Talk:Avi Loeb: Difference between revisions

By /

 

Line 97: Line 97:

:@[[User:Greyfell|Greyfell]] Hi, you partially reverted my changes with the note “Per sources. Podcast doesn’t appear reliable”. View is a Subject Matter Expert about conspiracies theories and conspiratorial thinking, as demonstrated by significant coverage in a wide range of reliable outlets (links in comment above). Per [[WP:SPS]], {{tq|Self-published sources may be considered reliable if published by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.}}

:@[[User:Greyfell|Greyfell]] Hi, you partially reverted my changes with the note “Per sources. Podcast doesn’t appear reliable”. View is a Subject Matter Expert about conspiracies theories and conspiratorial thinking, as demonstrated by significant coverage in a wide range of reliable outlets (links in comment above). Per [[WP:SPS]], {{tq|Self-published sources may be considered reliable if published by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.}}

:I thought it was pretty clear that the podcast fell into this category. As a side note, I have reached out to them to see if I can get a summary of their editorial and fact-checking policies. [[User:CamAnders|CamAnders]] ([[User talk:CamAnders|talk]]) [[User:CamAnders|CamAnders]] ([[User talk:CamAnders|talk]]) 01:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

:I thought it was pretty clear that the podcast fell into this category. As a side note, I have reached out to them to see if I can get a summary of their editorial and fact-checking policies. [[User:CamAnders|CamAnders]] ([[User talk:CamAnders|talk]]) [[User:CamAnders|CamAnders]] ([[User talk:CamAnders|talk]]) 01:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

::This is regarding this source:

::*{{Cite web |last=View |first=Travis |author-link=Travis View |last2=Rockatansky |first2=Jake |author-link2=Jake Rockatansky |last3=Brad |first3=Abrahams |date=Aug 16, 2025 |title=Jake and Brad’s Excellent Invasion (Premium E301) |url=https://pca.st/episode/d61eab6f-e5ea-4a33-9c9d-ae7e57727c86 |url-status=live |website=QAA Podcast}}

::Being a subject matter expert is not sufficient. Per [[WP:SPS]]: {{tq|Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.}} Per [[WP:BLPSPS]]: {{tq|Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the person themselves.}}

::[[WP:FRINGE]] issues are plentiful, but this needs better sources and better attribution of those sources.

::(By the way, pings only work if you spell the username correctly). [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 04:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

:@2025-33701-32 You reverted my contributions with the comment {{tq|Speculative, Innacurate, misleading, leading, altogether irrevelent information. Avi Loeb has never claimed aliens exist or anything of the nature. He simply admits the possibility should be taken seriously. The inclusion of these deleted sections are intended to make Avi look bad. Plain and simple. Strange cherry picked data with no relevance besides to ostracize and ridicule}}

:@2025-33701-32 You reverted my contributions with the comment {{tq|Speculative, Innacurate, misleading, leading, altogether irrevelent information. Avi Loeb has never claimed aliens exist or anything of the nature. He simply admits the possibility should be taken seriously. The inclusion of these deleted sections are intended to make Avi look bad. Plain and simple. Strange cherry picked data with no relevance besides to ostracize and ridicule}}

:* Please [[WP:AGF]], I have added content from a reliable source on conspiratorial thinking. I would appreciate if you would refrain from ad hominem attacks. If you disagree with edits, reverting and taking it to the talk page is fine, but implying that I am [[WP:NOTHERE]] over constructive (if perhaps BOLD) edits is unacceptable.

:* Please [[WP:AGF]], I have added content from a reliable source on conspiratorial thinking. I would appreciate if you would refrain from ad hominem attacks. If you disagree with edits, reverting and taking it to the talk page is fine, but implying that I am [[WP:NOTHERE]] over constructive (if perhaps BOLD) edits is unacceptable.

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)[reply]

Great, another bigot ‘editor’ deleting mild comments.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I watched the Forbes video. Based on that, the “mansplaining” accusation seems overblown to me. sbelknap (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The term ‘mansplaining’ is sexist and bigoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.163.142 (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think one could say that he was condescending certainly. Phifty (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Substantial story here on Loeb. Jjhake (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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.

I’m sorry but you seem to not have read the source. There was, in fact, only one sensor used and the signal detected was of a truck, not the meteor. He looked hundreds of miles in the wrong place. Here’s the quote: “he only used seismic data from one station, not the multiple stations required to pin down a location. (The fact that three stations are necessary is why this method is usually called “triangulation.”) For another, there is no way that Loeb could have narrowed the impact location down to such a small area given this data. But the biggest flaw of all is that the data from the one seismic station he used was not even recording the fall of a meteorite, but rather the seismic noise induced by a truck that was passing by on a nearby road to the seismic station.” But, yes, there was a meteor somewhere in the ocean, not a truck. I’ll make that clear when I put it back. DolyaIskrina (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
In this interview (published today) Loeb makes it clear that the data used to identify the location of the spherules was from US Government satellites detecting light from a fireball. He states that US Space Command confirmed the location. In light of this, I think the lede should be changed.
Thanks. 2603:9001:0:313:10AB:6741:24A1:3C6A (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thought I’d leave a short notes explaining my edits. Several sources have criticized Loeb for prematurely announcing claims about alien life. These include those already cited in the article as well as the new source I have added from Travis View, a widely cited conspiracy researcher (https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/travis-view/, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/combating-everyday-falsehoods/, https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2019/04/23/qanon-conspiracy-increasingly-popular-antigovernment-extremists, https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3cszcnc).

This is a WP:SPS, but View is a subject matter expert in conspiracy theories, as covered by his frequent citations in major sources, including both news media, think tanks and human rights groups. This makes him a RS to assert a patern of behavior on Loeb’s part. This would be SYNTH to do by ourselves, but because a reliable source has reported that Loeb has stoked conspiracy theories, we can report it here.

For convenience, I have provided a number of direct quotes from the source:

Loeb is “as a much a public figure as a researcher”; “veered into the area of self-promotion and grifting”.

[other scientists started] pointing out that the he would post his findings as essays on Medium before any kind of peer-reviewed study. Mainstream media and tabloids would pick these up and run with the most ridiculous headlines that would then catch fire on social media. Other scientists found this distasteful and regressive CamAnders (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the contribution and explanation. I think this is reasonable for inclusion. Regarding the current text:

He has frequently publicized claims before peer review, often to significant media attention, leading him to be described by a conspiracy researcher as “as much a public figure as a researcher.” Travis View has noted that Loeb has used frequently employed rhetorical tropes like the Galileo gambit, more frequently used by conspiracy theorists than credentialed scientists.

Is the “conspiracy researcher” also Travis View? If not, it would be good to attribute the researcher by name. If they are the same, the language could be combined a bit better here. StereoFolic (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the conspiracy researcher is Jake Rockatansky, View’s cohost. The second sentence, attributed directly to View is of course from him. Happy to reword (or for someone else to reword) to make that more clear if needed. CamAnders (talk) 02:20, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, not sure if it’s worth including, but Jason Wright, a Penn State Astrophysicist with a specialization in SETI recently posted on his blog making similar points. (https://sites.psu.edu/astrowright/2025/11/09/loebs-3i-atlas-anomalies-explained/). The same cautions about SPS continue to apply, but seems like it might be worth including to shore up the claims about bypassing peer review.
Avi Loeb continues to claim that 3I/ATLAS has many anomalous behaviors that lead to the conclusion that it “might” be an alien spacecraft. He carefully hedges the probability that it is a spacecraft around 40%, which gives him plausible deniability of the bad-faith “just asking questions” variety while still making the comet sound weird enough that lots of people are thinking (or worried!) that it’s an alien spacecraft. It certainly gets him lots of TV time and fan mail.
But look: it has a tail and coma like a comet. The tail and coma have the gases we expect to see from a comet. It’s brightening and evolving as it warms up like comets do. If Avi had not claimed it could be an alien spacecraft no one would be talking about it as anything but a comet. It’s also worth noting that zero planetary scientists give Avi’s claims any credence. Contrary to his complaints, this is not because they are afraid to consider the aliens hypothesis or they are stuck in their ways (after all, I’m the director of the PSETI Center where we try to push the boundaries of the search for aliens!). I have found planetary scientists to be very open minded about this! They’re saying he’s wrong because he’s demonstrably wrong.
The second thing you need to understand about Loeb is that he has no training in planetary science (the study of comets and other things in the Solar System) and does not seem to consult planetary scientists before (or after) making his claims. Yes, he is an accomplished astrophysicist, but his area of expertise and success is very far from the study of comets, with almost zero overlap. Yes, he has published many papers on comets, but none of his co-authors have any expertise in these matters either, and most of those papers are not peer-reviewed, so they have not been checked for accuracy. In these papers and on his blog he regularly betrays an unfamiliarity with well-established planetary science concepts and misinterprets papers and comes to erroneous conclusions. When the authors of those papers complain he has misstated or even reversed the meaning of their conclusions or when his errors are otherwise pointed out, he either keeps repeating the misinformation, or quietly drops the line as if nothing happened. I’m not aware of him ever admitting he got something wrong with respect to 3I/ATLAS and retracting a claim, despite ample opportunities to do so.
Critics of this piece also argue that I should be more dispassionate and address only his arguments, and not his behavior. But it’s actually his behavior that’s the problem, not his arguments! If people want to make bad arguments about aliens that’s fine—I don’t go around debunking them all. The problem is that he is deploying the trappings of scientific authority to misinform the public and steal the attention of the science-interested public from the hard work planetary scientists are doing on this amazing object. I continue to get calls from reporters at mainstream news organizations asking me to be a counterpoint to Avi about his alien claims, as if the right answer lies somewhere between our positions, and as if either one of us is a comet expert! (I beg them to not quote either of us and interview planetary scientists instead). I actually find Avi’s openmindedness and willing to explore the aliens hypothesis quite laudable! It’s not his question asking that’s the problem, it’s his very public dismissal of expertise, demonization of his critics, and misleading the public that I have issue with, so I have to talk about him and his behavior, not just his claims. CamAnders (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Greyfell Hi, you partially reverted my changes with the note “Per sources. Podcast doesn’t appear reliable”. View is a Subject Matter Expert about conspiracies theories and conspiratorial thinking, as demonstrated by significant coverage in a wide range of reliable outlets (links in comment above). Per WP:SPS, Self-published sources may be considered reliable if published by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.
I thought it was pretty clear that the podcast fell into this category. As a side note, I have reached out to them to see if I can get a summary of their editorial and fact-checking policies. CamAnders (talk) CamAnders (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is regarding this source:
Being a subject matter expert is not sufficient. Per WP:SPS: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. Per WP:BLPSPS: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the person themselves.
WP:FRINGE issues are plentiful, but this needs better sources and better attribution of those sources.
(By the way, pings only work if you spell the username correctly). Grayfell (talk) 04:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@2025-33701-32 You reverted my contributions with the comment Speculative, Innacurate, misleading, leading, altogether irrevelent information. Avi Loeb has never claimed aliens exist or anything of the nature. He simply admits the possibility should be taken seriously. The inclusion of these deleted sections are intended to make Avi look bad. Plain and simple. Strange cherry picked data with no relevance besides to ostracize and ridicule

  • Please WP:AGF, I have added content from a reliable source on conspiratorial thinking. I would appreciate if you would refrain from ad hominem attacks. If you disagree with edits, reverting and taking it to the talk page is fine, but implying that I am WP:NOTHERE over constructive (if perhaps BOLD) edits is unacceptable.
  • My edits were not “Innacurate, misleading, leading, altogether irrevelent information”. I accurately paraphrased a new source, asserting a pattern of behavior on Avi’s behalf. Avi’s claims about aliens are undoubtedly notable, as is the fact that his speculations about aliens are now much more prominently covered than his previous work as a credible astronomer.
I’m not sure what the best way to ping a temporary account is, so apologies if this shows up multiple times. CamAnders (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top