Talk:Sabrina Gonzalez Pasterski

__________________________________

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 September 2018 and 21 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Egonz124. Peer reviewers: Meganjage, JKimura85.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Too Soon?

Isn't it WP:TOOSOON for this page? It is very hard to see if the papers she had were cited because of her achievements, or because her advisor was the co-author. Besides, arXiv paper by Hawking cites her, but her advisor was a co-author there as well. This means that the page most probably violates WP:PROF for her. It feels like this is becoming a premature self-promotion page. I am absolutely sure she is a genius, and she will achieve great results, but I still think it is WP:NotJustYet. I don't want to raise the deletion discussion before bringing it here. Zafar (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

re: deletion discussion

Hawking cited a solo paper as well as co-authored papers.

Gonzalez completed the Triangle's third vertex on her own, then came up with Spin Memory on her own, and has now drawn connections between Amplitudes and Bootstrap with her Soft Shadows.

In their lifetime, very few theoretical physicists come up with a theory that can be tested experimentally, much less have physicists in Europe and at LIGO proposing to test it—she had by age 23.

In 2015, a retired Harvard professor was the first to list her advisors group as Strominger, Pasterski et al.

In 2016, there was a paper from China that listed their joint papers and theories as Pasterski, Strominger et al.

In 2017, European physicists referred to her Spin Memory work with Strominger as Pasterski et al.

So the physics community has, in two short years moved from: Strominger et al, to Strominger, Pasterski et al, to Pasterski, Strominger et al to Pasterski et al

The page could be saved under sheer Notability for promoting Women in STEM. Once notable, always notable. An article shared over a million times, named a headliner at Comic Con, thrown an official diplomatic reception in Moscow, asked to the White House and then appearing in the same 2 page spread as the First Lady as the Genius and Her Mentor. She has appeared on the front pages of newspapers with a million plus subscribers, in the pages of scores of magazines, in test prep software and on television for promoting women in stem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.210.167 (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Clearly the user talk is not a trained hep th physicist. The claims that she/he makes are ridiculous. The claims by 107.77.210.167 in Sabrina's Wikipedia page are only harming her, because no hep th physicist can take them seriously and thus they take Sabrina's Wikipedia as a joke. I have witnessed various jokes among colleagues regarding Sabrina, her Wikipedia page, and the all the hype created by non-physicists. So far Sabrina is "just" a good PhD. student with and average number of papers. There are many like her. I am sure in the future she will make contributions to science worth appearing in the Wikipedia, but until that time comes we should give her a break and not oversell something that has not happened yet. The Wikipedia page of a scientist should be based on her/his scientific achievements confirmed by published papers on peer reviewed journals, not on hype created by blogs, twitter or news magazines. User 107.77.210.167 is harming Sabrina and needs to be stopped. MAloeVeritasM (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

At the same time Andy told the media gathered around Hawking that he had the pleasure to work with Einstein number 2 as a junior author and Einstein number 3 as a senior author he also said that there were only a handful of people in the World who understand everything that he and his Einsteins come up with. Do you think he was speaking of you? If you are curious and in Cambridge today, you can ask Stephen, Malcolm or Andy in person.

As ridiculous as the above statements may be, they are what they are. Truth is stranger than fiction. credited to Lord Byron 107.77.210.167 (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

User 107.77.210.167 is not capable of writing statements based on published papers on scientific journals. She/he is only capable of write about gossips and "Andy told me this and that" and what the "media says". I am sorry but that is not how the Wikipedia of a scientist should be written. This user does not realize, because she/he is not a trained physicist, how deeply she/he is harming the reputation and reliability of Sabrina as a scientist. MAloeVeritasM (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a discussion about deleting the page not about science. Notability is key. Put sabrina mit or sabrina harvard or sabrina p or sabrina g or sabrina airplane into a search engine and you get several pages of stories about this subject. She is notorious for rejecting social media yet can reach millions of girls potentially interested in STEM education. She has an unheard of number of views of her technical talks. She meets the criteria of notability not just in the English speaking world but just about everywhere: Headline News in India, hundreds of Women in STEM blogs in South America, and the fact that her Wikipedia page was created in Pakistan and has now been translated into nine languages around the world: العربية বাংলা Català Españolفای Français Русский andاردو. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.210.167 (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Apparently user 107.77.210.167 is not capable of distinguishing between the Wikipedia page of a scientist and the Wikipedia page of a "media celebrity". The Wikipedia page of a scientist is based on her/his scientific achievements with references based on published papers on scientific journals. The Wikipedia page of a "media celebrity" is based on hype in the media, gossip etc Apparently, user 107.77.210.167 wants to write a media celebrity Wikipedia page about Sabrina. That is why user 107.77.210.167 is harming Sabrina's reputation as a scientist. User 107.77.210.167 is not listing scientific achievements (in particular this user does not know what a scientific achievement is since she/he is not a professional physicist). User 107.77.210.167 is just listing media hype. In particular, the following statement "She has an unheard of number of views of her technical talks." does not make sense. An even if it made sense user 107.77.210.167 is not capable of providing any reliable source for that information. I do not think Sabrina wants to appear in Wikipedia as a media hype. I am sure she wants to appear in Wikipedia because of her scientific achievements. So far, her scientific achievements are not worth a Wikipedia page. She just has three published papers (a very average number of papers for someone in the middle of the PhD.) and an average number of citations. I am sure in the future she will make contributions worth a Wikipedia page, but so far that is not the case. MAloeVeritasM (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The world needs both science and its promotion and this page can be retained through notability in either segment "media or science". You deny her scientific achievements AFTER removing citations to arXived papers and papers cited by prominent physicists because you have this bug about publications. Citations are the key not the fact it was or was not published--many scientists have published papers with no citations, published does not mean what it did when you were her age. Remember, it is quality not quantity. Where others see genius, you see competition from someone who competes with red shoes--like waving a flag in front of a bull. Think NYC stock exchange, the established bull, the new fearless girl--please don't be like Alex Gardega's 'sketchy' edition to the scene, let the little girl be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.210.167 (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Non published papers are not admissible as scientific achievements. Papers on arXiv are not necessarily published on scientific journals, so that is not enough. Stop making personal assumptions about me, it's quite childish and it just shows that you are not capable of participating in a serious discussion. And again, you do not realize how much you are harming Sabrina's with all your hype. This is the last time I answer your BS, you do not deserve any more of my time. MAloeVeritasM (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Papers on arXiv are NOT peer reviewed, which means it could range anywhere from nonsense to genius, so 107.77.210.167 stop referring to those. Also, scientists in my view are genderless, and playing the gender card is wrong in this context. There are a lot of great PhD candidates who deserve the same merit, but they still wait for their work to be confirmed. I read through Hawking paper, and the citation to Sabrina's paper is tangential, and only in the Introdcution/Related Work sections, which is usually a filler (I might be nit-picking here). I believe this wiki page will hurt Sabrina in a long run, and I urge a more constructive discussion, rather than having personal attacks. About the "Einstein 2,3,4,..." -- this is NOTHING: Albert Einstein himself got recognition decade after his publications, and had his works careful peer-reviewed. For example: Fei-Fei Li can call her advisee Andrej Karpathy a next Marvin Minsky or Claude Shannon, but it still was WP:TOOSOON for him as well (and note that Andrej's works in his field have more impact than Sabrina's works in physics), but this is just an example. Zafar (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

In fact, I think to answer the "Too Soon?" question, we need to think about it that way: Suppose Sabrina doesn't do anything related to physics in the future (say she decided to quit, or decided not to work in physics anymore). In 10, 20, 30 years would her current achievements deserve a WIKI page or would anyone be interested to know who she was back at her prime? If the answer is "no", the page is WP:TOOSOON. --Zafar (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Forget any scientific accomplishments for the moment.

Let's focus on Notability as a someone promoting women in STEM. Twenty years from now, if she focused only on science and never again on outreach, would this page, as notable for promoting women in stem still be relevant? The answer is a resounding Yes. 107.77.210.167 (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so we agree that as a page for a scientist it is WP:TOO SOON. As for the Notability, I don't have an opinion, mainly because the criteria for Notability are very vague, and a lot of times subjective. Someone else should be a judge for it, as I am not qualified, because I am not a physicist, and I am a male. Given the examples before, I have voted for Andrej Karpathy's page to be deleted, but at the same time he was inspirational in my career choice -- I just thought he was not meeting the criteria for global wiki. You would argue that he deserved a page, but I would still disagree. I am urging everyone to be impartial as I really want wiki to be an encyclopedia, and not collection of articles written by fanboys. Zafar (talk) 03:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

Pursuant to the U.S. Census, the immigrant is the first generation. See http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/foreignborn_population/cb10-159.html

Dear Dkelber 020370: That article is not even a legal opinion much less law. It only defines the generations who are 'americans' a second generation american under that definition could still be a "first generation Cuban-American" even if they are a second generation american. Understand? You are the lawyer and you are citing a 'blurb'. Check out the actual census data form they have immigrants sign.

You indicate you are an attorney for the State of Illinois, and your edits have occurred during normal business hours--has the State of Illinois taken an official interest in this page? Really cool if they have--you could supply an official IL ID photo to replace the one taken down from Iran? Please and thank you. 76.16.211.203 (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC) ____________________________________

Improvements

Finell: I think I see where you are confused. You mean citations when you say footnotes. Footnotes are key in a paper like this--Hawking is pointing out that the solo paper by pasterski and a subsequent one by susskind may differ when compared to his approach. Footnote 7 is the key footnote with regard as to why the media picked up on this. The title of her talk before the Harvard Faculty (and weinberg may have been there) was how long it took her to convince Strominger not to worry about CKVs. Her first solo note (according to her site) was 7/31/14, the talk was 7/30/15. Notice she is the only female who talked, the only non-post doc, non-professor to speak. She could not do that unless she was independent. https://sites.google.com/site/andyfest2015/ 76.16.211.203 (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Finell: at havard you are under someone if you register under them E.g. 3XXa is a student, 3XXb is a candidate, Time-C is someone who is independent. 76.16.211.203 (talk) 05:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Finell: great job! It looks like an MIT vs. UT Austin edit battle that makes Wikipedia even better. Or am I reading too much into Finell vs. R. Finnell? (an awesome professor from UT Austin) 76.16.211.203 (talk) 05:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Finell: did you want to mention that Hawking cited only 9 solo papers, 8 male professors and Pasterski? Did you want to cite her solo notes that led to the joint papers? 76.16.211.203 (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Finell: by removing 'Spin Memory' and crediting weinberg with this new concept, you marginalize the work done. All three authors referred to it repeatedly during 2015 as 'Spin Memory'. Although the word "triangle" you use is descriptive, the authors use 'the Triangle', again the three concepts brought together sounds simple now, but had never been done before. The "reference not found" was removed--Thaler (MIT professor of one of the authors and a Harvard student of another author) and the cited page lists the talk and the paper cited by Hawking credits MIT and Thaler's group within it. 76.16.211.203 (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

GoldenSHK: Now you are being reasonable! Good start, maybe you could actually help? Maybe take the time you have been using to speedy delete and create the format you want and let others fill that shell in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.211.203 (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Added citations to her member page Harvard's Center for the Fundamental Laws of Nature (where Lisa Randall is also a member) as well as a list of publications including citations from Hawking's new 2016 paper.

Orphan issue fixed, dead link from list of aircraft manufacturers corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.211.203 (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy delete?

GoldenSHK has subject the page to speedy delete a second time without even leaving a comment on this page.

His statement that this "page does not meet wikipedia's quality standards" is the catch-all that nips pages about women scientist in the bud before their own community can build up the page properly.

First of all, how do you even know I'm a guy to use the "him" pronoun? Then accuse me of trying to "nip in the bud" women scientist pages? Secondly, the only reason I am even bringing this up is because the article just seems to have started by ripping almost all the content from another wiki type site. At least it was cited in the external links. But if you are really such a fan of Ms. Gonzalez-Pasterski, please go ahead and make the page respectable enough to meet Wikipedia's standards, I'd love for it to stay up. I simply don't think it's respectable enough to not be a "super stub" page that should likely get taken down in a few days if no one else improves. For the record, no, this suggestion of mine for deletion was not based in any way on gender or sexism, but rather quality. Please don't conflate the two. I'm putting the deletion tag back up, please feel free to remove it completely AFTER the page is at least somewhat better and not just a 3-4 line dirty post. I won't argue at all at that point. I'm open to discussion... GoldenSHK (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

"Welcome to WikiProject Women Scientists, a WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biographies of women scientists. Unfortunately, part of Wikipedia's systemic bias is that women in science are woefully underrepresented. Let's change that!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.211.203 (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

“Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases.”

This page was created under this guidance:

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

http://wpedia.goo.ne.jp/enwiki/Draft:Sabrina_Pasterski says: “This seems acceptable and satisfying academics guidelines but please add any more available sources overall.”

See: http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/space/sabrina-pasterski-has-big-things-in-store-for-our-understanding-of-the-universe/news-story/a7128ea90a9fd8f3cbc35d082345b3ad

More sources were added.

• I've removed the PROD template. Forbes 30 under 30 list + two of her papers were cited by Stephen Hawking[1]. That doesnt happen to most grad students. I would say this passes GNG.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Doctorate in 2020

Just a random person, but why is Wikipedia using the source from the subject's own personal website to say that she is projected to get her doctorate in 2020? Also, her education says she is a PHD candidate and the source doesn't back that up. Just because someone is a grad student doesn't mean they are a PhD Candidate. At my current grad school, you must pass your oral first.

2020 date removed. Only qualified PhD Candidates with offices are listed on Harvard's HETG group page. PhD 'students' are not. See: http://hetg.physics.harvard.edu/graduate-students

if you are really such a fan of Ms. Gonzalez-Pasterski, please go ahead and make the page respectable

Dear GoldenSHK: This is all I could find. I don't know how to insert an auto translate for the Edition F reference (for those who don't speak/read German). I don't know if recent events is an appropriate header, feel free to change it. 76.16.211.203 (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Just for your information, "Recent events" is not an appropriate heading or section in a Wikipedia article because our articles our written as entries in an encyclopedia, with is a reference work. If you have a section called "Recent events" with events from 2016, that will look silly 2022. Of course, someone might notice that at some point and change it, but that imposes an unnecessary burden on future editors.—Finell 04:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Please use complete citations

One was to improve the article is to provide complete citations to sources. A bare URL is not a satisfactory citation. See Wikipedia:Citing sources The easiest way to add or edit citations is with Wikipedia:Citation_templates. You can see a few examples in my edits to the article. However, I do not have the time to fix all the citations in the article. If you wish, you can contact me on my Talk page for further guidance.—Finell 05:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

To the IP editors who have been repeatedly inserting and deleting the same material: please open a discussion here, rather than WP:Edit warring. That's why the page was protected the first time.

To the adder(s): please read WP:PRIMARY. We can't make claims about sources which are not directly supported by the sources, such as Pasterski is best known for her paper on the Triangle.<ref>Pasterski's paper on the triangle</ref> Also, we must use caution in basing large entire sections (like "Media coverage" on primary sources. Please also read WP:Biographies of living persons and WP:Assume good faith: these policies require, respectively, that negative material or allegations against people like Hawking, or against fellow-editors like the remover(s), be cautiously worded and supported by reliable sources (or, for editors, by very good evidence in the form of WP:Diffs). In general, focus on content, not contributors.

To the remover(s): please read WP:Edit warring and WP:PRESERVE. Removing sourced content from articles is only appropriate in certain cases, such as if it is WP:UNDUE or cited to unreliable sources. Instead of removing it, try to incorporate it into the article repeatedly.

Both of you seem to have academic training, which is excellent. Wikipedia:Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Wikipedia editing for research scientists are great, short introductions to the ways WP is different from academia, and I recommend them.

Now, please discuss the merits of the material to be included here, working towards a WP:Consensus. FourViolas (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

User 107.77.210.167 is harming Sabrina Gonzalez Pasterski

The Wikipedia page of a scientist should be based on her/his scientific achievements, confirmed by published papers on peer reviewed journals, not on hype created by blogs, twitter or news magazines. User 107.77.210.167 is basing her/his contributions to Sabrina's Wikipedia on hype created by non-admissible sources, such as blogs, popular new magazines or unverified statements appearing on unreliable sources on the internet. The claims made by user 107.77.210.167 are harming the credibility of Sabrina as a scientist, and hence this user needs to be stopped. The objective truth is that Sabrina is a good PhD. student with an average number of published papers (so far she only has three published papers) which does not qualify to have a Wikipedia page. I am sure in the future she will make brilliant contributions to science worth appearing on Wikipedia, but until that time comes please give Sabrina a break and do not harm her credibility by creating fake hype which is taken as a joke by professional physicists. In any case user 107.77.210.167 is clearly not a trained hep th physicists and does not have an informed opinion on the matter. In fact, her/his arguments are absurd and ridiculous and clearly show that she/he has no idea of how the professional hep th community works.MAloeVeritasM (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• I partially agree. I guess it would be much easier if 107.77.210.167 would login. Otherwise, it sounds a little sketchy :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zafartahirov (talk • contribs) 04:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Notability Women / Girls in STEM

Wikpedia Notability for outreach to girls in STEM by example to look to:

At 12, she is the youngest person to ever fly faa one as a commanding pilot.

At 13, she is the youngest engineer ever hired by Jeff Bezos.

At 13, she is the youngest USA citizen to solo a powered aircraft in Canada.

At 14, she is the youngest Light Sport Aircraft manufacturer in the United States.

At 16, she is the youngest person to successfully build, certify and then fly an experimental aircraft in the USA.

At 17, she is the youngest person ever selected by NASA for their MIT internship.

At 17, she is the youngest engineer ever hired by Boeing Phantom Works.

At 17, she is the youngest person to win the MIT Freshman Entrepreneurship Award.

At 18, she is the youngest MIT student to attend a Lindau Nobel Laureate Gathering.

At 19, she is the youngest female to graduate at the top of an MIT Physics graduating class.

At 20, she is the youngest female to be awarded the European Physical Society Prize.

At 21, she is the youngest female to qualify as a PhD candidate at Harvard's HEP-Th.

At 23, she is the youngest scientist named to the Forbes 2017 All-Star list. https://www.forbes.com/30-under-30-2017/all-star-alumni/#3010ca933025

At 23, she is the youngest female solo author cited by Stephen Hawking. http://inspirehep.net/author/profile/S.W.Hawking.1

At 23, she is the youngest Silicon Valley Comic Con Headliner. http://svcomiccon.com/press/2016/william-shatner-buzz-aldrin/

107.77.209.72 (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Most things in the list here are simply not true. The youngest girl to fly as a commanding pilot was a 7-yo Jessica Dubroff, Jeff Bezos did NOT hire her, but expressed willingness to hire (not as an engineer tho), flying in Canada is simply nonsensical, because both USA and Canada require to be at least 16 to get a pilot license, which means she would do it illegally, I couldn't find any credible references to Boeing claim... The rest I didn't even bother reading. Why not putting the same thing, but with a reference to every item? Zafar (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree some of the statements that 107.77.209.72 posted are wrong. She is the ONLY female to ever graduate from MIT physics at the top of her class in 150+ years. She was the first to win the MIT FEA. She may be the only solo female author cited by Stephen not just the youngest. I saw her at ComicCon with Woz.

However, you create this user named (I am sure you have another and another) and then you not only deny her physics achievements but her mechanical and engineering achievements as well. You also do not know aviation law 14 for PIC in Canada, 16 for USA but both can be waived. View the Matronics pages where she saved lives offering up modifications to the kit airplane she built. Not only did Bezos hire her, but her work flew--she used to have her paycheck from that build on her website but I can't find it now. Listen to the lectures of her mentors from Phantom Works at Cal Irving or Cal Davis, they describe her age and prowess. Dubroff had a flight instructor--that means she was not Pilot in Command. The FAA website as well as Transport Canada's website can prove up the ages.

And the 'rest that you did not bother reading' is proven over and over again in the media, even today in Forbes Espana, or do you not trust Forbes? Maybe they are part of a female conspiracy against you and your views. 107.77.207.122 (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

1. Claims without sources have no credibility. If you want to make another claim, please, provide credible sources!!!
2. Some statements that 107.77.209.72 made? Surprisingly you have the same IP range? Please, give me a break with all that "I am a different person" nonsense! Either login so we could have a constructive dialogue, or stop with the IP spamming.
3. What are you implying by your "you create this user named..."? I had this username for many years, and not even once created another user to win an argument. If you want to accuse me of something, please, state it explicitly. Otherwise, please, stick to the argument point, and do not go into personal attacks. If you want to say that I have multiple accounts, please, file a complaint, and DO NOT go into assumptions and personal attacks. I can also jump into assumptions and say you are biased because you are somehow related to Sabrina: you are from Chicago, Illinois, the same place where Sabrina is from. We all can make claims! So don't! Please refer to WP:GF and WP:LIVE.

Now about not believing Forbes -- I don't believe media claims, unless they have sources. If they have sources, I am pretty sure you can cite them here, and not just say "over and over proved". With that said, please, provide sources and citations! Zafar (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

She has many friends at university student and above here in Chicago, ergo the similar IPs. What worries us (yes, us) is that somehow the co-founder of Everipedia got into it with the editors of Wikipedia, making certain allegations and referencing this talk page here: http://frequencyoftheunknown.com/2016/05/31/rapgenius-everipedia-interview-cofounder-mahbod-moghadam/ Do you think those wild, unproven allegations and reference to this talk page has caused Wikipedia's editors to try to take down this female Hispanic wunderkid as a way to get even with Everipedia even though there is absolutely no basis to? She appears to be caught in the middle of some struggle between the two of you. Sad. As your founder, Larry, said: Wikipedia lacks credibility due to, among other things, a lack of respect for expertise. If it one thing this person has, is expertise. 107.77.210.170 (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi! This exchange looks like if could benefit from our WP:CONDUCT policies. As you're both illustrating, violating WP:AGF is a serious obstacle to collaboration. Please follow the guidelines of WP:BLP and WP:BLPSOURCES, and comment on content, not contributors.

Zafar, Forbes.com (as opposed to Forbes.com/sites/) is considered reliable (see RSN threads), regardless of your personal standards for "sources". This is because journalists often do in fact have access to non-public sources, and we trust them and their editors to deal with that, because if we tried to it would be WP:OR. If you have specific doubts about Forbes Mexico, you can start a thread at WP:RS/N to ask for more experienced opinions. FourViolas (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Point on Forbes taken. I agree that most respective publishers are a good, reliable source. The only thing I am asking is provide sources: given the list of examples with ages here in the talk page, I couldn't find sources to some of them. Zafar (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect to all contributors from 107.77.2xx.xxx, I am not questioning neither her expertise, nor her achievements. Even more -- I am absolutely sure Sabrina is a genius and she deserves credit where it is due. The only thing I am asking, is when you make a claim, please, provide sources. I am not sure why are you taking it personally? I am not trying to say anything bad about Sabrina, I am trying to make sure that this page actually has something to base its facts on. The reason is exactly what you said -- "Wikipedia is not a reliable source...", but only as long as fanboys keep on adding material without sources. You said it yourself earlier, quote "I agree some of the statements that 107.77.209.72 posted are wrong" -- sources would avoid that. Zafar (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The only reason I thought this page had to be deleted, is because I think it is WP:TOOSOON. It is not for me to decide, but for the community, and I believe I had a right to voice my opinion without being judged and accused. I feel like I am being bullied right now, just because I had an opinion. With that said, I don't think I have willingness to participate in this discussion any more. Zafar (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree—of course all achievements in the article should be supported by citations, as they currently are. I'm not sure if the list of achievements starting this section was meant as proposed additions, but if so they would need sources. If not, let's net spend any more time or energy on them; WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:NOT#FANSITE.FourViolas (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that previous editors have stripped out the citations and it seems near impossible to undo except for the last edit. If you go on your founder's website, http://larrysanger.org/ and search this subject, you will find that he has blogged about this talk page as well. It is a real concern that there may be some truth to the allegations in http://frequencyoftheunknown.com/2016/05/31/rapgenius-everipedia-interview-cofounder-mahbod-moghadam/ , God forbid, that she is being targeted based upon her race. 107.77.210.170 (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC) 107.77.210.170 (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

>>If not, let's net spend any more time or energy on them<<

Yet time and energy is exactly what is needed to undo the harm that has already been done to this page. An expert such as yourself (4 Violas) is exactly what is needed to restore this page to the point when it was fully cited. 107.77.210.170 (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

citations added here and to the article 107.77.210.170 (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Name Used in Article

Why is she referred to as Gonzalez in the bio? Is this something particular to her? Usually Wikipedia uses last names, rather than middle names. So it should either be Pasterski, or Gonzales Pasterski, no? --Thalia42 (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

What 'bio' are you referring to? I see her as Gonzales Pasterski everywhere. Isenta (talk) 09:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm talking about this Wikipedia article. Look at Section 2 and you will see that she is consistently referred to as Gonzalez. Never mind, corrected throughout. I just wanted to check in first about whether there was a reason behind it.--Thalia42 (talk) 10:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Both are last names, one from the father and one from the mother, see Spanish naming customs. Typically one is preferred and the other one is used rarely, based on the publications and news articles Pasterski seems to be used more. 1, 2, 3 and so on. --mfb (talk) 10:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why I asked the reason why Wikipedia exclusively used Gonzalez  I got an answer that most places it uses Gonzales Pasterski, so that's what I corrected to. Clearly Gonzalez alone was incorrect. --Thalia42 (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Exactly what is notable about Sabrina Gonzalez Pasterski for Wikipedia?

She didn't fully build her own airplane, and simply building an airplane with help at an early age isn't notable. Additionally, Stephen Hawking only cited her twice. See https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sabrina-pasterski-physics-girl/

2606:5580:30C:7F9E:DCE6:991C:3A9B:F26 (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

She came up with design changes to the kit aircraft. Prior to her changes, a dozen guys were killed flying it. One of her changes was required by Transport Canada, two recommended by the FAA--since then no deaths. Think 737Max8--simple little change (triangle gussets) on the ailerons and main longerons.

She came up with the PSZ (at least co-authored) Triangle.

Even though Hawking only cite her once, her paper is the ONLY female single author physics paper Hawking ever cited in his career.

She was the #3 trending scientist in 2017 according to Google trends, the #1 invented beer, the #2 did the Moon shot math.

Once notable, always notable.

Speaking of triangles, she came up with the Spin Memory effect that can prove Ligo is correct and had Ligo not been invented, the Spin memory effect would have allowed the use of 3 existing satellites in a triangle configuration to detect gravitational waves for billions less than was spent on Ligo.

Since this attack is from Czech, check out your famous Czech physicist comments about Paterski https://motls.blogspot.com/2015/06/memories-asymptotic-symmetries-and-soft.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.139.126 (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Any sources for the airplane? And I don't see that her ideas were widely cited. 2606:5580:30C:7F9E:DCE6:991C:3A9B:F26 (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Intro

It is not OK (particularly not in a BLP!) to devote half of the intro to fact-checking by Snopes, which - without proper context - seems to cast doubt on the subject's truthfulness, i.e. a reader may be led into believing her claims were being described as partially true or even false.

The intro should not be used for meta-reporting about her ("what has been said about what has been said about her"), but rather actual facts about the subject. Furthermore, I see no point at all in merely saying that the meme "gets most (but not all) of the facts right". What does the meme actually say? And, if what it says is not important, why discuss it in the first place? GregorB (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, the entire second paragraph traces back to Prague as does the AFd... both were done about the same time. I will remove the entire second paragraph of the intro.

Thanks. That was my initial instinct too. GregorB (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Intro still looks too strange, which brought me to this Talk. The achievements "3rd in this list", "1st in that" should be moved to ... Achievements. Zezen (talk) 05:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Pasterski–Strominger–Zhiboedov Triangle

What is the Pasterski–Strominger–Zhiboedov Triangle? It is mentioned in this article, without any link and I can't find it mentioned in Wikipedia. It will be good to link or reference, this, Thanks! Lbeaumont (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)