if that's even needed, on first view all the information is already duplicated there).
As for notability, I feel that if a reader is engaged in a surfing, snowboarding, or burning man community, you might find it interesting that one of his/her peers has published a physics model that suggests to unify the forces. If you're in the physics community, you might find it interesting that an independent researcher finances his works in an unusual way. Since there is independent public mention of Garrett Lisi in at least two fields of general interest, which are typically not related, I find this notable for Wikipedia.
One minor thing, I suggest to remove the category "Cosmologist" unless this can be sourced.
Here's what I would suggest, writing it in a way that could satisfy both focus groups (physicists and surfers/snowboarders):
(leave the infobox as-is)
:Antony Garrett Lisi (born 1968; uses name Garrett by preferenceA. (Garrett Lisi's home page)), is an independent theoretical physicist, who finances his works in part through surfing and snowboarding activities.
:Born in Los Angeles, and raised in San Diego, California,"San Diego native" Accessed 2007-12-03 Lisi graduated the Cate School (south of Santa Barbara, California) in 1986, received his B.S. with highest honors in physics and mathematics from the University of California, Los Angeles in 1991, and received a Ph.D in physics from the University of California, San Diego in 1999. While not holding a university faculty position, he is listed as a visitor at the University of Hawaii, and receives support from the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physicshttp://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/11/16/science-theory-everything.html and the Foundational Questions Institute.http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/dn12891-is-mathematical-pattern-the-theory-of-everything.html
:On November 6, 2007 he posted a controversial paperAn Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything to the popular "arXiv" scientific preprint server, proposing to answer one of the fundamental unsolved problems in physics: Connecting quantum physics and gravitation, to form a unified field theory that models all fundamental interactions that physicists have observed in nature (main article: An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything).
:Featured in Surfer magazine,Surfer magazine interview accessed 2007-12-06. he has been described as a “surfer dude” who is primarily employed in activities outside of physics.  The San Diego Union Tribune's sports section notes that "... Lisi has been painted by some with the stereotypical 'surfer dude' brush. Inside the scientific community, however, Lisi says he's had no such problems."  He splits his time living in Maui, where he surfs and windsurfs, and Lake Tahoe, Nevada, where he practices alpine snowboarding. http://www.fqxi.org/community/data/articles/lisi_garrett.pdf
:According to Lisi, "Surfing acts as a great 'reset' button for whatever I'm worried about in the rest of my life. [...] If I'm struggling with a difficult physics question, focusing on approaches that aren't going anywhere, surfing allows me to get away from the problem [...]". About the initial reception of his model, he comments: "OK, the hype (and my inbox) has gotten totally out of control. This is, after all, about an untested theory that may or may not turn out to be true. But, on the other hand… it’s pretty damn amusing. Mostly, all this media attention just makes me want to go hide for fifteen minutes, and I hope to come back to see physicists pondering this E8 theory, despite the hype."Comment by Garrett Lisi  16 November 2007, on Cosmic Variance post about his theory
(then, remove the entire E8 / theory discussion, and leave all from the ==See also== section on down, except for Catgory:Cosmologist unless sourced)
Comments, concerns, corrections? Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 16:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I do think that a brief summary here (a couple of paragraphs) describing the theory and some of its controversies, together with the link to the main article on the theory, would be the most useful way to do this.  The trick will be to keep the description of the theory here relatively brief and free of disagreements. GiveItSomeThought (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the tricky part, isn't it? Most athletes probably care less about details beyond what I'm suggesting above, and physicists would want to look up the specifics of the theory anyway in the main article. I advocate against duplication, and instead concentrate on the focus groups of the article. --- Conversely, if we wouldn't have more than one focus group, then we'd indeed be facing a notability concern for Garrett Lisi as a person. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separating person from model 

message: Hello - after checking the links and biographical references more deeply, I noticed several errors:
*Dr. Lisi was lecturer at University of Hawaii, not visitor;
*he was visitor at the Perimeter Institute, but did not receive financial support, to my knowledge, and
*he has received a two-year grant from the Fundational Questions Institute for his research (that was correct; but the link was incorrect and pointed to the Perimeter Institute).
I've fixed these errors, and also put the reference links to the correct statements. One quote of Lisi's had a hotlink (the words "pretty damn amusing" were hotlinked to a hillarious satire on uncyclopedia.org), which I restored. I've removed his religious stance from the infobox, since I could not find reference to public attention this would have received. Also, I removed the category "Cosmologist"; even though the media has eluded to this, after checking his publication list this doesn't appear to be the right scientific category, as his works don't deal with the evolution of the universe).
I hope the article is now in a state that may be more acceptable. If so, the theory page will be next for clean-up. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographical errors 

message: He has no notability individually. This article should be turned into a redirect to the "theory". DGG (talk) 11:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As author of a notable theory, I think he does, indeed, have notability. In addition, his odd lifestyle as a scientist would add to that notability. --健次(derumi)talk 15:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd lifestyle does not make for notability. If it did, we'd have 100 times as many articles. Whether the theory is notable beyond a single widely noticed publication is the issue. DGG (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's somewhat borderline, but I'd say producing a credible theory of everything makes him more notable than the average professor, and hence includable under the spirit of the academic guidelines, even if one needs to stretch WP:PROF a bit to make it fit.  Dragons flight (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: PS. I will say however that I think too much space is being devoted to his theory in this article, and not enough to the other aspects of the man.  Dragons flight (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How much of these other aspects can be verified by reliable secondary sources?  If we replaced the discussion of his theory with a link to the article on that, we might just be left with a stub which essentially says:"Garrett's a physicist who followed a non-traditional career path. He likes surfing. Oh, and we know where he got his degrees from.  That's about it, really.  All the good stuff is over at the other article."There doesn't seem much point to that, presently.  And there's no sense in having two articles to discuss the theory. --Not big and not clever (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Put that way, I would have to agree. --健次(derumi)talk 15:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I take it we are agreed on a merge? DGG (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objections. If a merge is done, care should be made so that Garrett Lisi also re-directs there. --健次(derumi)talk 03:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I dont think the merge is a good idea. The topics are different, the theory he has proposed and the man and his life. As he has not followed a traditional path there is a bit more to say than average plus quite a few sources to back this up. --Salix alba (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe a merge is either a bad idea, or at the very least very premature.  If his theory is not relatively rapidly disproved, he's clearly notable, and we'd have to recreate the article.  The theory is still in the "too new to have been solidly reviewed" stage, so we don't know, but it's generating enough attention within the physics community that he's clearly notable to them.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the deWP no longer has the article. DGG (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This argument is nonsensical.  There are 10s of theoretical physics papers every day posted on the arxiv which, were they correct, would win the authors the Nobel.  Yet few if any of their authors have wiki entries, nor should they.  Notability concern restored.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.5.35.152 (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This notability editwar seems so senseless to me. Can we stop yet? The Wikipedia community ought to be glad Lisi doesn't come here and demand his bio be deleted. No sensible scientist would want a place where anonymous idiots can write crap about his or her personal life. The paper is notable for gaining international recognition, no question there, and a notable paper deserves a BRIEF professional bio about the author. Happy editing! Tom Ruen (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability (1)

message: Lisi is much less notable than thousands of other researchers.  Just look at his publications.  His only claim to fame is a brief burst of media attention, now gone.  The article should be deleted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.186.252.27 (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's not paper, so there's no reason to delete the information that has been compiled and edited. Moreover, plenty of people are interested in Lisi and his theory. If there are other researchers you feel deserve note in WP, feel free to start and add to their articles. PRRfan (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, if anonymous IP user 71.167.243.242 wants to take the headcount ad absurdum, then the headcount will have failed to provide a meaningful outcome. Using enough creativity, one can render any attempt for consensus futile. Keep cool, happens all the time. Sorry for the nastigram you've received.
User 71.137.243.242, as for the two arguments for notability I've given so far, can you please provide a comment? My arguments were: (1) Public attention received in two domains that are typically not related (physics and sports), and (2) anticipation of follow-up or derivative work within the next year, potentially controversial, that may raise interest in Garrett Lisi as a person. A comment would be much appreciated. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think neither the theory nor the person meet the notability criteria. I support the arguments given by 71.167.243.242. Yevgeny Kats (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree; Lisi is somebody for whom a general reader might reasonably expect to find a WP article. — DAGwyn (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lisi is certainly notable, he is discusses all over the internet for the start. His biography is not trivial and notable, there is no indication that he finds the publicity to be hurtful for him Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability (2) 

message: I'd like to get a headcount here.  At least one IP which has put the notability tag in is a TOR node and is now blocked (81.186.252.27) and is ineligible to participate.
Lisi is notable and no tag needed
(add your WP account or IP address to the list below)
# Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if anonymous IP user 71.167.243.242 wants to take the headcount ad absurdum, then the headcount will have failed to provide a meaningful outcome. Using enough creativity, one can render any attempt for consensus futile. Keep cool, happens all the time. Sorry for the nastigram you've received.
User 71.137.243.242, as for the two arguments for notability I've given so far, can you please provide a comment? My arguments were: (1) Public attention received in two domains that are typically not related (physics and sports), and (2) anticipation of follow-up or derivative work within the next year, potentially controversial, that may raise interest in Garrett Lisi as a person. A comment would be much appreciated. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think neither the theory nor the person meet the notability criteria. I support the arguments given by 71.167.243.242. Yevgeny Kats (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree; Lisi is somebody for whom a general reader might reasonably expect to find a WP article. — DAGwyn (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lisi is certainly notable, he is discusses all over the internet for the start. His biography is not trivial and notable, there is no indication that he finds the publicity to be hurtful for him Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll on notability