Talk:Avi Loeb

Encyclopedic style
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: Pjacobi 18:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * Great, another bigot 'editor' deleting mild comments.

Merci messieurs
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"
I reverted 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)

Criticisms / controversy
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:

Similarly, there are a few more in-depth pieces from his critics: 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 &#38; 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)
 * The propaganda rag NYT critical of an Israeli? Whatever next ...

NYT story on Loeb
Substantial story here on Loeb. Jjhake (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ - (and others) - Thank You for your comment - and suggestion re the NYT story on Loeb - 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)
 * (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)


 * Great, the usual Israel-haters deleting comments ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.182.106 (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)