Talk:Luboš Motl - Knowledge (XXG)

3420:

peer-reviewed sci journal, then there're no reliable sources to that claim. In the present case you "just" tell that LM has weblog - and as for most of blogs it's self-published. Then you give link to this weblog - and automatically provide reliable source of information of Wiki material - empirical proof that LM indeed has a webblog. The claim of Wiki article was that LM has blog. You’ve proved it giving a link to this blog and that is it. The question of reliability of information on that blog is actually a different question but it may be addressed in quite a similar manner too. Indeed, again, majority of LM posts has purely news-type character. E.g. suppose LM says that Lee Smolin wrote a paper about this and that. He gives a link to arXiv - and therefore justifies the fact that Lee Smolin indeed published that paper. Then as it's supposed to be done on webblogs LM writes what he thinks about that paper (that is in particular why people create such things as webblogs). As another example – it was LM site where I first learned that S. Hawking (and L. Mlodinow) published his new book “The Grand Design”. The other category of LM articles (I won’t treat all of them) deals with discussion of physics things which are mostly very well known to experts and which LM tries to explain in a "slightly" less technical form. Well, you can be sure in reliability of that sort of information after reading textbooks (or via turning on logic). Well, there're definitely dishonest persons who try to sell their thoughts as truth while they are really opposite to the truth, and therefore people who are not enough familiar with physics are to be sceptical about all posts on unknown for them subject. But then common sense shall actually help to recognize trash or truth. That is how in science questions are supposed to be solved - by logic. There're many difficult subjects where respectful and otherwise smart persons may be confused and as a result tell false things. And you can't say that what that respectful persons say is a reliable source of information due to their authority. You always have to be critical. But as for settled scientific theories such as statistical mechanics, GR or QM you actually are supposed to be skeptical on the stage of learning the subject - this is normal to better understand what is going on - you consider the subject at different angles and in different applications to test it. The final proper result of such critical approach is anyway understanding of the validity of the theory. That is how learning works. I hope I’ve clarified (rather explicitly spelled) that evident issues.

4156:

he belong to an active scientific institution and 2/ continues to publish. It does not make sense to refuse putting the adjective "former" theoretical physicist while it's crystal clear he is now inactive. Rather, if you genuinely believe he is an actual current physicist (and it is your right to believe so), the appropriate move from you, would be to check and find whether he belongs to any current institution, and in the present case, you won't find any. As for the reference to New Scientist, again this illustrates the (poor) knowledge of the scientific world from Knowledge (XXG) editors. New Scientist writers are themselves not professional scientists most of the time, but just scientific journalists. If you want to check whether Lubos Motl is a "current" theoretical physicist, you would actually check Physical Review Letters, or Physical Review D, or Review of Modern Physics. Interestingly, the New Scientist article points itself toward Lubos' blog, not any scientific article of his. So to sum up, on the matter of whether you consider Lubos as a current theoretical physicist, I would like to return you the argument and recommend that "unless can find better source " (which means, from you, finding in which institution/university he currently teaches, or which publication he wrote recently in his field), he should definitely be considered as academically inactive. I will also add this little known fact out of the scientific community: in theoretical physics, the publication requirements (in UK universities at least) is typically "2 outstanding articles per 5 years, or/and 4 articles over the same period". If a theoretical physics paper is published by a mathematician, then it's "one outstanding paper, per 10-years span" . There is a talk from the French Field Medalist Alain Connes (who made substantial contributions in theoretical physics by the way) who mentions this. In the Case of Lubos, the publication amounts to zero since 2007. This definitely falls short of any recognized standard in the field. Based on this, yes indeed, using the word "former" is justified. Finally, I am also noticing that I am not the first one here who questioned his active status in physics (in the section "Notability" above, someone wrote "At present, Luboš is mostly a blogger,").

4603:

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:

366: 4389:"My own observations into encyclopedic content". I'll skip the utterly silly argument. The fact that Lubos has extremist views is not an "observation", it's a fact. What do you want me to do, give the link to the Andrew Breivik's nazi pdf still on his website ? (I just checked earlier, still there). When he describes females colleagues as "vermin", or worse (see comment below, with SOURCED information), I think you clearly do not have any clue of the extend of the problem. Your patronizing tone is just that, patronizing tone hidden under authorithy but zero argument. Please read my other comment below, which have sources. 1316:. This is not original research, this is a de facto statement by the department! Maybe they haven't gotten him off all the auxiliary pages yet (I know departments that still have remnants of employees lingering around years later), but universities don't screw around by "accidentally" removing professors from their official list of faculty. It's conceivable that he still retains some Harvard affiliation, but he's no longer a professor. On top of that there's also the Dorigo blog post above talking about leaving academia in 2 weeks, his own blog shows that a few weeks later he 4313:

display this talk page in a Physics Department as an example of what happens when an all-ruling-who-knows-nothing-about-whats-happening in the physics community, clashes with an accredited-physicist-who-is-clueless-about-editing-rules (I definitely acknowledge this fact). Some fun moments around the coffee time in the common room. I acknowledge the fact that I am a zero-quality wikipeda editor, but I also certify that you do not grasp the full extend of the silliness of your own comments, although you try/seems to be genuine. Again please see below (comment at bottom of page).

4280:

help improving the quality of wikipedia articles in that field (in fact, I have been doing so for a while, but it's the first time I change a personality page). One thing I know: by setting Lubos to standards that are not recognized in the field, such as not mentioning that he is now inactive or by hiding his climate denials views, you are putting all the genuine physicists in a very uncomfortable situation. It is appropriate that a scientist should be evaluated by the community (that's the very principle of "peer-review" in publishing!).

4440:"any fool can see" . I'm afraid, I don't see, so I guess I'm not a fool, but you seem to see, so are you meaning you are a fool? Ok that was the silly joke of the day, let's get serious. I'm a little bit disappinted by the poverty of your arguments and the low quality of the point you are trying to make. So, tell me please, when I criticize Lubos as "anti-feminist, anti-left", you are really meaning I have an agenda? How would you interpret then the fact that Lubos describes Sabine Hossenfelder as "our well-known Marxist whore 4106:

huge damage in the theoretical physics community, especially among those who are less experienced and who take his views as valid while many have been consistently discussed and challenged by their peers. Many physicist are more competent but with less online presence so it's creates confusion. I think that if a scientist cease to be active in his/her fields, the audience has a right to know, and to know when the person stopped, helps to clarify the situation until when the technical writing can still be considered as reliable.

4506:

resolved. Alternatively, allow pointing out the simplest obvious facts (that he is a misogynist climate change denier who likely has mental health issues who left Harvard) which are clear from spending less than a few minutes on his blog and which can easily be sourced from there. The above discussions about his firing from Harvard and about whether he’s a “former” physicist don’t fill me with optimism, though. Just search his blog for “Harvard” and you will invariably find him ranting about “escaping from that hell” (e.g.

3060:

happens on blogs is often difficult to establish. There are thousands of blog-intellectuals out there. Some of them have an intellectual life that's visible outside the blogosphere; some of them have a blog fan base but will come to nothing in the long run; and a few of them really are doing culturally important "work", entirely independently of academia and mass-media recognition. It's possible that Luboš belongs to this last category, but it would be difficult to demonstrate. Consider, by contrast,

301: 4685:: "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 Knowledge (XXG). 3064:. LGF could be regarded as just another blog - a popular one, but just another blog - and its various trends and feuds as not worthy of specific attention, but there are at least two arguments for notability here. One is LGF's involvement in "Rathergate", and the other is the NYT article which uses LGF as a window on blog-politics in general. If I look for similar external validation regarding Luboš's notability, I'm not sure that the feud with Woit and Smolin qualifies. 4644:

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

1293:). He no longer is. As you note, a Research Scholar is not faculty. Academics are very picky about titles. It is possible that Motl is still employed by Harvard in some research capacity (though I doubt it, given the other evidence), but he is no longer an assistant professor or faculty member of the physics department. The entry should therefore note this (but not claim that he is no longer affiliated with or employed by Harvard). 4414:

material, but if it's all primary material (that is, if the subject's opinions etc. are sourced only to the subject) then it should NOT be included for the simple reason that if secondary sources don't remark on those opinions, they are simply not relevant or of value. But any fool can see that these edits (there's more than a few in the history) are clearly editorial opinion on the part of the contributor, and so it's certainly out.

356: 329: 4251:, I will be more than happy to block you for BLP violations which go by way of inserting negative unsourced commentary, edit warring, original research, and whatever else. You are clearly here with an agenda: to blackball this person. Please consider this a warning. Now I'm going to go through and rev-delete your BLP violations. No matter what this guy is, you are NOT to turn your own observations into encyclopedic content. 1504:

them as faculty there, of course. Independent of any statements or lack thereof on personal blogs, the faculty listing of their institution is universally accepted on Knowledge (XXG) as a reliable source giving sufficient evidence who is employed there. One must conversely accept that if the institution does *not* list them as faculty, that is a reliable source giving sufficient evidence that they are not faculty there.

21: 1797:

pages *are* considered reliable enough to verify that a professor is or is not at a given institution. No one demanded an official press release from Harvard to verify his employment when Motl came there in the first place; there is no reason to demand it now when he's left. I'm calling for uniform standards here; you're making up new notions of "reliability" which are not used elsewhere on Knowledge (XXG).

239: 215: 184: 4448:)? I am speechless: who is having an agenda here, you perhaps? Because what "any fool can see" (couldn't resist the pun) is that here we have a Lubos, who hasn't published since 2007, who is making an anti-left,anti-feminist disgusting comment against a current, active specialist in phenomenological quantum gravity at Goethe University Frankfurt, Pr. Sabine Hossenfelder. I would like to salute 3710:

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 Knowledge (XXG)'s notability standards. (It probably currently does not.) And, even in that case,

4510:). But of course neither that together with his absence from the faculty list nor his absence of publications is enough for some vocal obstructionists — excuse me, I mean people concerned with quality. Once this article was gamed past the notability criteria there was no way it could reflect reality adequately based on Knowledge (XXG) rules and some editors’ intransigence. 71: 3019:

scientific works (except via arXiv links; some of which seem unpublished), nor does it make clear which of them are his primary achievements, or indicate the significance of them for wider science. There's material about the areas that he worked on, but it needs to be clear that he was a significant contributor in these arenas. Comparison with

249: 4209:

is clearly not just "further away from the Western Mainstream" but a full-nazi text. There can be no justification of putting such text online, especially when you can see than most of the readership of his blog do share some of the extreme views presented. To put it in context, if someone was putting texts from

4452:

because he, at least, could justify clearly why he was opposing my edits at a level that I could provide an argumentation and put forward the how and why of my side. Please refer to my answers to him. Thank you. To come back to the ludicrous "agenda" comment, since you do not seem convinced, I invite

4034:

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 Knowledge (XXG)’s policies. Hence the difficulty of mentioning his toxic personality. Yet, finally, five years later a source passed quality control, and Knowledge

3489:

He will persist even if you blacklist or ban him, trust me. He may be good scientist and nice enough on the surface, but (if you know him personally and venture a hair to far - especially on some subjects - you will find out that) he is a nutjob. I think he will damage his career the way he is going,

3138:

To be fair, the second deletion review was equivocal, and neither attracted much interest in any case. As it happens, I wasn't originally arguing for deletion, I'd just like the article to be clear on why its subject is notable. It's currently not at all obvious, since the subject's work is neither

2989:

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

2746:

One last thing: Since Harvard has decided to accept Motl's resignation or whatever events led to his no longer working there, it could be considered "defamatory" to the Harvard Physics Department to state that Motl is still employed by them! So SCZens's bizarre rationale for forcing WP to claim that

1603:

If Motl had actually denied leaving Harvard, there would be a debate: you could ask whether his employer is falsifying his employment status, or whether Motl himself is. (And even in that case, his employer is still the more reliable source of the two!) In the absence of any such denial, there are

1403:

And why would his statements on his blog be a "reliable source" anyway? He can say (or refrain from saying) anything he wants, true or not. He could post on his blog that he's a distinguished professor at Caltech, but no one here would allow that to be reflected in his Knowledge (XXG) entry without

4942:

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,

4817:

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

4643:

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

4345:

as for the "unsourced, negative" comment, would you then suggest me to add them with link to his insane blog? Since that's pretty much the only thing he publishes, so I don't see any solution. Also, the climate change section that you removed altogether was fully sourced, and you deleted it, almost

3836:

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

3709:

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

3059:

The other facts about Luboš - his political views, his skepticism about global warming, his opinions about this or that physicist (Bogdanov brothers, Lee Smolin...) - make him, as I said, interesting, but do they add up to notability? At present, Luboš is mostly a blogger, and the notability of what

2817:

There seems to be a faction here who is trying to game the system in order to protect Motl's precariously tottering reputation. The rules exist to guarantee accuracy of Knowledge (XXG)'s articles -- SCZenz and the rest are using them to guarantee *in*accuracy. This is a blatant abuse of the rules.

2144:

If Motl suddenly reappears on the physics faculty list, the Knowledge (XXG) entry can be amended. Unless that happens, you have no justification for why that list should be considered unreliable, and your interpretation of his removal from the list as a "glitch" is conjectural interpretation. What

1970:

You seem to insist that in order to change a professor's affiliation in Knowledge (XXG), one must contact that professor personally. If so, why do we not similarly have to personally verify each professor's arrival? If that were the standard, affiliations would effectively never be added or removed

1854:

I reject your "intended for internal use" argument (the departmental web site is the *public* image of the department; deparments may have their own, different internal staff listings), as well as the "updated slowly" argument (which would explain an absence of his listing after being hired, but not

1503:

Note, too, that the vast majority of professors with entries on Knowledge (XXG) do not have blogs. If they have not stated on their (nonexistent) blogs that they are employed at that institution, how can any Knowledge (XXG) entry say that they work there? Because their institution officially lists

1327:

but being removed from the departmental faculty page is prima facie evidence which, if anything, is *more* authoritative than a blog post by Motl. Anyone would accept an official faculty department web site listing as sufficient evidence that someone is a professor there, you should accept explicit

548:

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

4279:

was having actual arguments I could discuss about . Let me then put you things into context: as you can see, I just created my account a few days ago. And no, I have no agenda but I am a physicist, a current, active one, and indeed, I have no clue what is a BLP, but I know Physics, and I do hope to

4208:

Again, I do see the good intentions behind your ideas, but those intentions are flawed from the start: you are excused by the fact you clearly do not know his blog, so let me put it this way: do you know that Lubos Motl has put online the full 1500-page manifesto of Andrew Breivik on his blog? This

4155:

in this section, there is one thing that strikes me deeply in this debate: what is to be a Knowledge (XXG) editor vs what is to be an actual scientist. I am not going to argue with you or impose opinions, but state a simple fact: a scientist is recognized as active in the scientific community if 1/

3914:

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

3790:

He placed on his e-mail the slogan: "String/M theory is the language in which GOD wrote the world" He stopped doing this when I wrote him "Lubos this is not science but religion in the guise of science". But this is still much better than what a Mr. Gaijin42 writes who invokes the Holocaust in the

3499:

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,

3213:

What makes Luboš Motl a notable blogger? All sorts of people are bloggers. There must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. I find no credible sources such as an article in Time magazine that

3049:

in an objectively demonstrable way? He wrote a few good papers on string theory once, but there are many other good string theorists who don't have wiki bios. Everyone in the physics blogosphere knows him, but is the physics blogosphere itself "notable"? At the level of blogs, it's hard to think of

3018:

Is it possible for the article to make this subject's notability clearer? At the moment it sounds like his main claim to notability was that he was once an academic, but that's not exactly sufficient (there is no shortage of academics out there). For starters, the article does not cite any of his

2866:

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

1912:

Departments do not generally offer press releases or statements when assistant professors leave. Given that, what reasonable procedure do you offer for removing a departed professor's affiliation from Knowledge (XXG), other than verifiable objective evidence of his removal from the official public

4938:

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

4602:

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

4105:

Lubos Motl has not published any article in a peer-reviewed journal since he left Harvard in 2007. Yet he regularly introduces himself as an active theoretical physicist. The fact that relentlessly comment on the theories of colleagues that he has not been able to follow-up with actually creates a

3228:

This person is not notable, not even in the field of string theory. Articles on arxiv don't really amount to much unless you are Grigori Perelman. Any presence that he has is due to self promotion. It's very very hard to find anything significant from a 3rd party source. Another recommendation for

3166:

whose bios were AfDed (is that a verb?) for exactly this reason. I am not at all qualified to assess Motl's scientific work, but it is my impression that as a science blogger he was unusually widely read and played a big role in provoking the heated public string-versus-antistring controversy that

2807:

If the rumour that Motl has left Harvard gets confirmed (I don't view it as confirmed yet), shouldn't the appropriate text be "He was an assistant professor in Harvard from ... to 2007" rather than "He is a former assistant professor..."? We don't generally use the phrasing "former professor" in

2677:

Additionally: I have contacted the Harvard theory group directly and they have verified that Motl has indeed left the department. I would urge any Wikipedians to do the same -- the theory group's contact information, as well as that of the Physics department and the university provost, are easily

1796:

No, you're missing the point, which is that "a direct statement from the university, a newspaper article, or an official press release" is not the standard used by Knowledge (XXG) for verifying a professor's affiliation in any other case. In every other case, except for here, university directory

1553:

If any other faculty member left their institution, nobody would insist on a personal blog post as "proof"; the departing faculty might not even have a blog. Instead, Wikipedians would go by the institution's faculty list. You are demanding a higher standard of proof than is extant for any other

4536:

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

2028:

I've read the links. The Knowledge (XXG) "reliable source", "original research" and "biographies of living persons" make do not support the standards you are claiming. Nowhere do they assert that departmental employee lists are unreliable sources of employment information; that is merely *your*

740:

to mention his (non?)religious stance, but I think a brief mention makes the article a little more informative (as long as we avoid "undue weight") and linking to that Amazon review makes the article a lot more informative. I've edited the article accordingly. (BTW, GaeusOctavius's last few edits

4895:

Motl’s misogyny is widely documented but since he’s not noteworthy (in the Knowledge (XXG) sense) it’s not documented in sources that are suited for Knowledge (XXG) — a problem that has hampered editing of this page repeatedly. Seeing it with your own eyes is not enough, and so I reinstated the

4574:

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

4179:

I am concerned about the sentence "Motl's blog is openly conservative, supporting views against immigration from islamic countries to Europe and North America and against gay couples being given the same rights as married heterosexual ones.". These are his views, yes, but what makes them special

3633:

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

3284:

There are thousand of academics with more credentials than this person that have no Knowledge (XXG) article (and I am not suggesting thousand of articles should be created or are missing from thw Knowledge (XXG)). The relevance of this person is that "He has a presence on the Internet"?? Lots of

3194:

Ah-ha. That's more like it. The link (and any similar material) would provide more of an indication of the subject's notability. It would also help your future students work out who he is! I would agree about blogger notability though, it's not at all obvious how to rate it. Persistence and

3087:

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I don't have any strong feelings either way, and while the subject does look notable, the article does a poor job of demonstrating this. Anyway, although I read the talkpage items above, I didn't notice that the page has been nominated for deletion before.

4505:

He is a blogger. The only allowed sources by BLP are proper publications or his blog. Notice something? Other blogs aren’t allowed. So which allowed sources remain? His own blog! Why? Because he isn’t notable, so there are no proper publications. Remove this article and all problems are

4312:

Now as for the very un-professional display of your feelings of "what you would be very happy to do" (to block me), I would like to mention that if you indeed wanted to block me (and it is your right after all) , what I would do (and I want to tell you in order to be upfront honest) would be to

605:"is a category for scientists who identify as atheists and for whom being atheist is relevant to their public life or occupation." That doesn't seem to be true for Dr. Motl, does it? We shouldn't track down the religious beliefs of every scientist and stuff them in categories; that's silly. -- 2836:

rule - and why this cannot go into the article before its officially confirmed by a third party source (or Motl himself), and i can't say that i've ever agreed with anything that Motl has said that i've read - so i'm hardly out to protect "Motl's precariously tottering reputation". Find a good

4413:

have been diligently defending the BLP by removing poorly sourced material that added a layer of criticism by the writer, material which was reinstated once with the claim "WP:NOTRS does not apply to self-published material about oneself." Well, that's all fine and dandy, about self-published

3768:

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

3419:

Curious. Reliability of Wiki article material is about sources of that material which is presented in Wiki article. So if you e.g. write in Wiki article on AdS/CFT that there's a famous paper by J. Maldacena but don't provide exact title and hep-th number of it on arXiv or don't give link to

3341:

250 citations means famous paper. That is about point 1 of the list. See also point 7, please, and comments to it. Finally, as for reliability of the source of information - LM provides links to other websites, in particular news websites. That means that his site is source of information by

4680:

articles on Knowledge (XXG), so try to understand that not everyone is necessarily interested in prolonged discussions of why a specific entry violates Knowledge (XXG) policy. I don't have permissions to view any edits that have been redacted, but my guess is that it violates the spirit of

4035:(XXG) 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. 3732:. 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. 3040:

As much as I enjoy reading Luboš and reading about Luboš (and his expository writings on string theory and physics in general have been extremely useful to me), I think I would have some difficulty defending his notability to a determined wiki-skeptic. I think he is unquestionably

3404:. 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. Thx 1091:(*) Scholar in the Physics department (*) of Harvard University (*)". "Jefferson Laboratories" links to High Energy Physics group at Harvard which still lists him as an assistant professor and "Scholars" part of Harvard Physics website is not accessible from outside Harvard. 3839:. 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 1404:

actually checking Caltech's faculty list. And why is that? Because the latter is more authoritative than his blog. The official faculty listing of the Harvard department of physics is a reliable source of who, in fact, is employed as a faculty member of that department.

4939:

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.

2867:

no interest in discussing here, is irrelevant as well. I will say, however, that I do not like Knowledge (XXG) 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

2210:

The statement (or implication) that Mr. Motl has left Harvard might be considered defamatory if it's false. Therefore accuracy is paramount. I've protected the page; you can click the link at the top to request unprotection if you think I've gone beyond policy. --

3439:, "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. 4541:

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?

3023:, a fellow climate change contrarian scientist with whom he is occasionally linked, makes this subject's claim to notability seem pretty weak. At least judging from the article content at present. In passing, having as a reference a link to Amazon reviews 4648:, 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 4217:, who are both considered as terrorist organizations by the EU, Israel and the USA, clearly it would be wrong to display such texts to a non-scholarly public (I'm not talking about academic historians/sociologist of course). Please see also my reply to 3250:

No, he isn't notable. But you don't want to try delete the article. He'll fight that tooth and nails, claiming all kinds of unfair treatment and his (Conspiratorial) persecution. It isn't worth it. Let the article sooth his ego, it needs soothing.

4961:

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."

3899:

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.

4004:. 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. -- 1302:

I don't think it's original research actually; not if you used it as a source to state that Motl wasn't faculty at the physics department currently, at least. But I admit it's a stretch, and if different pages conflict, that's no good. --

457:

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

2545:

At the same time, SCZenz has stated -- against WP rules and standards -- that an individual's own blog should be considered a reliable source (indeed, the *only* reliable source!) for information about their own controversial employment

2345:

128.118.174.92 pointed out -- accurately -- that universities do not release statements to the press when they let their junior faculty go. Generally they do exactly what Harvard has just done: drop the name quietly from their faculty

843:' 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". 3306:

Well, LM is not just some blogger, dear Anonimous. His website is very frequent visited one, and it's actually a greate source of information. Isn't a fact of such big social/scientifical impact enough to keep Wiki article about the

3162:(Restarting the indent cycle) I agree that the article could use improvement, but finding reliable sources to attest to the notability of a blogger is always difficult. There have been many other influential writers of blogs such as 2086:

It doesn't matter what an "ideal" source is, it matters what a *sufficient* source is. Knowledge (XXG) does not demand press releases or personal statements to reliably verify an employee's employment status, within or outside of

4735:

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.

1653:

Motl's silence on the matter on his blog is not reliable evidence of his continued employment there, and Harvard's explicit removal of Motl from their faculty list is reliable evidence of their termination of his faculty status.

3399:

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

3979:) 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? 1453:

I submit that his employer is the most reliable source *possible* regarding his employment status. Why do you include Motl's web site as a "reliable source" concerning his employment, but discount the web site of his actual

3339:

That is fascinating! Evidently you haven't read that list yourself. Consider e.g. point 3 and see List of Harvard Junior Fellows. Also please look at the number of citations of LM papers, e.g. hep-th/9701025. Observe that :

2611:

Since SCZenz has failed to provide any remotely plausible standard here for keeping the article as is in the face of changing circumstances, I will wait a period of a few days and update Motl's entry to reflect the new

5012: 1127:

I can't figure out what this means but he might still have an affiliation with Harvard. I propose that we keep any reports of him leaving Harvard out of the article, until someone presents us with a reliable source.

2414:

SCZenz has failed to state when asked under what conditions -- barring a direct statement from Harvard that Motl has been terminated, which will never happen -- he would consider Motl's termination to be "reliably"

3974:

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

834:

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:

1711:

You're missing the point. Removal from some (not all) Harvard faculty lists (as discussed above/below) is not the same as a direct statement from Harvard that his employment status has changed. The latter is a

1289:(1) The official Harvard physics department list of faculty is the most reliable and authoritative source of who is faculty in the Harvard physics department. (2) Motl was classified as an Assistant Professor ( 798:

I completely agree that whatever we say about the non-notable areas of someone's life has to be uncontroversial. However, I fear that the article already has something controversial about Prof M's writings on

1354:

I have indeed given a reliable source: his employer, who demonstrably used to list him as faculty, but now no longer does (coinciding, of course, with all the other circumstantial evidence of his departure).

3356:

OK he's notable. But his website is not a reliable source. You don't get to be a reliable source by linking to other websites. As I said above it is self published, that is specifically outside the terms of

3195:

appearance in other sources (especially reliable ones) seem reasonable criteria. Anyway, if I can extract my editing from talk-space to article-space, perhaps I'll get around to including this. Cheers, --

2480:

And SCZenz has failed to identify a single line in WP's rules that would indicate that a University's own faculty roster was not a reliable source for information about the composition of their own faculty!

111: 101: 91: 3929:

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?--

1328:

removal from such a page as evidence that they no longer are. It would go too far to say that he's no longer affiliated by Harvard, but it's perfectly acceptable to refer to him as a former professor.

779:(amongst other things) it is relevant to the person's notability. I think that has to be established here, and I think it has not been established here, certainly on religion, quite likely on politics. 3175:. I would see this influence as a substantive claim to notability in itself; future students of the history of physics will (in my opinion) be reading about Lubos Motl and wondering who he is. Here is 3677:

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.

3054:, who does have a wiki bio, without thinking of Luboš, the most militant defender of string theory, but Woit's notability derives more from his book and his role in the mass media as a string skeptic. 5007: 4969:

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.

4897: 4511: 4036: 1106:

That web page has since disappeared. His name is still on the HETG group member page (but not on the department faculty page), but the link to Motl's webpage now gives a redirect to a 404 error.

4151:"Unless you can find better source" , so indeed please let's talk about it. As a matter of fact, I am a professional scientist myself, and although. I do not have an agenda, unless what claims 3607:

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.

2990:

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.

1971:

from Knowledge (XXG). The fact that Motl has a blog has no bearing here; what is sufficient evidence for a professor without a blog should be sufficient evidence for a professor with a blog.

618:

Prof Motl is also interested in politics. Like many people of his age from Eastern Europe, he is not a great fan of the left. Note that he called himself a "Christian atheist" in reviewing a

3375:

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

736:

SCZenz makes a good point, but I still think it's good to have a brief mention of his blog (which is, in fact, mostly about string theory and useful to laymen like me). I wouldn't say it's

885:

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

852:

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

633:

I've added something about his blog, his politics and this label into the article, and removed the categories. My description of his politics is really bad; someone please improve it!

5037: 871: 526:

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.

310: 225: 3538:, 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. 655:

Are we sure his political views are really notable? He has an article because he is a professor of physics at Harvard; if he blogged without that, I don't think he'd have one. --

163: 4720:'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. 3325:

Lubos Motl satisfies. Also i'm sorry Goykhman but I've got to dispute your 'greate source of information' about Lubos website. It is not a reliable source , it is self published.

984:

is probably true, it is not a reliable source. I would say that a post on his own blog on the subject would be acceptable, but as a comment on another blog, that doesn't fly. --

549:

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). --

4057:

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.

3638:." 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. 4453:

please to some further reading. There is obviously no point here to provide you scientific publication so here are some online page where you will find interesting comments:

3088:

Given that it's still a weak article, perhaps it's time to nominate it again? That might elicit some an effort to improve it and better document the subject's notability. --

2878:

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. --

3112:. His blog is/was one of the most-read physics blogs online. Although I myself don't agree with his views on many subjects I think this article belongs in Knowledge (XXG). 4557:

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.

5042: 5017: 1208:). FWIW, (1) Motl is still in Harvard's phone directory and (2) a search for posts in 2007 containing "Harvard" on Motl's blog found no mention of him leaving. Cheers, 2919:

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.

422: 4756:

I have inserted a section re the presence of this person on Knowledge (XXG) as user Lumidek. I think it is easily verifiable without citing any sources. Thoughts?--

3108:

This article has survived two deletion reviews -- if Motl was notable enough for inclusion in 2005 and 2007, then information about him remains useful and relevant.

121: 4652:, 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 3514:"In politics, he was one of the Harvard faculty who defended then-president Lawrence Summers after his controversial remarks regarding women in science." POV much? 1735:

Try reading the links; they'll shed light on what we're asking for. Our ideal source would be a newspaper article or official press release, not a blog at all. --

434: 339: 168: 4992: 4706: 2937:

Together with Robbert Dijkgraaf, Erik Verlinde, and Herman Verlinde, he is a co-founder of matrix string theory, a nonperturbative definition of string theory.

1312:

Come on people, this is not so hard to believe. He's no longer listed on the Harvard physics faculty page, but the Internet Archive Wayback Machine shows that

4997: 151:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or 4818:

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."

690:"So and so has a blog, and calls himself an athiest christian in an Amazon review..." Encyclopedia Britanica it ain't. Some quality control, please.-- 267: 143: 3342:

definition - you simply get information from that site about what is going on in the world. He doesn't describe some fantasy world - but the real one.

3760:

I'm removing the Christian athiest reference then if it's causing confusion as to what Knowledge (XXG) policies are. He survived deletion because of

5032: 4361: 412: 2797:

No - but notice that his profile page has been removed. It takes time to update everything. But i agree that its premature to conclude anything. --

5022: 5002: 4580: 4547: 960:. I think this indicates that he has indeed left Harvard. I couldn't find any reliable sources on the circumstances of what has happened, though. 271: 4117: 2948:

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

473:

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

4966: 365: 5047: 5027: 4180:

among a myriad other opinions (some of which are even further away from the Western mainstream) he expressed in his blog? Is this a case of

388: 4787: 4757: 4221:

at the end of this section, which is more specific about his anti-feminist/anti-left views (by the way, I'm neither left/right/top/bottom)

3515: 3501: 2991: 2900: 2848: 592: 550: 527: 509: 3625:

The concern isn't that the statement is untrue or unimportant (these are irrelevant for the discussion at hand), but rather that it lacks

3490:

but its his decision (and hopefully his psychiatrists). Bottomline, dont bother, just display the appropriate tag in front of the article.

1724:

unreliable, because they are intended for internal use, have glitches, and are sometimes updated slowly. Again, Knowledge (XXG) has the

266:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge (XXG)'s articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 4119:) and unless you can find better sources that support the change, the current version will stay. The other things lack sources as well. 3798: 3663: 3608: 493: 4275:"Agenda", "warning", "block", "BLP violations". I'm not impressed by this aggressive tone nor your threat and bully attitude. At least 4901: 4657: 4576: 4543: 4515: 4040: 3292: 3258: 1009:

There are a few blogs where commenters' identities are checked, but mostly it's easy to for a commenter to pretend to be someone else.

275: 4880:

with Sabine Hossenfelder both sides use a strong, emotional language, but even criticizing a feminist doesn't imply misogyny at all.

262: 220: 39: 2971: 3376: 31: 1229: 1206: 3459:

Why is this wikipedia editor allowed to self-publish his own wikipedia page? Self-published sources cannot be assumed neutral.

1232:

is gone now (404'd). I came to the page about Dr. Motl looking for specifically information about his resignation from Harvard.

379: 334: 4777: 1313: 1290: 195: 2832:

rules. Please read them. Personally the circumstantial evidence has me convinced, but i also recognize the importance of the

1281: 1209: 1150: 1060: 1013: 941: 904: 815: 754: 664:

Motl currently introduces his blog, "The Reference Frame", as being "... as seen from a conservative physicist's viewpoint".

638: 2748: 2029:

assertion. To the contrary, they are primary sources of employment information, which are widely used in Knowledge (XXG).

55: 4669: 4615: 4461: 4357: 4318: 4285: 4226: 4161: 77: 3143:

does not shut the door on deletion if a subject is later judged to fail notability - mistakes can be made. Cheers, --

4771:

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

4454: 4877: 3729:

Do we need to be that picky here? For example the claim that he's a 'Christian atheist' is also sourced by his blog

1178:). He has posted that Lubos Motl is gone from Harvard (in a top level 'article (?)', not an anonymous post. Here: 4741: 3751: 2838: 2798: 4507: 152: 35: 4346:

certainly without bothering reading it. I definitely question your ability and competence as wikipedia editor.

3737: 2887:

OK, so he has left Harvard - so what? Even if it's true it should be left out unless the reasons aren't trivial.

811: 750: 634: 602: 4604: 4445: 2959:

He made an important contribution to matrix and nonperturbative string theory, under the impulse of his advisor

2819: 4761: 3444: 3384: 3184: 3117: 554: 4885: 4018:

P.S. I see that the "Christian atheist" thing has been already discussed at length on this page. See above. --

3730: 3572: 3519: 3505: 2995: 2904: 2852: 2280:

SCZenz's rationale is beyond weak as a justification for keeping a demonstrably false statement in a WP entry.

588: 531: 513: 201: 183: 4717: 4665: 4611: 4457: 4353: 4314: 4281: 4248: 4222: 4157: 4107: 3802: 3069:

I would like his wiki bio to stay, but it's true that his real significance may be for the future to decide.

1337:

He has not stated he is no longer a professor at Harvard on his blog, has he? Nothing else you mention is a

489: 4690: 4565: 4492: 3905: 3778: 3719: 3682: 3667: 3643: 3612: 3597: 3262: 3234: 1205:

I don't think so. It's possible that Woit was taken in by Sarfarti (who is indeed the source of these rumors

746: 4725: 4682: 4621: 4480: 4349: 3794: 3765: 3747: 3706: 3659: 3561: 3288: 3254: 2975: 2967: 580: 481: 3296: 1321: 1087:

I'm completely confused now. Motl's own webpage says "Assistant professor (*) of string theory (*) at the

810:

I'm not certain what to do about this. Do other editors think this should be fixed? (If so, how?) Cheers,

4881: 4710: 3876:

on the same article, they may be subject to sanctions. Thanks for adhering to this WP guideline. Best, --

3582: 3550: 2146: 1655: 1294: 1107: 940:

Apparently one of LM's more bitter enemies has been trying to spread these rumours for months now. Sigh.

898: 868: 584: 4859: 4823: 4737: 3920: 3822: 3425: 3347: 3312: 3230: 2985:

Moreover, it does not seem standard (and polite) to forget the names of co-authors in the bibliography.

2890: 1329: 1237: 928: 780: 712: 485: 387:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

3761: 3322: 2875: 4721: 4608: 3916: 3818: 3321:

Could someone please tell me which if any of the 9 criteria for notability of an academic outlined in

982: 807:

strikes me as giving undue weight to Prof M's belated and peripheral involvement in the Bogdanov mess.

574: 4974: 4214: 3733: 162:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to 3844: 70: 4441: 3440: 3380: 3180: 3113: 2920: 3630: 3626: 3589: 3379:, where it was once again concluded that he is notable and his article belongs in Knowledge (XXG). 3214:

make him a notable blogger. Compare to Markos Moulitsas, who is an example of a notable blogger.

1317: 773: 4686: 4661: 4561: 4488: 3996:

I decided to keep the other sentence, because there is no interpretation involved in saying that

3940: 3901: 3887: 3858: 3774: 3715: 3678: 3639: 3593: 3467: 3003: 691: 669: 166:.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see 4181: 4089: 3980: 3140: 3109: 742: 300: 159: 1230:

http://www.physicsbanter.com/particle-physics/79483-lubos-motls-forced-resignation-harvard.html

4189: 4124: 4062: 4023: 4009: 3635: 3535: 3074: 1012:

Some physics bloggers have mentioned the name Sarfati in connection with these rumours. Sigh.

865: 466: 49: 4677: 4533: 3873: 3770: 3711: 3460: 2960: 831: 4855: 4819: 4419: 4256: 4077: 3791:

physics of black holes, supporting Nelson in censoring the Knowledge (XXG). F. Winterberg.

3409: 3365: 3330: 2847:

A lot of people who made claims back when about "hoaxes" and "rumors" should be ashamed. --

1233: 890: 860:'s controversial remarks regarding women in science. In religion, following the example of 857: 254: 4810: 4772: 4709:

in which he claimed among other things that men make better physicists than women and that

4096:

Please don't change the lead to "former" or "ex-" theoretical physicist without discussion.

3840: 3831: 3436: 2868: 2833: 2829: 1729: 1717: 1342: 1042: 917:

This really needs a source guys. And obviously a rewording, but the source comes first. --

844: 791: 4970: 4931: 4915: 4838: 3984: 3061: 3020: 840: 804: 4806: 3585: 3401: 3358: 1713: 1338: 1273: 3872:

Also, editors in this discussion should be aware that if an editor is found to be using

3478: 3220: 2828:

No, this is not "abuse of the rules" or "gaming the system" - its exactly according to

894: 886: 861: 853: 623: 371: 4833:

Why do you mention these comments? They are completely irrelevant to Knowledge (XXG).

1277: 1179: 4986: 3932: 3879: 3850: 3421: 3343: 3308: 3196: 3144: 3089: 3028: 2999: 2899:

Um, leaving it out amounted to not removing the claim that he was employed there. --

1260: 958: 856:. In politics, he was one of few Harvard faculty willing to openly defend president 665: 2952:(by Banks, Fischer, Shenker and Suskind ... none of them are in the citation !!!). 927:

Deleted for the moment. No way WP can publish vague rumours about people's careers.

889:. In politics, he was one of few Harvard faculty willing to openly defend president 4955: 4814: 4653: 4449: 4410: 4406: 4276: 4185: 4120: 4058: 4019: 4005: 3139:

properly referenced nor contextualised within the scientific literature. Finally,

3070: 2788: 1056: 1046: 985: 918: 45: 4455:

https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/world-problems/climate-change-deniers-04062012/

3592:, with the exception of routine biographical details such as faculty job history. 2837:

reliable resource, that states this - and it can go in. Before that .... sorry. --

4947: 4649: 4645: 4415: 4252: 4218: 4152: 4073: 3764:, namely his position at Harvard and possibly his published papers; he has zero 3405: 3361: 3326: 2879: 2809: 2212: 1736: 1346: 1304: 1264: 1175: 1129: 961: 656: 606: 355: 328: 4508:

https://motls.blogspot.com/2021/04/conservative-faculty-endangered-species.html

4479:

Because we don't have a reliable source calling Lubos a "former academic", per

238: 214: 4911: 4834: 3172: 3168: 3163: 3051: 361: 244: 4605:

https://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/two-new-independent-dumb-attacks-on.html

4560:. So don't drive yourself mad looking for a plausibly non-existent position. 4446:

https://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/two-new-independent-dumb-attacks-on.html

4072:

Correct. We don't do lists of articles--we're not a dossier service. Thanks,

1604:

no legitimate grounds to disregard Harvard's faculty listing as "unreliable".

893:'s controversial remarks regarding women in science, and he admires the late 30:

to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include

3473: 3215: 2785: 459: 80:. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: 4935: 4112:

He has been characterized as a theoretical physicist or string theorist by

3463:

22:38, 9 May 2004 Lumidek (talk | contribs) (1,425 bytes) (new stub added)

794:? I don't think we're using Prof M as a source here.</Wikilawyering: --> 3573:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/09/are-all-climate-skeptics-theocratic.html

2784:

Motl is listed as "Ass. Prof" in the High Energy Theory Group at Harvard.

4210: 3588:

is found that makes the claim. Self-published sources generally carry no

2942: 2145:

is not conjectural is the list reflecting the faculty of the department.

4978: 4919: 4905: 4889: 4863: 4842: 4827: 4795: 4765: 4745: 4729: 4694: 4625: 4584: 4569: 4551: 4519: 4496: 4423: 4365: 4260: 4193: 4128: 4081: 4066: 4044: 4027: 4013: 3988: 3947: 3924: 3909: 3894: 3865: 3826: 3806: 3782: 3755: 3741: 3723: 3686: 3671: 3647: 3616: 3601: 3523: 3509: 3480: 3448: 3429: 3413: 3388: 3369: 3351: 3334: 3316: 3300: 3266: 3238: 3222: 3202: 3188: 3150: 3121: 3095: 3078: 3034: 3007: 2979: 2923: 2908: 2893: 2882: 2856: 2841: 2822: 2812: 2801: 2791: 2215: 2149: 1739: 1658: 1349: 1332: 1307: 1297: 1284: 1267: 1241: 1212: 1153: 1132: 1110: 1063: 1049: 1016: 988: 964: 944: 931: 921: 907: 819: 783: 758: 715: 694: 673: 659: 642: 609: 558: 535: 517: 3653: 3562:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/01/boltzmanns-brain-and-low-entropy.html

2955:

This is the reason why I am going to replace it by the following one:

1720:

done by Wikipedians using directory pages. University directory pages

500: 384: 4851: 3470: 3551:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/09/oriana-fallaci-force-of-reason.html

1041:

I have no knowledge of anything going on, I'm just trying to enforce

4558: 870:

although he notes "how simple-minded and naive Christianity can be"

4609:

http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=5497111&tstart=0

3177:

a comment on Motl's role in the context of reviewing a book by Woit

1088: 711:

It's important to know about his religion, so it is going back in.

274:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the 1345:, period. Whether we believe it is irrelevant to the article. -- 777:

Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if

575:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1ZDPQA6FLY8XM?ie=UTF8

4910:

This is both completely false and irrelevant to Knowledge (XXG).

3464: 2945:

wikipedia page: there is no mention of Motl's contribution ...

2678:

available online -- before engaging in wild conspiracy theories.

882: 849: 4575:

presence. Like you say, not worth knocking ourselves out over.

2747:

Motl is still a Harvard professor is completely inoperative. --

601:

So he defines himself as a Christian and an Atheist. However,

3468:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Lubo%C5%A1-Motl/103107799729990

3176: 1278:

Research Scholar (Page not accessible outside Harvard Network)

177: 158:

from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially

135: 65: 15: 4607:). More can be found about his forced resignation letter at 3581:

I removed this paragraph; as always, it can be replaced if a

1554:

faculty member on Knowledge (XXG), for no justifiable reason.

5013:

Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles

4946:"Acknowledgments. The author wishes to thank Dennis Ambler, 3746:

I agree. This should not be changed. I will change it back.

2933:

I think the following sentence is at least an exageration:

299: 1059:

is quite correct. Apologies if I seemed to be disagreeing.

508:

The average IQ of professional physicists is about 170. --

28:

contributor may be personally or professionally connected

4002:

Much like Fallaci, I count myself as a Christian atheist

1045:

policy, and as I said, the blog comment is not a RS. --

3976: 3703: 957:

LM is no longer listed on Harvard Physics faculty list

903:

I think the article is now much more balanced. Cheers,

4896:

paragraph that you removed, but with the word removed.

5008:

Start-Class biography (science and academia) articles

4876:

There's no source of misogyny in Motl's blog. In the

1276:, not a source. (2) I think he'd be classified as a 383:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 4711:

Motl had been fired for speaking about it (page 24)

1263:. What do people think about that as a source? -- 1180:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=573

4965:Lindzen kept miss-spelling Deming as Deming, but 839:Motl was one of the few physicists to defend the 4852:They are included in the Rational Wiki's article 3500:everyone who disputes his opinions as crackpots. 4943:Heartland Institute, Energy & Environment. 4664:. Any insight please will be helpful, thanks. 3998:He characterizes himself as a Christian atheist 5038:Start-Class physics articles of Low-importance 4926:"Notability" ... at least with Richard Lindzen 1728:standards of verifiability with regard to the 1261:the Harvard physics department list of faculty 3656:, he counts himself as a Christian atheist. 1182:). Does this count as a source? --Mark Roulo 1176:http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/ 864:, he counts himself "as a Christian atheist" 8: 3773:for another opinion if you don't like mine. 4813:. See also the comments on that page, e.g. 3209:There is not enough evidence of Notability. 2869:policy on the biographies of living persons 181: 4619: 4347: 1855:the removal of his listing after leaving). 323: 209: 3435:According to Knowledge (XXG) policy for 5043:Start-Class physics biographies articles 5018:Science and academia work group articles 3970:Removed paragraph (no original research) 2950:M Theory As A Matrix Model: A Conjecture 2787:This was not hard to find using Google. 803:the paragraph in this article about the 3543: 3529:Removed paragraph (no secondary source) 462:. So don't be so hard on yourself! ^_^ 325: 211: 4898:2001:F70:AAA0:1A00:75AE:E01B:676F:E3B0 4512:2001:F70:AAA0:1A00:B81E:8256:27B2:B90B 4037:2001:F70:AAA0:1A00:C08D:EC96:FADE:38F0 1716:, while the former is speculation and 4958:for useful comments and assistance." 2998:) 21:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC). I am 749:for some of the background.) Cheers, 284:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Biography 7: 4993:Articles with connected contributors 4716:Again, I would like to follow up on 792:WP:BLP#Using the subject as a source 499:(Hawk Communications; geolocated in 377:This article is within the scope of 260:This article is within the scope of 4998:Biography articles of living people 3699:Reverted edit (no secondary source) 3471:https://www.facebook.com/lubos.motl 1174:Peter Woit has a blog at Columbia ( 1149:I think someone is staging a hoax. 397:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Physics 311:the science and academia work group 200:It is of interest to the following 4485:even should it turn out to be true 3167:resulted in best-selling books by 14: 4775:, sources are definitely needed. 3817:You being too strict with rules. 3652:"Following the example of Oriana 1341:. We need very good sources for 4483:we can't put it in the article, 4053:Remove the list of publications? 2749:Authoritative Information Source 364: 354: 327: 247: 237: 213: 182: 141:This article must adhere to the 69: 19: 5033:Low-importance physics articles 1318:sold off his furniture and bike 469:, 2004 May 10 (revised May 18) 417:This article has been rated as 76:This article was nominated for 5023:WikiProject Biography articles 5003:Start-Class biography articles 4707:Alessandro Strumia gave a talk 4088:Former/ex and a concern about 3481:14:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC) 3223:14:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC) 287:Template:WikiProject Biography 26:The following Knowledge (XXG) 1: 4890:08:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC) 4701:Involvement with Strumia talk 4658:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris 4577:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris 4544:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris 4520:14:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC) 3672:13:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC) 3648:04:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC) 3617:10:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC) 3602:21:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC) 3524:16:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC) 3510:16:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC) 3465:http://twitter.com/#!/lumidek 3449:23:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC) 3430:22:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC) 3414:18:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC) 3389:14:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC) 3370:14:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC) 3352:10:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC) 3110:"Notability is not temporary" 2924:09:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 1730:biographies of living persons 1343:biographies of living persons 674:16:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC) 432:This article is supported by 391:and see a list of open tasks. 308:This article is supported by 144:biographies of living persons 5048:Physics biographies articles 5028:Start-Class physics articles 4796:12:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC) 4766:11:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC) 3714:would have to be respected. 3335:20:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC) 3008:21:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 877:Here's the current version: 820:06:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC) 784:12:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 759:08:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 716:03:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 695:03:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 660:03:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 643:00:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 610:22:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 400:Template:WikiProject Physics 272:contribute to the discussion 4752:Presence on Knowledge (XXG) 4746:17:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC) 4730:17:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC) 4045:09:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC) 2980:11:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 2894:01:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 2883:07:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 2842:22:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC) 2823:22:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC) 2813:16:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC) 2216:20:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC) 2150:19:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC) 1740:17:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC) 1659:15:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC) 1350:13:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC) 1333:12:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC) 1298:15:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC) 1111:15:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC) 790:Um, doesn't that come from 603:Category:Atheist scientists 536:22:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 156:must be removed immediately 58:) / Motl, Luboš Motl, Luboš 5064: 4920:10:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC) 4843:10:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC) 4028:13:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC) 4014:13:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC) 3989:11:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC) 3948:15:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC) 3925:22:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC) 3910:19:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC) 3895:18:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC) 3866:18:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC) 3827:12:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC) 3807:04:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC) 3783:03:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC) 3756:23:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC) 3742:10:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC) 3724:05:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC) 3687:03:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC) 3280:Relevance?? Delete article 3203:18:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC) 3189:14:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC) 3151:17:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC) 3122:13:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC) 3096:10:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC) 3079:09:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC) 3035:18:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC) 2941:Please take a look at the 2802:23:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC) 2792:04:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC) 1322:returned to Czechoslovakia 1308:05:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC) 1285:23:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 1268:12:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 1242:10:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC) 1213:11:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 559:07:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC) 423:project's importance scale 4979:06:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC) 4906:23:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC) 4864:22:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC) 4067:22:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC) 3239:05:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC) 2909:23:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC) 2857:23:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC) 2808:bios of other academics. 1154:20:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 1133:18:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 1064:20:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 1050:16:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 1017:12:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 989:06:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 965:05:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 945:01:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 932:19:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 922:18:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 908:04:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC) 518:23:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC) 431: 416: 349: 307: 232: 208: 120:, December 28, 2005, see 4828:14:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC) 4194:12:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC) 4116:secondary sources (e.g. 3317:19:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC) 3301:01:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC) 3267:10:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC) 3229:deletion needs to occur. 2929:co-founder of M-theory ? 2915:WikiProject class rating 4718:User:AlphaMathematician 4695:04:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC) 4666:User:AlphaMathematician 4626:10:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC) 4612:User:AlphaMathematician 4585:00:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC) 4570:19:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC) 4552:01:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC) 4497:04:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC) 4458:User:AlphaMathematician 4424:15:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC) 4366:23:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC) 4315:User:AlphaMathematician 4282:User:AlphaMathematician 4261:14:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC) 4223:User:AlphaMathematician 4158:User:AlphaMathematician 4129:07:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC) 4108:User:AlphaMathematician 4082:14:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC) 4000:based on his statement 3534:He counts himself as a 789:(<Wikilawyering: --> 747:User talk:GaeusOctavius 741:here are violations of 622:book by the late great 4802:Comments on Luboš Motl 3540: 3395:Reliable source or no? 1089:Jefferson Laboratories 304: 190:This article is rated 110:, March 29, 2007, see 100:, August 5, 2010, see 90:, 1 October 2018, see 3532: 3455:Lumidek is Luboš Motl 2820:The Czech Got Bounced 1280:, not faculty. Sigh. 1259:Motl isn't listed at 435:Biographies Taskforce 303: 263:WikiProject Biography 194:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 40:neutral point of view 4639:Climate change views 4215:Kach_and_Kahane_Chai 2871:is extremely clear. 626:, not in discussing 226:Science and Academia 98:Nomination withdrawn 32:conflict of interest 4442:Sabine Hossenfelder 3915:or have me banned. 380:WikiProject Physics 4811:not so good friend 4807:From a good friend 4676:We have literally 4354:AlphaMathematician 4249:AlphaMathematician 3285:bloggers have... 2876:blocking usernames 305: 290:biography articles 196:content assessment 4785: 4628: 4532:I came here from 4528:Current position? 4368: 4352:comment added by 3874:multiple accounts 3797:comment added by 3662:comment added by 3636:Christian atheist 3536:Christian atheist 3291:comment added by 3257:comment added by 3200: 3148: 3093: 3032: 3027:doesn't help. -- 2982: 2970:comment added by 1718:original research 1326: 1066: 841:Bogdanov brothers 818: 757: 641: 597: 583:comment added by 498: 484:comment added by 450: 449: 446: 445: 442: 441: 322: 321: 318: 317: 176: 175: 134: 133: 130: 129: 64: 63: 5055: 4783: 4738:Jonathan A Jones 4405:One more thing: 3946: 3943: 3893: 3890: 3864: 3861: 3809: 3748:JoopVanFriesland 3674: 3575: 3570: 3564: 3559: 3553: 3548: 3476: 3303: 3269: 3218: 3198: 3146: 3091: 3030: 2965: 1913:faculty listing? 1325: 1054: 929:Charles Matthews 891:Lawrence Summers 858:Lawrence Summers 814: 781:Charles Matthews 753: 637: 596: 577: 497: 478: 405: 404: 403:physics articles 401: 398: 395: 374: 369: 368: 358: 351: 350: 345: 342: 331: 324: 292: 291: 288: 285: 282: 268:join the project 257: 255:Biography portal 252: 251: 250: 241: 234: 233: 228: 217: 210: 193: 187: 186: 178: 164:this noticeboard 136: 82: 81: 73: 66: 23: 22: 16: 5063: 5062: 5058: 5057: 5056: 5054: 5053: 5052: 4983: 4982: 4932:Richard Lindzen 4928: 4874: 4804: 4754: 4703: 4641: 4530: 4093: 4055: 3972: 3941: 3930: 3888: 3877: 3859: 3848: 3792: 3734:Lokalkosmopolit 3701: 3657: 3579: 3578: 3571: 3567: 3560: 3556: 3549: 3545: 3531: 3497: 3474: 3457: 3397: 3286: 3282: 3252: 3216: 3062:Charles Johnson 3021:Richard Lindzen 3016: 2931: 2917: 2864: 2862:Full protection 2839:Kim D. Petersen 2799:Kim D. Petersen 1714:reliable source 1339:reliable source 1055:Clarification: 915: 913:Leaving Harvard 828: 805:Bogdanov Affair 578: 571: 479: 455: 402: 399: 396: 393: 392: 370: 363: 343: 337: 289: 286: 283: 280: 279: 253: 248: 246: 223: 191: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5061: 5059: 5051: 5050: 5045: 5040: 5035: 5030: 5025: 5020: 5015: 5010: 5005: 5000: 4995: 4985: 4984: 4927: 4924: 4923: 4922: 4908: 4882:Robert-Antonio 4873: 4870: 4869: 4868: 4867: 4866: 4846: 4845: 4803: 4800: 4799: 4798: 4758:109.166.139.91 4753: 4750: 4749: 4748: 4702: 4699: 4698: 4697: 4640: 4637: 4636: 4635: 4634: 4633: 4632: 4631: 4630: 4629: 4624:comment added 4592: 4590: 4589: 4588: 4587: 4529: 4526: 4525: 4524: 4523: 4522: 4500: 4499: 4476: 4475: 4474: 4473: 4472: 4471: 4470: 4469: 4468: 4467: 4466: 4465: 4427: 4426: 4401: 4399: 4398: 4397: 4396: 4395: 4394: 4393: 4392: 4391: 4390: 4378: 4377: 4376: 4375: 4374: 4373: 4372: 4371: 4370: 4369: 4333: 4331: 4330: 4329: 4328: 4327: 4326: 4325: 4324: 4323: 4322: 4300: 4298: 4297: 4296: 4295: 4294: 4293: 4292: 4291: 4290: 4289: 4264: 4263: 4244: 4241: 4239: 4238: 4237: 4236: 4235: 4234: 4233: 4232: 4231: 4230: 4197: 4196: 4176: 4175: 4174: 4173: 4172: 4171: 4170: 4169: 4168: 4167: 4166: 4165: 4138: 4137: 4136: 4135: 4134: 4133: 4132: 4131: 4098: 4097: 4092: 4086: 4085: 4084: 4054: 4051: 4050: 4049: 4048: 4047: 4032: 4031: 4030: 3971: 3968: 3967: 3966: 3965: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3954: 3953: 3952: 3951: 3950: 3788: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3758: 3700: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3693: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3620: 3619: 3577: 3576: 3565: 3554: 3542: 3541: 3530: 3527: 3516:88.243.161.173 3502:88.243.161.173 3496: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3485: 3456: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3441:betsythedevine 3437:personal blogs 3418: 3396: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3381:betsythedevine 3281: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3244: 3242: 3241: 3211: 3210: 3206: 3205: 3181:betsythedevine 3160: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3114:betsythedevine 3101: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3082: 3081: 3066: 3065: 3056: 3055: 3015: 3012: 3011: 3010: 2992:80.177.110.122 2930: 2927: 2921:BetacommandBot 2916: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2901:68.108.253.185 2863: 2860: 2849:68.108.253.185 2845: 2844: 2805: 2804: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2712: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2380: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2147:128.118.174.92 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2030: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1733: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1656:128.118.174.92 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1300: 1295:128.118.174.92 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1108:128.118.174.92 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1010: 998: 997: 996: 995: 994: 993: 992: 991: 972: 971: 970: 969: 968: 967: 950: 949: 948: 947: 935: 934: 914: 911: 901: 900: 895:Oriana Fallaci 887:global warming 875: 874: 862:Oriana Fallaci 854:global warming 846: 827: 824: 823: 822: 808: 796: 770: 769: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 761: 725: 724: 723: 722: 721: 720: 719: 718: 702: 701: 700: 699: 698: 697: 683: 682: 681: 680: 679: 678: 677: 676: 648: 647: 646: 645: 631: 624:Oriana Fallaci 613: 612: 585:134.139.24.131 570: 567: 566: 565: 564: 563: 562: 561: 551:184.189.217.91 541: 540: 539: 538: 528:79.237.146.104 521: 520: 510:68.108.253.185 505: 504: 475: 474: 454: 451: 448: 447: 444: 443: 440: 439: 430: 427: 426: 419:Low-importance 415: 409: 408: 406: 389:the discussion 376: 375: 372:Physics portal 359: 347: 346: 344:Low‑importance 332: 320: 319: 316: 315: 306: 296: 295: 293: 259: 258: 242: 230: 229: 218: 206: 205: 199: 188: 174: 173: 169:this help page 153:poorly sourced 139: 132: 131: 128: 127: 126: 125: 115: 105: 95: 74: 62: 61: 60: 59: 24: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5060: 5049: 5046: 5044: 5041: 5039: 5036: 5034: 5031: 5029: 5026: 5024: 5021: 5019: 5016: 5014: 5011: 5009: 5006: 5004: 5001: 4999: 4996: 4994: 4991: 4990: 4988: 4981: 4980: 4976: 4972: 4968: 4963: 4959: 4957: 4953: 4949: 4944: 4940: 4937: 4933: 4925: 4921: 4917: 4913: 4909: 4907: 4903: 4899: 4894: 4893: 4892: 4891: 4887: 4883: 4879: 4871: 4865: 4861: 4857: 4853: 4850: 4849: 4848: 4847: 4844: 4840: 4836: 4832: 4831: 4830: 4829: 4825: 4821: 4816: 4812: 4809:, and from a 4808: 4801: 4797: 4794: 4793: 4792: 4791: 4786: 4781: 4780: 4774: 4770: 4769: 4768: 4767: 4763: 4759: 4751: 4747: 4743: 4739: 4734: 4733: 4732: 4731: 4727: 4723: 4719: 4714: 4712: 4708: 4700: 4696: 4692: 4688: 4687:Rolf H Nelson 4684: 4683:WP:BLPPRIMARY 4679: 4675: 4674: 4673: 4671: 4667: 4663: 4662:Rolf H Nelson 4659: 4655: 4651: 4647: 4638: 4627: 4623: 4617: 4613: 4610: 4606: 4601: 4600: 4599: 4598: 4597: 4596: 4595: 4594: 4593: 4586: 4582: 4578: 4573: 4572: 4571: 4567: 4563: 4562:Rolf H Nelson 4559: 4556: 4555: 4554: 4553: 4549: 4545: 4540: 4535: 4527: 4521: 4517: 4513: 4509: 4504: 4503: 4502: 4501: 4498: 4494: 4490: 4489:Rolf H Nelson 4486: 4482: 4481:WP:BLPSOURCES 4478: 4477: 4463: 4459: 4456: 4451: 4447: 4443: 4439: 4438: 4437: 4436: 4435: 4434: 4433: 4432: 4431: 4430: 4429: 4428: 4425: 4421: 4417: 4412: 4408: 4404: 4403: 4402: 4388: 4387: 4386: 4385: 4384: 4383: 4382: 4381: 4380: 4379: 4367: 4363: 4359: 4355: 4351: 4344: 4343: 4342: 4341: 4340: 4339: 4338: 4337: 4336: 4335: 4334: 4320: 4316: 4311: 4310: 4309: 4308: 4307: 4306: 4305: 4304: 4303: 4302: 4301: 4287: 4283: 4278: 4274: 4273: 4272: 4271: 4270: 4269: 4268: 4267: 4266: 4265: 4262: 4258: 4254: 4250: 4247: 4246: 4245: 4242: 4228: 4224: 4220: 4216: 4212: 4207: 4206: 4205: 4204: 4203: 4202: 4201: 4200: 4199: 4198: 4195: 4191: 4187: 4183: 4178: 4177: 4163: 4159: 4154: 4150: 4149: 4148: 4147: 4146: 4145: 4144: 4143: 4142: 4141: 4140: 4139: 4130: 4126: 4122: 4118: 4115: 4111: 4110: 4109: 4104: 4103: 4102: 4101: 4100: 4099: 4095: 4094: 4091: 4087: 4083: 4079: 4075: 4071: 4070: 4069: 4068: 4064: 4060: 4052: 4046: 4042: 4038: 4033: 4029: 4025: 4021: 4017: 4016: 4015: 4011: 4007: 4003: 3999: 3995: 3994: 3993: 3992: 3991: 3990: 3986: 3982: 3978: 3969: 3949: 3944: 3938: 3937: 3936: 3928: 3927: 3926: 3922: 3918: 3913: 3912: 3911: 3907: 3903: 3902:Rolf H Nelson 3898: 3897: 3896: 3891: 3885: 3884: 3883: 3875: 3871: 3870: 3869: 3868: 3867: 3862: 3856: 3855: 3854: 3846: 3842: 3838: 3833: 3830: 3829: 3828: 3824: 3820: 3816: 3815: 3814: 3813: 3812: 3811: 3810: 3808: 3804: 3800: 3799:12.72.186.167 3796: 3784: 3780: 3776: 3775:Rolf H Nelson 3772: 3767: 3766:WP:NOTABILITY 3763: 3759: 3757: 3753: 3749: 3745: 3744: 3743: 3739: 3735: 3731: 3728: 3727: 3726: 3725: 3721: 3717: 3716:Rolf H Nelson 3713: 3708: 3707:WP:BLPSOURCES 3704: 3698: 3688: 3684: 3680: 3679:Rolf H Nelson 3676: 3675: 3673: 3669: 3665: 3664:75.140.66.148 3661: 3655: 3651: 3650: 3649: 3645: 3641: 3640:Rolf H Nelson 3637: 3632: 3628: 3624: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3618: 3614: 3610: 3609:75.140.66.148 3606: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3599: 3595: 3594:Rolf H Nelson 3591: 3587: 3584: 3574: 3569: 3566: 3563: 3558: 3555: 3552: 3547: 3544: 3539: 3537: 3528: 3526: 3525: 3521: 3517: 3512: 3511: 3507: 3503: 3494: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3483: 3482: 3479: 3477: 3472: 3469: 3466: 3462: 3454: 3450: 3446: 3442: 3438: 3434: 3433: 3432: 3431: 3427: 3423: 3416: 3415: 3411: 3407: 3403: 3394: 3390: 3386: 3382: 3378: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3367: 3363: 3360: 3354: 3353: 3349: 3345: 3337: 3336: 3332: 3328: 3324: 3319: 3318: 3314: 3310: 3304: 3302: 3298: 3294: 3290: 3279: 3275: 3274: 3268: 3264: 3260: 3256: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3240: 3236: 3232: 3231:Captainspirou 3227: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3221: 3219: 3208: 3207: 3204: 3201: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3186: 3182: 3178: 3174: 3170: 3165: 3152: 3149: 3142: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3123: 3119: 3115: 3111: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3097: 3094: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3080: 3076: 3072: 3068: 3067: 3063: 3058: 3057: 3053: 3048: 3044: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3033: 3026: 3022: 3013: 3009: 3005: 3001: 2997: 2993: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2983: 2981: 2977: 2973: 2969: 2964: 2962: 2956: 2953: 2951: 2946: 2944: 2939: 2938: 2934: 2928: 2926: 2925: 2922: 2914: 2910: 2906: 2902: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2892: 2891:79.67.103.209 2888: 2885: 2884: 2881: 2877: 2872: 2870: 2861: 2859: 2858: 2854: 2850: 2843: 2840: 2835: 2831: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2821: 2815: 2814: 2811: 2803: 2800: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2790: 2786: 2750: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2217: 2214: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2151: 2148: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1741: 1738: 1734: 1731: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1660: 1657: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1348: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1331: 1330:72.72.203.216 1323: 1319: 1315: 1314:he used to be 1311: 1310: 1309: 1306: 1301: 1299: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1214: 1211: 1207: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1155: 1152: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1134: 1131: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1112: 1109: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1090: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1065: 1062: 1058: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1018: 1015: 1011: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 990: 987: 983: 980: 979: 978: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 966: 963: 959: 956: 955: 954: 953: 952: 951: 946: 943: 939: 938: 937: 936: 933: 930: 926: 925: 924: 923: 920: 912: 910: 909: 906: 899: 896: 892: 888: 884: 881:Motl keeps a 880: 879: 878: 872: 869: 866: 863: 859: 855: 851: 848:Motl keeps a 847: 845: 842: 838: 837: 836: 833: 825: 821: 817: 813: 809: 806: 802: 797: 793: 788: 787: 786: 785: 782: 778: 775: 760: 756: 752: 748: 744: 739: 735: 734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 726: 717: 714: 713:4.131.129.117 710: 709: 708: 707: 706: 705: 704: 703: 696: 693: 692:GaeusOctavius 689: 688: 687: 686: 685: 684: 675: 671: 667: 663: 662: 661: 658: 654: 653: 652: 651: 650: 649: 644: 640: 636: 632: 629: 625: 621: 617: 616: 615: 614: 611: 608: 604: 600: 599: 598: 594: 590: 586: 582: 576: 568: 560: 556: 552: 547: 546: 545: 544: 543: 542: 537: 533: 529: 525: 524: 523: 522: 519: 515: 511: 507: 506: 502: 495: 491: 487: 486:64.63.220.240 483: 477: 476: 472: 471: 470: 468: 463: 461: 452: 437: 436: 429: 428: 424: 420: 414: 411: 410: 407: 390: 386: 382: 381: 373: 367: 362: 360: 357: 353: 352: 348: 341: 336: 333: 330: 326: 313: 312: 302: 298: 297: 294: 277: 276:documentation 273: 269: 265: 264: 256: 245: 243: 240: 236: 235: 231: 227: 222: 219: 216: 212: 207: 203: 197: 189: 185: 180: 179: 171: 170: 165: 161: 157: 154: 150: 146: 145: 140: 138: 137: 123: 119: 116: 113: 109: 106: 103: 99: 96: 93: 89: 86: 85: 84: 83: 79: 75: 72: 68: 67: 57: 54: 51: 47: 44: 43: 41: 37: 36:autobiography 33: 29: 25: 18: 17: 4967:Deming(2005) 4964: 4960: 4956:Nigel Lawson 4951: 4945: 4941: 4936:4 iterations 4929: 4875: 4815:John C. Baez 4805: 4789: 4788: 4782: 4778: 4776: 4755: 4715: 4704: 4678:five million 4642: 4591: 4538: 4531: 4484: 4400: 4348:— Preceding 4332: 4299: 4243: 4240: 4113: 4056: 4001: 3997: 3973: 3934: 3933: 3881: 3880: 3852: 3851: 3835: 3793:— Preceding 3789: 3702: 3658:— Preceding 3583:WP:SECONDARY 3580: 3568: 3557: 3546: 3533: 3513: 3498: 3484: 3458: 3417: 3398: 3355: 3338: 3320: 3305: 3293:190.188.0.22 3283: 3259:86.56.28.204 3253:— Preceding 3243: 3212: 3161: 3046: 3045:, but is he 3042: 3024: 3017: 2984: 2958: 2957: 2954: 2949: 2947: 2940: 2936: 2935: 2932: 2918: 2889: 2886: 2873: 2865: 2846: 2816: 2806: 2783: 2711: 2415:established. 2379: 1725: 1721: 1227: 981:While this: 916: 902: 876: 829: 800: 776: 771: 737: 627: 619: 572: 467:Toby Bartels 464: 456: 433: 418: 378: 309: 261: 202:WikiProjects 167: 155: 148: 142: 117: 108:No consensus 107: 97: 87: 52: 27: 4948:Willie Soon 4856:Count Iblis 4820:Count Iblis 4722:Wallamander 4620:—Preceding 3917:VladIliescu 3819:VladIliescu 3762:WP:ACADEMIC 3323:WP:ACADEMIC 3287:—Preceding 3043:interesting 2972:82.67.59.93 2966:—Preceding 1272:(1) That's 1234:Crasshopper 579:—Preceding 480:—Preceding 340:Biographies 192:Start-class 4987:Categories 4971:JohnMashey 4952:Lubos Motl 4930:At arXiv, 4872:Misogyny = 4784:with them 4705:Recently, 3845:WP:SOAPBOX 3495:Highly POV 3377:AFD filing 3173:Lee Smolin 3169:Peter Woit 3164:Doc Searls 3052:Peter Woit 3014:Notability 2612:situation. 830:I've just 826:April 2007 122:discussion 112:discussion 102:discussion 92:discussion 3631:WP:BLPSPS 3627:WP:WEIGHT 3590:WP:WEIGHT 2087:academia. 1454:employer? 832:WP:BOLDly 774:WP:LIVING 738:important 620:political 460:flame war 281:Biography 221:Biography 160:libellous 4878:argument 4790:hundreds 4779:Flooded 4539:anything 4362:contribs 4350:unsigned 4211:Al-Qaida 4182:WP:UNDUE 4090:WP:UNDUE 3935:Keithbob 3882:Keithbob 3853:Keithbob 3795:unsigned 3660:unsigned 3422:Goykhman 3344:Goykhman 3309:Goykhman 3289:unsigned 3255:unsigned 3141:WP:NTEMP 3000:Weburbia 2968:unsigned 2943:M-theory 801:physics: 743:WP:POINT 666:ErkDemon 593:contribs 581:unsigned 494:contribs 482:unsigned 453:Untitled 78:deletion 56:contribs 4654:Rentier 4622:undated 4534:WP:BLPN 4450:Rentier 4411:Jim1138 4407:Rentier 4277:Rentier 4186:Rentier 4121:Rentier 4059:Rentier 4020:Rentier 4006:Rentier 3837:subject 3771:WP:BLPN 3712:WP:NPOV 3705:Again, 3654:Fallaci 3461:WP:SPIP 3307:author? 3199:LUMBAGO 3147:LUMBAGO 3092:LUMBAGO 3071:Mporter 3047:notable 3031:LUMBAGO 2961:T.Banks 2789:RonCram 2546:status. 1726:highest 1057:Theblog 1047:Theblog 986:Theblog 919:Theblog 628:science 569:Beliefs 501:Chicago 421:on the 394:Physics 385:Physics 335:Physics 46:Lumidek 4934:wrote 4773:WP:BLP 4660:, and 4650:Drmies 4646:Drmies 4416:Drmies 4253:Drmies 4219:Drmies 4153:Drmies 4114:recent 4074:Drmies 3841:WP:SPS 3834:says: 3832:WP:SPS 3629:. Per 3406:Hmcst1 3362:Hmcst1 3327:Hmcst1 3025:really 2880:SCZenz 2834:WP:BLP 2830:WP:BLP 2810:Andris 2213:SCZenz 1737:SCZenz 1347:SCZenz 1324:, and 1305:SCZenz 1265:SCZenz 1130:Andris 1043:WP:BLP 962:Andris 816:(talk) 755:(talk) 745:. See 657:SCZenz 639:(talk) 607:SCZenz 198:scale. 38:, and 4912:Jibal 4835:Jibal 4537:find 3981:Vgroo 3843:and 3586:WP:RS 3402:WP:RS 3359:WP:RS 2874:I am 2346:list. 1274:WP:OR 1228:That 772:From 573:See: 4975:talk 4954:and 4916:talk 4902:talk 4886:talk 4860:talk 4839:talk 4824:talk 4762:talk 4742:talk 4726:talk 4691:talk 4670:talk 4616:talk 4581:talk 4566:talk 4548:talk 4516:talk 4493:talk 4462:talk 4444:" ( 4420:talk 4409:and 4358:talk 4319:talk 4286:talk 4257:talk 4227:talk 4190:talk 4162:talk 4125:talk 4078:talk 4063:talk 4041:talk 4024:talk 4010:talk 3985:talk 3977:diff 3942:Talk 3921:talk 3906:talk 3889:Talk 3860:Talk 3823:talk 3803:talk 3779:talk 3752:talk 3738:talk 3720:talk 3683:talk 3668:talk 3644:talk 3613:talk 3598:talk 3520:talk 3506:talk 3475:kgrr 3445:talk 3426:talk 3410:talk 3385:talk 3366:talk 3348:talk 3331:talk 3313:talk 3297:talk 3263:talk 3235:talk 3217:kgrr 3185:talk 3171:and 3118:talk 3075:talk 3004:talk 2996:talk 2976:talk 2905:talk 2853:talk 1320:and 1291:here 1238:talk 883:blog 850:blog 670:talk 589:talk 555:talk 532:talk 514:talk 490:talk 270:and 118:Keep 88:Keep 50:talk 4618:) 4213:or 3847:.-- 3340:--> 1722:are 1282:CWC 1210:CWC 1151:CWC 1061:CWC 1014:CWC 942:CWC 905:CWC 812:CWC 751:CWC 635:CWC 465:-- 413:Low 149:BLP 42:. 4989:: 4977:) 4950:, 4918:) 4904:) 4888:) 4862:) 4854:. 4841:) 4826:) 4764:) 4744:) 4728:) 4713:. 4693:) 4672:) 4656:, 4583:) 4568:) 4550:) 4518:) 4495:) 4487:. 4422:) 4364:) 4360:• 4259:) 4192:) 4184:? 4127:) 4080:) 4065:) 4043:) 4026:) 4012:) 3987:) 3945:• 3939:• 3931:— 3923:) 3908:) 3892:• 3886:• 3878:— 3863:• 3857:• 3849:— 3825:) 3805:) 3781:) 3754:) 3740:) 3722:) 3685:) 3670:) 3646:) 3615:) 3600:) 3522:) 3508:) 3447:) 3428:) 3412:) 3387:) 3368:) 3350:) 3333:) 3315:) 3299:) 3265:) 3237:) 3187:) 3179:. 3120:) 3077:) 3006:) 2978:) 2963:. 2907:) 2855:) 1240:) 867:, 672:) 595:) 591:• 557:) 534:) 516:) 496:) 492:• 338:: 224:: 34:, 4973:( 4914:( 4900:( 4884:( 4858:( 4837:( 4822:( 4760:( 4740:( 4724:( 4689:( 4668:( 4614:( 4579:( 4564:( 4546:( 4514:( 4491:( 4464:) 4460:( 4418:( 4356:( 4321:) 4317:( 4288:) 4284:( 4255:( 4229:) 4225:( 4188:( 4164:) 4160:( 4123:( 4076:( 4061:( 4039:( 4022:( 4008:( 3983:( 3975:( 3919:( 3904:( 3821:( 3801:( 3777:( 3750:( 3736:( 3718:( 3681:( 3666:( 3642:( 3611:( 3596:( 3518:( 3504:( 3443:( 3424:( 3408:( 3383:( 3364:( 3346:( 3329:( 3311:( 3295:( 3261:( 3233:( 3197:P 3183:( 3145:P 3116:( 3090:P 3073:( 3029:P 3002:( 2994:( 2974:( 2903:( 2851:( 1732:. 1236:( 897:. 873:. 795:) 668:( 630:. 587:( 553:( 530:( 512:( 503:) 488:( 438:. 425:. 314:. 278:. 204:: 172:. 147:( 124:. 114:. 104:. 94:. 53:· 48:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index