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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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:
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:
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)
Substantial story here on Loeb. Jjhake ( talk) 22:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
References
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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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:
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:
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)
Substantial story here on Loeb. Jjhake ( talk) 22:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
References