User talk:Robertinventor/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Four Noble Truths

Extended content

Subheader Hi Robert. Could you please focus the discussion on Four Noble Truths? Though, admittedly, I haven't read everything you've written, it does seem to me that you believe that the article is too focused on a small group of (mostly western) scholars. If I'm not misinterpreting what you've written, you want to include more non-Western views and that's not by any means an unreasonable thing to want. Unfortunately, the length of your posts makes it impossible to figure out what exactly you're driving at. Once again, I urge you to keep your comments brief and focused on specific changes (brief proposals containing the exact wording you'd like to see - note the brief - are the productive way to go). You should also read the essay WP:Wall of text to get some sense of how other editors view your lengthy comments. Clearly, you can contribute a great deal to Wikipedia, but that will only happen if you better understand how things work around here. --regentspark (comment) 01:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC) @RegentsPark: Oh, no that's not what I recommend. I wonder if I should do another short summary? The problem was that @Joshua Jonathan: posted a very long comment in Reply by JJ and again in POV tag. I tried to answer some of his points. But perhaps I should have just ignored what he said? Some of the things he said were very tangential to the issues I raised. We have tried focused proposals in the past but they simply didn't work, the views were too different on the article to come to a consensus on even the smallest point, such as the use of the word "redeath" in the article, and I think I know why now. What I recommend is that because we have such a different views from the sutra tradition Buddhists and from this small group of almost entirely western scholars (AFAIK there are no non westerners - except I think someone from Japan) - that they just can't be merged into a single article. The western scholars barely mention the Buddhist scholars and the Buddhist scholars don't mention the western scholars at all. And they have radically different views on what count as WP:RS. Both types of WP:RS are notable and reliable and also valid secondary sources for their respective views according to wikipedia but not for each other's views. Their views are as radically different as the views of Christians and Muslims on Resurrection of Jesus who similarly rarely mention each other. For this reason I think the central articles Four Noble Truths, Anatta, Karma in Buddhism, Nirvana etc need to be split according to a WP:SUBPOV, just as was done for Resurrection of Jesus. The WP:SUBPOVs would rely on different WP:RS. After looking at this closely I now think that it would confuse the reader too much to try a parallel exposition of both at once in the same article. Do you think it might be appropriate to have a new section summarizing the issues I mention in the POV tag, but longer than one sentence, to edit the tag to point to that new section, and then to just add what I said above? It could be "Summary of reasons for the POV tag and proposal for a solution" put after the new "Remove POV tag" post. Robert Walker (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC) @RegentsPark: I've drafted out a post for the page - what do you think? I did a longer reply to you here but it's better as a draft post I think so moved some of the material there. It makes very specific recommendations Here it is: POV tag. It's fairly long but hopefully not excessive. It's hard to be detailed enough so the reader sees the reason for the POV tag, to also present the concrete proposals in enough detail to be understood and also to keep to a small number of words. I've done my best and welcome suggestions for ways to make it shorter. Robert Walker (talk) 10:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC) I've trimmed it some now mainly by putting the list of differences into a separate article, which users can click through and read if they want to. So most of what would actually go on the page is a constructive suggestion for what to do next. Robert Walker (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Robert, I've asked Ms Sarah Welch to help out as well so you will have another pair of eyes on the material. I did read through the POV tag text you've linked to above and will explain why you still need to focus on brevity. But first, a comment on the content of what you've written. In principle, I agree that Wikipedia articles on religion should include material drawn from established and well recognized practitioners of that religion. In practice, however, this boils down to figuring out which practitioners and scholars are established and well recognized, and then, of all the things they have said or discoursed upon, what should we include. Working purely on first principles (i.e., with no content knowledge whatsoever), it seems to me that anything important that the Dalai Lama (taking him purely as an example) has to say would, by necessity, be discussed by academic Buddhist scholars. Therefore, we don't - and shouldn't - go directly to his discourses but should instead rely on academic commentaries on the discourses of the Dalai Lama. If these are missing in our articles, then you make a good point. If not, then I'm not so sure. About brevity. You have to understand how Wikipedia works. If you want to change something but are getting pushback against your changes, we have a process of dispute resolution that you can follow. However, DR works best with specifics because, only then, a dispassionate observer can examine sources and judge the appropriate weight that a view represents. Working with broad ideas never works well when you don't have complete control over the process, because broad ideas are great in principle but tend to be lousy when it comes to achieving practical goals. Your POV tag text is a good example of good broad ideas (we should also have material drawn from scholars who come from the Buddhist tradition) but not so great practical ones because you're proposing grand changes (let's just make different, parallel, articles). Instead, you should focus on small changes "The article summarizes X this way but Rahula (ref - preferably a secondary one) says it should be something else entirely". If you get pushback, head toward WP:DR and see what happens. Assuming your broad vision is correct, the article will expand and become weighty with the "Buddhist" viewpoint and then it may be worth considering separate articles. --regentspark (comment) 13:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Robert Walker, Your comments, like everyone's, are most welcome in 4NT article. Collaboration is easier, as is intervention/dispute resolution process, when your suggestions are "Brief + Specific" rather than a wall of post. Similarly, please consider this and this suggestion of Farang Rak Tham few days ago. The article cannot be a quote farm of a particular translation of primary sources, nor can be a place for OR, nor summary of non-RS blogs/websites. It can neither be predominantly Theravada nor Mahayana nor that from one of the now extinct schools, nor modernistic perspective. The best way forward is to consider the community agreed guidelines, consider what FRT, Jim, JJ and so many are stating, then make specific suggestions citing specific page number of one or more WP:RS as RP suggests above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC) @RegentsPark: " Working purely on first principles (i.e., with no content knowledge whatsoever), it seems to me that anything important that the Dalai Lama (taking him purely as an example) has to say would, by necessity, be discussed by academic Buddhist scholars. Therefore, we don't - and shouldn't - go directly to his discourses but should instead rely on academic commentaries on the discourses of the Dalai Lama. If these are missing in our articles, then you make a good point. If not, then I'm not so sure. " What you are missing there is that the Dalai Lama is regarded as highly learned in Tibetan Buddhism by the standards used to evaluate WP:RS in this topic area. He passed his Geshe Lharumpa degree age 23. This is a Tibetan Buddhist qualification that normally requires fifteen years of study, often more. He was examined by top scholars in Tibet in three different monasteries - it's an examination that has a very tough "viva" where you are asked questions but you also have to ask challenging questions too, and you are judged not just on your answers but also on your questions. We don't have anything like it in Western scholarship. He is thoroughly versed in the Tibetan sutras. Not only that, he has completed studies in all four traditions of Tibetan Buddhism. This is rare. He is definitely recognized and well-regarded in Tibetan Buddhist scholarship by other Tibetan Buddhists. He has also written many books on Buddhism. The Dalai Lama's "The art of happiness: a handbook for living" has 558 cites in google scholar. [4]. There are 18 results which cite it with Buddhism in the title. [5]. Even the western academics make a lot of use of his books. @Ms Sarah Welch: is not independent in these debates. She sides with @Joshua Jonathan: in just about everything he says. I can understand what you are saying. But we tried small changes. They don't work. And - suppose you were giving that advice to Muslims and Christians who were working on an article on Resurrection of Jesus. Do you think it would work to go through the article one small change as another until they agreed on a unified treatment of the subject? It's like that here. The discussions go round and round in circles because they are such different systems of thought. The answers phrased within one system just don't work as answers to the questions phrased within the other. I listed some of the differences here: Why the Western academic ideas need to be separated out as WP:SUBPOV articles, but the Therevadhan and Mahayana ideas on core topics can be handled within a single article When judging this please be aware that the Western ideas will probably seem much more familiar and understandable than the Buddhist ideas. When @Joshua Jonathan: originally rewrote Four Noble Truths then we got some people commenting that it made much more sense now. But it made more sense because it changed the meaning of the four truths. Meanwhile the Buddhist who had been editing the article just left the project. @Dorje108: and I did attempt dispute resolution. But the first time we announced we were going to do a DRN, then JJ immediately took me to WP:ANI over some posts I had written several weeks earlier. When that was over, we worked on it some more and he took me back to WP:ANI again. Of course when there is an action against you in WP:ANI then you can't do a DRN because that is not permitted if one of the participants has an action against them. After that, @Joshua Jonathan: was taken to WP:ARE for copyvio, all of this in very quick succession. By the end of this - we debated whether to try to continue with the DRN and decided that for it to succeed we needed to have good will and some feeling that the other party was going to try to find a compromise with us. We just didn't have that. It was a case of actions speaking louder than words. We just didn't see how it could work with other editors who were so ready to take me to WP:ANI at the drop of a hat as it seemed to me. But I now don't think it could have worked anyway because it has become really clear - back then I didn't understand the reasons for JJ's edits which seemed just bizarre to both of us. They made no sense to sutra tradition Buddhists. But later I discovered that Richard Gombrich has this totally different slant on what the Buddhist teachings are about. Most sutra tradition Buddhists are not aware of this at all and the teachers and books and articles within our tradition simply never discuss it. The western academics also pay very little attention to what the sutra tradition Buddhists say, mainly cite them in order to disagree with them. That's why it seems necessary to do two separate WP:SUBPOVs. The problem is that the western academics tend to just say the sutra tradition Buddhists are plain "wrong". But nevertheless there are millions of people who think like this, who have this faith that the Buddha was teaching something worth investigating in the Four Truths in the form in which they are stated in the sutras, that Nirvana is cessation of dukkha in this lifetime, and all those other things that I mentioned. It surely is not the solution to have only articles presenting the western academic viewpoint according to which the Buddhist faith in the sutra traditions is simply wrong and confused. It's fine for them to believe that. That is their WP:SUBPOV. But it's just not how we think of it and just as Christians have their own articles presenting their faith in Resurrection of Jesus we should be able to have articles representing our faith here too and not just western academic Buddhism. The other editors will say we are all just confused, that what we call reliable sources are not reliable, that they should only be presented here as filtered through the lens of academic Buddhism. That's the problem and that's why I added the tag. Hope that is clearer now? Robert Walker (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Also just to say when I added the tag - I'm aware it is a complex and difficult situation. It would be great if the other editors would just agree to my proposal. But it seems probably not. Perhaps other editors will have other ideas. If we can leave the tag on the article for some time we can see what happens. This is my proposal and it remains my view that it is the best approach. Let's see what others say if we leave the tag for some time. Also whatever we do I think it is important to alert readers that the article is not WP:NPOV but presents a particular WP:SUBPOV. Is there a "subpov" tag? It would be more appropriate but in absence of that it should be labeled as WP:POV because it is, whether or not we have an immediate solution. Robert Walker (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC) @Robert Walker: are you fluent in Pali and Sanskrit? Have you read any original Sutta or any other original Buddhist manuscript/text, from any Buddhist tradition, that was composed before the 20th century? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC) @Ms Sarah Welch: Would you ask an editor commenting on articles on Christianity if they are fluent in New Testament Greek ( Biblical Koine)? Of course as a Buddhist I've read Suttas. Just as Christians have read the Bible. The Pali Canon is far too vast for anyone except a scholar like Walpola Rahula to read in its entirety but I expect most sutra tradition Buddhists must have read at least a few sutras. These sutras were composed centuries ago. I believe on the basis of historical, internal and many other forms of evidence that the Pali Canon was composed during Buddha's lifetime as a result of reading the scholarly articles on both sides of the argument. I'm not sure why you are asking this question. Robert Walker (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Have you read the Suttas in Pali, Sanskrit or only their English translations? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Only their English translations. Just as few Christians have read the New Testament in its original language of New Testament Greek. But in the Buddhist tradition especially you rely on the scholars like Walpola Rahula to read the sutras in detail. They are very easy to misunderstand and it is easy to take things out of context unless you are familiar with the rest of the canon. So you read the scholars, listen to the teachers, and also read the original sutras themselves in your own language. Though it's good to be able to read them in Pali / Sanskrit / Tibetan of course. Robert Walker (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC) @RegentsPark: Just to say. I don't really need you to agree that my proposal is the right solution. But can you see that it is a genuine proposal, that I do think that the article is biased, and that I have what seem to me to be good reason for it? We can't expect a WP:NPOV discussion of the proposal by the nature of the situation, because the only editors left remaining editing these articles are the ones who are deeply immersed in academic Buddhism. That's because they revert the edits of everyone else. But if we had a POV tag on the Four Noble Truths article - and I'd like to add a POV tag on the Anatta article too as it is written in a particularly POV way - and then link them both to a discussion of this proposal - then over a period of time as people read the articles, we might get a wider range of perspectives on the matter. I know that @Dorje108: had similar views to me, he was nonplussed by JJ's massive rewrites of these articles and tried to stop him. But he is no longer active here. It's no wonder. He'd edited those articles patiently following consensus editing every week for a year, only to see them suddenly rewritten within a couple of weeks, all his hard work just removed and replaced by this academic Buddhism, ideas that just don't match what we regard as WP:RS in Buddhism. If the tags were left there for a while we may begin to hear comments once more from the sutra tradition Buddhists. Robert Walker (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC) That goes to the heart of the issue. I am quite fluent with Sanskrit. I can slowly make my way through manuscripts in Pali and many other Indian languages, as they are related. Your allegations about what Buddhist Suttas and texts state is way off. Rahula's interpretations and expositions in English are one of many, but Rahula is involved. In more ways that just theology. Rahula's or such authors need to be carefully considered given the COI/Primary. Even Theravadins disagree with him, leave aside Mahayana / Tibetans / Zen / etc. So, what should wikipedia do!? The best we can do is what many editors and admins have been suggesting to you... rely on multiple WP:RS by well respected, highly cited scholars who are one or two steps away from the numerous translations and interpretations of Suttas out there. Please don't allege "no Suttas says this" in the universal, when the particular truth is "Rahula's or XYZ's interpretation of this or that Sutta which Robert Walker has read does not state this". Of course, you must expect Joshua Jonathan, I and others to check whether Rahula or XYZ is actually stating what you allege (which is a persistent problem with your walls of text... your claims do not verify). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Please note. The proposal is not to rewrite the articles according to my own ideas of Buddhism :). The proposal for the sutra tradition versions is to roll back to the last version as edited up to 2014 with consensus editing by many editors. I was not one of those editors. The articles were excellent. I only fixed one broken link in the Karma in Buddhism article. Note that until October 2014 the Four Noble Truths was in a stable mature state, not abandoned, constantly edited but no major edits, not being massively altered. It was in a mature state and had been for years. [6]. Then suddenly JJ rewrites it, having never edited it before. It's very striking and you can see that he does massive changes, very rapidly, @Dorje108: who had been the previous main editor makes one attempt to reverse and ask for discussion. Buddhist editors here more than any other editors I've come across just don't edit war on articles. So when that edit was reverted again by JJ he didn't try again. That was not because he thought JJ's edits were fine. I think you need to be aware that many Buddhist editors don't make a big fuss when something like that happens, even though all his work for the last year had been destroyed, he just went away. Until I came along and tried to get something done about it. It's the same story with Karma in Buddhism[7]. It also was a stable mature article until JJ decided to do his massive rewrite into an article on western academic Buddhist ideas of karma, again without any consensus. None of this was consensus. It's these most recent stable versions of these articles written by sutra tradition Buddhist that I want us to return to for the sutra tradition versions of the articles. I have not the slightest wish to be an editor. I'm a concerned reader. I want to attract good sutra tradition editors back to the project again. And I want the views of the WP:RS in my faith to be represented here in Wikipedia. Robert Walker (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC) To me originally JJ's rewrites, especially since they were done without consensus, as a reader and bystander watching what happened seemed like just vandalism of a sophisticated kind. With the DRN we wanted to try to revert. But later I realized that it was based on ideas of western academics such as Richard Gombrich who I do respect as a Buddhist scholar. That doesn't mean that I think his ideas are right. But I do respect him as a scholar of integrity and renown. That put it all in a new light. His ideas of course have to be presented here. Along with other western academics who are WP:RS in that particular tradition of scholarship. But his views are just so incompatible with sutra tradition Buddhism, as he himself says. This is also particularly clear for Carol Anderson who wrote two totally different books. Her "Pain and its Ending" presents her western academic Buddhist ideas. Her "Basic Buddhism" presents sutra Buddhism and covers the four noble truths and Buddha's Nirvana etc exactly as in the Pali Canon as understood by sutra tradition Buddhists. This makes it clear that she doesn't think that her ideas should be used to rewrite the ideas of sutra tradition Buddhists. She is a Buddhist herself and when writing a book on Buddhism for other Buddhists she uses the WP:RS of sutra tradition Buddhist not the WP:RS of western academic study of Buddhism. The books don't cite each other, use different WP:RS and I think we should use a similar pattern with these articles. Just have two versions like Carol Anderson's two books. Robert Walker (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC) @RW: Again you are missing the point, by alleging new ones. Consider Walpola Rahula again. Contrary to your allegations, Rahula actually affirms the critical importance of rebirth doctrine in Theravada Buddhism! yes, to 4NT! Quote (p. 30): It is here that we have to discuss the deeper philosophical side of the Second Noble Truth corresponding to the philosophical side of the First Noble Truth. Here we must have some idea about the theory of karma and rebirth. – Walpola Rāhula, What the Buddha Taught Quote (p. 33): According to Buddhism, this force [will, volition, thirst to exist, to continue] does not stop with the non-functioning of the body, which is death; but it continues manifesting itself in another form, producing re-existence which is called rebirth. – Walpola Rāhula See page xii of this, etc. It is time you reread your walls of text, check the sources and understand how and why editors like Joshua Jonathan can get frustrated, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Yes, rebirth is important for all Buddhists but it is not a matter of faith as we don't have a creed. You don't have to say "I believe in rebirth" when you take the refuge vows to become a Buddhist. There is no catechism. No views on rebirth are needed for the path. What you need is an open mind and a wish to just find out the truth whatever it is. If you don't know from your own knowledge what happens when you die, then that's your starting point, that you don't know. You are never required to say that things are true along the Buddhist path that you don't know to be true. The four truths are expressed in ways you can relate directly to your own experience and don't require you first to build up an elaborate set of ideas about rebirth first. That is how Buddha taught them. That is one of several things wrong with the way they are presented in the lede for a sutra tradition Buddhist. In commentaries on the wheel turning sutra of course commentators talk about rebirth. But Buddha himself doesn't express his path in terms of a way to end rebirth. Nor does Walpola Rahula in his exposition of the four truths. @Joshua Jonathan: described that as a curious omission. But if you are in the tradition, it all makes sense as that is how we think of things - I've studied Buddhism as a practitioner for over 35 years, with teachers in several different traditions. I'm not a teacher. I'm not a scholar. But I'm a Buddhist practitioner and I also read widely and I know what the teachings are and it is not a path to end rebirth and so it is no surprise to me at all, it's what I expect, it's just the way the Buddhist path is taught. We've gone over this umpteen times which is why I didn't want to start up this discussion yet again on the four truths talk page. You surely knew what I would reply as much as I anticipated your next question when you started asking me about whether I could read Pali which I'm pretty sure you asked before also. It's all rehashing old ground. Robert Walker (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC) My proposal to have separate articles for each WP:SUBPOV is the main thing that's new here. Robert Walker (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC) There is no gentle way to state this, you are plain wrong! The Sutta do state, what you believe or have been told by someone that they don't. Even Rahula's sections on 4NT confirm this. I already quoted Rahula above. There is more in his book. Add to that the zillion scholars already cited in the 4NT article. That is why RegentsPark's advice is spot on: make specific suggestions and cite your source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC) I'm sorry, you've just missed the point of what I'm saying. Yes, with Therevadhans the arhats have no rebirth. Buddha could choose whether to enter paranirvana. When he became enlightened he realized that this is his last rebirth. I'm not denying any of that :). In Mahayana Buddhism it is more complicated because many Buddhas don't enter paranirvana and they can continue to manifest in many forms after they die in the life in which they became enlightened, but in Therevadhan Buddhism, yes it is the arhat's last rebirth and Buddha realizes it is his last rebirth. But that's not how you practice the path and that is not the goal of the practitioner. do you see the difference? I've tried to explain this many times but the sense of what I'm saying doesn't seem to come through somehow. You can't practice the path like that. I don't know what happens when I die. I don't know what causes rebirth in different states from direct experience. And as a Buddhist then I wouldn't say that "I believe in rebirth because my teacher has told me to believe in rebirth". It depends, how you are taught, some naive Buddhists might think like that, but a more thorough teacher makes it clear that the path is one where it is very important not just to see the truth but to know what you don't know. So I don't know what happens when I die and I don't know how to end rebirth. But I am well aware of suffering, unsatisfactoriness, that happiness doesn't last, and so on. So that's the first truth. And the four truths are practiced in the here and now, and Nirvana is something that can be realized right now. You don't have to die to realize it. Walpola Rahula makes that quite clear. This is not some strange crazy idea of my own. This is central to all the Buddhist teachings. This is the passage where Walpola Rahula makes it totally clear, the passage that Richard Gombrich finds so challenging. "Thus, the germ of their arising as well as that of their cessation are both within the Five Aggregates. This is the real meaning of the Buddha's well-known statement: 'Within this fathom-long sentient body itself, I postulate the world, the arising of the world, the cessation of the world, and the path leading to the cessation of the world.' This means that all the Four Noble Truths are found within the Five Aggregates, i.e., within ourselves. (Here the word 'world' (loka) is used in place of dukkha). This also means that there is no external power that produces the arising and the cessation of dukkha. When wisdom is developed and cultivated according to the Fourth Noble Truth (the next to be taken up), it sees the secret of life, the reality of things as they are. When the secret is discovered, when the Truth is seen, all the forces which feverishly produce the continuity of samsara in illusion become calm and incapable of producing any more karma-formations, because there is no more illusion, no more 'thirst' for continuity. It is like a mental disease which is cured when the cause or the secret of the malady is discovered and seen by the patient. In almost all religions the summum bonum can be attained onlyafter death. But Nirvana can be realized in this very life; it is not necessary to wait till you die to 'attain' it. He who has realized the Truth, Nirvana, is the happiest being in the world. He is free from all 'complexes' and obsessions, the worries and troubles that torment others. His mental health is perfect. He does not repent the past, nor does he brood over the future. He lives fully in the present. Therefore he appreciates and enjoys things in the purest sense without self-projections. He is joyful, exultant, enjoying the pure life, his faculties pleased, free from anxiety, serene and peaceful. As he is free from selfish desire, hatred, ignorance, conceit, pride, and all such 'defilements', he is pure and gentle, full of universal love, compassion, kindness, sympathy, understanding and tolerance. His service to others is of the purest, for he has no thought of self. He gains nothing, accumulates nothing, not even anything spiritual, because he is free from the illusion of Self, and the 'thirst' for becoming." It's not in any way denying that in Therevadhan Buddhism arhats and Buddha Shakyamuni himself realized that it was their last rebirth. But still - that's not the end point of the four truths. Those are realized already in Nirvana. What happens after that, whatever it is, happens after realization of the path in the four truths and are not the end goal of the path. This is standard in sutra tradition Buddhism world over. Robert Walker (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC) The main distinction is that for Richard Gombrich etc, then cessation in the sense of the four truths only really happens at death if I understand it right. It's not an impossible idea. It comes over as rather Hindu to me, not sure if that's right. It's just not how sutra tradition Buddhists think of it. But for sutra tradition Buddhists, cessation in the sense of the Four Truths happens already when the Buddha realizes Nirvana as a young man. He has already become free from Samsara. He doesn't have to wait for death to be free. There is nowhere else to go to be free, he is free already right here wherever he is, right now in that moment. Whether it is his last rebirth or not is something that happens after cessation is already realized. Robert Walker (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC) It's even in the quote you gave above: "all the forces which feverishly produce the continuity of samsara in illusion become calm and incapable of producing any more karma-formations [...] he is free from [...] the 'thirst' for becoming." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC) PS: this is the place to be for you: dhammawiki. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC) @RW: An encyclopedic article does not try to teach a recipe on how to practice or spread Robert Walker approved version of Buddhism (or any Buddhist tradition for that matter)! The article is better if it summarizes all significant sides on 4NT from reliable sources per wikipedia's community agreed content guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC) That's just not it @Joshua Jonathan:. Yes he is free from the thirst for becoming. Yes he no longer needs to take rebirth. But the consequences you draw from that are not consequences for sutra tradition Buddhists. He has also realized cessation already on the spot, not at death and when he sat to meditate. When he became enlightened his objective wasn't to end rebirth and the causes of dukkha only when he died, but to see through the causes of dukkha right then right there. Walpola Rahula makes that clear in the passage I bolded. He paints a picture of what it is like to have realized cessation in this lifetime. I've said already, I am not asking to edit the article at all. I'm asking for two versions, and a roll back to a mature stable article that had been worked on for years by sutra tradition Buddhists and your current version which has been developed now for several years by a group of editors with a different WP:SUBPOV with views that are incompatible with sutra tradition Buddhism. Richard Gombrich himself says that the views he presents challenge and put into question the views of sutra tradition Buddhists. How can you claim that they are the same WP:SUBPOV when he himself says they are different? Carol Anderson also makes it very clear that what she presents are not the views of sutra tradition Buddhists. She even wrote two books, totally different, one for her academic views, and one presenting the views of sutra tradition Buddhists, with no cross referencing either way and relying on different WP:RS. And - as usual when I describe Buddhism, then always according to you, it is "my personal view of Buddhism". It's painted by you as a clash of views between someone who has an objective understanding of Buddhism with someone else who has merely a personal opinion about Buddhism. However you view that your views are objective and mine are merely personal is itself your own personal opinion. I see your views as reflecting the views of a small group of western academic Buddhist scholars. Which does not make them "objective". We are both wikipedia editors in the community and both our views on the article count. And both of us are talking about using multiple WP:RS. The difference is you are using multiple WP:RS from western academic Buddhism and the previous version used multiple WP:RS from sutra tradition Buddhism. You tell us all that it is our own flawed understanding of Buddhism based on sources that are not reliable, and that we are presenting our personal views "against consensus". That is not what is meant by consensus editing here. That is a small group of half a dozen editors who are in consensus with each other keeping other editors out of the project because they have differing views from you and want to write an article from a different WP:SUBPOV with different ideas of what counts as WP:RS for it. I'm saying that both WP:SUBPOVs need to be represented. I'm not saying that sutra tradition Buddhists should keep the academic Buddhists out of the project so I'm not suggesting a role reversal but to include both WP:SUBPOV but that they can't coherently be used in a single article because they differ on too many points of detail, they rely on WP:RS that don't reference each other, and they are each based on a different vision that can't be combined into a single unified picture with minor differences. While you can combine Therevadhan and Mahayana Buddhism in that way because they have a lot in common with each other, much more than either approach shares with western academic Buddhism. The two articles would reference each other and that's how you maintain WP:NPOV in a situation like this. Robert Walker (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC) We can see from this very discussion that the two WP:SUBPOVs are not in agreement on what cessation in the sense of the Four Truths means or whether Buddha realized cessation as a young man in that sense. You can't have a single article on the Four Truths based on two such radically different ideas of the very meaning of the four truths. You are trying to convince me that I am wrong and that sutra tradition Buddhists understand cessation in the same way as academic Buddhists. But even Richard Gombrich doesn't say that. He states clearly that what he is saying is revisionary and is not what sutra tradition Buddhists think. It's just too fundamental a difference for a single article, like the differences in the Christian and Muslim ideas on Resurrection of Jesus. This discussion surely shows that! Robert Walker (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC) Arbitrary break I see I got a bit worked up about this again, sorry. I hope you can understand someone being a bit passionate when told by other editors that the project can't include articles describing the views of a major world faith which he belongs to on a central topic. I have things that I need to do that are top priority for me for the next three days, so perhaps we can revisit it again early next week after a break? When I return I plan to add a new section on the Four Truths talk page clarifying the need for the POV tag, making my proposal clear, making it clear that although it is what I see as the way ahead, to have articles on these two SUBPOVs I think the main thing is to alert the reader to the POV dispute and to encourage others to come and comment and discuss it, to suggest that the tags need to be kept in place for some time to encourage informed comment - and I'll add a similar tag to the Anatta article. The Anatta article also says things that are extremely controversial and indeed plain wrong for sutra tradition Buddhists, so it definitely deserves a similar tag and it also gets lots of comments on the talk page and attempted edits, over the years. But we can expect new comments on a timescale of months on these articles but not so much on a timescale of days. So the tags need to be kept in place for some time. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC) And I will put this summary of this as one of several differences into the text when I return to it: "The view of these western academic Buddhists is that in the original teachings the aim is to end rebirth in order to avoid the pain of life in samsara, that Buddha didn't realize cessation of dukkha as a young man but rather at death and that when he died he no longer needed to be reborn, and that he was finally free from suffering and unsatisfactoriness only at that point. Sutra Buddhists just don't think like that. For us, Buddha realized cessation of dukkha as a young man of 30, at that moment beneath the bodhi tree, on that spot, which is something you can realize without dying. What happened after that, the many decades of the rest of his life, and his paranirvana, all happened after his realization of cessation of dukkha. Similarly for arhats, though it is their last rebirth, the rest of their life after they realize Nirvana happens after cessation of dukkha. And in Mahayana Buddhism you also have the idea of Buddhas that don't enter paranirvana when they die. Richard Gombrich acknowledges that his views are different and that they challenge sutra tradition Buddhist views." If I do this as part of the POV text explanation then we can get comments from readers of the page who see the invitation to join the discussion. Robert Walker (talk) 12:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC) @Ms Sarah Welch: and @Joshua Jonathan: I know you are trying to tell me that my understanding of sutra tradition Buddhism in that summary is incorrect. We have hit a brick wall here and it clearly can't be resolved by further discussion. We have to leave that to comments from other editors. But - have I represented the views of western academic Buddhism correctly in that summary in your view? Robert Walker (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC) Bronkhorst The Two Traditions (1993 Motilall): "...mainstream asceticism led to liberation after death. Only when ascetic practices were wholly or partly replaced by insight, could the decisive transition take place in this life. Buddhism too promised liberation in this life" (p.96) "Buddhism preached liberation in this life, i.e. before death." (p.96) "The tendency to postpone liberation until after death becomes visible in those canonical passages which distinguish between Nirvana - qualified in Sanskrit and pali as 'without a remainder of upadhi/upadi (anupadhisesa/anupadisesa) - and the 'highest and complete enlightenment'(anuttara samyaksambodhi/sammasambodhi). The former occurs at death, the later in life." (p.97) "The early Buddhists believed in liberation in this life. They must therefore have often asked which is the insight by which ne is liberated." (p.99) As you can see, no easy black-and-white picture, but a complicated story. It seems to me that you're taking "cessation of dukkha" too literal. Nirvana is also described as ultimate bliss, happiness, et cetera, because of the realisation that there is no further rebirth. It does not mean that there is no suffering anymore, in the ordinary sense; the Buddha suffered from pain when he was old. "Cessation of dukkha" means that tanha had ceased or was confined, and that therefore there was no more fuel for a future rebirth after the dissolution of the five agregates. Academic scholars won't dispute that the Buddhist tradition says the turning point in the Buddha's life, in which this tanha had ceased or was confined, happened during his lifetime. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC) Okay. I just found this which I wrote down some time back, about Richard Gombrich's views, it was my own summary of what seemed to be the central message of his "What the Buddha thought", maybe it is more accurate, from your Bronkhorst quote assuming it's the same thing. To be clear this is not a quote from Gombrich, just a quote of my best attempt at a paraphrase of ideas I may not have understood: " (Attempt at paraphrase of Gombrich's ideas from some time back): The aim of the historical Buddha's teaching was to lead his followers to find a way to end the cycle of rebirth when they died and to lead their lives in a calm and peaceful way until their death. In this way he also taught them how not to be upset by the prospect of their impending death. He used metaphor and analogy extensively and we need to distinguish between what he taught and what he thought." I find this all puzzling myself. There are plenty of people in the West think this is not only their last life but their only life. That doesn't make them enlighened, or do these academics think that it does if they are also not upset by the prospect of their impending death and they lead calm and peaceful lives? What difference would it make to their lives if it really is their last or only rebirth or they only think it is? On your question for me - yes for sutra tradition Buddhists who say he realized cessation as a young man, yes of course his body grew old and feeble and he died eventually of what seems to have been food poisoning. Everyone agrees on that. But if he realized cessation age 30 then that means that none of this was dukkha for him after he became enlightened. To truly understand how that is possible, one probably needs to be enlightened :). Anyway - for the academic Buddhists - how do they reconcile this with the Kalama sutra? What would the practitioner's basis be for believing in rebirth, which would be essential for them to follow such a path? Or is the idea that you can only really follow the Buddhist path properly once you have somehow managed to ascertain to your satisfaction that rebirth occurs? I.e. that any Buddhist before they can become a Buddhist would first have to go through a preliminary training period during which they learn to see clearly that they take rebirth? And if so, what happens if something causes you to doubt your belief in rebirth - does that mean you can't become enlightened any more? I can tell you that many Westerners - they start off with significant doubts about whether the concept of rebirth even makes sense, and the Buddhist teachers say "that's fine, indeed it's good, you need to keep an open mind about what happens when you die". (Not me, for some reason when I came across the idea of rebirth, then lots of things started to make sense to me that never did before, perhaps because I'd read a lot of theology, and philosophy - philosophical and theological conundrums of Christianity that I had - they just vanished when I came across the idea and it just made so much logical sense - but most westerners seem to find it a very challenging idea. And there is no way I "know" for sure that I take rebirth. I imagine that very few do.) I've got a lot on here, may not check in for a while. Things get easier here middle of next week for me. Thanks Robert Walker (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC) Maybe you should just start reading those academic sources. Here are three essential suggestions: Gombrich, How Buddhism Began: The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings; especially chapter IV, Retracing an Ancient Debate: How Insight Worsted Concentration in the Pali Canon Bronkhorst, Two Traditions of Meditation in Ancient India; especially chapter 7 and 8 Tillman Vetter, The Ideas and Meditative Practices of Early Buddhism; the introductory chapter An Outline of the Most Ancient Form of Buddhism All three can be found on the web. It's heady stuff, but it's mind-blowing, and deeply rewarding, when you get the points they make. A central question is: what is the relation between (samatta-)meditation versus insight as means to "enlightenment"/liberation? Insight seems to have developed, as part of the Buddhist practices, after meditation; why? If you understand this question, you may understand a lot more about academic apporaches toward Buddhism, and the astonishing insights it has got to offer. And for a comparative approach: Christian contemplation, Henosis, Apophatic theology, and Neoplatonism. You'll be amazed about the similarities of this parallel development. Neoplatonism#Salvation: "Neoplatonists believed human perfection and happiness were attainable in this world, without awaiting an afterlife. Perfection and happiness— seen as synonymous— could be achieved through philosophical contemplation." The appeal of Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta on westerners may be related to the influence of Neo-Platonism on western thought. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC) Thanks, I can give them a go. I did try Richard Gombrich's "What the Buddha Thought". I suppose what I'm looking for really is some insight into how they think what Buddha taught can be a path for anyone to follow in their life, if they understand it as they describe. How do they envision anyone starting on the path? What is their motivation to follow it? And how is that path consistent with the Buddha's teachings? That's why I asked the question about rebirth. What kind of a path would a practitioner follow. I can't see it yet, what it would be with their views. I get some of the academic ideas as a philosophical system like many philosophies I studied. I don't really "get it" for western academic Buddhism as a spiritual path. But perhaps this idea of philosophical contemplation may be part of it? Practicing Buddhists in the traditions I've had teachings from and also in the WP:RS that I've read don't really think of it as an attempt to work out a coherent "philosophy of everything" like the Western philosophers I studied in my philosophy degree (in case of confusion - I did two undergraduate degrees, a maths degree followed by a second one in philosophy, so I'm qualified both as mathematician and philosopher). They have what I found a refreshingly different approach to philosophy which is much more pragmatic, to do with using it to clear your mind of many confusions and to help become more open to seeing the truth, whatever it might be, even if it doesn't fit any philosophical expectations. In some of the Tibetan traditions they do it by building up elaborate philosophies, and then demolishing them a bit like the sand mandala :). It would seem that perhaps this western academic approach is that you build up a philosophical view and become liberated by contemplating philosophy?? What happens if you get Alzheimers though, or just become forgetful, and forget the philosophical views you learnt? Anyway those are just a few thoughts, I don't have time right now, but I can take a look, but I am also interested i how you understand it, as someone who seems to be highly motivated in your own life by this western academic approach. I'm asking this more as a way of attempting some understanding of your point of view, not so much for WP:RS, to try to get some idea of how someone can come to find these approaches attractive, and to think that "yes, this has to be what Buddhism is all about" as you clearly have. Robert Walker (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC) Yes Robert, you are cutting to the quick on some of these issues. Did you get some training in the Vajradhatu? --Epipelagic (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC) Hi Robert. You wrote I suppose what I'm looking for really is some insight into how they think what Buddha taught can be a path for anyone to follow in their life, if they understand it as they describe. Now that's a very good question indeed. What's more, it's been a basic problem for Buddhism throughout it's existence: what's the place for lay people, if the summum bonum is restricted to the monks? The Vimalakirti sutra reflects a Mahayana point of view in this respect: Vimalakirti is a householder, who's got a better insight than the monks. Witjother words: lay-people can also attain liberation. Or see Layman Pang. Regarding rebirth: I don't believe in rebirth. Nor do some prominent teachers in the Netherlands. For me, it was some insight into emptiness that propelled me toward Buddhism. I recognized it there, as I recognize it in Eastern Orthodox Christianity. I totally agree with what you say about western, academical philosophy. It's the difference between ratio and intellect. Regarding Alzheimer: I once read this story about an elderly home for priests and nuns with Alzheimer. They forgot, indeed, and started to have sex with each other... Yep, everything changes, nothing is sure (Buddhism), and after all, we're just fallible human beings (Christianity)... So, what's the answer? Compassion, "love thy neighbour." Regarding to think that "yes, this has to be what Buddhism is all about": it makes sense, to think that originally Buddhism was about dhyana, and that insight is a later addition. "Enlightenment" is a fuzzy notion, and doesn't work well. It refers to cognitive events, meaning that you see things right. An Eureka "experience." So, what do you see then? The four truths, conditioned arising, sunyata? So many answers in the Buddhist tradition. And does it mean then that you're liberated, that all the impulses etc. are gone? No way. Plenty of enlightened Buddhist masters who screwed-up. You can have great insights, and still be driven by impulses. The road doesn't stop there; maybe that's where it really starts. But Buddhism offers plenty of confusing answers in this regard; there's something, at the core of Buddhism, which needs to be covered-up. And that's this story about the Buddha's awakening, I think: Buddhism needs this story of sudden and total insight which liberates one, and which also has to be the "eperience" of the Buddha himself. But there may be no there there; it's a story. And now we're hang-up on it. So, that makes academic scholarship valuable: they penetrate through those inconsistencies and vagueries. But they won't tell you what to belief or what to do, at least not in their role as academics; that's up to you. But the Buddhist tradition does have answers. While the stories may tell that (sudden) insight is important, in practical reality it takes a long road. (Rinzai) Zen, for example, may emphasize sudden insight, but in daily reality they just have to sit and sit and sit. Practice, real hard. Just as Vetter said: dhyana. And be compassionate. And it does not mean there is no place for insight; there is. But it just is not the final answer. @Epipelagic: nice to see that we're being followed. And, nice quotes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC) @Epipelagic: - funny you should say that. No I've not had training directly in that organization. I have had one teaching, by Chögyam Trungpa's son, on Shambala training, when he gave a seminar at Wolfson College Oxford on the topic and I went to that seminar, being a member of the college at the time while studying postgraduate mathematics. Also, I've read the book on that + the one on cutting through spiritual materialism. Shambala training is not really Buddhism, it's like a ground teaching that can be common to different religions or none. I find those teachings attractive, but never formally studied them. However, my main teacher for many years was a student of Chögyam Trungpa. Which is perhaps why I'm a bit more direct and less timid than some other Buddhists. I of course believe in non aggression like all other Buddhists. But that doesn't mean that you sit aside and do nothing when you see what seems to be nonsense or misstatement of the teachings. Sometimes there is need for a response that may stir things up a bit :). Anyway to respond to what you just said. "It refers to cognitive events, meaning that you see things right. An Eureka "experience."" If enlightenment is genuine, it can't refer to this, because it would be a product of causes, and as something produced, it would be dependent on conditions and so could end. That's what I was talking about when I said it can't be a philosophy, more precisely, it can't be a cognitive event. That is a common teaching in both Therevadha and Mahayana. It is not only a teaching of the Mahayana schools, never mind only the schools of sudden enlightenment. It is what Walpola Rahula is saying in his passage: ""It is incorrect to think that Nirvana is the natural result of the extinction of craving. Nirvana is not the result of anything. If it would be a result, then it would be an effect produced by a cause. It would be sankhata ‘produced’ and ‘conditioned’. Nirvana is neither cause nor effect. It is beyond cause and effect. Truth is not a result nor an effect. It is not produced like a mystic, spiritual, mental state, such as dhyana or samadhi. TRUTH IS. NIRVANA IS. The only thing you can do is to see it, to realize it. There is a path leading to the realization of Nirvana. But Nirvana is not the result of this path.You may get to the mountain along a path, but the mountain is not the result, not an effect of the path. You may see a light, but the light is not the result of your eyesight." If it was a cognitive event, then that is what he is talking about in "If it would be a result, then it would be an effect produced by a cause. It would be sankhata ‘produced’ and ‘conditioned’.". It also can't be a mystic state, trance, samadhi, dhyana. Any of those would be a product of conditions and last as long as those conditions are present. When you forget the cognitive processes that lead to it, or the causes that lead to it, then it would exhaust itself and you are back in samsara. All the main sutra tradition Buddhists say this - basically if they are based on the core teachings in the Pali Canon they will say this. The Western academics are able to say that this is false by denying that some of those core teachings are genuine, and this is one of the main differences between them and sutra tradition Buddhists, as I understand it. Not the only distinction but one of several which makes it a much more radical WP:SUBPOV than Mahayana and Therevadha which share these common teachings. If an article is about these core teachings, for instance the wheel turning sutra, then all sutra tradition Buddhists will say the same things with only minor differences, while the western academics are as distinct from sutra tradition Buddhism in these core ideas as, say, Jainism or Hinduism. Which is why I now think after learning more about this viewpoint and realizing that the edits weren't just vandalism, but were based on a valid WP:SUBPOV with different core beliefs and ideas, that the best solution is to split the articles on these core teachings into two WP:SUBPOV. Also, that we see enlightenment this way doesn't mean that enlightenment is something that is likely to happen in the near future. It means you practice knowing that it is possible to become enlightened in the present. That's important, to know also that whatever practice you are following, that alone can lead to awakening and enlightenment. But also with that vast timescale that you are waiting patiently for ever, could be countless lifetimes. It's important to have both of those in the tradition I follow. You need the patience as well. Incidentally while writing this I discovered that the POV tag has been removed from the article by @Ms Sarah Welch: who did so without pinging me as she just added an @ before my name in her comment on the talk page, which if done in plain text does not ping the editor, and @Joshua Jonathan: has been doing so many edits to both the article and the talk page that of course I haven't been checking every edit to see if it was removing the tag. So I only just noticed. I plan to add a new tag which will explain the reason for the tag much more clearly as a result of some insights I've had during this discussion here, and add it also to the Anatta talk page. It won't be edit warring as it will be a new tag which hopefully will make everything much clearer to the reader and I will make it clear my own proposal is only a suggestion and recommend that due to the low footfall on the page we keep the tag in place for a few months to get informed comments from uninvolved readers. I think it is far too soon to do an RfC, what we need is discussion and comments on whether the article is POV first and ideas for future action, which may possibly lead to RfCs in the future, we will see, I am currently the only editor suggesting this but there are several editors who would have agreed with me in the past who have left the project or never become part of it, due to their edits being reverted by the editors following the currently favoured WP:SUBPOV of the project. At least that's how I see it. I will also mention this in the new POV tag summary, and say that I can give evidence of this if it is necessary. Robert Walker (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC) Dispute resolution Robert, how about taking this to WP:DRN, and I help you in writing your DR-appeal? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC) Done; see [8]. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Yashovardhan (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• I am writing here to remind you to file your opening statement at the DRN. It should be filled under the section "Summary of dispute by XYZ". Till then, you should not participate in any discussion related to the subject anywhere else on Wikipedia. If you don't do so within a stipulated time, it'll be considered that you're not willing to participate and the case may be closed for lack of participation. Yashovardhan (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Please stop changing your posts and replies

Extended content

RW, please stop changing your posts and replies after someone has replied to your thoughts, such as on RSN/DRN/ANI/article talk pages. It makes it impossible to understand the context of the statements by the other person. You can add more, re-explain what you stated before, retract in an addendum, but do not change / edit your past replies. Please, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC) Oh sorry. I just was confused, I never do it any more in threaded discourse now I know that you aren't supposed to do it, but it seemed different with the discussion in a separate thread from my main post. I understand now you explain, on reflection, and will indicate the changes in the future. I don't think I have edited any posts replied to in threaded discussion, but it is sometimes possible to do that by mistake, if someone has added a reply below the area you are editing and you don't notice it, in complex threaded discussions with sub headings etc. Robert Walker (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

ANI review of your editing behavior

Please see this. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

ANI (again)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban

Hi,

Letting you know that I've closed the long-running discussion at ANI, as there's a clear consensus for an indefinite topic ban from the subject of Buddhism. This is broadly construed, which is not a phrase I am fond of, but basically means it applies to the subject, and not just to any one article. There's more detail in the closing comment, which is here. The comments at that link also include details on when and where to appeal.

I appreciate this is an unwelcome outcome. For what it's worth your contribution history shows a broad range of editing interests, so hopefully you'll continue to find plenty of things to work on while staying away from Buddhism articles or edits. In passing, Hijiri88 also offers some good advice on topic ban scope in their first couple of sentences here.

Hope all of the above is clear, and all the best with editing in areas outside of the topic-ban. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Euryalus:, I was naturally expecting this decision. Hijiri88's advice was indeed helpful. It's good that I can continue to say that I am a Buddhist here on wikipedia. It's not an issue at all for me personally, because I did all this with a light heart and with the motivation to help wikipedia. In some ways it is a relief not to have to think about it or discuss with the others involved in this topic area ever again for the rest of my life. As you say I have lots of other editing interests in wikipedia, indeed my interest in the area I was topic banned for was as a reader, not an editor, and of course many interests outside of wikipedia. No hard feelings and with meta (loving kindness) as Buddhists are wont to say. Robert Walker (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I might as well add some clarification. Euryalus was right to emphasize the first couple of sentences of my comment. I was clarifying what you are allowed to do, not what you are not allowed to do, and as a result my last sentence included an unfortunate misuse of the word "articles", when what I should have said was "articles and/or edits". You also are not allowed edit portions of articles on, say, Chinese history that specifically relate to Buddhism. I'm clarifying this to you, not because I suspect you will engage in wikilawyering over what I said or anything like that, but rather becase the topic ban to which I am subject, and mentioned in my comment, also used the word "pages", leading to an unfortunate misunderstanding around the same time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Yes, thanks, actually I understood that but thanks for your thoughtfulness in posting about it here. It helps that I have only ever been a reader in this topic here in wikipedia apart from very minor edits, and it was never my wish to be an editor in the area either here. My main editing interests here are in planetary protection, astrobiology, microtonal music, musical rhythms and polyrhythms, astronomy, space missions, and science and maths generally. So I probably won't encounter much by way of gray area situations except of course in conversations with editors who read my user page, or past conversations on my talk page, and notice that I'm a Buddhist. In those conversations, if they happen, I'll need to be especially careful and will follow your advice. I continue to write about Buddhism off wiki, mainly on Quora, as I have done for the last several years. Again, thanks for your advice! Robert Walker (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Present day habitability of Mars concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Present day habitability of Mars, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Robertinventor/Essay on Reliable Sources in Buddhism and a Proposal

Hello, Robertinventor. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Essay on Reliable Sources in Buddhism and a Proposal".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. TKK! bark with me! 23:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Robertinventor. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Rapture

I appreciate your interest in the Rapture article. I would not have otherwise had much interest in editing there, but the events of the last few days have changed my mind. I'm sure that you have been following Donald Trump's ill-conceived plan to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and recognize Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel. Well, there is one of several reasons for this——one which many are unware. You may think I'm crazy to say this but, here it is:

• Rapturism is largely controlling US foreign policy in the Middle East right now. Even before Trump, it has been exerting pressure on our leaders for a long time (luckily, other presidents kept its pressure at arms length).
• Fundamentalist minsters/ministries are a lucrative and powerful industry in the US and are a powerful lobby particularly within the Republican Party. Many of these minsters are Rapturists. During the campaign, Trump promised to the minsters that he would move the embassy. Note that after he announced the plan, the minsters applauded.[9][10]
• Not that Trump knows or cares a single thing about theology, but he is cynically trying to placate a powerful political interest in order to get votes, even if it means causing chaos destroying the peace process in Palestine. And, everybody knows that Trump doesn't like Muslims...
• I'm not necessarily saying that most of the Rapturist ministers who supported him hate Muslims——three is a mechanism we need to understand—they subscribe to a theology that they feel justifies their views.[11][12]
• A lot of the adherents of Rapture theology want to hasten the pace of WWIII, so that they can get raptured up to heaven sooner. They see the references to Jerusalem in the book of Revelation as a temporal place where Jesus will convert the Jews to Christianity during the 1000 year reign after the second coming.[13]
• Most mainline Christian denominations, including Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, most Lutherans, and even many old-school Baptists do not subscribe to Rapture theology and are generally unaware of it. So, discussion of the issue takes very low priority in ecumenical discussions with evangelicals. That is going to need to change. I read a book a few years ago, that demonstrates (using scripture) how Rapturism is actually completely out of step with what is written the Bible——it is sad that certain people want to destroy the peace process——all for a misunderstanding of scripture. I think that it should be the goal of Christians, like everyone else of every other faith and nonfaith, to work for peace. I think that is what Jesus would have wanted.

So, I hope that what I just said doesn't sound too way-out. Believe it or not, I want to be neutral in my editing at the article. I just felt a need to clarify there that the Rapturist view is not held by most Christians. The way the article was previously written made it look as if Rapturism is an essential Christian Doctrine. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Garagepunk66: Yes actually that's my main reason for working on the article too. I only heard of this Jerusalem thing a week or two ago and yes - I learnt that it is exactly as you described. I wrote a debunking article about it here for my Debunking Doomsday blog: Debunked: Idea: world is going to end soon because Trump recognized Jerusalem as capital of Israel. So - yes it does seem very way out to me living in the UK. Here religious prophecies and religious interpretations of the Bible don't enter into politics - and we don't even have the idea of the rapture at all in the theology of the Church of England or Church of Scotland or most of the smaller denominations here either. Unless you count the Jehovah's Witnesses who have a modified rapture doctrine (not raptured in their physical bodies), most people have probably never come encountered such ideas and they probably haven't talked to Jehovah's Witnesses enough to find out what they believe. As you say, I think most Christians here in the UK would not only not hold this doctrine, but be unaware that anyone does believe in the rapture, and the Jerusalem prophecy would just seem bizarre. I'm told that in the Bible belt in the States many people hear this doctrine including the Jerusalem thing as they grow up and are taught it by Christian preachers too. Diana Butler Bass, writing for CNN puts it like this:

"When I was a teenager in the 1970s, I attended a "Bible church," a nondenominational congregation that prided itself on a singular devotion to scripture. We read the Bible all the time: in personal Bible study and evening Bible classes. We listened to hourlong Sunday morning sermons. For us, the Bible was not just a guide to piety. It also revealed God's plan for history. Through it, we learned how God had worked in the past and what God would do in the future."

"Central to that plan was Jerusalem, the city of peace, and the dwelling place of God. It was special to the Jews because it was the home of Abraham and David. It was special to us because it was where Jesus had died and risen. We believed that ultimately, Christ would return to Jerusalem to rule as its king. We longed for this outcome -- and we prayed that human history would help bring about this biblical conclusion."

"Jerusalem was our prophetic bellwether. God's plan hung on its fate. Whenever Israel gained more political territory, whenever Israel extended its boundaries, it was God's will, the end-times unfolding on the evening news. Jerusalem, as the spiritual heart of Israel, mattered. Jerusalem was God's holy city, of the ancient past, in its conflicted present, and for the biblical future."

(from For evangelicals, Jerusalem is about prophecy, not politics)

I actually run a group to support people who get scared by these stories. It's much more serious than many realize. Young children as young as 13 and adults without a good background in physics, astronomy, and in this case theology, get really scared. It came to a head recently with David Meade's false prophecy that the world would end on Sept 23 2017 which was featured in the Daily Express and because the Daily Express is for some reason strongly favoured by Google News it filled Google news search results for weeks if you searched for topics such as "Planet X". His was a mix of alleged theology and pseudo science, claiming that the Bible predicted that a planet 'Nibiru' would fly closely past Earth at some point as a result of a 'sign' in the sky on Sept 23 as a result of a bizarre interpretation of Rev. 12 as astrology (which of course the Bible warns against - and there is no mention of any particular planet anywhere in the Bible or any constellation of the Zodiac). He falsely prophesied the rapture itself to happen some time in October. The sensationalist press simplified this to the world ending on Sept 23. So - that was just awful - I was getting so many PM's during the last week before Sept 23 that I gave up work for that week. Some were vomiting in fear of this (vomiting is a common side effect of extreme fear), and a couple of those in touch with me were in hospital receiving saline drips at the time of sept 23 only because of the effects of their fear of the world ending - so that they couldn't eat or sleep, tried to but couldn't. I still spend much of my time answering PM's from people who are scared that the world is about to end, sometimes suicidal, and sometimes vomiting from fear. They have help from doctors and therapists but it is not enough for them.

Many felt suicidal and some actually contemplating suicide. They want to kill themselves to get rid of their fear of the world ending - it's kind of paradoxical but it's very real for them. I continue to get suicidal PM's on the topic. Although only a small fraction of young people who contemplate suicide actually attempt it and only a tiny fraction of those who try actually succeed (older people are muchj more successful if they try) I think it's entirely possible that some may have killed themselves over such stories because there must be thousands who got scared given the number who were able to find me and send me PM's. And it has severe repercussions on their life - frequent panic attacks, often they are afraid to leave their home, take time off work because of their fear and so on. It impacts on them for months or years - and children too, as young as 13 and probably much younger as that's the minimum age on Facebook, still at school, with this extreme fear of the world ending. Many not Christian or only the vaguest ideas of Christianity as this extends far beyond the Bible belt and we have members of our Doomsday Debunked facebook group from many countries world wide who see it in Google News and get scared.

This is why I am very keen to make sure the Wikipedia articles on theology are accurate and especially articles such as this one to make it clear that most Christians do not think in terms of a rapture at all. Those who contact me from the Bible belt in the US often don't know of any Christians who do not subscribe to this doctrine with their relatives, friends, all believing it. Of course for some then it's a source of comfort and solace, and they feel secure that God's plan is unfolding and they want to help others to develop a similar faith. But for others the whole thing is naturally scary for them. They feel they have to either believe this or stop being Christian. And many who are not Christian, still are scared, afraid of what they think will happen when the rapture comes, even though they do not call themselves Christian any more - they have stopped calling themselves Christian, but still believe in the rapture.

So - the authors of the article may well have believed themselves that this is what most Christians believe and this may have been the reason it is written as if this is a central and essential Christian doctrine. I agree with you - I think it is just neutral NPOV editing to edit the article to make it clear that most Christians do not have this view in the introduction - while of course presenting their views clearly as what they are. Robert Walker (talk) 07:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not alone in having this concern, but you've made me realize that its even more problematic than I thought. I'd be far more accepting of rapture theology if there wasn't the "bring on the end of the world" political agenda, not to mention the stress it puts on certain followers (which I wasn't aware of). I didn't realize that the it has caused that kind of psychological pain to some of its own believers. Sadly, most people from traditions outside of rapture churches are largely unaware of its existence and the whole agenda behind it—just as rapturists are generally unaware that most Christians have other views based on longer theological reflection (over the course of centuries). I believe that the Catholic/Orhodox dealt with some of the early millennial eschatological issues during the first several councils. But, I think there is a monumental ecumenical task at hand here, and nobody is talking about it. I'd imagine that in Catholic/Anglican/Orthodox ecumenical discussions with evangelicals the matter is never brought up, which is sad. It needs to be discussed at high levels. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Interesting, I come at it with another perspective, hadn't thought of the ecumenical angle. I wonder if there is anything can be done by helping Christians in these Bible belt areas who are scared by the prophecies to realize that it's not supported by the main Christian traditions. I do find that the people I talk to via PM's from these regions do find it reassuring and helpful to know they are not alone in doubting the rapture interpretations of the Bible, and gives them more confidence in themselves. Also naive people worldwide - in the UK then I get people from here also PM me who are scared that the world is about to end - and it's not even part of our main Christian traditions - this idea of a rapture. It's the UK tabloids that promote it most of all - but they are doing it cynically, there is no way that the journalists actually can believe what they write in those articles. They are the same papers that have articles about alien tripods invading Russian cities, and the famous "Freddie Starr ate my hamster". So part is educating people in other countries too that this is not part of their Christian tradition.

These prophecies have been here all along but I think it's come to a head recently with the YouTube channels - preachers like Paul Bagley for instance. He has a YouTube channel where he constantly tells everyone that the world is going to end next week or month, and he gets probably thousands of dollars a year of ad revenue from it. Then there are the red top tabloids in the UK - they play a much larger role than they used to, with a world wide presence, because Google News strongly favours them.

This is about rapture more generally rather than just the Jerusalem prophecy. If you search for 'Planet X' for instance then often nearly the entire first page and sometimes all 10 results in the first page of a Google search under the News tab will be sensationalist stories from the red top tabloids saying the world is about to end due to a flyby of a planet which of course doesn't exist, called 'Nibiru'. There's nothing particularly Christian about this idea. It's an invention of a maverick Sumerian scholar -originally it referred to a bright star or planet at the equinoxes usually Venus, Jupiter or one of the brightest stars in the sky depending on which was brightest. But he claimed they were talking about an extra planet that did a flyby of Earth back then. Nancy Lieder then took his idea and turned it into a prediction of the world ending in 2003, then when nothing happened, 2008, 2012 and other dates.

There's no Bible reference yet at all. But later some of the false prophets on YouTube and elsewhere started to claim this was prophesied in the Bible, even though the Bible never mentions any planets by name and they didn't know back then that Earth was a planet. That was a central point in David Meade's false Sept 23 prophecy. He tied together ideas of the rapture with this mythical planet 'Nibiru'. And - the thing is there's a whole community of Christians who are really keen for the world to end as soon as possible - and they will jump on any false prophecy of the world ending. And every time a date fails, they then jump on the next one. E.g. comment here, asked what happens if the prophecy fails, the response was that "If it doens't happen we move to the next possible date"

They are really keen on it. For instance comment on this video "lets hope we're raptured out of here on Dec.17th,now wouldn't that make a nice Christmas present!"

I think these video comments from Christians who are hoping that every new false prophet's date will be the end of the world - and the uploaders who upload the videos - are mainly from non denominational churches in southern US - as I haven't yet found any denomination that sets dates (do say if you know of one). But probably few Christians outside of these areas are aware of this, as you say. Meanwhile from my conversations via PM, few within those regions have much awareness that there are other ways to interpret the Bible. I mean the average person who was brought up Christian and just accepts what they were taught as their religion doesn't know this. And though many do find it a source of comfort, this belief in Jesus appearing in the clouds in the near future and themselves raptured up to heaven in their physical bodies - others as I said find it very scary and even get suicidal as a result. Including people in the UK and other countries who have no support from their community as the rapture tradition is not even native to our country. That's basically the situation we face. Robert Walker (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind those crazies so much if they'd just keep it more or less to themselves, but I'm concerned to the degree that they are now influencing middle east foreign policy in a dangerous way. And, I can't be too unsure that some of those ministers might not have influenced Trump's withdrawal form the Paris Accords as well. Admittedly, I have no proof of that, but after all, what's the use of helping the environment and saving the planet if someone wants to speed up the onset of the Rapture? Wouldn't global warming be just the solution! I have a hunch that a bunch these people are also climate change deniers. They actually don't really deny it——they know it's happening and that the scientists are right——but they don't want to admit it, because it would interfere with their plan. What do you think about that?!? Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay first on Jersualem - they managed to secure a campaign pledge from Trump which he has fulfilled. But he is not trying to make the prophecy come about - he may not even know much about it. All he is doing is fulfilling a pledge that he knows will please his core base. It's not part of any overall strategy. He made that clear in his speech[14]

“In making these announcements, I also want to make one point very clear: This decision is not intended, in any way, to reflect a departure from our strong commitment to facilitate a lasting peace agreement. We want an agreement that is a great deal for the Israelis and a great deal for the Palestinians. We are not taking a position on any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, or the resolution of contested borders. Those questions are up to the parties involved.”

“The United States remains deeply committed to helping facilitate a peace agreement that is acceptable to both sides. I intend to do everything in my power to help forge such an agreement. Without question, Jerusalem is one of the most sensitive issues in those talks. The United States would support a two-state solution if agreed to by both sides.”

“In the meantime, I call on all parties to maintain the status quo at Jerusalem's holy sites, including the Temple Mount, also known as Haram al-Sharif.”

“Above all, our greatest hope is for peace, the universal yearning in every human soul. With today's action, I reaffirm my administration's longstanding commitment to a future of peace and security for the region>.”

There bear in mind that the prophecy is for war in the middle East which becomes global and for building of a Jewish temple on Temple Mount. I don't see Trump as a likely person to deliberately engineer a war in the middle East to attempt to bring about a prophecy of the world ending. Others also say he is the Anti Christ, which is part of the prophecy, but they said that of Obama too - and there is not the slightest sign or likelihood that he is going to attempt to get others to worship him :). So - yes they did succeed in getting him to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel but I think it's a one off gesture on his part to fulfil a campaign pledge and no more - not likely to lead any further. And I don't see it as likely that they could influence politicians to try to fulfill any more of the "prophecy".

I think you are right that many of them would be in support of Trump leaving the Paris agreement but I think that's a separate thing. At least, for what it's worth, I haven't seen climate change linked to the rapture doctrine yet in the stories people bring to me to debunk or get scared about. They send me stories to debunk by maverick scientists about climate change, but so far, nothing about rapture linked to climate change.

I suppose though that as you say this idea of a near future rapture might lead to short term thinking, the idea that what happens to our Earth in the time of our generations children and grand children just don't matter, as you say - on the other hand people are often not very consistent in their thinking, we aren't like robots in that way.

A lot of Americans do believe in a near future second coming of Jesus, with 41% saying it definitely or probably will happen before 2050 according to one survey [15], on the other hand 80% are optimistic about the long term future for themselves and their family[16].

So how do you read that? . So - that's just one survey, but I think it suggests that the idea of a near future rapture probably does have a fair amount of political effect in the US. However, maybe there is some separation in their thinking between religious ideas and practical ideas, answering differently if asked about the future of the economy, or if asked if they believe in a return of Jesus??

My main concern is the effect that their statements have on the scared and suicidal people. To give an idea of how much they are affected, here is "Nerd with Attitude" - one of the debunkers, reading out a message from one of our members in a YouTube video, with his permission[17]. They are affected by pseudo science and fake and exaggerated science as well as the rapture doctrine, but the rapture doctrine is a major part of it.

At any rate the main thing we can do in Wikipedia is just to make sure the articles on theology here accurately represent the true situation, to present the rapture doctrine accurately, but in its proper context. If we present it clearly as not a central theological doctrine to all Chrisians but rather a doctrine for some particular groups mainly in Southern US, then that will help. Robert Walker (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Just because we believe that rapture theory can be potentially dangerous in both politics and individual people's lives, we can still be objective in our edits. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes exactly! I think that perhaps we have been digreessing here a bit from the primary purpose of talk pages. Though it's obvious from other talk pages that a fair bit of leeway is allowed in practice. WP:OWNTALK

"While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier."

It's fine from my point of view :). But I have been disciplined for things that I thought were not a problem - as a result of some wikipedia guidelines being interpreted far more strictly than I expected. So, I agree with the guideline in principle, I don't really see how going off on interesting tangents that are still directly related to the rapture topic is likely to violate this talk page guideline, and nobody is warning me. But I think it does no harm to be careful to stay well within the guidelines in what is now quite a long conversation. If you want to continue it you can just friend me on Facebook Robert Walker or message me on my Quora profile. I'm enjoying this conversation! Robert Walker (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I do not have a Facebook account and have never networked there (I admit, I'm living in a cave). But, I did enjoy the conversation. One of these days, I'll have to get into doing Facebook! Garagepunk66 (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I should have said you can also email me. I have a public email address, have had for years as a software developer, GMail seems to filter the spam fine and not the messages that are genuine. It's support@robertinventor.com. I think myself that Wikipedia is a bit behind the times to not permit some form of social networking on the site - which could be private or a separate site integrated with it in some way but separated so that the social messaging and networking doesn't get in the way of conversations about the article content. I think it's because it was originally developed at a time when online social networking was rare. Nowadays it is expected for any kind of collaborative activity. E.g. Quora, collaborative Q/A site has built in social messaging which members do in private but online as part of the platform.

There is a proposal to make a "Wiki Social" on meta: m:WikiSocial. I think something like that but integrated closely to wikipedia so we can just say "lets continue this conversation on Wiki Social" would be great. I just posted a support vote there making that suggestion though there would be issues with close integration of a social media site with wikipedia that would have to be worked through. Robert Walker (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

David Meade draft

Hi @Robertinventor: I created a draft about false prophet David Meade here. Would you like to help me with the draft I made about him? LovelyGirl7 talk 21:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @LovelyGirl7:, we could give it a go, he does already have a mention in this article: Nibiru_cataclysm#2017_revival. The thing is whether he fits the notability criterion for a separate article. I think he would count as someone notable for one event - well it was drawn out over several months but basically his end of times prophecies centered around 23rd September 2017 and the following months. He has several previous prophecies and is continuing to make future prophecies but that's the one that got the attention of the media. See WP:1E. He did get enough attention for the Washington Post to write an article about him rather than the event The man whose biblical doomsday claim has some nervously eyeing Sept. 23

It's hard to find that much about him because he writes under a pseudonym (says so himself). The article can use the Washington Post article as main source + I have found out a bit more about him which I wrote up in this article [18] - not to use that as a source, but it gives details of his two previous books and links to sources for them so we could use that. So - well we could give it a go and see if it is accepted, explaining our reasons why we think he may be notable enough for inclusion. Worst that happens is that the decision is made to delete it or not approve it. Robert Walker (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Robertinventor: He's nothing more than a pen name and a idiot. Simple. As for the article, I have it here. He is also known for his October nonsense as well than just September 23rd. When Trump and Pence being levitated, Earth being split in 2 poles, and Obama being president for the third time. I mentioned that stuff in the article as well. I did found out that he went to the University of Louisville as well [19] and I think it might be worth mentioning it in the article. Also, is David Meade a christian or catholic? Several articles, like Washinigton Post and Daily Express says he's a christian since they always mention "Christian Numerologists", and I think David Meade said he was raised by catholics and that he's a catholic. --LovelyGirl7 talk 20:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: Okay fine. I've done an update of that article. Yes he says he is catholic and one of the sources said so.

I've removed mention of myself including my blog on Quora and my Science 2.0 blog as I am not sure if they would count as reliable sources in Wikipedia - I have a "Conflict of Interest" anyway, someone else would need to assess if they are. Although Science 2.0 is reasonably high reputation and is cited sometimes here, I feel it is a bit of a gray area. Authors on Science 2.0 can write whatever they like with no editorial oversight, although it is closed in the sense that you do have to be accepted by Hank Campbell before you can write there. My quora blog is just a personal blog. And I don't think I'd count as notable according to the criteria of Wikipedia in this topic area.

I've also added a mention of his previous books in 2013 and 2015. Another change is that I've made it clear (with cites) that "David Meade" is a pen name and said that he "says" he studied astronomy at the University of Louisville amongst other subjects. There is no evidence he actually did and in this topic area authors often claim to have studied astronomy or to be astronomers, etc, who have no qualifications at all. I think myself as someone with a good background in astronomy that he can't possibly have studied the subject as he makes elementary mistakes that would mean you wouldn't even pass an admissions test for a course if they interviewed candidates and definitely would not pass such a course. For instance on Sept 23 he claimed that he personally saw "the sign" from his home.

This involved some planets in the morning sky, some in the evening sky, and the stars of Virgo blanked out by the sun. There is no way anyone could "see" it and to claim he did shows a profound ignorance of basic ideas of astronomy. There are many other things he says that makes it clear he never actually can have studied the subject - or at least, if he went to any classes at any stage, he didn't retain much of what he learnt. Of course that can't be put into the article, not unless we find a WP:RS (reliable source) saying so. But it's reason to make it clear it is a claim and not independently verified and so I put it as he "Says" he studied astronomy not that he actually did study astronomy. Robert Walker (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Robertinventor: Thank you Robert for correcting my article. Thank you. Who cares what Meade says anyways, there all nonsense. --LovelyGirl7 talk 21:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: Yes for sure but we have to be accurate in Wikipedia even if he is writing nonsense :). I see someone else has also been working on the article, is looking good. I'm going to copy my last comment here over to the talk page of the article and link back to this conversation. So then we can continue any more discussion of the article there where anyone interested in working on the article can read it, if we have more to say. Robert Walker (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I will. --LovelyGirl7 talk 21:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Robertinventor: I have a peer review about David Meade here if you would like to give feedback on the article. LovelyGirl7 talk 16:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: - oh you've done a lot more work on it now. After seeing this, I just left a comment on the talk page about his claimed qualification in astronomy - that we don't know that he really has such a qualification and can't check for a pen name and why there is reason to be skeptical about that particularly - though not sure what edit to suggest - anyway you'll see the post on the talk page. Robert Walker (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

talk:Nuclear holocaust

Thanks Robert Walker, although in a non-politicized world, no thanks would be needed. Being responsible for researching and then penning essentially the entirety of the nuclear winter article, sometimes as the IP editor from Ireland...I take great mirth in having just been referred to, as a "newbie" on the titular page.

Though in all seriousness, I'm glad to have readership feedback on the winter article. It is by no means a completed line of editing, as a gander at the respective talk page will telegraph. Your summary on the talk page of the holocaust article, is actually the first time I've been sure someone read and fully grasped what it was, that I was attempting to summarize and express, that the scope in which "nuclear winter" has always operated, is limited to say the least, proof by computer simulation/by computer game is a major problem in science that affects an increasing number of fields. There is nothing wrong with computer modelling per se, it's just you need to declare the boundaries and assumptions you're plugging in. Very loudly.

By the way, I also have a (potentially classified) Defense Threat Reduction Agency reference, published in 2015 that explicitly states that "nuclear winter" is not taken seriously by the US defense establishment(probably because fire modelling and plume motion has been subjected to super-computer analysis in one of the national laboratorys alongside classified studies of soot residence times following natural wildfires). I haven't uploaded this specific DTRA reference as...I'm lazy and don't want to seem like I'm deferring to authority and well I suppose, I would rather see how the public domain "science" develops. Speaking of, I haven't seen anything from Robock in a while, not since the Toba catastrophe model of severe-volcanic-cooling took a major hammering.

As you can expect by its political nature, there is usually a "new nuclear winter model" released every time some international sabre-rattling occurs. Though correct me if I'm wrong but I didn't see one timed for the recent N.Korean rattling, something of a break in tradition?...so I hope (someone that can't possibly be Robock) has not continued to edit his "missing-presumed-murdered" colleague - Vladimir Alexandrov's wikipedia article, as there was an IP editor geolocated at Robock's tenured university of, Rutger's Uni doing just that.

This editing was very odd so I raised the question, is this IP user Robock? As seen on the Talk:Alan Robock page. After raising my eyebrow and writing this 1 line of a "heads up"...well, if you're interested to see just how farcical that also went. Then check out that latter talk page.

They'll try to ban you and me over "dasterdly long talk-page comments" and get everyone to focus on you and your behavior, rather than allow any cool-headed-dispassionate-editors to instead focus on the scholarly thing, to take a look at the actual quality of the references, what you are trying to communicate and if it's an impartial summary. If they have a fair point on partiality, or see some other legitimate issue, then I don't think either one of us are beyond the realm of keeping an open mind and constructively working together.

There is however, unfortunately a strain of editors here who want to make everything political, or to cheerlead some political narrative. They "must win" and have "the preceived other-side excluded from editing". It is necessary to point this out as what motivates a vast number of editors, it is an undercurrent that needs to be pointed out and for others to become aware of it. As I'm sure we've lost editors to this political monster. It's obvious from what they have tried to do, to conflate, to stretch, to intentionally mischaracterize in order to get you removed from editing, that this is perhaps the wikipedia project's greatest flaw and can in some part, explain why it is essentially an all-mens club.

Sadly with work and real-life I'll have less time here to dedicate to the project. Right now, we have snow and I'm off work ;-) So there will always be serrendipity.

keep up the good fight,

ad astra Boundarylayer (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, glad to have helped and you have done good work on the Nuclear Winter article. As to trying to prove that an ip editor is Alan Robock - that sort of thing is tricky. Because anyone could edit the articles and we just don't know who people are here. Including e.g. someone wanting to discredit him, also it is easy to think you see patterns when there are only coincidences. So I think they were right to say there is no evidence of it being him that would stand up here. But went far too far to try to topic ban you for it. However I shouldn't say much more about that as I am topic banned myself right now. One of the conditions of a topic ban broadly construed is that I can't talk about why I was banned and this is getting rather too close to it. The most I can say is a general observation which applies to many topic bans I've seen here on Wikipedia, not just me, that I think editors here on Wikipedia are often over eager to take each other to WP:ANI and to solve their editing disagreements by banning each other.

Anyway you weren't banned and that's great because you are doing good work. The people who continue to promote Nuclear Winter despite nearly all scientists saying it is impossible, and the way they use invalid arguments of seeding their models with soot high in the atmosphere without explaining how it gets there - it does seem to be politically motivated. And as I said there, I am a long term nuclear weapons disarmament advocate - but I do not support using politically motivated inaccurate science to promote Nuclear Winter no matter how much their political aims may align with my own long term views of what I think should happen long term. The science is still low quality and I think bordering on junk science. Though the paper is accurate in as far as it is an accurate of what would happen "if" you started with soot like that, it just is wrong when the author goes on to say this is what would happen in a real nuclear war without explaining those contested assumptions and without even mentioning that they are contested and controversial.

Anyway you are setting about it the right way by including all the views on the matter in wikipedia and making it clear what the arguments are. I looked at your Nuclear Winter article and I didn't see anything to add. You have done a good job! Congratulations. And - as I said there, it makes a big difference because some people get absolutely terrified by it and send me panicked PM's and have even been verging on suicide scared of a nuclear winter as a future possibility. And I'm talking here about being scared even when living in a nuclear free zone. There is no need for that at all and it is entirely due to this bordering on junk science and it is the downside of their politics. I do think it is going too far though if anyone was to suggest his work is deceptive. We have to assume he is sincere but it is puzzling that he doesn't address the controversial nature of his pre-loading and explain that most scientist would say that this part of the paper is wrong and try to justify his approach. He just seems to brush the whole question under the carpet as it were. Robert Walker (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

DS Alert - climate change

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in Climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Robert, I gave the same thing to myself. As the template itself says they are just FYI so everyone knows about WP:ARBCC#Principles and that discretionary sanctions apply to climate pages. As you may recall if you were here back then this used to be a badge of shame thing and "notice" warnings were given out when there might be a problem. We don't do that anymore. Now they are for anyone and everyone in the topic area. I try to remember to give it to everyone who shows substantial interest in climate articles. Besides you and me, the other ed currently looking at clathrates, Prokaryotes, is also "aware" of this stuff. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank for letting me know. I know what DS are, have edited in areas that are affected by DS before, but didn't know they applied to Climate Change. Also spotted your comment on the talk page and I'll reply. It seemed like a dormant article because nobody replied to my talk page comment about a month ago, it will be interesting to have a conversation about the latest research. And agreed on your basic point there too - yes - it can take some sleuthing to find out what the current consensus is, what the implications are of the latest research and how widely it is supported. Robert Walker (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Super I'll watch for that. However, I have no interest in a general discussion about current research (see WP:FORUM) but I am interested in talking about how we use the reliable sources to improve the article. See you there, as time allows. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh sure, that's what I meant, that it is good to have someone else to talk to about how to use reliable sources to improve the article. I've been working on this summarizing the research and there seemed to be nobody else there or I'd have been talking about it all along. I've replied to you there about my future ideas for work on the article and commented on the paper you mentioned in the discussion. Robert Walker (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

OK moving to article talk... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Robertinventor#Too_many_edits_for_a_talk_page_post

FYI, that's what user sandboxes are for. Find yours at User:Robertinventor/sandbox NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed that myself and will use the sandbox in future for our conversation. I tend to forget about this because I do a lot of writing off wiki where it is never an issue, as there is no comment history. I've actually just now edited my user page to ask people to let me know if they notice this. So thanks for doing it. I hadn't edited my user page since before the t-ban and it is way out of date, am working on it right now. Robert Walker (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Modern Mars habitability for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Modern Mars habitability is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern Mars habitability until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ca2james (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Modern Mars habitability, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazonian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Appeal of topic ban

I have closed your appeal of your topic ban as declined. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

AFD conduct

Robert, Regarding your participation at this AFD:

• Please stop creating sub-sections at the AFD
• Don't move the article while it is at AFD

This messes up the pages where the AFD is transcluded to, and only increases the work for the closer in case the article is deleted. You should also limit your comments at the AFD to ones that would help the closer decide whether the article should be kept. Abecedare (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Okay. I didn't know those rules, sorry. I will follow them now. My mistake was that I thought title change would be covered by "improving the article" and didn't think to check. Since I cant' do this, can you kindly move the talk page back to the original article as well then? It's here Talk:Possibility_of_modern_Mars_habitability. Also, will it be appropriate for me to remove the new section saying I have moved it from the AfD disucssion and add it as a suggestion to the talk page instead? Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Completed the talkpage move. Yes, feel free to remove the new section about the article move from the AFD since no one has responded to it yet; it will also make following the discussion easier. Abecedare (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, done :) Robert Walker (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Abecedare: wonder what to do, @NewsAndEventsGuy: has posted a very WP:POV post publicizing the AfD which in my view is strongly suggesting to editors which is the right way to vote saying "So far the only "keep" WP:NOTVOTE is from the article creator, and many have suggested deletion." and saying "Mars eds may wish to comment whether there is enough good material at newer article to merge, or if it should be deleted outright." as if those were the only options with keep not a possibility. [20]. It is also very confused. It says that my article is about Mars colonization. It is not. It is about the possibility of present day microbial life on Mars. I will take this opportunity to edit the lede to make this clearer by adding a diambiguation or something. Robert Walker (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC) @NewsAndEventsGuy: Sorry should have pinged you first, got mixed up. Can you please remove your latest post from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mars#Colonization_articles_and_AFD - there is no way this is a neutral advertisment of the AfD. Colonization articles and AFD. And my article is not about human or any other form of colonization of Mars. Robert Walker (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm in the process of making corrections, which of course can be reviewed and critiqued again. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! It's okay now. I've left my comment on the AfD talk page in case it is relevant to the closing editor. As it is now, there are so many deletes and no keeps that it is not going to make a difference. But if I get a lot of last minute keep's for some reason, enough for a possibility of a decision of "no consensus", it might swing it as there were a few deletes while your version was on the Mars project talk page. Robert Walker (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

And yes - as you say in your edit summary - it was fine to delete my comment on your post there after you fixed it. Only need a mention on the AfD page for the closing admin. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

About writing

It's great that you have a lot of interest and knowledge in certain subjects. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to the latest findings but settled science, or put another way, to summarize what secondary sources say. Secondary sources for primary journal articles are not news articles but review articles and such (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:RS/AC).

There's an example out there that if Wikipedia existed during Copernicus' and Galileo's time, it would say that the sun revolves around the earth - at least until Galileo's theories had been confirmed by other scientists. In this analogy, you're writing about Galileo's latest findings using his published papers and news articles about those papers. Such writing makes for great blog posts or news articles but aren't acceptable articles here.

I assume that you didn't know how articles should be focused but going forward, please make sure your submissions are encyclopaedic. I hesitate to say that you shouldn't edit here, but if you truly can't make the shift from blog post writing to encyclopaedia article writing, please consider that wikipedia is not the place for your writing. Your writing definitely has a place - but that place may not necessarily be Wikipedia. Ca2james (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

On WP:RS/AC

"A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view."

I've had a look through the latest draft, through the lede and first section. The only issue I found is where I said "Our current state of knowledge may be best summarized by this statement from the home page of the DLR (German Aerospace Center)"

I've corrected it to "This is a statement about our current state of knowledge of the field from the home page of the DLR (German Aerospace Center) "

Things like this can usually be fixed by just expressing clearly what the statement is. I'm assuming that the reader knows that DLR is the german equivalent of NASA and very prestigious. You get into a kind of recursive loop if you have to prove notability of sources like that.

On WP:SCHOLARSHIP, I do that wherever possible. For instance I cite the Findings of the Second MEPAG Special Regions Science Analysis Group on. The Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group. You can't really get higher level, secondary, or more WP:RS than that. It is like relying on a review article by the IPCC or the USGS. This is the one that says that even the radiosensitive E-coli can survive 500 years of surface ionizing radiation and still have 10% viable. Meanwhile Life on Mars seems to violate this, since it says that the ionizing radiation sterilizes the martian surface. It does this using an essentially WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS argument based on primary sources. In this article, I also cite the former planetary protection officers for NASA who can be considered as the planetary protection "public face of NASA" for instance in Cassie Conley's statement “The environment on Mars potentially is basically one giant dinner plate for Earth organisms,” There is no synthesis in the article at all, certainly not intentionally. If you find anything be sure to say. The views I express are the views in the articles I summarize and never my own.

However do note that it is not a prohibition against primary sources. To take an example like your Galileo one. Yes, it couldn't say that the Earth revolved around the sun, of course. But it could say that Galileo has theorized that the Earth revolves around the sun. Take for instance Conformal cyclic cosmology. It is an exact analogy of your Galileo case. It describes a theory developed by Roger Penrose and for its content, it is based pretty much entirely on writings by him about his own theory. Or take Viking lander biological experiments. It uses the same sources that I use in the Viking lander section. There just aren't many review articles on this topic. For instance, where it says:

"In a 2002 paper published by Joseph Miller, he speculates that recorded delays in the system's chemical reactions point to biological activity similar to the circadian rhythm previously observed in terrestrial cyanobacteria."

There is no secondary source used there. This is acceptable. See WP:NOTRS

"Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors"

It doesn't prohibit use of primary sources. It does prohibit interpretative claims or synthetic claims - such as the ones used in the Ionizing radiation section of Life on Mars.

Primary sources often are essential. Take Megatsunami for instance and scan down the list of cites. At a first glance I don't see any secondary sources there in this sense.

In the case of the Modern Mars Habitability article, I've been involved in AfD debates before and know how they go. There are so many delete votes that I am not sure it is worth working on it any more. If a majority say it has to go, and they seem to be expressing cogent reasons on the page, that's it gone. They don't have to know anything about the topic to vote for it to be deleted. And that's the problem, typically most of those voting are not topic specialists, and not even much interested in the topic. Such people don't normaly go back and change a vote in an AfD if you improve the article after voting has commenced. They have probably already moved on to other things and forgotten about it. When an uninvolved administrator closes the debate they will have an obvious clear choice, to delete it.

I am copying the article over to my own external wiki, and consider it to be a hopeless case now, not because of issues with the article, but because of the status of the AfD. But if you think there is some possibility of it being saved then I'm prepared to work on it some more here. Do you see any path towards saving it after this many delete votes? Robert Walker (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Reminder of how AfD's are closed WP:CLOSEAFD - I suppose - it can be closed with "no consensus" so if a few people were to vote "keep" in the next few days it might be saved. If there are places here it could be listed. It suggests Notify interested projects and editors. I would like to notify the Mars, Biology, Astronomy, Space, and Microbiology projects. After working on it a little more, perhaps starting tomorrow. I think that if we get some sufficiently expert eyes to look over it, they will vote keep. It is worth a try. Are you okay with that? With a suitable neutral statement of course. It can't be a clear keep but no consensus may still be an option. Robert Walker (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a discussion about specific sources because that wasn't why I brought this up; I brought this up because the issues are bigger than just one article. However, I will respond to a couple of points.

First, regarding the AfD. One does not need to be a subject matter expert to see that the article is bloated, written as an essay, and relies almost completely on primary sources. You are welcome to neutrally notify the specified wikiprojects that there's an AfD they might be interested in commenting on (with something along the lines of: "There is an article at AfD that may interest you. Please comment at WP:Articles for deletion/Modern Mars habitability"). If you do so, please add a note in small text to the AfD indicating which wikiprojects you notified. I'm quite certain that those editors are likely to !vote delete (because of the aforementioned issues) and that a no consensus outcome is extremely unlikely but I've been wrong before and there's no harm in trying.

Second, if we were living in Galileo's time, Wikipedia would not publish anything about Galileo's research when Galileo first published. Wikipedia wouldn't publish anything about Galileo's theories until a large number of other scientists had accepted them (in other words, until it was a major fringe theory), and at that point the mention would be a single sentence. Only after Galileo's theory had become accepted among a majority - only after it becomes the consensus view - would it be treated as the consensus view. Wikipedia does not include every information about every paper that's published, no matter how interesting it is.

Finally, in your reply, you're trying to justify your approach to sourcing. And if you're trying to justify your approach, you're not trying to figure out how to work within Wikipedia guidelines. Your approach to sourcing and your essay-like style of writing is great for lots of pther places but it doesn't work well for Wikipedia. Ca2james (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

RE notifying other projects about the AFD, I have already posted at talk page for Mars project, and at talk page for the previously-existing article on the topic, Talk:Colonization of Mars. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Above advice from Ca2james (talk · contribs) suggesting you might be an ideal blogger and might be happier putting your ideas out in that manner seems very wise to me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I already am a science blogger. I disclose this on my user page here. But I also know how to do reliable sources. I frequently contribute both sources and sourced content to wikipedia. I have been doing this for years. Here are a few recent examples, notice they are always well cited and after being added they remain on the page, two from June, two from July, I could add many more:

I've made:

• Hawking radiation#1976 Page numerical analysis - 28 July 2018 - added a paragraph about the timescale for evaporation for various sizes of black hole
• Perigean spring tide - 23 July 2018 - added statement about how often they occur to lede.
• Megatsunami#Potential future megatsunamis - 29 June 2018 - Recent research disproves possiblity of future La Palma and Hawaii megatsunamis
• Stellar population#Population III stars - 7 June 2018 - The European Southern Observatory's discovery of a pocket of bright stars in a red shift 7 galaxy.

Modern Mars Habitability is cited in a similar fashion to all the other articles I've contributed to with edits like that over the years. I also contributed much of the material to Planetary protection. Perhaps half that page is my writing. And several other articles over the years. Robert Walker (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I just need to tag its talk page with the relevant projects, and then it will show up in their article alerts. I'll do that right away. Robert Walker (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: - saw your vote. Do ask your partner if they have heard of Cassie Conley, John Rummel, Charles Cockell, Fairen, Dirk Schulze Makuch, the Michegan Mars Environmental Chamber used by Nilton Renno and his team the Mars Simulation Facility-Laboratory at DLR run by Jean-Pierre de Vera, the Second MEPAG Special Regions Science Analysis Group, the UCLA conference on the Present Day Habitability of Mars in 2013 and the NASA / LPL four day Modern Mars Habitability conference session in 2017, and ask if they are suitable sources fr an article on this topic - you might get a surprise. Or better still, ask them to give it a glance over to see if it looks accurate to them. I have many astrobiological friends who say it is an excellent article. None of the views given there are my own. I do have views of my own but they are not presented there. Robert Walker (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Said about all I can to help you. I'm going to stop trying. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ca2james: Okay I'll post to the talk pages of Astronomy, Biology and Microbiology when I finish my edits for tonight, will look at the post you did for an example. On Galileo - I perhaps didn't make it clear. Roger Penrose is the only notable physicist to my knowledge who supports his Conformal cyclic cosmology theory. It is not at all mainstream. But it isn't fringe either. It is mathematically and scientifically rigorous, it is notable, it gets significant coverage in newspapers etc, from time to time, and it has an article about it in Wikipedia. Robert Walker (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ca2james: - Is it appropriate to post to the talk page of Astrobiology? I would post to the Astrobiology project if such existed, but there isn't one. Robert Walker (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

You're arguing instead of listening. When I was talking about Galileo I was referring to astronomy as if we and wikipedia were living in the 16-17th century, when his theories were not mainstream. I'm going to say this plainly: if you continue contributing in ways that don't align with Wikipedia's content and sourcing policies and guidelines - if you continue writing as if you were writing blog posts - you will eventually end up indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. I know you mean well and could potentially contribute a lot but there are rules here and you're not playing by them. I'm not trying to threaten you with a block - I'm just trying to show you the long-term consequences of your actions. Ca2james (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Post notices where you think is best for the AfD. Ca2james (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand what you are saying here. Would you say Conformal cyclic cosmology is mainstream? When it is a highly respected theory supported by a single scientist Roger Penrose. If so then we are in agreement. But if by mainstream you mean, that the majority of scientists accept the theory to be correct, no, they do not. There are many cosmological theories and they are incnsistent with each other. Stephen Hawking's Hartle–Hawking state for instance is inconsistent with Roger Penrose's Conformal cyclic cosmology. But we have no way to distingujish between them and numerous other theories of the universe. In that sense they are all mainstream but many are only upheld by a few individual physicists. Is that a bit clearer? So they all need to have articles becasue they are all notable, but there is no one single theory that Wikipedia has to be about and present as "cosmology". Instead it presents numerous theories, often long ilsts of such theories of partiuclar types, again, most mutually inconsistent. Robert Walker (talk) 02:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay I'll post it when ready. Another thing I've been doing today, a friend suggested that it would help if I attribute the statements to particular scientists, instead of just citing them. So now the lede says

"According to Bob Haberle of the NASA/Ames Research Center, there are only five places, Amazonis, Chryse and Elysium Planitia, in the Hellas Basin and the Argyre Basin where liquid fresh water can form, but there also, it is close to its boiling point of 10 °C[7]. According to the 2005 study by Schorghofer and Aharonson, surface ice is not long term stable at any depth in the equatorial regions to within around ± 30° of the equator..."

It is often done this way in Wikipedia in situations where you need to use primary sources - which as I said sometimes is unavoidable, e.g. with Megatsunami which seems to have almost no secondary sources in the sense of review papers. Robert Walker (talk) 02:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The Copernicus/Galileo thing is an analogy to help convey what wikipedia does and does not include. It's not a comment on which theories are currently notable. The idea is, if wikipedia had existed at the turn of the 17th century, it would have said that the sun revolves around the earth. Galileo's research would not have been included until it was accepted by many, some years later. To relate that analogy to this context, mainstream science isn't doing research on Mars habitability. Such research is still very much fringe even though papers have been published.

Attributing statements to specific scientists is a bad idea because it will make the article look more POV and fringe. Wikipedia editors have already told you what's wrong with the article; unless your friend is also a Wikipedia editor, their advice is not useful. Ca2james (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Then we are in agreement. I have removed those attributions to individual scientists, I understand what you mean there. They were not WP:POV statements, they were just the most recent and best sources I could find on those particular topics e.g. that the ice is not stable at any depth from -30 to + 30 latitude goes back to papers from the 1990s onwards and I was just citing the most recent one - I saw that also for myself after a comment by another editor I'd better not ping as she is in the Buddhism topic area - but she had clearly read them that way so I immediately edited those names out. But I have kept attribution to notable sources such as the NASA planetary protection officers or to the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group etc. And in this topic area it is normal to discuss individual researchers by name when you cover a matter on which they are subject matter experts, e.g. Charles Cockel in this case because of his special interest in uninhabitable habitats on which he has written several papers making him a notable authority in this topic area. The latest version now also starts by quoting the NASA Science Goals for Mars - the second half of its first science goal is to search for extant (i.e. present day) life on Mars. Although all the votes are for delete still, many seemed to have voted that wa based on the title and on a belief that Mars is sterile and so that the subject matter of the article can't exist, bolstered by the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH argument from primary sources in the main article under Life on Mars#Cummulative effects which confuses dormant with non dormant extant life. Others voted because they thought that the topic of the article was Colonization of Mars and voted to delete it as a later and unnecessary duplication of that article - it doesn't in fact discuss that topic at all. Others voted because they found no occurrences of "Modern Mars habitability" in Google Scholar. I realized the source of confusion when I re-read the intro para which referred to it as a "term" which they might think meant a technical term similar to "Special regions". I have copy edited the first paragraph to be clearer on this matter.

For this reason,though there are only two days left of the AfD and still no other 'Keep' votes, I do not think it is lost yet, if I can get the AfD seen by enough people, especially subject matter experts in fields such as Planetary science. Actually I should try advertising it there too. I am going to continue to advertise the AfD as far as I can in the next two days in a neutral unbiased way to attract the eyes and votes of relevant experts Robert Walker (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Tune Smithy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tune Smithy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tune Smithy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Robertinventor, again. . Abecedare (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• And per that ANI thread, you have been blocked indefinitely. Your appeal route, should you desire it, is to WP:ARBCOM. Courcelles (talk) 08:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

GCR

Since you recently took part in the discussions, your opinion? See recent talks here. prokaryotes (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Sadly I have been indef blocked from Wikipedia. I still have talk page access but the only appropriate thing to say is just to refer you to the indef block. Sorry about that. Robert Walker (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, sorry just focused on the topic at hand. prokaryotes (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem :). It's not obvious on this page, a short comment in the #ANI section and I can understand how you missed it. I'd make a longer more friendly reply to you but there are risks of giving the impression of trying to evade a block if you say anything more than the minimum so sorry for abruptness. Robert Walker (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Robertinventor/Mars Surface Life

User:Robertinventor/Mars Surface Life, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Robertinventor/Mars Surface Life and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Robertinventor/Mars Surface Life during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem. I've copied all my Wikipedia user space files over to my new encyclopedia of astrobiology. They are no use to me here since as a blocked editor I can't edit them. Robert Walker (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Robertinventor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Firstly, apologies for taking up so much of everyone’s time in the past. If unblocked I will restrict myself to minor edits and corrections for the first three months. After that I will work with collaborators from the start for any major new content. That should prevent the same problems arising in the future.

The background is that I only did one or two major articles a year, usually without collaborators. About a third were deleted suddenly, by editors who hadn't taken part in content creation. It was similar for the Buddhism topic ban but someone else's content not mine. My talk page comments to defend the content lead to all the sanctions for verbosity (for bad faith charges see collapsed section below).

As per WP:OTHERWIKIS I've put all this deleted material into other wikis or blogs[21][22][23][24][25]. This is where I do any new content on these topics now, with a considerable backlog. Most new articles are under Wikipedia compatibe licenses if anyone wants to reuse them here.

I also write for Wikinews occasionally, where I collaborate with other editors[26][27][28][29]. Wikinews articles are reviewed before publication with criteria[30] similar to Good Articles[31]. By collaborating similarly in Wikipedia, and submitting major content for Good article status once finished, any matters of Wikipedia:COMPETENCY such as WP:RS, WP:NPOV, ecyclopedic tone etc would be sorted out during content creation. My most likely topic area for a new article would be microtonal music as for my proposed project[32] with 11 other voters that may include potential collaborators.

However, most articles I edited in Wikipedia involved minor edits. As an example, my Black hole edit[33] is for a Good article[34] with 1,871 watchers[35]. It was immediately reviewed by WolfmanSF[36] who retained the sources and conclusions and made small changes, and in similar form it's also retained in two other articles[37][38]. Two of the other three minor edits I mentioned in the debate are also still there[39][40]. So are nearly all my other minor edits for the year before the indef block, e.g. [41][42][43][44] etc.

The Perigean spring tide edit was reverted[45], but these are rare. WP:BOLD says "if you don't find one of your edits being reverted now and then, perhaps you're not being bold enough".

My minor edits never cause problems to anyone and help reduce errors in Wikipedia[46]. In the year before the block, I fixed over 90 articles[47], with only 2 reverts[48]. I also collaborated with discussion and minor edits on David Meade (author) which got rated as a "Good article"[49]. (Note the cites I removed to myself were added by another editor[50].)

I wish to be unblocked to continue this gnoming activity to benefit Wikipedia. For examples see my backlog of 11 minor edits from the talk pages[51] plus 33 I've noticed since then[52].

I have always been a good faith editor and would like to issue some corrections relating to claims of bad faith editing

Corrections

(expand references section below for the cites) Wikipedia license permits commercial use[53]. There was no problem including a few sentences of a deleted section[[54]] correctly attributed[55]. Wikipedia's license also permits dual licensing of your own content[56], CC by SA in the material I contributed to the deleted article, and all rights reserved in my book[57]. The article I contributed on fringe medicine[58] was in good faith, carefully following the guidelines for such articles in WP:FRINGE, e.g. stating that it is fringe science in the first sentence. The article about my software was WP:COI but not WP:PROMO. I added the article about my software in 2008, before I knew about WP:COI, because I thought it fulfilled Wikipedia's notability requirements. I cited[59][60] "Sound on Sound", which is often used in the topic area to source articles([61][62][63] etc), and a book[64] which has 563 cites in Google Scholar[65]. I added a COI statement to my user page[66] and the article talk page, as soon as I found those guidelines[67]. The deleted article[68] described views of others, not myself. Its title was the title of an Astrobiology sub-session and I was doing my best to summarize sources such as NASA who have the search for extant life on Mars as objective B of goal I. Previously I was the majority editor of Planetary protection, with 68.8% of it my content (checked with WhoColor). However, there is an overlap with the material the community decided to delete. As a good faith editor, accepting that this is the community decision here, I do not think I'm the one to resolve this. The relevant section[69] is short and uncited. In my wiki it is expanded and cited[70]. I think it is best if I continue to edit my own version in my wiki. It is of course released under CC by SA if anyone here wishes to use any of the content. If I have left anything out please ask me about it, thanks! References

Can I kindly ask you to give me time to respond to any similar reasons given for rejecting the appeal before you vote.

Thank you for your time in considering this appeal.

Decline reason:

I've just read this, together with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern Mars habitability and have looked at Modern Mars habitability (the last not in any great detail as I did not have a week to spare), and this unblock request really does not address the problems behind your block as highlighted in those pages. In fact, in this request you are repeating one of those very problems - extreme verbosity.

As your block was made by the community, it would need a further community discussion to reverse. I see no chance of that succeeding based on this unblock request, and so I must decline.

If you wish to make an unblock request that could be presented for discussion, you need to make it brief and to the point, and without extensive "corrections" and dozens of references. And you need to address, seriously, the problems you have exhibited for a significant time with your style of research and writing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

"My talk page comments to defend the content lead to all the sanctions for verbosity." False! You were blocked for a very extensive list of violations on multiple articles, a consistent pattern you maintained to the end. I hope the administrators reviewing this take look into your history, and at your well established lack of Wikipedia:COMPETENCY. Rowan Forest (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting these points. Hopefully this makes it clearer[71] Robert Walker (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Present day habitability of Mars concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Present day habitability of Mars, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)