For now I'll keep this page pretty spartan. I am a graduate student of theoretical physics at UChicago. I am also interested in history and international relations.

Over the last six months or so I have developed a fairly specific view of Wikipedia which I hope will guide me in my writing and edits. First I think that Wikipedia is a fantastic and, to me, increasingly indispensable resource. Some of the problems with the format, like vandalism, are mostly mere nuisances. However I would like to see the history articles in Wikipedia conform more strongly with the level of historical scholarship that one might find in a well written book of history. There tends to be far more open dispute of what is widely regarded as established fact than exists in historical literature. There is also much more emphasis on fringe views and "pet theories" than is consistent with good scholarship. Here I am not simply referring to more outlandish conspiracy theories but rather elements of historical disputes that are really sort of novelties rather than serious subjects of dispute. There is not enough emphasis on the central facts and reasonable historical consensus and too much on controversies and emotion laden issues. Some of the more tangential material should be relegated to discussion and linked articles.