Talk:Avi Loeb
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Avi Loeb article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Encyclopedic style
[edit]Obviously he's a notable researcher. But there is no need to "sell" this message by unenclopedic language or by emphasizing points which are still in flux or of minor importance. I've removed two paragraphs:
- Things named after him: Should be done only for things we have (or should have) an article about. I don't know the details, but I'm sure somebody will correct me if one (or more) of the items are of utmost importance.
- H-index: There are downsides in putting this in a biography:
- It has to be updated monthly, indicating that it is more news than knowledge
- It's really only needed for the extreme cases: To demonstrate that crackpots are crackpots, never cited but by themselves, and to highlight top-cited researches (with presenting the caveats of this measure). This is already done at H-index.
Pjacobi 18:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Great, another bigot 'editor' deleting mild comments.
Merci messieurs
[edit]Thanks to you all, original contributors to this original page : it has now been translated into FR:. Merci beaucoup. Hop ! Kikuyu3 (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
"Mansplaining"
[edit]I reverted [1] the removal of content by an IP editor regarding some possibly offensive "mansplaining" by Loeb during a recent conference call with Jill Tarter. After that, however, I watched the video given in the linked Forbes source, and I didn't actually find it especially offensive. Maybe that is just me, however, so I am asking: Is the whole thing overblown and, therefore, not worthy of appearing in this wikiarticle, or should the material be kept? Attic Salt (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- I watched the Forbes video. Based on that, the "mansplaining" accusation seems overblown to me. sbelknap (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- The term 'mansplaining' is sexist and bigoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.163.142 (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think one could say that he was condescending certainly. Phifty (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Criticisms / controversy
[edit]As noted in the above section, the specific conference call with Jill Tarter probably wasn't sufficiently notable to have a section to itself. However, there probably should be mention somewhere that he is not an uncontroversial scientist. Even news articles broadly supportive of him not that his speculations attract quit a bit of criticism. Examples:
- Tenorio, Rich. "Israeli scientist proves his far-out theory on interstellar meteor is down to earth". www.timesofisrael.com. Retrieved 2023-05-31.
- Williams, Matthew S. (2021-03-09). "The Harvard astrophysicist who believes: Aliens are very close". interestingengineering.com. Retrieved 2023-05-31.
- Magazine, Smithsonian; Gritz, Jennie Rothenberg. "The Wonder of Avi Loeb". Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 2023-05-31.
- Moshakis, Alex; @alex_moshakis (2021-01-31). "Professor Avi Loeb: 'It would be arrogant to think we're alone in the universe'". The Observer. ISSN 0029-7712. Retrieved 2023-05-31.
- Billings, Lee. "Astronomer Avi Loeb Says Aliens Have Visited, and He’s Not Kidding". Scientific American. Retrieved 2023-05-31.
Ouellette, Jennifer (2021-03-18). "The debate continues: 'Oumuamua could be remnant of Pluto-like planet". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2023-05-31.McNamee, Kai (2022-08-31). "An astronomer thinks alien tech could be on the ocean floor. Not everyone agrees". npr.
Similarly, there are a few more in-depth pieces from his critics:
- Goodwin, Simon (2021-02-18). "Has Earth been visited by an alien spaceship? Harvard professor Avi Loeb vs everybody else". The Conversation. Retrieved 2023-05-31.
- Siegel, Ethan. "The Uncensored Guide To 'Oumuamua, Aliens, And That Harvard Astronomer". Forbes. Retrieved 2023-05-31.
I think it's probably reasonable to make mention of these. Note though, that most media commentary is a little bit vague as to what aspects of his work and media appearances are being specifically criticised and sometimes mix it up with how Loeb characterises of him. We probably need to more clearly and fairly describe the reception of his activities, without being overly promotional or overly sensational. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 03:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Evolution and evolvability I agree...there should be a controversies section on his profile. That doesn't make him wrong and he seems to have a habit of being right, but it does let the reader contextualise the various claims. This is the difference between Wikipedia and Britannica.. a clearer process of vetting. And yes, I'm an astrophysicist. 147.10.235.15 (talk) 10:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- Especially with his recent very aggressive claims about discovering interstellar material, I think a criticism section is warranted. Just today the New York Times ran an article including several comments from scientists who are openly exasperated with Loeb, and one who says his colleagues are refusing to engage in peer review with him due to improper behavior. I added some information from it to the relevant part of the article. StereoFolic (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. I'm not familiar enough with the source material in this context to judge for myself, but I was reading about this person and explicitly came here with the expectation that there would be a controversy section with more sources to read more deeply on controversy reported elsewhere. I think it's logical to break out the scattered conversations in this article of broad disagreement with him and place it into its own clear section. Phifty (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- The propaganda rag NYT critical of an Israeli? Whatever next ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.182.106 (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Especially with his recent very aggressive claims about discovering interstellar material, I think a criticism section is warranted. Just today the New York Times ran an article including several comments from scientists who are openly exasperated with Loeb, and one who says his colleagues are refusing to engage in peer review with him due to improper behavior. I added some information from it to the relevant part of the article. StereoFolic (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Substantial story here on Loeb. Jjhake (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- Done - @Jjhake: (and others) - Thank You for your comment - and suggestion re the NYT story on Loeb[1] - edit added earlier - see => https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avi_Loeb&diff=1172034645&oldid=1171815770 - Thanks again - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- That’s very minimal. I don’t see any reference in this article to the draft paper co-authored with Sean M. Kirkpatrick which has been written about in other strong sources before this NYT piece. And there are likely a couple other facts relevant to this Loeb article in the NYT piece. But no rush. Jjhake (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Jjhake: (and others) - Thanks again for your comments - yes - my edit addition was for starters - more could be noted of course - no problem whatsoever if anyone would like to contribute - I'm currently a bit busy with other interests, including real-world ones - iac - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy!! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- That’s very minimal. I don’t see any reference in this article to the draft paper co-authored with Sean M. Kirkpatrick which has been written about in other strong sources before this NYT piece. And there are likely a couple other facts relevant to this Loeb article in the NYT piece. But no rush. Jjhake (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ Fletcher, Seth (August 24, 2023). "How a Harvard Professor Became the World's Leading Alien Hunter - Avi Loeb's single-minded search for extraterrestrial life has made him the most famous practicing astronomer in the country — and possibly the most controversial. + comment". The New York Times. Archived from the original on August 24, 2023. Retrieved August 24, 2023.
- Great, the usual Israel-haters deleting comments ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.182.106 (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Criticisms on main introductory paragraph
[edit]At the end of the first introductory paragraph it says "and for which other experts found more Earth-related explanations instead, demonstrating that the seismic signal attributed by Loeb to the alleged interstellar space craft was actually caused by ordinary truck traffic".
I take issue with this because other experts only found an earth-related explanation for ONE of multiple sensors used to triangulate the position of the meteor in question. The statement makes it seem like the meteor was demonstrated to actually be a truck but in reality the meteor's location might be slightly less certain due to interference in one of the seismic sensors caused by a truck. J-a-x (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I updated the paragraph to say "other experts found more Earth-related explanations instead, demonstrating that the accuracy of one of the seismic sensors used by Loeb to locate the alleged interstellar meteor was compromised by interference from ordinary truck traffic". I just want to make it more clear what his critics actually take issue with. For example there might be some issues with some of the data but it does not disprove the overall project in quesiton.
- Biography articles of living people
- Start-Class biography articles
- Start-Class biography (science and academia) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
- Science and academia work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class Israel-related articles
- Low-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- Start-Class physics articles
- Mid-importance physics articles
- Start-Class physics articles of Mid-importance
- Start-Class physics biographies articles
- Physics biographies articles
- B-Class articles with conflicting quality ratings
- B-Class Science Policy articles
- Low-importance Science Policy articles
- C-Class articles with conflicting quality ratings
- C-Class Skepticism articles
- Low-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles