Talk:Luboš Motl

message: I removed the reference to "flame wars".
Lubos/Lumidek, I've seen you in many Usenet debates and you know that I often don't like what you say and/or how you say it.
But nothing has ever gone as far as what would traditionally qualify as a flame war.
So don't be so hard on yourself! ^_^
-- Toby Bartels, 2004 May 10 (revised May 18)
:i remember reading that lubos has an IQ of 150, which according to MENSA is "genius", and on sci.physics.strings he recommends strings over LQG
:—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.63.220.240 (talk • contribs)  (Hawk Communications; geolocated in Chicago)
:The average IQ of professional physicists is about 170. -- 68.108.253.185 (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no way to reliably measure intelligence beyond an IQ of 130-140. Anybody quoting very high IQ numbers, ignore them. IQ looses any kind of significance beyond certain values. 79.237.146.104 (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignore anyone who can't spell "lose" (and who makes completely unsubstantiated claims and directs people to ignore anyone who disagrees). In any case, regardless of reliability, an IQ of 150 is considerably below that of the average professional physicist. (I have no idea whether Motl's IQ is really 150 ... I suspect that it is higher). Oh, and Mensa doesn't define "genius", and it is generally considered in psychology that an IQ of 125 is necessary (but not sufficient). -- 184.189.217.91 (talk) 07:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've just WP:BOLDly removed the text about "defend"ing the Bogdanov brothers (because that seems to me to mischaracterize the blog post in question) and trimmed down the politics/religion paragraph. Here's what we had before my edit:
:Motl was one of the few physicists to defend the Bogdanov brothers' papers, though he did state about one that "the detailed structure of the paper (and very similar papers published elsewhere) probably makes no sense - at least no one has been able to understand the content of the paper in detail".
:Motl keeps a blog mainly about string theory but also discussing general science, politics and events at Harvard. In science, besides talking about string theory, he frequently criticizes research into global warming.  In politics, he was one of few Harvard faculty willing to openly defend president Lawrence Summers's controversial remarks regarding women in science.  In religion, following the example of Oriana Fallaci, he counts himself "as a Christian atheist" ,  although he notes "how simple-minded and naive Christianity can be"  .
Here's the current version:
:Motl keeps a blog mainly about string theory but also discussing general science, politics and events at Harvard. In science, besides talking about string theory, he frequently criticizes alarmism about global warming. In politics, he was one of few Harvard faculty willing to openly defend president Lawrence Summers's controversial remarks regarding women in science, and he admires the late Oriana Fallaci.
I think the article is now much more balanced. Cheers, CWC 04:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: April 2007

message: There appear to be an individual or individuals who are extremely keen to add information about Dr. Motl's employment status to the article as quickly as possible, without reliable sources.  Whether I believe this rumor is true is irrelevant.  My opinion on Dr. Motl and his reputation, which I have no interest in discussing here, is irrelevant as well.  I will say, however, that I do not like Wikipedia being used by someone with a grudge, or with any motivation other than providing a high-quality encyclopedia.  Policy tells us how to do that and, and the policy on the biographies of living persons is extremely clear.
I am blocking usernames which insult Dr. Motl as I see them, and the page will be fully protected until further notice.  There is a link at the top of the article for how to appeal this decision. -- SCZenz 07:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, leaving it out amounted to not removing the claim that he was employed there. -- 68.108.253.185 (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full protection 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 09:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: I think the following sentence is at least an exageration: 
Together with Robbert Dijkgraaf, Erik Verlinde, and Herman Verlinde, he is a co-founder of matrix string theory, a nonperturbative definition of string theory. 
Please take a look at the M-theory wikipedia page: there is no mention of Motl's contribution ... 
Moreover, most of Motl's publications on M-theory are in collaboration with his advisor Thomas Banks, who is a co-author of the seminal paper 
M Theory As A Matrix Model: A Conjecture (by Banks, Fischer, Shenker and Suskind ... none of them are in the citation !!!). 
This is the reason why I am going to replace it by the following one: 
He made an important contribution to matrix and nonperturbative string theory, under the impulse of his advisor T.Banks.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.67.59.93 (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You may have missed the distinction between "M-theory", "Matrix-theory" and "matrix string theory". These are different but related topics. "M-theory" was founded as an effort of several people including Witten, Townsend and other. Subsequently Matrix-theory was founded by Banks, Fischer, Shenker and Suskind in the paper cited above, but "matrix string theory" was a further development in which Motl was involved e.g. hep-th/9701025 which is prior to any of his joint publications wth Banks. 80.177.110.122 (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  co-founder of M-theory ? 

message: There are thousand of academics with more credentials than this person that have no Wikipedia article (and I am not suggesting thousand of articles should be created or are missing from thw Wikipedia). The relevance of this person is that "He has a presence on the Internet"?? Lots of bloggers have...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.188.0.22 (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, but let me just clarify that the anonymous suggestion back in May that Lubos Motl is not notable was followed up by an official AFD filing, where it was once again concluded that he is notable and his article belongs in Wikipedia.betsythedevine (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevance?? Delete article

message: Am starting a new sec because the notability question is resolved imho, but the matter of  of LM's blog's  reliabilty will need to be looked at. As mentioned above it is self published, that is specifically outside the terms of WP:RS .  Could we have a citation supporting the statement "and some of the statistical models used by some climate researchers on grounds such as incorrect prior probability distributions" please, or maybe it could be tidied to make it clear which blogpost it is referring to. ThxHmcst1 (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Wikipedia policy for  personal blogs, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities." So Motl's blog would be a good source for information about what aspects of climate research interest Motl. betsythedevine (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable source or no?

message: This article almost looks as if it's written completely by Motl himself. It doesn't include his sexist comments or insults in general, but proudly lists all his arXiv submissions. Disputes alarmism about global warming? Really? He refers to everything that doesn't fit with his opinions as alarmism, everyone who disputes his opinions as crackpots.88.243.161.173 (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highly POV 

message: He counts himself as a Christian atheist,http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/09/oriana-fallaci-force-of-reason.htmlhttp://motls.blogspot.com/2007/01/boltzmanns-brain-and-low-entropy.htmlhttp://motls.blogspot.com/2011/09/are-all-climate-skeptics-theocratic.html but this seems more to do with anti-Islamic sentiment, belief in Western values and the cultural influence of Christianity than with the tenets and content of Christianity itself.
I removed this paragraph; as always, it can be replaced if a WP:SECONDARY WP:RS is found that makes the claim. Self-published sources generally carry no WP:WEIGHT, with the exception of routine biographical details such as faculty job history. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Knowledge of Lubos Motl's religion is important, and it is worth mentioning in the article, particularly if it is peculiarly oxymoronic. Well, his blog is a credible source about his own views.75.140.66.148 (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The concern isn't that the statement is untrue or unimportant (these are irrelevant for the discussion at hand), but rather that it lacks WP:WEIGHT. Per WP:BLPSPS an article cannot be based primarily on self-published sources. What's your current proposal? Your latest edit seems intended as a compromise, but since 'religion' isn't one of the scientist infobox parameters it doesn't show up in the page. I can live with something like "He counts himself as a Christian atheist." as a compromise, though if someone else objects to it now or in the future, or if it becomes a slippery slope to more trivia being re-added, it may end up being re-removed. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Following the example of Oriana Fallaci, he counts himself as a Christian atheist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.66.148 (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Never mind, looks like I'll have to delete the reference, as less than three months after the compromise, an editor is already using this as a slippery slope to add additional poorly-sourced content. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed paragraph (no secondary source) 

message: Again, WP:BLPSOURCES applies; also, unlike the "Christian athiest" edit by a different editor, this seems to be more about advocating for Motl's position on the Ukraine than about Motl himself per se. Readers interested in Motl's opinions on the Ukraine can read his blog directly. If some particular opinion of Motl's is to be ascribed prominence or represented as indicative of Motl's overall worldview, we need a prominent secondary source, both to confirm that the opinion is a good representation, and also to establish that discussion of Motl's worldview receives enough independent press coverage to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. (It probably currently does not.) And, even in that case, WP:NPOV would have to be respected. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we need to be that picky here? For example the claim that he's a 'Christian atheist' is also sourced by his blog . Apparently, the article he wrote about himself survived a couple of deletion votes because he has notability as blogger, while not being notable as a scientist. So it seemed reasonable to summarize a few of his positions, esp. because the Ukrainian crisis is such a hot topic right now. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This should not be changed. I will change it back. JoopVanFriesland (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

text: I'm removing the Christian athiest reference then if it's causing confusion as to what Wikipedia policies are. He survived deletion because of WP:ACADEMIC, namely his position at Harvard and possibly his published papers; he has zero WP:NOTABILITY as a current-events blogger (though he does have borderline general notability from NYTimes coverage of how he originally used this new-fangled "arXiv" thing to come to the attention of prominent American researchers despite being in an relatively obscure Czech institution.) Feel free to ask WP:BLPN for another opinion if you don't like mine. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You being too strict with rules. VladIliescu (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:SPS says: Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. Therefore I feel it is OK to say in the article that Motl considers himself an Athiest, but his opinions about other people, events, politics etc. are non-notable (unless they receive significant mention in reliable secondary sources) and do not belong in the article per WP:SPS and  WP:SOAPBOX.-- — Keithbob • Talk •  18:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, editors in this discussion should be aware that if an editor is found to be using multiple accounts on the same article, they may be subject to sanctions. Thanks for adhering to this WP guideline. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk •  18:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm personally fine with characterization as atheist, Christian atheist or conservative, as long as it doesn't become a slippery slope to becoming a soapbox like the current version and past versions of the bio before I cleaned it up have been. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That very funny. You accuse us of having multiple accounts? I accuse you of meat puppet. I know this because he ask you to come here in your talk page. We all have right to edit here not just him. He act like he own this page and only his opinion count. You don't like what I say then file complaint or have me banned. VladIliescu (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you are wrong on both counts but this is not the place for such a discussion so I will respond on your user page. Meantime, any comments from anyone about the content and the applicable guidelines?-- — Keithbob • Talk •  15:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted edit (no secondary source) 

message: Why are links to Motl's misogynistic, racist and antifeminist blog posts considered "original research" and inappropriate for this page? This is his blog, with his opinions. The same user that removed that section (diff) left a claim containing two links to the same blog, but which don't show his actual opinions. "He characterizes himself as a Christian atheist" - is this really more important than his views on women, gay and black people? Vgroo (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I decided to keep the other sentence, because there is no interpretation involved in saying that He characterizes himself as a Christian atheist based on his statement Much like Fallaci, I count myself as a Christian atheist. On the other hand, the adjectives you inserted seem to me to be based on your own analysis of the blog posts, one that others may disagree with. That does not necessarily reflect my personal opinion on which description is more accurate. --Rentier (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  P.S. I see that the "Christian atheist" thing has been already discussed at length on this page. See above. --Rentier (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

text: He’s not notable, and so only bloggers respond to his rants.  But while his own blogs are permissible as sources, other blogs aren’t by Wikipedia’s policies.  Hence the difficulty of mentioning his toxic personality.  Yet, finally, five years later a source passed quality control, and Wikipedia finally mentions the only thing noteworthy about him: his extreme misogyny and the truck of invective he unloads in everyone he disagrees with.  Progress is slow, and it is perhaps not a good thing if a blogger can have a wiki-page but most sources that aren’t him aren’t admissible.2001:F70:AAA0:1A00:C08D:EC96:FADE:38F0 (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed paragraph (no original research) 

message: I do not think it makes any sense to have the full list of publications without providing any context. I suggest we remove the list and move the SPIRES link to External links. Rentier (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the list of publications? 

message: I came here from WP:BLPN to see what the fuss was about. While the negative editorializing seems to have been taken care of, it really jumps out that our coverage of his professional career ends in 2007. He is still fairly young as academics go, and presumably he needs to earn a living somehow. But I haven't been able to find anything on his current position. This is even after paging through a few hundred search hits. It's possible that the relevant sources are in Czech, a language that I do not know. Does anyone know his current institution? Are there any Czech speakers here who could help? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't speak Czech either. A 2010 bbc article refers to him as a "physicist and blogger" but, like other post-2007 MSM articles, doesn't mention any current institution.. So don't drive yourself mad looking for a plausibly non-existent position. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but... it just reads very oddly that he was a prodigy and Harvard professor, then suddenly everything goes blank 11 years ago when he was only about 33. Maybe he has a position in private industry or as a secondary school physics teacher or something else that wouldn't have a prominent web presence. Like you say, not worth knocking ourselves out over. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lubos was fired from Harvard for his extreme bullying of colleagues there and the use of his Harvard position to bully colleagues from other institutions. To avoid public-shaming, he was asked to write and sign a forced resignation, which he describes as "blackmail" in en email to Jack Sarfatti (a well-known theoretical physicist in the community). You have to understand that the theoretical physics community is very small, so when you mess up like he did, it's very hard to find places afterwards. When you bully names like Roger Penrose with zero arguments, is damaging for your career. The fact that he consistently destroyed Woit and Smolin didn't help either, especially in a context where loop quantum gravity has received more attention these last few years as perhaps not an alternative but complementary approach to string theory. Despite this, some of the wiki editors above will still not accept that Lubos should be described as "former theoretical physicist". I do believe that, at the very leask he should be descried as "former academic" to avoid any misunderstanding. I still don't understand either that the fact I wrote he was anti-feminist and anti-left was considered as "negative and unsourced". Any suggestion? Should I give the link to the page where he calls the German quantum gravity specialist "our well-known Marxist whore Sabine Hossenfelder". (hint:  https://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/two-new-independent-dumb-attacks-on.html ).  More can be found about his forced resignation letter at http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=5497111&tstart=0  User:AlphaMathematician  (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 10:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Current position?

message: As I'm not an expert in wikipedia editing, I would like to discuss why/how/and how to remedy the fact that the climate change section I added (which had sources, by the way) has been deleted without real justification. I could see the point behind qualifying hm as former theoretical physicist, and I believe I have extensively explained things above. But I don't see the justification behind the deletion of the climate change section. This is particularly important because Lubos uses his public standing to promote such views so it certainly deserves a dedicated section. At the very least, as "controversy" section, like it exists for so many public figures. If gently discusses this here to avoid the explicit threat of block from from Drmies , who deleted the climate change section, almost certainly without having read it. If I don't get any sensible argument on why I shouldn't include it, I will add it back. ("Accusations of having and agenda" such as the unfounded claims of the threatener Drmies , are not considered as sensible arguments. My request here is adressed to those who are monitoring this page and able to have a civilized discussion , especially   , Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, and Rolf H Nelson. Any insight please will be helpful, thanks.  User:AlphaMathematician  (talk)
:We have literally five million articles on Wikipedia, so try to understand that not everyone is necessarily interested in prolonged discussions of why a specific entry violates Wikipedia policy. I don't have permissions to view any edits that have been redacted, but my guess is that it violates the spirit of WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources... Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source". We need a reliable secondary source; sites like zmescience.com are too obscure to evaluate for reliability. Motl isn't prominent enough to appear on mainstream lists of climate change deniers; if the mainstream media doesn't care about Motl's views, neither does Wikipedia. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate change views 

message: Recently, Alessandro Strumia gave a talk in which he claimed among other things that men make better physicists than women and that Motl had been fired for speaking about it (page 24).
Again, I would like to follow up on User:AlphaMathematician's question - can we finally add a controversy section? This page ignores entirely what Motl does in the present, which is nowhere near as uncontroversial as the page represents. Wallamander (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably not a good enough source even for a statement that Alessandro Strumia claims that Motl had been fired by Harvard for this reason; it's certainly nowhere near enough to claim this as fact in Wikiepdia's own voice. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Involvement with Strumia talk 

message: I have inserted a section re the presence of this person on Wikipedia as  user Lumidek. I think it is easily verifiable without citing any sources. Thoughts?--109.166.139.91 (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's necessary to include it in the article since it's not really that important, also since this is a WP:BLP, sources are definitely needed. Flooded with them hundreds 12:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presence on Wikipedia 

message: From a good friend, and from a not so good friend. See also the comments on that page, e.g. John C. Baez posted this comment: "I was always impressed by your forbearance when it came to Motl. I'm not surprised that you finally tired of it - it takes a lot of work ignoring his nastiness. And the sad thing is, it never pays off. He doesn't even seem to realize how much work it takes to keep being nice to him, and how useless it is. It's also a lot of work ignoring him - but it's worth the effort. If we all ignore him, he will effectively cease to exist." Count Iblis (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you mention these comments? They are completely irrelevant to Wikipedia. Jibal (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: They are included in the Rational Wiki's article. Count Iblis (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on Luboš Motl 

message: There's no source of misogyny in Motl's blog. In the argument with Sabine Hossenfelder both sides use a strong, emotional language, but even criticizing a feminist doesn't imply misogyny at all. Robert-Antonio (talk) 08:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Motl’s misogyny is widely documented but since he’s not noteworthy (in the Wikipedia sense) it’s not documented in sources that are suited for Wikipedia — a problem that has hampered editing of this page repeatedly.  Seeing it with your own eyes is not enough, and so I reinstated the paragraph that you removed, but with the word removed.2001:F70:AAA0:1A00:75AE:E01B:676F:E3B0 (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

text: This is both completely false and irrelevant to Wikipedia. Jibal (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misogyny =

message: At arXiv, Richard Lindzen wrote 4 iterations of a paper, "Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?" mostly attacking climate scientists, historians, journalists, such as:
William Connolley, Ross Gelbspan, James Hansen, John Holdren, Donald Kennedy, Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes, Naomi Oreskes, Michael Oppenheimer, Jonathan Overpeck, Raymond Pierrehumbert, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Stephane Foucart, Roger Revelle, Justin Lancaster, Steve Schneider, Stefan Rahmstorf, RealClimate as a group, but at least Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Stefan Rahmstorf and Eric Steig.
He treated as credible and/or thanked Vincent Courtillot, Michael Crichton, David Deming, Freeman Dyson (on climate), Michael Griffin, Will Happer, Chris Horner, Steven McIntyre, Andrew Montford, Benny Peiser, Klaus-Martin Schulte (Christopher Monckton’s endocrinologist), Noel Sheppard, Fred Singer, Heartland Institute, Energy & Environment.
"Acknowledgments. The author wishes to thank Dennis Ambler, Willie Soon, Lubos Motl and Nigel Lawson for useful comments and assistance."
V3 contained a false claim about Overpeck.
p.11 "Not surprisingly, efforts were made to get rid of the medieval warm period (According to Demming, 2005, Jonathan Overpeck, in an email, remarked that one had to get rid of the medieval warm period."
Lindzen kept miss-spelling Deming as Deming, but Deming(2005) never mentioned Overpeck, and for various reasons, this whole story was rather dubious.
Lindzen had to retract that claim, so replaced it by cherrypicking an Overpeck quote from stolen CRU emails. JohnMashey (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Notability" ... at least with Richard Lindzen