Talk:Mars sample-return mission/Archive 2

Biased POV sentence
Part of it is the missing "who" so just put that in first to check what it looks like.

But this is still misleading because it omits the scientits who raise those concerns but feel that the precautions do go far enough which as you say is the majority.

So, yes, I agree, it is POV slanted towards my editorial voice, and I will fix it.

On your point about the scientists who are concerned, I know for sure that the ICAMSR scientists feel they don't go far enough so that includes Levin for instance, who is undoubtedly notable according to wikipedia. The actual list of scientists I gave there may be incorrect, will check Paige's views and Ledeberg. Also I think there may be others I have left out. More in a bit. Robert Walker (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we are both looking at an old version of the page. It is already fixed in the latest version here:

User:Robertinventor/Debate_about_scientific_value_of_Mars_sample_return_and_methods_to_avert_low_probability_existential_risks


 * Don't bother: I already fixed it as follows:


 * Does this help? Warren Platts (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That's exactly the same as the example about the UN on the synthesis page. Each individual sentence there is correct. But the way you string them together, that's OR. It is a bit more subtle though. I can try the argue opposites approach again, seems the best way to do it.


 * You could as validly (or rather invalidly) write:


 * Do you see that I am saying almost exactly the same things as you, left out your "not logically possible to completely eliminate the potential risk" and instead adds "With better understanding of Mars it is logically possible that we may become as certain of the safety of a MSR as we currently are for the Moon, but this is not the case at present." and re-arranged the order of the facts so that the way they flowed favoured the conclusion that I favour rather than the one you favour?


 * When you do that, either way, that's editorial voice. You avoid it by just saying in a simple way exactly what the sources say, with no invention and no original thought. Like you are an intepreter for someone who can't speak and communicates with sign language, say. You say just what they said, don't add anything, don't comment, don't leave anything out of significance, let their voice shine through exactly as it is. Robert Walker (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Try to find a single sentence on my page that presents an argument like that not in the original sources. If you can't do that, and if all the significant POVs are there and are able to speak in their own voice, it is NPOV. You also have the matter of undue weight as well, but at that point the editorial tone has been removed. That is what you should find in my version. If not, let me know anything that needs to be fixed and give me a chance to fix it, and then see how you find it. But you are never going to agree with what is said in the article all the way through, and either am I - that is what makes it NPOV in a case like this where there is a variety of POVs to be prsented. 21:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Huh? I am sorry, but I do not at all see any "SYNTH". I merely corrected a factually incorrect sentence you wrote: that scientists who are concerned about MSRBC uniformly are against MSR. That's false. What I did is point out that most scientists agree that BC is a concern, but that MSR is safe enough to proceed, especially if the sample is treated as if it were a biohazard (even though odds of a sample actually being a biohazard are "extremely low" given what we know about parasite interactions, immune systems, evolutionary biology, not to mention Mars' hostile environment that makes it extremely unlikely that an MSR sample would ever contain any life). That is true. That is attributable. Then I say other people disagree that it's safe. Where's the "SYNTH"? There's no conclusion drawn about anything. It simply reports that there are two groups of people who disagree about X.


 * As for the two versions of the sentence saying opposite editorial POVs, I don't get that at all: I see two sentences that say about the same thing, only that the latter one is poorly written. E.g., use of "extinction of humans" is not only sensationalistic but also seemingly conveys the idea that human extinction is the only concern--that it most certainly is not. Then the bit about "it is logically possible that we may become as certain of the safety of a MSR as we currently are for the Moon" is only trivially true leaves the mistaken impression that the risk of back contamination from the Moon is "demonstrably zero". That it is not. There are zones where the temp and pressure must favor the existence of liquid water. There are features that seem to be caused by subterranean gas expulsions. Polar cold traps could potentially contain viable microbes from earlier epochs in the Moon's history (when the temperature and pressure briefly supported liquid water), comets, or even Mars itself, or from earlier epochs from the Earth. And just what does the "demonstrably" in "demonstrably not zero" supposed to mean. There's a weasel word if I ever saw one. What it actually means is there is no logical proof of zero risk. That's all it can mean. Practically everything we know empirically says there is no risk. Yes, there just might be a superbug on Mars, but this is really the sort of science fiction logical possibility that philosophers make a parlor game of dreaming up. IOW, it is really, really, really unlikely. As in billions to one squared. The fact is no matter what we do, logically, the risk will never be zero, just like it's not zero on the Moon. There will always be another rock to kick over that just might contain the Andromeda Strain. We can never be absolutely certain. Warren Platts (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren seems you missed the point of what I was doing, sorry. All those complaints you made about my version - that's exactly why I did it like that, so that you would see lots of flaws in it. I hoped you might then realise that when I read your version it looks the same to me as mine looks to yours, but in reverse.
 * That hasn't worked clearly. But I was deliberately creating a bit of bad writing that also creates a biased impression, just as you found it. Robert Walker (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Anyway I think this is about my fourth or fifth time at trying to explain why I find your version of the page editorial and OR and SYNTHESIS - not sure I can do more. But that is my main objection to it, and why I can't work with it. That plus leaving out loads of stuff. Yours is a lot shorter because you don't allow all the POVs involved to express themselves in their own words, and don't have all the quotes and long paraphrases I have in my version which IMO is needed to properly present the diversity of views on the subject.


 * Basically, the way that last para I did seems to you is pretty much the same in reverse as the way what you wrote seems to me. That is why I am so careful to avoid synthesis and OR on my page. Believe me, if I had got my own POV and synthesis on my version of the page, it would seem as bad to you as this para I just did above, all the way through. It is also the main reason I can't work with your page, that plus all the stuff you deleted. Robert Walker (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry we don't both see it the same way. Can we try dispute resolution now? See if we can get someone experienced to step in and mediate? Robert Walker (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I think I have gone too far the other way
The only mention that anyone has any concerns with the NASA plans now is this para near the start:

User:Robertinventor/Debate_about_scientific_value_of_Mars_sample_return_and_methods_to_avert_low_probability_existential_risks

I can't see anything else on the page that even suggests that anyone thinks the proposed precautions are inadequate. I think it should say something at least.

It mentions all the concerns, and it mentions the risk mitigation methods for each one, and says that the ESF and NASA studies consider those risk mitigation strategies to be adequate. And that's it.

Robert Walker (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh the D. A. Paige one. Plus the bit from Levin. Let me think this over, how best to present it, to show that it is a minority, reread the papers, and to fairly represent their views.

Meanwhile do say if there is anything else OR like the one you mentioned before. Robert Walker (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren, okay you are right about Paige. By risk there I think he means just technological and risk and the risk of spending too much for not enough science gain. He belongs in the section on scientific value. Robert Walker (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I decided to just leave out Paige, because his technological assessment is for 10 years ago which is long enough to no longer apply to present day missions, especially before Curiosity, more thorough mapping from orbit, Phoenix, and plans for Exomars. Robert Walker (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Scientists (and others) concerned about biohazard of any MSR to Earth with unknown samples even to biohazard facilities
Okay I'm going to start a list of those concerned and give them a section of their own so that it is totally clear who is and is not in it.

Carl Sagan would be of course, with his remarks about human error and Apollo, he wouldn't let it anywhere near the Earth even to an orbiting space station, or the Moon, until a thorough exobiological research is done. He made that clear. I think definitely needs to be mentioned as he was such a notable figure even though he is no longer alive.

Ledeberg as you say is not a clear case. He talks about the issue, but does not make a policy judgement that the sample return shouldn't be done. Says nothing about it either way actually at least in that paper. Just presents the issue and leaves the reader to decide for themselves.

Barry E. DiGregorio of course is a clear case. http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i08/html/08digregorio.html

Levin is as well clearly. Only thing is that he doesn't seem to publish on this topic, only on more technical science related matters. Leaves it to Barry E. DiGregorio to do the exposition of his views. Still I think clearly aligns himself with the ICAMSR so should be included.

I'm going to go through the list of the ICAMSR as presumably they do align themselves but may not have published anything notable and just having their names on that page isn't enough to be listed here prob.

Then some of the ones I gathered for the page did say things pretty much like this but I will need to re-read them to make sure I understood what they said.

Then make a short section about this on the page so the reader knows exactly who it is who is concerned about a MSR of not well studied samples to Earth.

More later. Robert Walker (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Robert, all of those people are named or cited in the live article--not to mention ICASMR itself, which is mentioned multiple times and there's a link to their website--your claims to the contrary notwithstanding. I agree that we probably shouldn't list every name that's on their petition. As I said, you have no cause for complaint. Warren Platts (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren, it wasn't a criticism of your version, was fixing my version not yours.


 * BTW, calling it the "live article" doesn't give it any priority at all. The only reason your version is the "live article" and mine is not is because I did the right thing in an edit war and stopped editing the main page until the matter is settled.


 * That you didn't do the same but continued editing the live article, against the protocol, is not a point in your favour. Mine was the live article too, before you replaced it with yours. Just saying Robert Walker (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay my list is Carl Sagan, Carl Woese, Barry DiGregorio and Gilbert Levin. Of those of course Carl Sagan, and Carl Woese are dead, but still relevant particularly because of their eminence. With the ICAMSR advisors I checked for notable publications. Troy had a document that was teaching material for his class for discussion, doesn't state a position. For that matter Levin doesn't either but if you look at his publications he doesn't write about things like this at all, just technical details of his experiments but I think okay to rely on Barry DiGregorio's reporting of him.

For treating it as a biohazard potential and need to take precautions as a possibly existential crisis then loads of references there. But I mean ones who actually come out and say, we shouldn't return a sample to Earth until we know it better even with the risks reduced as much as we can do it, then that's my list.

What I'll do is have a short section saying this, to make it clear to the reader that these are the only scientists who have taken a definite stated position that the samples have to be better known before they are returned. Makes it clear it is a minority view which I think will help with balance.

BTW have you come up with anything yet on my version of the page that is OR or editorial voice or Synthesis? On the latest version? (the one you found before was from an old version already fixed)

Also any section that you think should be removed, and why? For discussion?

Perhaps if I fix mine to deal with your issues you may find it is okay. I have taken a great deal of care to avoid editorial voice, which it seems to me is something you find quite hard to do, it would be a lot less work to start with mine and trim it down if necessary than start with yours and try to fix the editorial voice, though it is better. I still can't see myself working with it yet without a lot of work, and it would be a lot of work for you too.

If you just point out any remaining editorial voice or OR in mine, and see what happens after I fix it, it should get rid of it completely. Robert Walker (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's get one thing straight: the live article is not "my" article--it doesn't belong to anybody. The fact that you think you own this article demonstrates your acquaintance with "the protocol". What I did was edit the original post you wrote. I turned an editorial that should have been deleted into a proper encyclopedia article. I did you a favor in other words. The article in your sandbox would also be nominated for deletion on several grounds, were it to go "live".


 * What you fail to understand is that I am precisely the sort of disinterested, 3rd party you SAY you want involved. You've made a lot of false assumptions about me. Let me set you straight: if you were not a space dilettante and went to nasaspaceflight.com to actually learn something new rather than as a mere means to promote your fringe theories, in addition to learning that MSR isn't going to happen in 2018, you would know from my extensive posting history that I am a so-called Moon Firster, that I believe that MSR is a waste of money, that Mars robotically has been done to death and that we should move on to other targets, that I have done calculations that show there is probably liquid water and therefore possibly life on the Moon at feasibly drillable depths, that I believe the obsession with Mars has absolutely destroyed the American human spaceflight program. In other words, politically I am inclined to let you have your way: if you guys could actually get traction and take Mars off the table for the indefinite future, it would probably help lead to a renewed focus on Lunar exploration.


 * If you dug a little deeper, you would know that I am well versed when it comes to low probability risks of global catastrophe. I was deeply involved in internet discussions re: safety of the LHC to the point where I have reason to believe that CERN hackers fried the motherboard of my computer. FYI I have an ABT master's in environmental ethics and the philosophy of science. I have another masters in applied ecology, not to mention a bachelor's in geophysical sciences with an emphasis in evolutionary biology. You got absolutely /nothing/ on me when it comes to expertise on this subject.


 * In other words, I am exactly the sort of disinterested, 3rd party commentator you SAY you want. All the editing I have done is in that spirit. I have no skin in the game when it comes to MSR. You asked for unbiased, 3rd party comments. Now you have them. The fact that you perceive the edited, live article as extraordinarily biased is a psychological projection on your part resulting from the fact that you are intensely emotionally involved in the subject to the point where I am sincerely worried about the state of your mental health! Honestly, the best thing you could do for this Wikipedia project is walk away from it. That's my disinterested advice. You are not helping IMHO. Warren Platts (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, sorry I didn't know that, that you are a Moon Firster. So some of what I said just now was way off the mark then. Basically you are saying I should have lurked on the forum for a while first and got to know people before saying what I thought myself. Probably makes sense yes.


 * On ownership I didn't mean that I own the article at all. Just that in an edit war, you don't resolve it by claiming the main article as your own. Both parties should stop editing the main article and talk things out at that point. That is the wikipedia policy.


 * I was referring to this element of the wikipedia policy:

Edit_warring


 * When I suggested we cease edit warring, it was after you had reverted me twice, so I was about to do a third revert. That would make it an edit war. So I said, "this is an edit war, we have to stop and talk it over". That was at the point when the main article showed your version of the article, at that point I asked you to stop and talk it over before we do any more.


 * But you went on editing the main article which is why I made my own version of it in my user space.


 * That is just edit war protocols. Ownership is something else. When two editors are in an edit war, then neither has preference until both agree on which is best, or until a third party helps solve the dispute. Robert Walker (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Just realised, this is similiar to the 3 revert, not an entitlement, I can ask you to stop editing but of course, it's not my responsibility whether you do or not, the main thing is to stop myself which I did. What you do is up to you. Robert Walker (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * My article was live for quite a while before you came along. I am pretty sure it wouldn't be nominated for deletion, unless you did. If you did, then I'm sure it would win the debate.


 * Try to find issues with it. Not just general things saying it is POV and biased. Find a passage in it that is biased, or editorial. Find some specific issue with it.


 * Also with you talking about me how I should have lurked on the forum first, perhaps you can appreciate from that, that it might have been an idea to talk about it first on the talk page before replacing the main article with a completely and radically new version? Might have shown a bit of consideration to do that, whatever you thought about it? Robert Walker (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren, if you don't mind me asking, why as a Moon firster do you say that Mars is the most benign and habitable place in the solar system? That is why I thought you were a "Mars firster" plus you have said other things like that before in conversations with you. Seems obvious to me that the Moon is more benign in the short term especially if supplied from NEOs and Earth for things you can't get so easily on the Moon. As a Moon firster presumably you do too, so why say that Mars is more benign? Of course long term it will be if terraformed, but right now?? With the cold, dust storms etc. I suppose it does have the near to Earth length day - is that it? Robert Walker (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * BTW just realised I miscounted the reverts. I could have reverted another time, then it is you who would have been forced to do a third revert to change the article to your new version, and if you'd done that you'd have been sanctioned for it. Obviously in an edit war the rules favour the original article until the dispute is sorted out. Wish I'd known that... Robert Walker (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Just got a message on my talk page from another administrator warning me that the third revert rule is not an entitlement, and so what I just posted above is a misunderstanding of the rules.


 * Means I did the right thing when I stopped when I did.Robert Walker (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. You're missing the point about me being a so-called Moon Firster. The point is I am not an "early" MSR Firster. IOW, I am the disinterested, 3rd party observer who nevertheless has a bit of expertise on the matter that you've been asking for.


 * 1.1 As for Mars being a benign place, I didn't say that was my position: I said it was well-established (as in I could provide NUMEROUS sources) that Mars is arguably the most benign place in the solar system. And other things being equal I do believe that--there are more ISRU opportunities, there's more water, the temperature regime is a LOT nicer, you don't have 2 week periods of darkness, etc. That's not inconsistent with being a Moon Firster. The Moon's main advantage is that it's only 3 days away. If you throw in aerobraking, the Moon doesn't even have a delta v advantage. So no need to insinuate that I was being disingenuous about saying that Mars is a relatively benign place for human settlement.


 * Okay, I just asked out of interest, was not an allegation. Would be getting too far afield to discuss all that there but I understand your POV.Robert Walker (talk) 07:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 2. Let's recall who started this edit war: several days ago you produced a sweeping article on MSRBC; to call it bold would be an understatement. Then after you announced it's existence at nasaspaceflight.com, I took a look at it. I found it to be like your threads over there are: it was an advocacy piece--an op-ed basically. So instead of nominating it for deletion, I reverted large sections that were irrelevant to the topic, took out the leading questions, fixed several factual errors--the most egregious was your contention that NASA was going to unethically sneak in MSR by 2018 without completing it's NEPA requirements, etc., etc.--and adding content to better reflect the mainstream position--that MSR is safe, especially if special biosafety precautions are also undertaken--and editing unclear writing. At the time I explicitly suggested we avoid an edit war and that we work together to make a decent article; you instead chose to revert the edit I did (that I gave a lot of thought to and that was offered in good faith) with only perfunctory discussion as if you own the place. And since then, instead of helping to evolve the live article that not only I have contributed to but others as well, you insist on working on a separate article in your sandbox that you plan on cutting and pasting over the live article.


 * Warren, the article started here Talk:Mars_sample_return_mission


 * I asked if it was appropriate to start one, was encouraged to do so, created it as a draft in my user space, and after further comment from the other editors copied that draft into the main article. Copying a draft from your user space into article space to create a new article as agreed on beforehand with other editors is not edit war behaviour:


 * My threads on the issue on nasaspaceflight.com is neither here nor there, my blog is an advocacy piece, and there is nothing wrong with writing an advocacy piece in a blog post. The article here was not, it just represented published cited notable minority views on the subject and there was nothing in it from my own POV. In fact I disagree on at least some points personally with every single POV in the article, if someone was to ask for my own POV.Robert Walker (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It was me who suggested we avoid an edit war and stop working on the main article until it is completed. You continued editing the main article. For most of last week, you ignored all my suggestions on the talk page to seek resolution and go through the dispute resolution process with your only response to them all, to say that there was no issue to dispute and to say that you would nominate the article for deletion if I attempted to revert again (which I didn't plan to do anyway).


 * With the NASA 2018 misunderstanding, that was a comment here in this talk page where I asked if you knew how it would manage a return by 2018. Nothing went into the article about that. My response was to remove mention of the date in my draft of that sentence, when I realised it contradicted the previous sentence about 10 years needed and was concerned it might seem to be an implied criticism. It was only on the talk page that I raised the question which was a q. for clarification, not an allegation.Robert Walker (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 3. Feel free to go ahead and cut 'n' paste "your" version if you want, but then I WILL nominate the article for deletion. Like I said, I don't care all that much if there's an article on MSRBC or not; I think it's notable enough to warrant an article, but if you insist on using it to try and prevent the end of the world, it's better that it doesn't exist at all IMHO.


 * There you are again warning that you would nominate it for deletion if my version is used. Robert Walker (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 4. Here's some reading you might find interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OWNERSHIP Warren Platts (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't claim ownership. My issue with your bold edit is that you have deleted a lot of essential content from the article, so that minority views on the matter are no longer clearly stated and the majority NASA and ESA originated view is also not clearly stated because of your deletion of my sections on the proposed new type of MSR handling facility, and added new material that presents arguments of your own not in any of the sources (only the individual statements are but the argument as a whole is not).


 * You also did all that without discussion, claiming it as OR and not giving me an opportunity to answer your criticism that it was OR first, just deleted it.


 * That is the reason I immediately reverted it, because it is not right to delete carefully written cited material on the grounds that it is OR without a discussion on the talk page to explain why you think it is OR. Robert Walker (talk) 07:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

List of those who advocate that the sample must not be returned to Earth at all until thoroughly studied first, on bio safety grounds
Okay here is the new section, short and makes it clear that it is currently a tiny minority amongst scientists. Do you agree, that the reader can't be under any false impression that many scientists (or anyone else) takes this POV? Robert Walker (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Robertinventor/Debate_about_scientific_value_of_Mars_sample_return_and_methods_to_avert_low_probability_existential_risks

Added one last para, because you get those arguments for telerobotics that it prevents back contamination, so thought just mention it, but not see anyone use that argument to say you shouldn't return to Earth first. Just to say that it is better to do it in situ on Mars.

So said "Other researchers cite the greater level of back contamination planetary protection as an advantage for studying Mars via telerobotics from orbit. However this is presented as a positive argument in favour of telerobotics rather than an argument against return to Earth right away."

Each POV allowed its own voice
Warren, do you see how on my page each POV is allowed to speak in its own voice, with no editorial comment. None of the sections have anything editorial

If I did it editorially like your current page, but with the aim to counteract the "biased POV" of the views in it that I don't agree with, it would go like this (just choosing one example):

Advocacy of an early Mars sample return
In a 2011 survey of the community of active planetary scientists working on Mars :

In the summary of the final report of the Mars Program Planning Group in September 2012, two main pathways were presented with the group favouring the pathway leading to sample return as soon as possible.

Pathways A1 and A2:

Pathway A3

REST OF THIS SECTION - is Example of Editorial comment + OR + SYNTHESS + expressing opposite point of view to the POV Example of WHAT NOT TO DO  However this approach of a return to Earth at such an early stage is nowadays completely unnecessary due to the increasing sophistication of equipment permitting use of advance life signal detection makes it possible detect a wide range of organics characteristic of life and capable of being perserved over long timescales. Other new projects underway will develop miniaturized DNA sequencers,, miniaturized SEMs, the advances in the Labeled release experiments that permit extremely sensitive detection of almost any form of life including chirality. This makes early return to Earth unnecessary.

These proposals also have the result that the sample is returned to an intrinsically unsafe biohazard lab (with a one in a million chance of release of a particle), with risks of human error and of crime and natural disaaster potentially leading to an existential risk for Earth, which could potentially in the worst case scenario result in the extinction of the human race.

In addition, advances in telepresence and telerobotics, mean that a mission to the Mars orbit will cost far less than a surface mission and yet permit far greater science potential. It also completely eliminates the forward and backward contamination which makes it clear that telerobotics is much to be preferred over an early return to Earth.

(And so on, and so forth...) End of example of WHAT NOT TO DO 

That would be editorial voice if I did that, and that sort of immediate rebuttal of stuff is what creates a neutral "blah" feel to the article. It is very confusing to the reader when you do this.

I could cite every sentence and fact in that refutation section, but the whole thing is my argument, by stringing things together, and it is misplaced because it should be in a section on those who advocate telerobotics, or some such section, not here.

Also the way I combine it, although all the individual facts are correct, is a synthesis, so although it doesn't seem to say all that much original, still it is original research and a synthesis unless I can come up with someone else who says all those things in just the way I just presented them. So it doesn't have a place anywhere in the article at all.

As before, do you see that what I just did above is OR, SYNTHESIS, and editorial voice?

Can you see anything at all like that in my version of the article? Robert Walker (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * lol Robert! Out of your dissertation, you have one tiny (for you) section that is pro MSR! And you call that fair and balanced discussion! ;-D Warren Platts (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren, first, did you understand that the entire second half above was meant as an example of bad writing? That I deliberately did it badly to show what it is that I carefully avoid doing? I have labelled it clearly now, to make sure that is understood.


 * I gave due coverage to the NASA studies of the issues and the risk mitigation methods that they propose. A large part of the article is devoted to quotes and paraphrases of the NASA and ESF official documents on MSR which I think is enough to give that due weight. Even the legal stuff is from a lawyer who is in favour of an early MSR and wrote it in order to make sure that NASA goes through the legal process in the right way in order to not delay the mission. So that section is neutral, both sides want the legal process to go through properly and want to keep to all the international rules.


 * On this particular section, then there just isn't much about it. They basically say just go ahead and return it and not bother about anything much except the practicality of getting it back, and take for granted that anything you return from Mars is of value. But don't even mention the contamination issue most often, the ones that write like this.


 * There are lots of papers for instance that talk about the scientific value of a MSR, and practical issues getting it back, and don't mention contamination issues. But when contamination issues aren't mentioned you don't know what the author's POV on it is though you suspect that they either don't give it much thought, or think it is not worth bothering about, just go along because you are required to do it.


 * Which BTW is one of the worries for those concerned about it, like me, that since so many people just don't seem to take it seriously at all, and don't seem to really get the point in being careful about something so unlikely to happen - then no matter how good the protocols and procedures, someone will do the equivalent of just opening the hatch for the Apollo astronauts and then it is no more than a token guesture and whole thing rather pointless (and in that one in a billion case, then you get the existential risk happening).


 * It may be very difficult to set up a situation where people continue to treat the mars samples as extremely potent biohazards when nothing seems to have happened and when they know there is only a one in a billion chance of it going wrong. And if someone breaks the rules, takes a shortcut, just checks out a sample without going through the proper procedure, chances are they won't be disciplined, and eventually everyone just treats it as harmless, because they know it isn't smallpox and can't get their mind around a one in a billion chance being anything to even give a moment's thought to. Though no-one even knows it really is a very tiny chance - that is just a best guess by experts who have no examples of detailed studies of exoplanets to draw on, never been able to study any other examples of the origins of life, and are mainly based on intuition which can go wrong. Robert Walker (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You got a source for that one in a billion risk that you keep repeating as if it were a fact? Warren Platts (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren, no I don't, not meant as a fact, it is just a number to choose "pulled out of a hat" as it were. It is stuck in my mind because I came up with one in a billion in my blog as an example of the high end of the range for probabilities, just by plugging in guesses similarly to the number of civilizations guesses for Drakes equation. It is like Drake's equation, all the studies I've read, that you can't do anything except guess most of the probabilities involved.


 * I would never use it in the article itself. All they say in the reports is very low. No-one says whether that means one in a thousand, or one in a million, or one in a billion, or one in a trillion, or one in a hundred, don't think you will find anyone who will give you an actual figure there. Robert Walker (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * My point here though was - the experts agree that it has to be treated as a biohazard. But Carl Sagan's point was - but would they? Would they when they have no idea what is in the sample, but are pretty sure like 99.99999999% sure it is totally harmless, however many 9s it is, but they don't really know, just it looks harmless and hasn't passed any of the tests for Earth life (say) or they haven't started working on it yet. Carl Sagan thought with his famous question about testing the Mars return capsule with smallpox, that the engineers wouldn't treat the engineering issues with the same caution they would, say, for smallpox. And was concerned about lapses of judgement of humans dealing with the samples. I don't think that goes away in the most recent plans. It is just human given one in a billion chance, to eventually start to take it for granted that nothing is going to happen. And then what was the point in the precautions? Of course I can't put any of this in the article, not like this, but may do in my paper. Robert Walker (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * For me personally the human error and complacency is one of the main issues with returning it to Earth, like about 70% of the problem. The remaining 30% of the reason I don't want to do it is because not sure the engineers will be able to handle all the engineering challenges involved for a first time mission and be sure to get them all right might do something like mixing yards and meters, the chance of that happening somewhere in a big complex mission might be one in a thousand just by itself. Plus maybe another few % of the concern, things like crime (stupid criminal who doesn't know what it is, or enthusiast who wants to get hold of a bit of mars like the people who want bits of the Moon), natural disasters like hurricanes, and just things breaking or getting damaged and not working exactly as expected, and maybe a percent or two of worry about things like - what if the life is even smaller than they thought or so unrelated to Earth life it takes ages to recognize it even is life. Robert Walker (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Just want to make clear to anyone reading this, in the above I am stating my own POV. None of that has ever appeared in the article or in the drafts for it in my user space. I have a blog of my own elsewhere where I can post things like that which is what I do. I would never put anything like that into a wikipedia article. Robert Walker (talk) 07:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Please list any things you find in my article that are POV or editorial or synthesis on my part
Please list the issues you have with the article and give me a chance to fix them:

User:Robertinventor/Debate_about_scientific_value_of_Mars_sample_return_and_methods_to_avert_low_probability_existential_risks

Robert Walker (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Robert, you can either join the collaborative effort, or you can play in your sandbox by yourself. I'm not going to help you write your sandbox article. Warren Platts (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I respectfully second the request to scrap the user space draft. We have a live article here that can be edited by anyone. Attempting to corral edits into a user draft when there is a live version causes headaches with version control and can result in unintentionally overwriting other editors' edits. One alternative is to use the and  templates to save space and present drafts for discussion. VQuakr (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * VQuakr, just so you know, this whole thing orignates in an edit war over the entire article. The version now in my user space was the original version of the article.


 * It started from a discussion on the talk page for MSR, with universal agreement that I should create the article, I worked on it as a draft in my space first and then in the main space for about 5 days with help from N2e. Then one day, Warren came along and just replaced the page I had been working on with his own version. He did it without discussion on this talk page first. Just a notice saying that he had done it and giving as his reason that it was mainly OR in his opinion (it was not).


 * I reverted his edit, and asked for debate first. He then reverted again.


 * I stopped editing in the main space as soon as the edit war started as recommended. But he continued editing it. That is why I worked on it in my user space, to avoid an edit war on the main article.


 * I feel that his new content is editorial, OR and SYNTHESIS. Also structured in a way tat makes it hard to include essential material. He has continued to work on his version in the main space and I have never felt that it is okay.


 * It is an edit war about the entire article. I dispute his version.


 * I tried to find a resolution of the dispute on this talk page, as recommended, by talking over the issues but with no success yet.Robert Walker (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As for collaborative effort, no other editors are collaborating with him on this. N2e, who was collaborating with me, has given up. Robert Walker (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This diff shows Warren's second major edit when it became clear it was a total edit war. Notice how he deletes nearly the entire article. From then on all the edits in the main space are his apart from some bots, someone who added the editorial tag, and some minor edit I did (don't know why now).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Concerns_for_an_early_Mars_sample_return&diff=557073405&oldid=556800566


 * The material he deleted was well cited with many references in every paragraph and section that he deleted. It was totally relevant. There was no original research. He claims it was OR and POV.


 * I have tried to explain that any view from a notable source, however biased it seems to him, is not OR or POV if I just quote it, or paraphrase it exactly as in the source. He seems to think that any such view has to be accompanied by an editorial comment explaining what is wrong with it. Robert Walker (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This is an example, after the "However" the rest of what he wrote there refutes the first half what he wrote, and is presented as the opinion of wikipedia. It is also a synthesis. None of his sources makes this argument. His citations there are to back up individual sentences in and facts that he uses in his argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerns_for_an_early_Mars_sample_return#Conduct_more_in_situ_research


 * My objection is that this is presenting original views as the view of wikipedia, and that it is confusing to the reader to immediately refute a view in the same section where you present it. Then he has left out much that is of great importance, especially the novel biohazard facility specifications needed for MSR, which takes up a significant part of many of the studies, and I have issues with the overall structure he now has for the article which is over focused on back contamination concerns without taking account of science value.


 * I also maintain that you can't talk about the biohazard hazards of the mission for Earth and leave out the disputes about whether it is of scientific value. E.g. if it is of no scientific value why take any risk at all?  Then, if it is of great scientific value, that needs to be presented to understand why the scientists are contemplating taking a low probability but severe risk to do the mission.


 * The NASA and ESF studies for instance have a section on the science value of the mission to motivate them, and I found several widely differing views on the science value of a MSR which IMHO need to be included in the article (and are included in my version). It simply doesn't make much sense as an article to present all the biohazards without going into the dispute over science value.


 * He thinks it is inappropriate to mention that some notable sources think that a MSR is of comparatively low science value, or even uneceesary, at this stage - while to me it is of major importance to mention that. If those scientist's views are valid, it removes much of the motivation for taking the risk. So their views need to be presented here, as well of course, as the views of those who stress the value of a MSR.Robert Walker (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I collapsed your reply above to ease readability of the section. If there is any way you can make an effort to be more concise in your talk page communication, I think it would help with resolving the conflicts. To reply to some of your concerns:
 * I understand your concern that another editor is being too bold in their editing. Developing a fork in your user space is not an efficient solution, since copy/pasting the fork back here is not permissible.
 * I have tried to explain that any view from a notable source, however biased it seems to him, is not OR or POV if I just quote it, or paraphrase it exactly as in the source. Not necessarily; see WP:UNDUE.
 * The article title, "Concerns for an early Mars sample return" seems inherently non-neutral to me. Then again, we have a great number of "Criticism of..." articles so there probably is the potential for a neutral article with a similar name. What do you think of asking the opinion of a broader audience at WP:NPOV/N (the neutral point of view noticeboard)? I can post a request there if you think it would be helpful.
 * Your third opinion request was declined. WP:DRN (the dispute resolution noticeboard) would be the next destination if you feel mediation is still needed (to avoid running afoul of WP:CANVASS, I suggest posting at either the NPOVN or the DRN, but not both). VQuakr (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * * Okay, thanks for your help, the title "Criticism of an early Mars sample return" is fine by me. It would also permit inclusion of the criticisms on basis of scientific merit which has been an issue of contention here.
 * * On undue weight, then I would say my version follows this guideline:


 * * My issue is that in a criticism article it is appropriate to give reasonably extended exposition of minority views, so long as you state that they are minority views. Instead, he deletes the minority views, or reduces the content on them so that they are too short for the reader to understand the view in any detail, or adds a refutation of the minority view within the section devoted to its exposition, via editorial comment and arguments based on synthesis not in any of the sources, resulting in a "blah" article that doesn't let the reader know at all clearly what the minority views are.
 * * He also has deleted one of the main features of the majority view. This is that a special new type of biohazard facility needs to be built to handle this novel situation, requiring 7-10 years from initial planning to completion, and that it needs to be in operation two years before the launch of the sample mission. He deleted all the material about this proposed facility and the motivation for it from his version - The material he deleted either quotes or accurately summarizes the content from the ESA and NASA studies of the need for it. It is not OR, which is the reason he gave for deleting it. His version gives the impression that NASA advocate return to a normal biohazard 4 laboratory which is false.
 * * On the attribution issue of copy back, no other editor has worked on it since it has been in my user space, so there is no extra attribution needed to copy it back here. The guideline you mention seems to permit copying material into wikipedia which you work on yourself as a draft in your user space. N2e who worked on it before the copy into my user space is already listed as an editor in the history here. Do I understand this right?
 * * Since the main issue is interpretation of NPOV, then a post to the the neutral point of view noticeboard may be appropriate, let's try that, yes. I prefer that to dispute resolution since it is the main issue here, our interpretations of NPOVN. Does that still leave the option to do DRN if the NPOVN discussion fails?
 * * I will do my best to be brief in my replies. I didn't know that the third party opinion was declined. Robert Walker (talk) 06:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The title of this article should not be "Criticism of MSR" IMHO. The history of this article stems from a discussion in the main MSR article where the consensus was that a new article on MSRBC could be useful--no one asked for a "Criticism of MSR" article. Now that Robert says that from the beginning he intended a blanket criticism article along the lines of "99 reasons to oppose MSR" goes a long way to explain the non-NPOV of the sandbox version. Warren Platts (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Articles are permitted to change their titles and their focus. It is just because the two go together and it makes no sense to my mind to talk about the biohazard crticisms without talking about the science potential. I only realised that after I got down to serious editing of the article in my user space when I first prepared the draft for comment on the MSR talk page to see if there was agreement that it was suitable for a new article. FWIW I announced the new title as "Concerns" on the MSR title page if you look at the actual discussion, when I copied it over into article space from the original draft in my user space, and there were no objections then.


 * You're conflating "no objections" with "lack of interest". They aren't the same thing. Warren Platts (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * BTW it is also worth noting that I declared my POV right at the start when I first created the article and asked other editors particularly to point out if they noticed any bias. No-one did at that stage. You are the first to notice what you thought was a bias.


 * That was one of the first things I said when I created the new article. See the discussion here: Talk:Mars_sample_return_mission


 * Also added content re: construction time of the MSRRF, since Robert thinks that's important. Question for Robert: your comment above says 7 to 10 years; yet the sandbox article says "at least a decade". Which is it? Warren Platts (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Check out my version, based on the original version of this page before this edit war started. This is all cited stuff in my article and I included a quote in the citation in the original version to make it easier for the editors to verify the 7-10 years figures. User:Robertinventor/Debate_about_scientific_value_of_Mars_sample_return_and_methods_to_avert_low_probability_existential_risks

juUser:Robertinventor/Debate_about_scientific_value_of_Mars_sample_return_and_methods_to_avert_low_probability_existential_risks


 * BTW checking the page history, this is the section you deleted with a brief note "Deleted section 3 as redundant". It was one of the most important sections in the entire article, and totally cited and backed up, obviously you didn't read the citations as you didn't have the time to, and you can't have read the section either or you would see it doesn't repeat anything else on the page.


 * There was nothing wrong with it at all (though in my user space I have re-arranged it slightly for better clarity).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Concerns_for_an_early_Mars_sample_return&diff=557062456&oldid=557062180


 * That section 3 was redundant, it contained factual inaccuracies and quotes taken out of context. Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Concerns_for_an_early_Mars_sample_return&oldid=557062180#Concerns_with_an_early_Mars_Sample_Return


 * The section 3.1 was a rehash of section 1.3; the section 3.2 was a rehash of 4.4; section 3.3 was POV content fork from the main article's section on scientific value; section 3.4 is just factually false, it blatantly misrepresents Venter's views, not to mention it's irrelevant to the topic of the article.


 * Come on Robert! Surely you can come up with something more substantive that this?!? Warren Platts (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This all shows you haven't read the sections carefully. It took you only 2 seconds to delete section 3 during the edit war, which is not enough time to skim through it even for a fast reader, never mind follow up the cited sources or read carefully what I wrote. It is only enough time to read the titles of the sections I believe.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Concerns_for_an_early_Mars_sample_return&diff=557062456&oldid=557062180
 * Robert Walker (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Robert, "your" article states "the planning for the facility start at least a decade before sample return", but you're saying that's false now? Also, regarding your blurb on MSRRF, calling it OR was overly polite: your "research" is mostly blatant misrepresentations of the literature. That's why most of it is not included in the article. Warren Platts (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren, didn't want to get involved in minutae but if you reread it the first one is 7 - 10 years before it is operational with an additional two years for the staff to get used to the facilities before launch. Assuming the return is within a year of launch and that the lower figure of 7 years applies then that all adds up to a decade. However I stated it exactly as in the source. The second source says "at least a decade before sample return" without a break down like the first one. The second recommendation is the most recent.


 * Also your comment shows that you haven't followed up the citations and checked the figures given, which are exactly as given in the main text. As with many of your comments it is based on opinion not informed by reading the cited material.Robert Walker (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren, I've asked for temporary page protection as you see. I believe it is a distraction to try to help you with your version of the article when I don't agree with it. I think it is better to focus on the larger picture, of what the correct interpretation of NPOV is at this point. If this still needs clarification once that is sorted out we can discuss it later. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Re: page protection: Thanks for saving me the trouble Robert! :-) Warren Platts (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

VQuakr (talk), I'd like to ask for the page to be protected until the issues are resolved, if that is possible. I didn't realise this was an option when the edit war started. Is this possible?

The edit war is between the original version which you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Concerns_for_an_early_Mars_sample_return&oldid=557064354 and the current version.

Since no other editors have worked on it since then except bots, I think it is valid to say that we are still in the edit war.Robert Walker (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * A blatant lie! Several editors have contributed! Also the lede was mostly rewritten by another editor in the talk pages, that I then incorporated into main article. In addition, Robert, I have incorporated A LOT of your concerns that I thought were valid, on point, and factually accurate since then into the article. There is no edit war. There is an editor still petulant because he discovered that he does not "own" this page. Warren Platts (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't want to get into all that, just to say, those are bots, plus someone who added the editorial banner to your version, plus someone added a plus one human editor who fixed some typos, that's about it. VQuaver also did some tidying up. No new actual content by anyone. Except a minor rephrasing of the lead para, as you say someone suggested that in the talk page.


 * Will not comment on the POV issues at this stage, or your claim it is not an edit war. You have said that all the way through, that it is not an edit war because in your view you fixed a hopelessly POV article, which makes it not an edit war for some reason. That is what we need help with. I am following VQuaver's advice and keeping these replies short, I think these long digressions make it hard for others to help us. 22:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)~

I believe it is an issue mainly over interpretation of the wikipedia policy of NPOV. So an NPOVN seems a good idea, to clarify interpretation of this policy.

Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The main issue as I see it is whether it should have an anti-MSR POV or whether it should have a neutral "blah" POV, as Robert recently described the main article. I'm OK with "blah". Like I said before, this ain't the Telegraph or the Daily Mail. Warren Platts (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Re: NPOV Robert, could you explain the difference in the POV in your sandbox article and the following article:
 * http://www.science20.com/robert_inventor039s_column/need_caution_early_mars_sample_return_opinion_piece-113913 Warren Platts (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren, editors are permitted to have biases. It is good to declare them from the outset especially if there is any chance of COI while writing an article. That is what I did, and I asked the other editors to comment if they saw any bias, and they didn't notice anything. Ny POV as expressed in that article is not represented anywhere in the wikipedia article as I disagree with many details of individual POVs in the wikipedia article and did not let any editorial comment into the article that could reveal my own ideas.


 * I can clarify further but I think better if third parties step in at this stage and say what they think. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a big difference between lack of interest and no observation of bias. 99.999999999% of the people on this planet are not obsessed with this issue. The bias was evident to me the second I saw the first version of the article. Heck, the bias is ingrained in the very title, as others have noted. IMHO the tone of that first version is little different from Robert's avowed "Opinion Piece" linked to above. Warren Platts (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * BTW Warren, you might be interested to read the comments to my opinion piece which has generated a lot of interest and 32 comments so far. All of them comment that it is interesting, and the discussion goes to both sides but certainly not prevailing view that the risks should be ignored. In this it is very different from the discussion at nasaspaceflight.com in a forum devoted to human missions to the surface of Mars. The range of views at science20.com corresponds to the range of views I have found amongst my facebook friends and discussion groups: general space science, physicist, and microbiologist friends, and the general public (in my case composers, mathematicians etc).


 * Yes, true, most of the population of the planet have never heard of this issue. But when it is raised, you may be surprised at the diversity of views, also the high level of interest, especially if you expect them all to think the same way as the advocates for human colonization of Mars and those with an especial interest in human missions to Mars in that nasaspaceflightforum.com disucssion Robert Walker (talk) 11:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * lol! Of course you yourself wrote more than half the verbiage in the comments section, the rest is mostly two guys on an off-topic tangent re: Von Neuman machines!
 * If you looked yesterday there was only one comment from me. I wrote my replies this morning. Yes there is an off topic thread, it started yesterday I don't mind stuff like that, so just let it run.Robert Walker (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW you estimate of 1/500 for a risk of Mars life turning pathogenic is far out to lunch; your idea that Earth organisms have only been isolated from humans for ~100,000 is blatantly false; every day hundreds of oil and gas wells drill into formations containing bacteria that haven't seen the light of day for 10's of millions of years; and you badly distort the views of Craig Venter and Carl Sagan--he was actually for MSR, as long as proper biohazard precautions were taken. Warren Platts (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh sorry, major typo. It was totally not intended, now fixed. It is the one thing that I most regret about my writing, that I am so prone to missing things like that when I re-read an article when proof reading it. It doesn't show up as a grammatical or spelling mistake, and you can read and re-read a sentence like that many times and still not see it. I know you don't believe me but think how many typos and spelling mistakes you have found, in this conversation. I never deliberately do a typo or spelling mistake.
 * I've rewritten it to:


 * You are totally right, no-one is against MSR. It might explain a couple of somewhat puzzling comments in the comment thread :).


 * Bear in mind, it is just an opinion piece and a blog if a somewhat higher profile blog than the one I had before. My aim was to start a debate and get people thinking about these issues. I may try a proper peer reviewed paper later on, have started to look for journals to get it published in, was recommended some by a microbiologist friend who thinks my material should be published.


 * The 1/500 is for stimulating discussion encouraging others to look at the figures and make up their own minds. So, what figures do you put there for instance (not asking you here but you can get a pen and paper and write down some numbers and try to guess what the are). No-one knows for sure though. If you said 1/5 no-one could say you are actually wrong, just very eccentric at this stage. Think Drakes Equation. Nobody takes those estimates totally seriously yet they help you to think and debate about it and you end with a range of numbers from all the people who take part. I've deleted the 100,000 as you say it is a weak argument. It wasn't the main reason for my figure anyway. The novel lifeforms part is the main reason. Instead of the 100,000 years, mention that they would have evolved on a planet very different from Earth. Robert Walker (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Tags to article
Although I have no interest in editing this article, I am an editor and a reviewer and so I placed two tags in the article {editorial} and {cherry picked}; my assessment:

1) The subject (and title) are exclusively focused on the negative aspects of a sample return mission (SRM). Wikipedia's Manual of Style, in particular WP:Neutrality, requires representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This article downplays/ignores the potential scientific knowledge gain and benefits.

2) The article reads like an editorial or opinion piece. Even if quality references were to be included as inline citations, the overall style is biased.

3)This article does not meet the Wikipedia quality standards. Needs to be reformatted, and requires cleanup.

4) Suggestion: Create a section in the existing article named Mars sample return mission entitled "Benefits and concerns", taking in consideration the points above -as minimum, then delete this page.

BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC) BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 4) I agree. I will try and spend a little time tomorrow to work on said section in the main Mars sample return mission, then second the move for deletion of this page. Warren Platts (talk) 05:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Since this article effectively started as a split from that page, please treat a merger back there as contentious and start a formal merge proposal rather than boldly performing the merge. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * BatteryIncluded, this page originated on this discussion on the MSR talk page.


 * Talk:Mars_sample_return_mission


 * 1. There was universal agreement on the need for a new article amongst the editors who got involved in the discussion. Also there was plenty of time for anyone watching the talk page to notice my suggestion and comment if they disagreed.


 * 2. On the quality standards, I totally agree. But what you see now is Warren's version which he obtained by removing most of the content from the original article and adding editorial comment to what was left.


 * 3. This is my version, which I continue to work on in my user space because Warren's disruptive editing, removing large sections of cited material, without prior discussion in the talk page first, makes it impossible to collaborate with him at present.


 * 4. When considering whether an article is needed please look at my version since Warren's version leaves out most of the material from both the official reports and the dissenting scientist's views. Robert Walker (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Robertinventor/Debate_about_scientific_value_of_Mars_sample_return_and_methods_to_avert_low_probability_existential_risks


 * 1. I wouldn't describe it as universal agreement that there was a "need". There was Robert wanting to promote the idea that MSR is a bad idea due to hypothetical BC risks, and no one interested enough to take the time to object, as the main MSR article is badly neglected and need of major updates.


 * 2. Robert: you really need to slow down and when you read. According to BI's critique, the quality is low because live article is editorial because it comes across as ANTI-MSR--exactly the opposite of your take that it comes across that everything is hunky dory and that NASA knows what it's doing. "Your" article is basically a clone of your recently published opinion piece. Therefore, it is even more blatantly anti-MSR.


 * 3. Impossible to collaborate? To the extent that your latest version is an improvement, it's because I called you on a lot--but not all by any means--of factual inaccuracies: not least of which was your claim that MSR was going to happen in 2018. This wasn't even supported by the reference you cited, that said at best an orbiter "might" be sent up in 2018. It is very hard to believe that was a mistake in reading comprehension, and that it was not added in order to make the article more sensationalistic. How about some credit where credit is due?


 * 4. There is nothing essential left out of the live article. There is no need for endless, redundant, and irrelevant walls o' text. Warren Platts (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Can I please remind you that what actually happened is that you removed large amounts of material without discussion, just an edit summary or a comment on the talk page to say you removed it.
 * In the discussion that followed you found some inaccuracies yes. Which I fixed in my version. It is not too surprising in a long article. Everyone who is human occasionally makes a few mistakes.


 * When you haven't read the original citations, how can you say that the material in my article is not needed in your version? What makes you an expert on material that you haven't read? Robert Walker (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

NPOV/N Discussion
As suggested above, I have started a thread at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard regarding this article. VQuakr (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

New title suggestion
Another suggestion:

"Debate on the risks and benefits of Mars sample return"

The "risks and benefits" phrase there is taken from this quote from the ESF report:

Shows it is a matter of debate, which it is, and that the debate is over the risks and also the benefits and whether the risks outweigh the benefits or the benefits justify the exceedingly low probability (but potentially very severe) risk that would be taken in a MSR.

There is universal acknowledgement in the literature, of all those that studied it including the official reviews, that the possibility of existential risk needs to be considered in the public debate.


 * I respectfully disagree. A debate should be about something that exists. MSR does not exist. There are no concrete plans for MSR. No one is bending metal for it. There is no funding for it. It remains in the realm of science fiction for now. It will remain science fiction for the foreseeable future. Mars is passé these days anyways. Therefore, any "debate" about MSR is only so much ironic literary criticism. Any "Criticism of MSR" pages should be DELETED IMHO. It's not notable and it gives undue weight to minority opinions of dead men writing decades ago. Even the current live article gives undo weight to a minority POV. It should be further condensed and merged with the main article IMHO. See Merge section below. Warren Platts (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * First, China plans a MSR before 2030. NASA does not have one in the immediate future but expected to do one in the 2030s.


 * You seem to think that only Carl Sagan and Carl Woese have those views. But exactly the same views are echoed in the 2009 and the 2012 official reports if you take the care to read them from cover to cover as I have done. Every report agrees that there is a tiny but not ignorable risk of large scale changes in the ecosystem and large scale extinctions on Earth as a result of introduction of unknown micro-orgamisms from present day Mars to Earth.


 * Something that is the subject of numerous books, official reports, published papers in peer reviewed journals, and official reviews is easily notable enough according to the criteria of Wikiedia. I don't think your complaint of on notability holds water.


 * There are plenty of pages in wikipedia about things that don't yet exist, e.g. Grey goo which I am sure you would nominate for deletion on the grounds that it is about a hypothetical future event that will probably never happen - but it is something that is quite a bit written about and is notable by the criteria of wikipedia.


 * If still postponed by a couple of decades, yet MSR is far more imminent and likely to happen than Grey goo. Robert Walker (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * China does not have plans for MSR by 2030--there was a single, unconfirmed, 2nd hand story on an engineer that gave a lecture somewhere. There has been no CNSA formal announcement AFAIK. Moreover, your claim that NASA has plans to do MSR in the 2030's is entirely unsubstantiated.


 * Furthermore, there is not much of a debate. There is you and ICASMR that has about three scientists (DiGregorio, Levin, and Wickramasinghe) on board who are mainly notable for holding against the mainstream scientific ideas. They are crackpots IOW. Your claim that Sagan was against MSR is also false. And nice equivocation with "not ignorable" and "acceptable"! But the fact remains that all official reports consider the risk of MSR to be acceptable. Any claim to the contrary is false.


 * As for articles on things that don't exist, e.g., grey goo, you've just proved my point. There isn't a separate article entitled "Debate on grey goo". Any "controversy" can go in the BC section of the main MSR article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarrenPlatts (talk • contribs) Warren Platts (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)‎

Warren's view, as shared with many space scientists in forum discussions
Many space scientists in my personal experience of debate share Warren's view that the risks do not need to be considered at any great length and that the precautions suggested are more than adequate.

However I haven't yet found a citable source that says this. I would add it in if anyone can find a source. Anyone notable. E.g. space advocacy group policy statement or FAQ, anything that counts as notable by the criteria of wikipedia.

All I can find in support of Warren's views so far are forum posts, and these are not admissible as citations in wikipedia. I have asked him if he knows of a source I can cite but he hasn't yet come up with anything.

There are many published sources that advocate Mars sample return that don't consider the back contamination risks at all. But that isn't enough to establish an opinion of the author on the risks of back contamination because if it isn't mentioned, you can't deduce from that that they have considered it and come to an opinion on it, or what their opinion is. It could equally mean that they have not given it any thought at all, or have considered it deeply and come to an unpublished opinion, you simply can't say. Robert Walker (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Part of Warren's concern of bias I think is that his own view is not presented in my version of the article. But I can't present it without a citable source for it. It is not a valid thing to say in wikipedia something like "in forum discussions the view is often expressed that ..." which is all I could do right now.

Does anyone have a citable source for Warren's view, or similar view? I feel there must be one but can't find it. Robert Walker (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Quit sticking words in my mouth Robert. Warren Platts (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay sorry if I misrepresented you. Can you tell me then, which POV is there that is left out of my version that you think should be included? Or which POV is not given sufficient weight? Robert Walker (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * My point is that you keep representing my version of the article as biased. But a view (or in this case a list of a dozen or so different views) is not biased in isolation. It is only biased in relation to another view that either has the opposite view or is the consensus.
 * You seem to say it is bias to include the official NASA reports material confirming the need for caution and supporting Carl Sagan and the mention of smaller entities including viruses and GTA agents etc in the ESA report.


 * So what I was getting at here was - what is the POV that the article is biased relative to? I get the impression that what you probably mean is the consensus view at nasaspaceflight.com forum threads that I engaged in which was that there is no need to be worried about back contamination at all and that it is a non issue. But that is not a published or citable view it is just a view of some space advocates writing posts in an online forum
 * Now it may well also be a POV of some notable source (doesn't have to be academically respected, can be a private space company, or anyone that it can be attributed to). With so many members of nasaspaceflight.com putting the view that back contamination is a total non issue for MSR in opposition to my ideas, you might expect that some group or person sufficiently notable for wikipedia has also put it forward. But who? Have you come across any? Do you belong to some Mars advocacy group yourself (saY) who might have an interesting POV that I have not included?


 * I have a feeling you think it is biased because your own POV is not included. I would include it if I could, believe me if I
 * 1. Knew what your POV is
 * 2. Had a citable source for it.


 * Without that you can't complain because the article does not include your own POV. Which is what I htink you really mean by saying it is biased at any rate can't think of any other reason as it includes all the published POVs and gives due weight to the official NAA and ESF views and makes absolutely clear now in the "Prevailing Views" section that they are the prevailing view and the rest is all minority views some held by only one source, yet notable enough to be included in a page like this.


 * Does that make sense? Can you understand why I am asking for your POV to deal with bias issues if there are any in my version of the article? Robert Walker (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Your sandbox article is biased by definition: it is basically a clone of your opinion piece. Parts are taken verbatim, trotting out the same old tired quotes taken out of context. Moreover, the complaints that have surfaced about the live article so far are to the effect that IT is biased with an anti-MSR slant. In other words, I am supposedly biased and they're sticking me in the same camp as you! How about that?!? How ironic, considering my POV is the mainstream POV! IOW, all my attempts to neutralize the POV of your original post have failed. This convinces me that the page is unreconstructable because it's very existence gives undue weight to the fringe idea that MSR must not be undertaken due to BC concerns. A small section in the main MSR article would be more appropriate, in my considered opinion. Warren Platts (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

My current version


 * Clearly states the prevailing view
 * Has extensive discussion and coverage of the ESF and NSB studies
 * Explains clearly that the remaining views are minority views

The only way it can still be biased for you is if your own view is left out.

If so what is it? Although a majority view amongst your friends, here it may only count as a minority view, and it may not be possible to include it at all if there is no cited source. That does not make the article biased in that situation because wikipedia can only use cited sources. At some future date if one of your friends publishes a strong advocacy paper for instance, or you find one, your view can be included as a minority view. Then if at some point there is clear evidence itis a majority view it can be presented as such.

Do you see? It all depends on citations and notable sources, and without that you can do nothing.

It doesn't show a bias on my part. It might show a bias in the published literature that some views have not yet been published for some reason. Robert Walker (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Your minority view I take it as presented in the editorial comment on several of the sections in the existing article but may be wrong. Who for instance in the literature presents this argument:

First this entire argument arguing from the number of missions sent to Mars to the conclusion that we would already know about Mars life if it exists is your own argument. None of the published reports use this argument and none of them come to the conclusion you do.

I searched the report you cite for the text you put there in quotes at the end, and it is not in the document here: http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2013/01/17/ESF_Mars_Sample_Return_backward_contamination_study.pdf

The whole study is predicated on the idea that martian life forms are at least a possibility. You simply can't have read the study to think that that is their conclusion, at most perhaps skimmed and picked out a few words that seemed to support your views.Robert Walker (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If you're going to accuse somebody of intellectual dishonestly and incompetence, you had better get your facts straight; otherwise, it makes you look intellectually dishonest and incompetent.


 * As for the quote from the ESF report, the quote in the live article comes from Section 4.2, page 23. Also in Section 8.2, page 45 the exact same quotation appears: "no evidence of extinct or extant life on Mars has been found, and there is no known ‘Mars biology’". So not only is it in there, it's in there TWICE!! Then again on page 58 they say: "There is no ‘Mars biology’ known to us, therefore, there are no experts on Mars biology".


 * Second of all, neither I nor the live article have ever made the argument that "First this entire argument arguing from the number of missions sent to Mars to the conclusion that we would already know about Mars life if it exists is your own argument." That argument exists only in your imagination. Maybe actually try reading those links on Straw Men you provided earlier. Or perhaps get the prescription on your eyeglasses checked.


 * What the article says is that (1) there have been 20 missions to Mars so far, (2) these 20 missions have demonstrated that surface conditions on Mars are inimical to life, (3) these 20 missions have not found any positive evidence for the existence of life on Mars. That is common knowledge.


 * The article goes further, however, stating that more in situ research that failed to detect evidence for life would not eliminate the uncertainty that there actually is life. Therefore, the risk would still be non-zero. This is not my argument, however, this is the NASA Planetary Protection Office's argument. Although I cited the article, I did not quote from it, although I could have as follows:


 * Your claims of intellectual dishonesty on my part are baseless! I demand an apology! Warren Platts (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh right, got it, my search of the page for the text didn't find it. But you've taken it out of context and presented it as a conclusion when it is a starting point:


 * 1. Do you see, when they said "there is no known ‘Mars biology’" they didn't mean that there is no life on Mars. They meant that we don't know how it works biologically, and go on to argue from that, that since we don't know anything about it if it exists, then we should be extremely careful.


 * 2. You represented this argument as saying the opposite, that there is no life on Mars so no need for in situ experiments to study the surface. The ESF report did not say that. Can you see that they did not say what you claim they said? It is often possible to pick out a quote that seems to say the opposite of what the original source said. Robert Walker (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. Oh brother.... Read the frackin' live article! It says the same thing:


 * 2. You represented this argument as saying the opposite, that there is no life on Mars so no need for in situ experiments to study the surface. The ESF report did not say that.


 * Here is again:


 * There is no way anyone with basic reading comprehension skills can derive the conclusion that "there is no life on Mars so no need for in situ experiments to study the surface". What it says is that we don't know if there's life on the Mars despite 20 successful missions, and that further missions will not eliminate this uncertainty. And that's NASA's argument. Not mine. If you can't read, there's nothing I can do for you.... Warren Platts (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Your idea actually was out of date even by the end of the last century, if you mean no martian biology at all, I think the beginnings of a resurgence of interest in life on Mars date back to a little while after the discovery of the life on the deep ocean vents and recognition that you could have biological systems in isolation from the atmosphere that don't change it.

Your ideas about inimicability of the surface is late C20 too. It's now known that the surface of Mars is varied, includig salts, clays, basalt. It is also known that some microbes can use perchlorates as a source of food. It is also known that many are highly resistant to UV, far more than anyone thought and some lichens and algae show astonishing resistance to the surface conditions. It is suspected that the surface is not as dry as expected, starting from the observation of droplets of brine possibly on Phoenix. Extremophiles are now known that can live in salt down to -25C and the surface of Mars also the top few cm above the permafrost layer warms up to well over 0C. With the discovery of salts on Mars then they can deliquesce so making a natural way for the liquid brine habitats to form.

I would say it is probably a majority view now that some kind of cold salty brine habitat is quite likely to be found on Mars just below the surface of the soil or in sand dunes, the Martian geysers or various different places.

In the last few years there is increasing interest in the possiblity of life on the surface of Mars as well with many researchers feeling it is at least quite likely and a whole conference this February on "the habitability of present day Mars". Robert Walker (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This is worth watching, nice video about the Phoenix mission habitability, talks about all these things and the habitability of the Phoenix landing site.

At 12.07 into the presentation after surveying habitability of the Phoenix landing site, she says

https://connect.arc.nasa.gov/p433sesizp5/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal

Proposal to Merge with Main Article
I think this page should be condensed more and then refolded back into the main MSR article. As for the original "need" for it, only Robert describes it as a "need". No doubt because (if we give him the benefit of the doubt) he was laboring under the false assumption that at the MSR was going to happen by 2018, and that NASA wasn't going to follow it's own guidelines. This is of course false. There are no concrete plans for MSR at all at the present time. The NASA Mars program was gutted over a year ago; the only concrete plan for now is to send a Curiosity clone to Mars somewhere. It will not have caching capability.

Therefore, I don't believe a separate article just on back contamination (BC) risks is warranted because it's not notable enough and it gives undue weight to a minority position. A brief section with some links in the main article on MSR is enough IMHO.

Furthermore, the main article is badly in need of improvement. This page should be seen as part of a larger MSR project; thus, this page is turning into a needless distraction that's not helping the big picture. Warren Platts (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren I think the problem is that you have not read much of the cited literature. The current version was obtained by removing most of the material that makes it an interesting subject and toning down what is left, so the reader is left wondering why there is an article at all. You had no time to read the citations, as you took only seconds to remove most of the sections in the edit war.


 * It is the official position of both the ESA and NASA in their reviews of the project that the back contamination issues should not be ignored and require public debate, at an international level, including all countries since potentially any country in the world could be affected by an existential risk such as this. This is also a legal requirement. For that reason alone all the sides in the issue need to be presented.


 * Anyone in this debate please consider User:Robertinventor/Debate_about_scientific_value_of_Mars_sample_return_and_methods_to_avert_low_probability_existential_risks which includes all the material that Warren removed, and then ask if you feel it is a matter that needs a separate article.


 * Also please read this discussion on the talk page for MSR where the consensus was to create the new article and the editors of the MSR page who reviewed my original article found it good. The others anyone who watches the talk page there had the opportunity to say if they had any issues with it and no-one did. Talk:Mars_sample_return_mission

Robert Walker (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "Warren I think the problem is that you have not read much of the cited literature." Robert, you got a helluva lot of nerve to be saying that. It's clear that you are the one not reading the literature. Case in point: your bizarre initial claim that MSR was going to happen by 2018. Your source was a space.com article on how MSR was going to happen. The only place "2018" is mentioned is in the following paragraph:

http://www.space.com/17780-nasa-mars-sample-return-options.html


 * Care to explain how you derived the idea that actual samples were going to be sent back to Earth by 2018 based on your chosen citation? Talk about Original Research by Synthesis!!!


 * Of course it was dated anyways by the time you cited it, as it's been known for months now that no orbiters, no cachers, no elements of the MSR architecture whatsoever are scheduled to be sent. Clearly, you are NOT up on the literature. For you to lecture others reflects the depths of your arrogance. Unbelievable!


 * Warren I don't question your up to date knowledge and expertise on NASA spaceflight mission plans. In that you probably know far more than I do.


 * You must admit yourself that NASA keep changing their plans for the future of the Mars missions especially :). Even the wikipedia MSR article has trouble keeping up with it.


 * But I do question your knowledge of the MSR sample return issues as you don't seem to have read the material on it.


 * It doesn't get much mention e.g. NASA announcements on missions often don't even mention the contamination issues or the work they do to prevent contamination.


 * It is undoubtedly less newsworthy. But still notable. And though you are advised to "be bold" in wikipedia it is not a good idea to dive in and delete huge amounts of material which you are not knowledgeable about, especially if it is well cited and you haven't read the sources. In that situation you need to talk about the issues on the talk page, not just delete it. I would never delete a section of wikipedia that was peppered with citations without discussing it first. Robert Walker (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * But I do question your knowledge of the MSR sample return issues as you don't seem to have read the material on it. Absolute crap! I know more about it that you--that much is very clear. Furthermore, you have no credentials. I at least I got a couple of degrees in geology and ecology. I just got back from a conference in Canada where I presented a peer reviewed paper on Lunar geology. You've proven time and again that your reading comprehensions skills are sorely lacking. E.g., your idea that samples were going to be returned in 2018: that's not a result of you not having "expertise" on NASA's plans--no, that's you not being able to read an article and draw true conclusions from it. Your entire 25-page 12,000 word article is suspect because of that. I'm not going to be the one to comb through it and fix all your reading comprehension mistakes.


 * If your best argument against merging the page with the main MSR article is a resort to ad hominem attacks, you must not have much of a case. So unless you can come up with something more substantive, I am going to conclude there is no real reason for not merging the articles. Warren Platts (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren, if you read it carefully, how did you read

and summarize it as:

Did you even read this paragraph for instance?


 * That's a really fundamental misunderstanding of the ESF report and of that section 21:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying you have to go through all the citations. Just saying please, please, don't delete content without going through its citations. If you haven't the time to go through them to check they say what I say they say, then it is entirely appropriate to raise the issue on the talk page that you don't believe I can possibly have represented them properly. Ask me to supply, e.g. quotes from the original texts to back up what I say or ask explain the source's views in more detail.


 * But instead you delete whole sections because you are sure they must be wrong, without reading the citations that support them. Then tell me that I shouldn't require you to check my citations before you delete the sections, on the basis that I make occasional mistakes and you haven't got time to check them yourself. That just makes it impossible to work with you which is why I have totally given up on editing the main article despite being the original editor who wrote it in the first place Robert Walker (talk)


 * That is my main issue you delete citation supported text, without reading the citations, often without even reading the text either, just the title of the section if the speed with which you do it is any judge, which makes it impossible for me to collaborate with you and is the reason for the draft in my user space. Robert Walker (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Robert Walker (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is the live article page for the 4th time:

Warren Platts (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, I sort of get what you are saying there. Really though I don't appreciate your allegations of my mental incompetance and insanity and I think I'll take a break from wikipedia for a few days now.


 * It has just got too much for me and I can see I won't get anywhere with this, and that all the work I did on the MSR concerns article is simply not appreciated at all. Bye Robert Walker (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove redundant and irrelevant content
Per seeming consensus among 3rd party commentators, I further pared down the article to a smaller size in order to not give undue weight to minority fringe view that MSR should be postponed into distant future.

Section 1. - 1.1 Redundant -- material in lede or 1.2

Section 2.1 Precautionary Principle not relevant since NASA is following it anyways; unnecessary content fork on main PP article

Section 2.2. Race quote deleted as too vague

Section 2.3. Deleted: not relevant to BC concerns

Section 3.1 No action deleted as irrelevant

Section 4 requirement for public debate redundant (Public review discussed in Legal process of approval for Mars sample return section Warren Platts (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Did a further consolidation on the Back contamination section. Still needs trimmed more IMO. Goal is to get entire article down 500-1000 words before merging with main MSR page. Warren Platts (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Added POV template
In vie of the disputed neutrality of this article, added a POV template Robert Walker (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

For details of the dispute see Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard Adding a POV template is normal in this situation, just forgot to do it earlier. Robert Walker (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Robert, Re: removal of requirement of public debate: from the article:

Warren Platts (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Warren, sorry I just can't take your insults and aggression just now for one reason and another, and need a break to calm down myelf and get on with my life. So won't reply. Hope you understand. Robert Walker (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Robert, I apologize for losing my patience with you: I thought you were accusing me of intellectual dishonesty, when in reality you were just reading the opposite meaning of the intended, and what I thought to be the clearly written meaning. Warren Platts (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

A proposal to merge article with main MSR page and delete this page
OK, I've got the article pruned back to less than 1000 words in the article itself--not counting references. I think it removes any editorial tone, yet retains all the relevant facts necessary to explain the topic, and gives due--but not undue--weight to the minority position that MSR should not be done "early".

However, IMHO the very existence of this article is arguably a POV content fork that gives undue weight to the minority POV that MSR is too risky. Therefore, I hereby officially propose that the article be merged with the "Back contamination" section in the main MSR article, and that this page be nominated for deletion.

At that point, if Robert wants to cut 'n' paste his monograph back into the live article, I won't revert it. If it survives the delete process, I'll have no cause for complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarrenPlatts (talk • contribs) 16:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren, are you saying that you won't object if I cut and paste my version back here? If so I will go straight ahead and do that. But don't want to edit war if I have misunderstood.


 * I've been working on it to remove any trace of bias and editorial comment, and found some things to fix on return to the subject after some days away from it. It is the very best I can do by way of NPOV, and I believe it would be useful for researchers who wish to find encyclopedic material on the MSR debate.


 * For instance if someone read my article at science20.com, or visited the ICAMSR site, or read Craig Venter's proposal or Robert Zubrin's, or any of the cited papers on the need for public debate etc, and wanted background material - if they read your current version, it would be immediately obvious that there is hardly any material on the subject in wikipedia. My version would provide that material, and I believe is of use in an encyclopedia, especially due to the wikipedia guideline  Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, e.g. "Some topics are covered by print encyclopedias only in short, static articles, but we can include more information, provide more external links, and update more quickly".


 * It is however obviously not suitable for the main MSR article. The outcome of the discussion on the talk page for that article was a clear concensus that a new page was needed Robert Walker (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * My point was that I wouldn't object after THIS page is merged with the main article. Am I correct that you will not object to merging the live article with the main MSR article? Warren Platts (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I went ahead and merged the article into the main MSR article's "Back contamination" section. Cut 'n' paste away Robert!!! :-) Warren Platts (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren, I do object. It doesn't belong as part of the main MSR article. Since it started as a discussion on the MSR talk page, and the consensus was to split, you need to go through a proper merge discussion before merging it back again. I will revert your MSR merge since you haven't gone through the appropriate procedure.


 * See Proposed_mergers Robert Walker (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe you need a consensus to merge, and if so, you will need to convince me as well as the other editors, notice that many of the disputes on that page end up as no consensus and do not get merged. Robert Walker (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Also just to point out if you keep trimming the article down you will end up eventually with a stub article. Indeed in its present form so much has been removed that I am already tempted to label it as a stub article since you have deleted just about all the content on the MSR debate. The reader would be unable to form a clear idea in any detail of what the main POVs on the subject are, and even the NASA and ESA POVs are no longer clear;y presented. Robert Walker (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and this is what it says:

There are three types of mergers on Wikipedia:


 * 1) mergers that are so obviously necessary and appropriate that no one is expected to object;
 * 2) mergers that would benefit from discussion with the other editors at the affected articles about whether and/or how to perform the merge; and
 * 3) mergers that are controversial or potentially difficult to carry out, and therefore need assistance from uninvolved editors in determining whether to merge the pages.

If the pages that you would like to merge fall into the first group, then it is not necessary to propose a merger at all. You should boldly do the merger now, without formally proposing it.


 * I would say we're in the number 1 category. The current live article is extremely trimmed down from your original tome--which said tome I agree with you it doesn't belong in the main MSR article. Basically, it's merely a better written version of the "back contamination" section in the main article. Granted, it's still a little too long, but I plan on spending some time upgrading the main article--something you never bother to do I might add--so that in the future, the undue weight it might seem to give to minority POVs will be less obvious.


 * But no problem. If you want to go through a more formal merger discussion, let's do it. I'm willing to give it a week. That was my plan anyways. The only reason I did it was because I thought you understood my earlier post when I wrote:

I hereby officially propose that the article be merged with the "Back contamination" section in the main MSR article, and that this page be nominated for deletion. At that point, if Robert wants to cut 'n' paste his monograph back into the live article, I won't revert it.


 * Since you were so gung ho to cut 'n' paste your 12,000 word treatise, if figured you wouldn't object to the merge.


 * I don't really see the point of your latest objection. You and I are the only editors deeply involved with either page at this point. Let's settle this right now--man-to-man. We need to settle this thing one way or the other so we can both get on with our lives. I say we: (1) merge the present live article into the MSR article; (2) you move the sandbox monograph into the main live article; (3) I nominate said article for deletion; (4) if your article survives the deletion process, I walk away and you get to own it--heck, it isn't the first wacky (IMO) article in Wikipedia history and it certainly won't be the last. That should be an acceptable compromise because: (1) the main article is improved in any event; (2) if your article is as good as you say it is, it will survive the deletion process; (3) we're at a complete impasse, and I can't think of any other way to move things forward.


 * As for the merger consensus, don't forget that the merger wasn't my idea: it came from the 3rd party commentators you requested. You're the ONLY one who objects.Warren Platts (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * And this <I>you have deleted just about all the content on the MSR debate. The reader would be unable to form a clear idea in any detail of what the main POVs on the subject are, and even the NASA and ESA POVs are no longer clear;y presented.</I> I flatly disagree with. There are only two POVs those that say that MSR is safe and those that say it is not. The NASA and ESA POV is the former; you and your pals at ICASMR are the tiny minority POV. Both POVs have extensive linked references. You should have no complaint. Furthermore, I don't trust your judgment when it comes to the ability of readers to comprehend the article. You may have a jhard time with it, but I believe the average reader will have no problem understanding where the two main POVs come from, since it's clearly spelled out in the lede.Warren Platts (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. Warren what I said is that it is appropriate as a separate article. I also said, that it is not appropriate as part of the main article.


 * 2. What you propose is similar to a suggestion to paste Scientific opinion on climate change, Global warming_controversy and List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming into Global warming. Debates and controversies often require separate articles from the topics they are controversies about.


 * 3. BTW you might be interested to know that I've been told that I write well on mathematics and science topics. So you may not trust my judgement on that, but other people whose opinion I value do.


 * 4. Since you are happy for me to replace your content with mine in the main MSR article, what is the problem with replacing your content with mine here in a separate article? You can then propose to delete it, as you have threatened to do if I do that, am happy to go ahead with an AfD if that's your wish. Robert Walker (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If you want to propose a merge, there is an official procedure to go through. The page I linked to above explained the procedure. It is not enough to just say here that you officially propose a merge.


 * That you have reduced it to 1000 words by trimming most of the content simply turns the article into a stub, and doesn't show that the original split proposal was flawed. You could do the same with any of the Climate change controversy articles to take an example. For instance, an editor could trim all the content of this page Scientific opinion on climate change to the first paragraph, and then you could propose a merge with the main article on the basis that there is no content left, but you would be resisted if you did that.  Robert Walker (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * So I will oppose a merge if proposed Robert Walker (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. There are two articles: (a) the live article; (b) the monograph in your sandbox. I believe the live article is concise enough to be incorporated into the main article; that you don't want it to is proof that the separate article is a POV content fork. That is, simply having a separate article gives more weight to the minority POV. I said it before--now you have confirmed that fact.


 * 2. Comparing global warming to MSR is a gross exaggeration. There are no politics nor much money involved. There are about two notable scientists who are against MSR because of back contamination issues: Wickramasinghe notorious for his views that influenza outbreaks are caused by space spores and Levin, the lonely scientist who still thinks his Viking experiment positively detected life. There is no controversy. In any case, since the live article is a "stub" as you put it, then you should have no problem with merging the live article with the main MSR page. It certainly is an improvement over the present section in the main article. THEN, if you want to cut and paste the monograph over (and it survives the deletion process), BOTH versions of the article would survive. Seems like a reasonable compromise to me.


 * A stub article is one that should be much longer and needs to be expanded. Stub.


 * Whether members of a group are notorious or not, is irrelevant for wikipedia, if they are notable. Indeed it can make them more notable. And BTW though I agree Wickramasinghe is highly eccentric for his views, he deserves recognition as one of the first to put forward ideas of panspermia - and those ideas are now widely acknowledged to be of value and worth serious attention, although his particular comet based panspermia is of course not widely accepted. To give an example, the first scientist to put forward ideas of continental drift was similarly eccentric, proposing unlikely mechanisms for the drift Continental_drift. So eccentric people don't necessarily mean that all their ideas are also bad ideas.


 * 3. FWIW, I read you recent opinion piece, and found it to be thoughtful and well written. Unlike the sandbox article, which because of your over-reliance on cherry picked quotes and over-sectionalization I find to be very disjointed and repetitive. However, I was not commenting on your writing skills, I was commenting on your reading comprehension skills. I'm not trying to be mean: I'm merely pointing out that you tend to take different meanings from a passage than the intended meaning. You yourself admit you have a tendency to dyslexia at times. Therefore, if you find it hard to, for example, pick out the two POVs when they are explicitly set out as "the consensus view" versus "the minority view", perhaps you should be cautious in ascribing the same tendency to other readers....


 * I think you are confusing dislexia with something else. Dislexia is to do with swapping letters and words, and coming out with the wrong word, but not to do with confused thinking. Your thinking is clear but sometimes you come out with the wrong words or type jumbled up letters hwen you try to put it onto the page. Everythign is clear in your mind. Robert Walker (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 4. "<I>Since you are happy for me to replace your content with mine in the main MSR article</I> Whoa! Major Freudian slip there my friend! lol! So you think you own the BC section in the main article as well, eh? I think I know what you mean though. The problem with your proposal is that the main MSR article is badly in need of improvement. The current live version of this page is a vast improvement over the main article BC section. There are two quite different articles: (1) the live version that should be deleted then merged; (2) the sandbox treatise should simply be deleted IMHO, since it's an opinion piece, it contains a lot of factual falsities, it's a POV content fork, it's not notable enough to warrant a separate article, etc. But of course I am biased. So how about this, we propose the LIVE article for deletion, with the following choice of possible outcomes: (a) live article deleted and replaced with monograph, no merger of live article; (b) live article deleted and replaced w/ monograph, live article merged; (c) live article not deleted, no merger, no replacement w/ the sandbox monograph; (d) live article deleted--no merger, no replacement w/ your monograph; (e) live article deleted and merged, no replacement w/ monograph. I believe that covers the practicable possibilities. That should be an acceptable compromise. Assuming of course, you are acting in good faith and are willing to compromise.... Warren Platts (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren, no need to be so complicated. It is not appropriate for an AfD discussion. Also you are combining a merge discussion with an AfD discussion.


 * Since you want to nominate it for deletion, and your quarrel is with my version rather than yours, then what about this:


 * I'll put my version in place of what you have here. Then the nomination can be about whether or not to keep my version.


 * An AfD discussion is just a discussion about whether to delete or not. Not a discussion of which of five alternative forms of action to undertake.


 * If the discussion goes against me then it is simply deleted and that's the end of it. If the decision goes with me then it is kept.


 * In my opinion even the 1000 words you have are too much for the main MSR article. Also much of it is editorial comment IMO e.g. the entire section from "However, at least one problem with conducting more in situ research " to the end of that para. as I have already said, IMO is an argument against in situ research that is not in any of the cited sources. Robert Walker (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "is an argument against in situ research that is not in any of the cited sources. " Here is the source (for the 3rd time): http://planetaryprotection.nasa.gov/summary/msr


 * Here is the relevant quote--AGAIN:


 * Any questions? Warren Platts (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren, that quote is from the Planetary protection page. Yes that is relevant. But as far as I know the ESA report doesn't say this. It is reasonably simple really. To avoid synthesis in a controversial subject, you attribute every argument to someone. Then you present the argument exactly as they present it, and don't mix & match different sources to support it. Which is the reason my version may come over as a bit disjointed because I present many different arguments from the POV of the original authors with no overarching POV of my own. Yours comes over as editorial and synthesis because you have a sense of an overarching POV behind the article.


 * It is a good find and I'll see what I can do about putting it into my version, then perhaps that can help show how to present it without synthesis or editorial comment. Robert Walker (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's from the Planetary Protection page at NASA--it's not my argument in other words. Just goes to show that you can lead a horse to water.... Warren Platts (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is how I do it, very simple, just present the quote, or a brief summary, or both: User:Robertinventor/Debate_about_scientific_value_of_Mars_sample_return_and_methods_to_avert_low_probability_existential_risks. They don't actually seem to present any argument in favour of their conclusion, but just state it. Therefore, I shouldn't present any argument either as editor. It could be argued for (or against) in many different ways but it is not appropriate to present any of those arguments without some extra material to show what were the particular reasons they have in mind for this conclusion.


 * BTW it is not an obvious conclusion to me. You could for instance do preliminary in situ biohazard testing on the surface of Mars just as you can on Earth, and then return it to Mars orbit for testing on actual Earth micro-organisms e.g. in orbiting greenhouse. You could then return it to the L1 and L2 positions near Earth for more extensive testing. There are so many alternative options that could be considered and compared to come to the conclusion. So, any attempt to fill in the argument is bound to be OR depending on the POVs you have on the matter and details of assumptions and alternative proposals you have considered.


 * Of course it is not my job to present arguments either way, so I say nothing just present it as they say it. If you can find another source where they go into it in detail again you present what that source says, exactly as it says it. It is a rather unimaginative approach I know, but that is what NPOV is all about as I understand it, and it makes sense once you are used to it.  Robert Walker (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The version in the main MSR article has stayed there without any commment or suggestion for revision for a long time now, and is fine IMO. Says just enough so the reader knows that there is a concern, but not enough to distract from the main purpose of that article.


 * Glad to hear that you liked the writing of my opinion piece. When writing for Wikipedia I can't write in the same way. For instance in an encyclopedia, you can't say "I ..." and present any opinion of your own. That prevents the flowing "talking to the reader" easy style that many like in modern journalism, as it is not appropriate for wikipedia. Also I can't present a single flow of ideas and arguments in an article like this as I have to present all the POVs and have to present them in the way that they are presented by their originators. Robert Walker (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Concerns for an early Mars sample return for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Concerns for an early Mars sample return 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 Articles for deletion/Concerns for an early Mars sample return until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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.


 * Shall I replace the live article with my version? It would make the AfD discussion clearer. It is a bit confusing to discussion deletion of a stub that has been created by an editor who removed nearly all the content in the original article. Just a thought. Robert Walker (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I know you think this is all about "your" article. However, the live article is a fact on the ground at this point. Reverting it now would appear as an attempt to sidestep the formal WP:DELETE process. You have clearly linked to the sandbox monograph in the deletion discussion. A "Delete & Replace" with your version remains a viable outcome of the delete process. I would argue for that if I were you. Cheers! Warren Platts (talk) 00:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren, you are permitted to edit an article to improve it during a delete debate. That is how I see what I just did. If you propose to delete it, you must permit me to improve it as much as I can to increase its chances of surviving the AfD. Otherwise it is not a fair discussion. It is bizarre for the proposor of the AfD to be the main editor of the article proposed for AfD. Robert Walker (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Revert Robert's reversion
Robert, you might think it is bizarre for the proposer of a deletion to be a main editor of the article proposed for deletion. What you fail to remember is that I have no skin in this game. I don't care about MSR. It's a waste of money as far as I am concerned. That said, you are trying to delete "my" article without going through the deletion process. Go ahead and revert it again. I will re-revert again to the point where I'm banned from Wikipedia. That's how much I strongly feel that "your" article is way over the top. Go ahead and give it a try if you think it will work for your POV. Warren Platts (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren, it is you who proposed deleting it not me. The editors who propose to keep the article must be permitted to edit it during a deletion debate. Or are you saying I must accept your version and just watch as it is deleted for its poorly written editorial content IMO? VQuaker has an issue with me using the version in my user space. So I have reverted it to the way it was before all your edits. Robert Walker (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a mischaracterization of what VQuaker said. He said it would be better if all editors concentrated on editing the live article. You were invited to do so. You chose not to participate. Warren Platts (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * BTW I'm pretty sure, no reason to worry about being banned from editing wikipedia as a whole. When the article on edit warring mentions banning, then normally that would be, that you are banned from editing a particular article. More usually as I understand it, a temporary short term block. The three reverts rule, if you were to fall foul of it, would lead to a block of 24 hours for instance.


 * I think you could only be banned from editing wikipedia as a whole by widespread edit warring on multiple articles which I am sure you wouldn't do. Robert Walker (talk) 08:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC::)


 * Robert, you have not "edited" the live article. You have unilaterally deleted it, and replaced it with your sandbox monograph. It is certainly no improvement IMO. But if you want enough rope, you can have it.... Warren Platts (talk) 10:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * And what happened to your 88,000 character article? Warren Platts (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * VQuaker objected. I don't really understand why because it is common enough to work on an article in your user space and then copy back into the main space, and so long as the chain of attribution is preserved (as it will be if you are the only one who works on it there) then there is usually no problem. I don't understand why he objects to me doing it here when the only reason I put it in my user space originally was to avert an edit war.


 * But that means I have to laboriously go through and fix the issues again that I fixed in the version in my user space already. Not really sure how to do that, as it will be quite a drag to rewrite it all and try to remember what all the issus were and fix them all. Robert Walker (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Merger Revisited
Robert, in the deletion discussion you asked if we can we can have an AfD for the original reverted version. By that I take it you're referring to your sandbox monograph. So how about we make a deal. You refrain from reverting my proposed change to the Back contamination section of the main MSR article, and I'll refrain from reverting your "original" article on this page. That way you can be free to amend it in order to address criticisms that may pop up in the deletion discussion. Warren Platts (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry don't want to do deals of this nature. IMO the main MSR article is also fine as it is. Just says enough to give the reader a first idea of the issues involved, and not too much. Clear and simple. While your version to my mind is confusing and for that matter have already said has unsourced editorial synthesis, supporting one view (which I agree is put forward by the PPO) with arguments of your own, which is constructed by gathering together materials from other sources in a synthesis, inappropriate for wikipedia. I've already said that so you should know that I feel that way. Robert Walker (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, then you won't object when I reinstate the article that several editors have already collaborated on, right? I have as much right to "edit" the article as you do, right?Warren Platts (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The difference is that you are the one proposing deletion. So you want to reinstate it only to delete it. That doesn't make sense. You obviously won't be reinstating it in order to work on it to prevent deletion which should be the focus at this stage.


 * I believe it is unusual for the person proposing deletion of an article to also be the main current editor of the article, do you not see that as just a little bit odd yourself? And to want to continue editing it at the same time as you advocate deletion of it - how can that make sense? Robert Walker (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * And even if you can work your way around that, how can you do that in a disinterested way, to work on both sides of the debate, to attempt to the improve the article to prevent deletion at the same time as you actively advocate deletion of it? Is it not possible that a bit of bias might creep into your editing so that you are not totally committed to improving the article to avoid deletion when you edit it?? Robert Walker (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Re the cherry picking template on the article
I wrote this in a comment at the head of the article. It explains the reason for extensive use of quotes, which is also used similarly in other places in wikipedia. An example I had in mind as a model for this was the article: Scientific opinion on climate change which similarly has many quotes. But the technique is common in wikipedia, and recommended as well in cases of multiple POVs as a way to help make sure that the POVs are not presented as the POVs of wikipeida.

Here is what I say at the head of the article in comments:

I am not an advocacy group. I do not try to get other people to join any organisation or to hold any kind of a view. My article on science20 was intended to stimulate debate and thought, and not to convert anyone to my views, which indeed also evolve.

Here, the only reason for including the quotes is because it lets the voice of the author come through. And the quotes included quotes from the official ESA studies and many others. They are presented exactly as in the original sources, as quotes, or paraphrased accurately. If anyone spots any mistakes or omissions or undue weight in the quotes or paraphrases I correct them immediately. Robert Walker (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * <I>"I do not try to get other people to join any organisation or to hold any kind of a view."</I> I call BF on this: bad faith. It's either that or you need professional help to deal with a split personality in addition to your OCD, dyslexia, and doomsday phobia. It is obvious to everyone that you are on a mission to change hearts and minds. Now you want to use the Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote your fringe theory that we are all in potentially great danger because of MSR. Sorry, but your days of running amok here are over. I suggest you stick to music and leave the science to the experts. Warren Platts (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren, indeed I am not. I tried to engage in civilized discussion at nasaspaceflight.com but was not too successful. If you and your colleagues had been more civil and not continually hurled insults at me for holding the views I hold, you might have seen that I am not on a mission. I wish the matter to be raised, as it is clear to me that it is an example of an existential risk, as indeed is also the conclusion of all the studies and experts who study it that it is a low probability existential risk. So, perhaps you could say that I want to raise awareness of this aspect of it, just as Carl Sagan did, following him, that it is an existential risk.


 * But as to solving the problem of what you do next, all I want to do is to encourage public debate so that a good solution can be found. I feel that the more it is aired the better chance of this happening. I have ideas of my own which I air in appropriate places (not here) and when I do that, all I want is to be listened to and to engage in a civil discussion of those ideas,. just as I listen to others. Have I ever once insulted you for holding your ideas, as you have insulted me many times for holding mine? I have always treated you with respect as far as your ideas are concerned, you have the right to your POVs on this subject, and to express them.


 * And I am not using wikipedia for that purpose. Conversely to my mind you seem out on a mission to de-emphasize the risks of MSR as far as possible. I don't accuse you of doing that, not deliberately, but that is how it comes over from my POV. So you should be aware, that this sort of thing goes both ways, if you see me as out on a mission, well perhaps even more so, you seem out on a mission to me.


 * In ideal situations that can lead to a good article that presents all the POVs on the subject without any undue emphasis making clear which are the minority views but expressing them clearly. In bad situations it can result in an article where nothing of any interest can be included because whenever it is, another editor with another POV deletes it or rewrites it so that it expresses their own POV instead of the original POV expressed in that section. Robert Walker (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Um, yes, you have insulted me, numerous times, in your back-handed, passive-aggressive, condescending, ever so WP:civil POV pushing manner. In fact, just a few minutes ago, you characterized my editing as poorly written "unsourced editorial synthesis". On the 3rd party discussion page you misspelled my name so many times, it's very hard to believe that it was a coincidence; I'm sure a statistical analysis would show it was not a coincidence. As for you saying your recent science20 was not an opinion piece, I gotta say you gotta lot of balls to be able to say that with a straight face, considering the header of the article says "OPINION PIECE" in bold capital letters!!!


 * Well, at least you now admit that your mission here is to "raise awareness"--a.k.a. "activism". My mission, for now, however, is to prevent disinformation and fear-mongering from being passed off as encyclopedia articles. Time to let the chips fall where they may. I am done trying to reason with you.... Warren Platts (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I said no such thing. I said just above "And I am not using wikipedia for that purpose." Robert Walker (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * An opinion piece is to stimulate discussion and not to win over converts, as I understand it and as it was clearly understood by just about everyone who took part in the discussion on that page.


 * And the article on space.com was an opinion piece. My work here is encyclopedic. You yourself commented on the difference of style of the two.


 * Saying that your work is editorial synthesis is not a personal insult. It is a comment on the work you produced, and it needs to be said when you collaborate with someone. Respect for someone as a fellow editor doesn't mean that you have to treat everything they do as perfect and above criticism. You can have respectful criticism. Anything else you read into it is totally not intended at all. All I can do is assert that. I can't do anything about how you interpret my actions but totally, I have never insulted you or said anything personally disrespectful of you. I have of course criticised many things you did. And mis-spelling you rname was not a deliberate insult. Who ever does use misspelling of a name as an insult anyway? - I've never been insulted in that way (or i I did, didn't notice it I suppose,...) Anyway it would never even occur to me as a method of insulting someone. Robert Walker (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You said it was "unsourced". This is so blatantly false--as I am sure you must be aware if you are not crazy--it is absolutely ridiculous. Intentionally hurling false accusations (lies) is a form of ad hominem argumentation. It's a personal attack. An insult, in other words....


 * The bit about "an opinion piece is to stimulate discussion and not win over converts""is really rich though. I gotta love that, when in the next sentence your accusing me of being "editorial"--as if "editorial" is merely meant to stimulate discussion and not win over converts. The whole point--the purpose--of an editorial/opinion piece is to build on an argument like a lawyer would and try to persuade readers to think the same way as the writer. For you to argue otherwise is disingenuous to the point of mendacity!! Honestly, who do you think you're kidding?!? Warren Platts (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have tried so many times to explain this, but don't seem to for some reason, not sure why. Synthesis means that the entire argument is not given in any of the sources you cite. In that sense it was unsourced. The conclusion I discovered was in a source, the PPO, but you cited the ESF who do not argue against in situ research to my knowledge. And it is not enough to cite the conclusion, that does not count as a citation of the whole argument. If you have one citation for the conclusion, and another citation for each of the steps in the argument, still that doesn't make the whole argument backed up by citations. Because you don't have a citation for the entire argument. You don't know that this is the argument that the PPO employ to get to their conclusion. You are making up a new argument of your own to support their conclusion.  That is what makes it synthesis.


 * As I understand it the whole point in calling an article an "opinion piece" is to make it clear to readers that they are not expected to agree with the POV expressed in the article. Of course you build an argument for them to follow. But that doesn't mean you want to convert them to the conclusions of that argument. Can you not see the distinction between presenting an argument, and trying to convert someone to the conclusion of an argument?


 * It is anyway irrelevant to the discussion here as in the wikipedia article the aim is to only present the opinions of the cited sources. That is the very reason I have so many quotes, and exact paraphrases in the article, and also the reason why it doesn't flow in a convincing way to a conclusion in the way the opinion piece does. Because I am not trying to lead the reader to a conclusion in the wikipedia article. Am just presenting all the different POVs and giving them all enough weight.


 * In an opinion piece you do have an argument flowing to a conclusion, but you have that without an intention for the reader to reach that conclusion, just for them to see how you reached it yourself. That is why it is called an "opinion piece" so they can read about an interestingly different opinion that they might not have thought of themselves and then go away and think to themselves "I wonder how anyone could think that" and they might come to new ideas themselves, not the ideas in the opinion piece but new ideas of their own that were stimulated by reading it. That is how a good opinion piece works IMO. Which I can do on science20.com. But totally inappropriate here and I did not do it here.


 * Does that make sense? Robert Walker (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Also in a contentious subject like this you have to attribute the argument explicitly. Not just add citations, but say "The PPO argues that ..." - say who it is that argues that way. That's the reason for giving so many quotations - as in the wikipedia policy quote above.


 * It is because you just present the argument in the voice of wikipedia and don't say "so and so says that ..." that you have editorial voice as well as synthesis in your version, pretty much throughout.


 * Look at my version (the latest one in my user space) and in every section the reader knows exactly who presents that argument, and it is never an argument presented by wikipedia or appearing to come from wikipedia. Basically at any point in the article the reader needs to know exactly who presented that argument. Unless of course it is just connecting text or overview and not putting forward and argument or POV. When you do that, and if you also present the arguments accurately, then that is what is meant by NPOV in this context. Then undue weight means making sure you make clear which are the minority arguments and which are the majority arguments - in an article like this about a dispute or debate you don't expect the majority of the page to be about the majority argument. But it should be clear to the reader what the majority or prevailing view is throughout.


 * In the current active version then it is sometimes not clear who is saying what - none of the arguments are my own, but I sometimes omit to say who presents the argument, This is one of the things I fixed in the latest version in my user space.


 * E.g. when I say "Also, biohazard facilities are designed to contain known hazards. It's a much harder problem to contain unknown hazards. A Mars sample could contain uncultivatable archaea, or ...." I should say that the ESF review concluded that "Also, biohazard facilities are designed to contain known hazards. It's a much harder problem to contain unknown hazards. A Mars sample could contain uncultivatable archaea, or ...". This I think is one of the reasons why you thought a lot of it was my own POV because I omitted sometimes to say who it is I was paraphrasing, which was a mistake. Robert Walker (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Speaking of which I will just fix that now as best I can, an easy quick fix for the current article to show that it is indeed NPOV. That is what counts as NPOV in this context, that you make it clear who it is who is responsible for anything of significance paraphrased or quoted in the article, and for any extended arguments ditto, always has to be someone else who is responsible for it, and you say who it is who is and present them accurately, what they say, not what you wished they said, and without immediate criticism (that's confusing, and if it is attributable to somemone can go in a separate section, otherwise immediate criticism simply can't be said at all no matter how crazy the ideas you are reporting may be.). 20:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Prevailing View
Added new Prevailing View section to the draft suggested version in my user space:

User:Robertinventor/Debate_about_scientific_value_of_Mars_sample_return_and_methods_to_avert_low_probability_existential_risks

Robert Walker (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Attribution
I have gone through and attributed just about everything in the live article now, so that the reader can see at any stage in the article exactly who says what of the things I summarize in the article.

It should now be clear that none of it is my own POV or attributed to wikipedia. I have probably missed out a bit of attribution still, especially the two paras after the list of instruments, am not entirely sure of their origin now, don't seem to be given in the cited source. So - will need to check that out and rewrite or add the correct citation as appropriate. But that is a minor thing, not a major part of the article.

You can check and verify any of that and if I have mis-quoted or mis-paraphrased anyone then let me know. Which I couldn't do with your version as you didn't attribute it to anyone, not the whole argument, didn't say that "xyz argues that ..." as I do here. And I also didn't attribute it adequately in this original version as I now realise but only through omission, didn't realise you had to be so explicit in your attributions but coming back to it fresh I realise that you have to be very "up front" about that, and though it is a little clumsy at times, and goes slighty against the grain for desire of fluid writing, simply is the best way to make sure the reader knows all the way through who said what. It is probably also the same in the user space version that I haven't attributed absolutely everything, not made it clear to the reader exactly who I am paraphrasing in every single paragraph of the article, as I do now.

Hope it is now clear how it is NPOV and what I mean about avoiding synthesis and editorial voice? And of course say if there is anything that I have missed. I know there is at least one thing because I remember you bringing it up as an issue and remember fixing it in the user space article, but can't now remember what it was. Robert Walker (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Have fixed those two paras. in the "in situ" section, except, for one of them can't remember the source and forgot to add a ref. It is probably Jeffrey Bada but might be someone else. So added cn to it for now.


 * Have remembered what the other issue was, something to do with the Paige quote, but what exactly it was I forget and will check the source, probably tomorrow now Robert Walker (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It reads like an editorial more than ever now. This is hopeless. I give up... Warren Platts (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren, what do I say, anywhere in the article, that is not attributed to someone? That is what you need to focus on. If I say something controversial in the article that is misattributed then that is an error to be fixed, and if anything controversial is said that is unattributed then it is editorial. If not, then it is not editorial. As far as I know there is nothing editorial in it, though something could have slipped through the net. If so it is an easy matter to go through and fix those, case by case. It is then no longer editorial or an opinion piece.


 * You can say totally uncontroversial things in editorial voice e.g. when I say that there has been no experiment sent to Mars to search for life since Viking, that is something that no-one who writes on the subject could be expected to disagree with so didn't bother to search for an attribution for that para. Most science articles are like that all the way through, in science it is most common for the entire topic to be non controversial, which is why science editors of wikipedia like yourself may be used to writing in editorial tone treating everything in the article as a "matter of fact" in objective tone.


 * But that approach is only suitable for pure science and uncontroversial opinions. If anyone could be expected to take a different POV then you have to attribute, even if what you describe is the majority or prevailing POV, then you should attribute it as the prevailing POV in an article like this about a debate or controversy, not just state it without attribution.


 * Is there any particular thing you can point at and say it is editorial? Is your objection perhaps just that none of it has the "objective tone" that you are used to in science articles? If so then that is to be expected here. The objective tone is a different paradigm and should only be used for totally uncontroversial statements in an encyclopedia.


 * The one thing you can say in objective tone in a controversial subject, and should say in objective tone, is that "xyz says abc". Then that can be checked, but the "abc" there should be stated in the article just as it is stated by "xyz" and in a POV centric way without attempt at objective tone - which also can be checked. Other editors then can read the sources cited and check that xyz did indeed say abc, and check that they have been correctly quoted or paraphrased in a way that accurately presents their POV.


 * The whole thing can be checked, and is itself an objective criterion which doesn't rely on any individual editor's intuitions or hunches about whether it seems to be an editorial piece, which is what makes it such a good and useful policy IMHO. Robert Walker (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This may help, if you work through some of the FAQs here Neutral point of view e.g. Neutral point of view/FAQ "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but don't assert opinions themselves." which is what I am doing, with care, in the current version of the article. I will continue to work on it Robert Walker (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the reason you fail to see the editorial slant in your version of the "article" is because you don't know what an editorial is. That much is clear from your earlier comments on opinion pieces. Having a citation for every single sentence does not entail that it is not an editorial. Warren Platts (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay could be, but I'm doing my best and following the wikipedia policy guidelines strictly to the best of my ability. If you have any particular observations or criticisms e.g. what exactly it is about the article that gives it an editorial slant in your view do say and I'll do my best to take it into account.


 * I've wondered if it is partly because I have few selections of writings by people who strongly advocate an early MSR or who make statements along the lines that back contamination risks are over stated. But I haven't found much on either view published, and will include anyhting I find. I have added the decadal survey to the article. Do remember reading other sources saying something similar, strongly advocating an early MSR, but can't find them right now. Expect I will come across them, but would value additional citations to add to that section. I have not found anyone in the published literature to date who says that the back contamination risks are over stated or not a matter of concern at all. If you know of anyone do say and I will add it in.


 * Another thing I do to avoid any sense of an overall POV is that I aim to have it grouped in paragraphs where possible except in the shorter overview sections. So, each paragraph or section is attributed to a particular POV and expresses that POV as best I can in the language actually used by its advocate, and "in the voice of the advocate" as far as I can manage it. When I summarize I use the same words as far as possible and just remove duplicated words, and shorten the sentences where necessary. That gives very little opportunity for my own voice to creep into the article. It can still happen through misreading of slightly ambiguous statements such as when I read the Paige sentence about "risk" as about back contamination risk when if you read carefully he was talking about the risk of low science return of a MSR. Have now fixed that in the main article.


 * If it still has my voice there somehow, I totally want to know about it and fix it. Robert Walker (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * To show you what I mean, I'm going to revert the article back to the group version so I can show you. (So you might want to back up your source code.) Also it's only fair that we take turns on the live page while the delete discussion is going on. I suggest that every other day we trade the space so the other commentators can see both versions. After all, they are both up for deletion.Warren Platts (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Please don't. I was mid edit when you reverted it. Please instead if you want to show me something then do it in your sandbox. And it is not fair that we take turns as you are the one proposing deletion of the article, and it will thoroughly confuse anyone attempting to give opinions on the AfD. I never proposed deletion. Robert Walker (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I will revert it. Do you know how to create an article or draft or other material for others to look at in your user space sandbox? Just saying because it took me a while to discover it myself, not hard to do though. Robert Walker (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "Your" solo article has no more legitimacy compared to the group project. Also, I am not proposing Delete; I propose Delete & Merge. There's a big difference there in case you didn't know. NOBODY is proposing to merge "your" article. BTW cf. WP:OWN


 * Okay I'll have to request a speedy keep again, if you insist on this. IMO it is not an AfD discussion if the proposer of deletion edits the article with a major change, and prevents the main person in favour of keeping the article from editing it.


 * Your "collaboration" is a collaboration with bots, an editor who fixed some typos, and editors who added tags of editorial content, and cherry picking to your version of the article. Plus one person who suggested a sentence on the talk page.


 * If you think your version is of relevance to the AfD discussion you can put it into the sandbox and say something like "The current article should be deleted and this version in the sandbox used in its place, merged into the main MSR article" - which I think is your position. You don't need to edit the main article to say this.


 * Please revert back to my version. What you are doing makes no sense in context of an AfD IMHO. Robert Walker (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Robert, the sign of a fair deal is that you would be willing to take the other side of it. You say "If you think your version is of relevance to the AfD discussion you can put it into the sandbox and say something like p"; Well, let me turn the tables: If you think your version is of relevance to the AfD discussion you can put it into the sandbox and say something like the current article should be deleted and this version in my sandbox should be used in its place and kept." But you don't like that, do you? Therefore, why should you expect me to like the same deal? Strictly speaking, it's the current (short) article that was nominated for deletion. Read the Delete tag: it says: "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked out". You blanked out the article--a violation of protocol IMHO. So far, the only other person that has voted voted for Delete and Merge That's the ONLY substantive comment we've got so far. In that case, it means trimming it down to the bare, necessary essentials. Since the rough consensus as it stands now is Delete and Merge, shouldn't I also get a chance to edit the article? Warren Platts (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren, I made no deal with you as regards the AfD. You proposed a deal but I refused it. I don't think deals are a good way to proceed in wikipedia disputes. Either the article should be retained, or it should be deleted, that's what an AfD is about. I don't think it is appropriate for editors to make a deal where you agree not to object to something I do if I agree not to object to something you do, or anything of that nature. (Not sure if that's what you are referring to, but whatever).Robert Walker (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Robert, a deal is a compromise. You just said you refuse to compromise. That's been the theme all along. You are all or nothing. Snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, over a point of pride.... Warren Platts (talk) 01:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, just to say, as I understand it, in wikipedia, blanking out means removing all or nearly all the content from a page or replacing it with nonsense Vandalism. What I did was a reversion. Hope this helps. Robert Walker (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep, removing all of a page and replacing it w/ nonsense. That pretty much describes it..... Warren Platts (talk) 01:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh and I've been looking at some recent AfD disputes to get an idea of how it works. Sometimes it gets left as "no consensus", often with an option to speedily renominate for AfD. Most seem to get resolved fairly quickly. But it can take quite a while to resolve. Normally it runs for 7 days. Articles for deletion But that's obviously not a fixed rule as quite a few run for 10 days or more and one I looked at just now has been open since 24th May. Veterinary orthomanual medicine.


 * An AfD can start with deletes and later get keeps as the article is improved in response to the comments of the editors who proposed deletes. In a small way that happened with my own Hexany AfD. Was nominated for deletion, and first comment was a weak delete, then weak keep then several unqualified keeps as I and others improved it, mainly by adding new citations to it in that case.


 * That is what I'm doing right now attempting to improve the article to address AfD issues. Mainly what I'm doing right now is making sure that all of it is cited to deal with the objection that it is editorial or expressing my own POV, so making sure that wherever you are in the article if anything with any potential at all for controversy is said, it is attributed, and you know who it is who said that with a supporting citation. Also checking the citations for accuracy and making it easy for the reader to verify them. Also adding extra sections to express all the POVs I know about (published or notable ones) and with particular care to include POVs that are in favour of an early MSR prominently visible, to make sure the full range is included. Plus improving the overall structure of it and avoiding repetition. How to save an article proposed for deletionRobert Walker (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Reversion during AfD discussion
I have just reverted a good faith major deletion of article text by one of two parties who have been contesting this article since its creation a few weeks ago. I don't see any consensus for such a major deletion, especially with this article currently nominated for deletion on AfD.

If others think such a large deletion ought to go through, let's get a consensus first here, per WP:BRD. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks N2e! Robert Walker (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hold on one cotton-pickin' second! The "deletion" was merely a reversion to the evolved, live article as it was at the time of nomination for AfD, and as it had been for weeks, and had been worked on by several editors, including Robert himself. The consensus is that Robert's 1-man, 12,000 word version "is little more than a slanted alarmist editorial rant" and that it should be reduced to key info, and then merged into the main MSR article. No one but Robert disagrees with this--the several editors hovering around here making little metacomments but unwilling to engage the subject notwithstanding. Will revert to version of article as it was at time of nomination for AfD. Blanket deletion and wholesale replacement w/ an entirely different article has never been considered to be editing at Wikipedia. Warren Platts (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren, yes your criticism and your and BatteryIncluded's main reason for nomination for deletion is that it is "slanted alarmist editorial rant". However in an AfD you are permitted to work on the article to fix criticims and the reasons given for deletion. I'm answering your criticisms as best I can by editing the article to make sure it has no editorial content or anything that could be regarded as alarmist. Am also fixing issues that could be regarded as "slanted" by making sure the prevailing view is stated clearly.


 * I am following these guidelines: How to save an article proposed for deletion


 * If you insist on reverting and not letting me edit it to save it from AfD then this is no longer an AfD discussion, but a case of one person in an edit war attempting to get the article deleted to win the edit war. If you insist on that I'll go back to the discussion page and request a speedy keep under: Deletion process "Nominations which are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion" and ask for advice on edit warring. I will probably seek mediation at this stage, as I don't think dispute resolution will work in our case, though can go through an attempt at dispute resolution. Will see what the other editors say.


 * If you are right that it is an editorial rant you have nothing to fear from letting me edit it, as others will see that and request that it is deleted. As for saying that I collaborated with you on the version you just reverted to, anyone just needs to read back through this talk page or look through the history and do diffs to see what the edits I did actually were, to see that that is not true.


 * This is the complete list of edits I did on your version:


 * Removed one sentence. I can't remember why I did it here rather than in my user space draft. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Concerns_for_an_early_Mars_sample_return&diff=558144732&oldid=558011062
 * Added POV template:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Concerns_for_an_early_Mars_sample_return&diff=559055682&oldid=558774652


 * That is not a collaboration. It is also easy for anyone to go through the other edits in the article history, and see that there were no substantive edits by anyone else apart from yourself during that period. So what I did was a reversion to the last version of the article before substantial edits by an editor in an edit war proposing deletion of the article. Robert Walker (talk) 07:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually one of the main things I was going to do today was to try to find any notable sources for the POV you mention in the dispute page as the "mainstream view": "Moreover, the mainstream view is that MSR will be safe, and that any potential back contamination risks can certainly be managed". No article I've found so far says catagorically that "MSR will be safe", just that it is generally believed by experts that the probability of existential risk will be very low indeed as a result of a million fold reduction of a thought to be already low probability.


 * And indeed, no-one says categorically that the original probability is low either, though everyone is agreed that it probably is a low probability, they say instead that normal methods of probability assessment can't be applied. That's why I am careful to avoid saying categorically in editorial tone that "the probability is low" in the article, as it is not an established fact in that sense, but am careful to attribute it and say that "xyz concluded that the probability is low".


 * I know that this view that states categorically that "MSR will be safe" - is prevalent in some places if anyone raises the issue at the nasaspaceflight forum and the Mars One discussion forum, but forum posts unfortunately are not notable enough to mention in wikipedia, or include as a cited POV. As you know, I did a search before, and I hoped that the Mars Society might say this but instead Robert Zubrin strongly puts forward the POV that there should be no MSR at all before a human landing, which is not quite the same POV. I also found articles on MSR by scientists that simply don't mention back contamination risks at all, but an omission of discussion of back contamination can't be cited as a POV on it, as you simply don't know what the details of their POV are or indeed, whether or not they have thought about back contamination at all.


 * I can well understand why you call it "mainstream" as it is a commonly held POV amongst human space colonization advocates, and no-one else thinks about the issue much at all except for the people involved in the official reports and the others cited in the article, a tiny minority of all those involved in the missions and research. It is still an unpublished POV not cited in any notable sources as far as I can tell though I will keep looking. So, I can't include it, and I think this might be the main reason you regard the article as slanted.


 * So, please undo your revert, and help me via discussion here to understand in more detail the issues you raise in the AfD as your reason for deletion, or at least, don't make it impossible for me to do what I can to fix them. Robert Walker (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * EVERYTHING you just said is word twistage and a gross mischaracterization of the literature. There are about 4 people on the planet who say we should not do MSR because of BC "concerns": you, DeGregorio, Wickramasinghe, and Levin--all proponents of fringe science. EVERYONE else says MSR can be done safely; that is the conclusion of EVERY official report. Show me one report by an official committee that isn't from ICASMR or the late, pre-Viking Sagan citing War of the Worlds that says that MSR should not be done because it is not safe. Show me one, and I will withdraw my AfD request. You can't. You merely cherry pick items you think support your cause, embellish the hell out of them to make them scary, leading the unsuspecting reader by the nose to your smelly corner step by step to your conclusion that MSR will cause doomsday! It's a bunch of unredeemable editorial crap is what it is. You can have a reference for every single sentence--it's still editorial crap. Zubrin said it best: MSR "concerns" are not only "illusory but hallucinatory", and "the kindest thing that can be said about this argument is that is just plain nuts". I insist that you add a section on Doomsday phobias in "your" article that explores the POV that these so-called concerns are psychological in origin since they have no basis in real science. Strings of what-ifs can make some decent science fiction, but it's not science. If you were logically consistent you would be against all further oil exploration, because you never know... That next oil reservoir might contain survivors of that Martian species crossing hyperdisease that killed off the Dinosaurs (a suggestion actually put forward by ICASMR)! Unbelievable!! :rolleyes: — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarrenPlatts (talk • contribs) 11:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * And Robert, I noticed that in your original sandbox article you had several sections on risk mitigation. Why did you redact those? Could it be they don't fit in with your editorial slant? Warren Platts (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren, it's one thing to say that a MSR can be done safely, and another thing to say in a categorical way that it "will be safe". Everyone I've read on the subject agrees it can be done safely if you have enough precautions and take long enough over the process - even the ICAMSR are not against a MSR long term if adequate precautions are done. That is why it is about concerns about an early MSR, rather than concerns about an MSR as such. And just about everyone (Zubrin excepted apparently) in the published literature, including NASA and ESA are agreed that we don't yet have the technology and facilities for a safe MSR from Mars. If a MSR was done straight away without a Mars receiving facility up in running in good time beforehand to receive it and without all the precautions to prevent contamination, that would be taking a risk that we shouldn't take. BTW don't include me in your list, I don't count for wikipedia notability. And BTW I am not involved in fringe science either and am not a member of the ICAMSR.


 * As for doomsday, I have yet to find anyone who is personally scared by the prospect of an MSR in the way people are about doomsday scenarios. The reason is that on a personal level you are much more likely to die of lightning than a MSR. It is this whole thing that we aren't used to dealing with very low probability risks where the worst outcome is extinction or diminished future prospects for the entire human race. It is almost impossible to balance low probability in your mind along with severe outcome. I do my best in the article, but it is hard to deal with something that is so instinctive and deeply entrenched in some people.


 * Your idea for a new section linking concerns about MSR with doomsday scenarios would be fine if you can find a notable source that says this. Any paper, or some notable organization policy document or whatever. Even though I totally don't agree with it, but if you can find someone notable who says this, then of course it has to go in as highly relevant. But if it is just your own personal theory it can't go in.


 * Re my sandbox, I kept old versions of the article for a while as I worked on it during the edit war, because sometimes you find that you have accidentally deleted something and need to go back to an earlier version especially as I was doing a lot of re-organization and moving things about also trying out different titles. Some of them were just redirects to others, but there were two or three that were left over old versions that weren't needed any more. It is very common for editors who want to re-organize an article e.g. moving sections around and merging etc. to work on copies in their user space. There is a lot of lattitude on what you do in your user space and basically if I don't violate wikipedia policy guidelines for my user space I am free to do what I like and create things and delete them as I like. For more about this see User pages


 * Thanks for the Zubrin quote, I didn't know about it. I was looking for and counts as a published POV by a notable scientist putting forward the same POV that you share. If you know of any more quotes of that nature do let me know about them! I can't seem to find that actual article yet but have found this quote that will do in its place:


 * Quote from an interview with him: http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/cwc/Teaching/SpaceCol/sts497i/Zubrin/transcript.txt


 * It is a good representative quote for that POV. This is very much the POV I encountered on the Mars One and nasaspaceflight.com forums. Even though he is against MSR, yet this is relevant as a separate thing his views about MSR can still be included.


 * BTW the idea that past mass extinctions on Earth could be caused by microbes from Mars was considered in the NSF report and they concluded that it cannot be discounted. So that is a mainstream view and not originated in ICAMSR. Not too likely to be the extinction of the dinosaurs in my view as that is adequately explained already, and would be quite a coincidence to have a Mars meteorite caused extinction at the same time. But there are many poorly understood extinctions in the fossil record and the record is incomplete. Also would be low probability as best guess as with all these things, so probably didn't happen. But it can't be ruled out. See http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12576&page=48




 * I have not added any embelishments, to my knowledge. If I have then point it out to me!. Not just general things "is a rant" or "embellished " - those comments are useful in indicating in a general way how it seems to you when you read it but not too helpful with attempts to fix the article or to find specific points since I of course see it all differently and can't figure out why it comes over like that. But some specific points would be really useful, not necessarily go through point by point, just a couple of things would be fine, detailed specific things, so I can get an idea of what it is that bothers you about the article. Then I can have a go at fixing them and fixing any similar things in the article and since my intention is to be encyclopedic and presumably yours is too, then that process could lead us to where we want to go.


 * All along what I have to do is to put in published opinions only, and express them exactly as they were expressed when published except of course that you have to try to condense what in the original is often many paragraphs or even chapters down to a couple of sentences or a quote or two - and can't make up new theories or add new ideas not published by anyone. Robert Walker (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't ask for another wall o' text. I asked for a single official or peer-reviewed source (not ICAMSR and yourself) that says that MSR ought to be canceled or postponed because of BC hysteria. If you can find one, I will withdraw my AfD nomination. And your distinction between "will be done safely" "will be safe" is pure semantics in the worst sense of the word. That you're reaching for such slender reeds to justify the existence of your 12,000 word apologia for ICAMSR is proof positive that it should be deleted. Warren Platts (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The ESF and Nasa ones make it clear it needs to be postponed at least 12 years from first planning of the MSR facility. The other views mainly differ by saying it needs to be postponed a lot more than 12 years because of need to study on Mars first and return in stages. Robert Walker (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * More embellishment. The reference says 7 to 10 years w/ 2 years active operations beforehand. Your idea that they must run consecutively is WP:SYNTH on your part. And BTW planning and preliminary engineering has already started. Also, the lead time for decision to go and actual return to Planet Earth is at least 10 or 12 years, so your point is merely academic. Moreover, the reports you cite do not say that we need to do more in situ research to make sure anything safe. So the answer is No, you cannot find ANYONE outside of ICAMSR who says that we must postpone SMR in order to do more in situ research. IOW, the topic is not notable enough for a WP:ART. One fringe group isn't enough. Warren Platts (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * So for me it is not a case of two opposing views one saying it is safe and one saying it is not. It is a spectrum of many views with all in agreement (except Zubrin) that a MSR right now is not safe enough (even though almost certainly nothing untoward would happen), and all agree that with enough precautions it is safe. And all the different views on the science potential and the legal situation and ethical issues, and all the complexities of the issues explored in the official reports, and the ICAMSR at the far end of the spectrum it is all plenty enough material for an interesting and useful wikipedia article for those who want to know more about the subject.Robert Walker (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There'll be a link in the BC section of the main article to icamsr.org and your opinion piece at Science20. They can go there if they want to know more. Warren Platts (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Remember, it's an encyclopedia so not trying to put forward any particular view. If there is lots of notable cited material written about it, then it is worth covering IMO. Even if the NASA and ESF official surveys were all there was, still it would deserve at least a short article about the various factors they considered and the precautions and the reasons for them.Robert Walker (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it's deserving of a brief 500 word section in the main article, if that. Warren Platts (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, and you wanted a source for doomsday hysteria as being the true cause of so-called "concerns" for MSR BC: check out July/August Planetary Report (2003) published by the Planetary Society... Warren Platts (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, is it available online, do you know? I had a look seems to be a gap between 2001 and 2011 in the online material: http://www.planetary.org/explore/the-planetary-report/ Robert Walker (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Why don't you email your buddies at ICAMSR. They'll probably have a pdf for you. Warren Platts (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, not to bother, I'm not to bothered about including it myself if you don't think it is important. Robert Walker (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Not to bother. Of course not! It doesn't support your editorial opinion. (And BTW, I led you wrong, it's from the year 2000, not 2003, sorry about that sir.) But it's ironic that you don't think it's important because your pals at ICAMSR sure as hell thought it was important enough to write an editorial response to it! Robert, why aren't you reading your own sources?!? This bit is absolutely lovely:


 * Hm, so that's where you got the idea to misspell people's names you disagree with. Warren Platts (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren I told you already I am not a member of the ICAMSR. And I am not trying to promote anyones views here. Just presenting the ICAMSR as one POV amongst many. If my own POV was included in the article (which it isn't, because not (yet anyway) published in peer reviewed journals or sources considered notable by criteria of wikipedia) I would present it similarly as one view amongst many, and would declare a COI here. I would give just the barest minimum of detail or more likely mention it on the talk page and ask another editor to add it to the article. With the present article there is no direct COI as my own view is not included, and I have declared my general bias towards a later MSR, and asked for help in dealing with it to create a balanced article.


 * My own view for what it is worth is a bit like Zubrin's that a MSR is not needed at all right now both for reasons of cost and science return - there I agree with him, that technology is evolving so rapidly that we can do much more on Mars especially if looking for samples there to study - but also of course for back contamination and forward contamination of the sample to be returned. But then for me it is combined with the idea of telerobotics that instead of humans exploring Mars should have telerobots exploring Mars as costing much less for more science return in my view, for cost of a MSR mission you could probably be not far off being able to send humans to Mars for an orbital mission there to explore it extensively via telerobotics which in my view would lead to far more science return than a MSR of samples that you have no idea really if they are biologically interesting or not. And if done carefully it would totally eliminate contamination issues.


 * You could return a sample eventually just as with the human missions but it wouldn't be urgent and by then you understand it very well and know what is interesting about it, and exactly why you want to return it to Earth. That's partly for safety yes but partly for science return too, I totally don't see any urgency for either reason to return a sample to Earth. I think that the current ideas are based on old technology and haven't taken account how rapidly technology is advancing and the sorts of things we will be able to do on Mars in just say ten years, especially with humans controlling the telerobots from orbit, and in not so distant future, maybe 20 years or so if that, probably new launch capabilities such as fly direct to orbit able to put really heavy machinery into orbit around Mars or on its surface if we want to.


 * That view doesn't occur anywhere in this article because I haven't found anyone else who has published it. And as you see it doesn't exactly correspond with anyone and not with the ICAMSR charter, though it does align with the aims of not contaminating Earth from Mars.Robert Walker (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * And - that is just my current view, as I debate it with others my ideas evolve and I haven't got any charter or anything like that that I want others to sign, am in process of finding out more and debating it. I could be convinced of safety of a MSR to Earth - my position is much like Carl Sagan, perhaps it could be done but I would need to be very sure it is safe first and personally I don't feel sufficiently reassured by the current official plans for many reasons. I feel they don't really take account of the severity of an existential risk and treat it too much as if it is just a normal biohazard, don't quite balance the severity enough against the low probability, IMHO. And to be really safe at current levels of knowledge when we know so little about Mars especially biologically, I feel personally that it would be just ridiculously expensive (tens or hundreds of billions??) and definitely do a trial mission all the way through first with no real mars material in the capsule since so many missions to Mars fail one way or another) and also require everyone involved in the mission to take the existential risk seriously and because of the way humans behave I just don't think it is feasible for that to happen, at least a few of the engineers or mission planners etc would treat it as not quite of the utmost importance to preserve containment. So for reasons of cost, incomplete knowledge, and human nature and human error, and the much higher science return with no risk for the alternatives.


 * Just mentioning this because you are attributing views to me that I don't hold and claiming alignment to an organization that I don't belong to so wanted to make clear what I do think currently. Note that I don't state this view anywhere i the article or refer to it or suggest it or hint it or anything. Robert Walker (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * And for your embellishments, we've already talked about you adding strange new life forms to the NRC's "viral growth" embellishment. Yet it's still in your "article.... lol! Warren Platts (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren I added the viral growth thing because the NSF considered it and found it significant. They don't say in detail why, just said it pretty much as I have it in the article. I made clear that it was viral growth and not reproduction. But I've probably not paraphrased it quite right. Will take another look at the source and try to paraphrase it correctly. It's a case of attempting to paraphrase several long complicated paragraphs into one sentence. With the ESF then I think their main reason for considering viruses is because viruses can infect micro-organisms so if you have a common origin with Earth, then viruses and gene transfer agents might be able to transfer material between the martian micro-organisms and Earth organisms. There I am just reporting the official concerns not adding new material of my own but may have paraphrased it incorrectly, will check. Robert Walker (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It's NRC not NSF. And the report is a POS, if you ask me, since they are like you: they like to exaggerate because the truth is not worth telling. But even they do not make the leap and say that we must do more in situ research before MSR can be allowed. That is your OR. It's funny how you do exactly the things you accuse me of doing. That's called psychological projection.


 * In my science20 article yes I say that in situ research first is best, in my own voice. But in this article, then for back contamination prevention, it's Levin's idea, and generally the ICAMSR. With others suggesting only in situ or in situ first for science value reasons and also mentioning the value for back contamination prevention. I haven't made that clear enough and see that it comes over as editorial voice because I haven't cited it and made the connection. It is to do with connecting different sections of the article properly. Will fix it though not sure exactly how quite yet.Robert Walker (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Classic WP:SYNTH... Keep up the good work. Warren Platts (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As for your personal opinion of the sources cited, fine, but if they are noteworthy as these are, and I report them accurately, your personal opinion of them is not a good reason for disqualifying them from inclusion though you are perfectly entitled to your opinions (as am I about any that I might think are rubbish arguments, in my personal opinion Zubrin's mars meteorite argument is a weak argument but of course won't say that in the article and will present it just as he does).Robert Walker (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Garbage in, garbage out... Warren Platts (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As for "viral growth", why don't you just report the truth: that there is a virus whose pointy ends provide a template for spontaneous crystallization of a tail of unknown if any function. I'll tell you why not: it's not scary enough. Warren Platts (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I am trying to paraphrase someone else's argument. This is what they say:


 * I suppose they are probably referring to the last para of the abstract: "This host-independent morphological development may be a strategy for viral survival in an environment that is unusually harsh and has limited host availability." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16121167 Anyway will see if I can come up with a better paraphrase. Robert Walker (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Right, so there's 3 layers of embellishments: (1) the Nature article reports a boring finding of a molecular tail spontaneously crystalizing on a virus particle so with zero evidence they suggest that it somehow serves the function of virus survival (FYI Robert, not every single feature of a life form serves a biological function, cf. human appendix); (2) NRC report runs with that saying that now all of a sudden we realize that life is more complex previously believed (I'll admit they had a tough job and had to come up with something); (3) then you take it and say there are viruses that grow outside of host cells in addition to other unnamed strange new life forms. I can't blame you for exaggerating because the truth--that they found one virus that has a crystal tail is not worth telling and is in fact irrelevant to the topic! Warren Platts (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem is how to summarize that in a short sentence, you can't include the whole para. as that would be way over the top. Some things are pretty easy to paraphrase, and sometimes as here it is quite a tough job to come up with a short clear easy to read paraphrase that doesn't also distort the original in any way. Robert Walker (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The ESF report also picks up on this and goes further by considering GTAs and viruses as both needing containment as well as considering the remote chance of possible martian lifeforms smaller than either of them. But the earlier report goes into more detail on the back contamination side of things and the literature and Mars surface survay than the later one which builds on the earlier one which I suppose is why I chose that one as the one to focus on in this section. Robert Walker (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Right, and then you embellish that and say that Martian prions are also threat! ROTFLMAO!!! Warren Platts (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't mention prions in the article. The ESF report does discuss them briefly but didn't give it enough prominence to seem worth putting into a short summary. The GTAs though were of concern to them because they permit transfer of Martian DNA fragments directly into Earth micro-organisms. Which means that if just a tiny particle consisting of a GTA got through the containmnet facility it could transfer martian DNA from micro-organisms inside the facility to micro-organisms outside the facility. Gene transfer agent That's the ESF board's concern, not my concern. Needs to be mentioned because it is their main reason for reducing the size requirement for escaped particles.Robert Walker (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Also please note, I haven't said anything insulting or personal about you here, I don't understand why you feel the need to insult me so much in your replies, what the problem is but really you are reacting to absolutely nothing at all like that on my part, I assure you and all my mis-spellings which seem to bug you so much, are just that, misspellings due to fast typing and a slight tendency to dislexia or something like it. If I practise typing with word per minute exercises, I can reduce the number of errors and get near flawless typing but havne't done that for a while, probably should give it a go again. Robert Walker (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Just found out a bit more about those viruses that can grow outside of a host. Apparently members of a new study area of viruses of archaea, that is turning out to be an amazingly diverse and novel field of study. Viruses of the Archaea: a unifying view - 2006


 * I think it is one of those things that for microbiologists is a really novel discovery, but hard to convey its excitement outside the field. I think in the context of the quote, rather than draw any direct consequence from the research for Martian micro-organisms - if martian micro-organisms can grow a tail outside of their host cell - neither here nor there really - but basically they are saying, this really surprising thing has been discovered (surprising for microbiologists), and it shows how little we really understand about living organisms and how they interact with their environment, and there may be other surprises in store. Something like that. Will be hard to convey that in a paraphrase or quote. But indeed, solution is to go back to the sources when this happens though can't do a novel argument from the source, but just to try to understand better the argument you are paraphrasing. Will research on it some more to try to understand the quote better. Robert Walker (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That's neat, but what does that have to do with MSR BC risks? Nothing, AFAIK. Warren Platts (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know either. Except in a general way as pointing out how we can get surprises and our knowledge of viruses is incomplete. Clearly they thought it was relevant or they wouldn't have mentioned it there, but am not sure why they did. Anyway as you see I decided the best solution is just to leave the mention out as the ESF one in any case supersedes it as the later report that builds on their results.

Section: Robert Zubrin's view that back contamination risk has no scientific validity
Added this comment (only visible in the wiki source text)

I have just emailed the Planetary Society to see if it is possible to purchase the 2000 edition of the journal for study, as it has Zubrin's original article and the replies so seems an important issue to read. Robert Walker (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Reversion completed
I've reverted and added the tags back in. Will look up citations later - all that material is cited backed but it takes a bit of time to do it and I'm going to be programming for a while, got work to do, so will deal with it later.

It might help to say my strategy which is first to rough out the whole page in a somewhat broad brush way so remove all repetitions and add all the sections needed, and at the same time of course add in citations and say who said what in each para. But the minutae to make sure every single section is cited, and to check that all the citations are accurate and support the text they are attached to (it is easy to misplace a citation especially when you do a lot of copy and paste and re-organising) - I will do that in a later phase maybe tomorrow or day after depending how long this first phase takes. It will help to add cn tags to the content at this stage but I may not fix them all right now as I see the overall organization as more important and if I know I have a citation anyway may just wait till it is re-organized before adding them all in. Robert Walker (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK. But don't forget to add the sections on risk mitigation that you deleted, and also you promised to add a section on doomsday phobias as the true cause of "concern"! ;-) Warren Platts (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've got sections on risk mitigation in my user space version. Here if you look you'll see that I talk about risk mitigation in the same section as the risk is raised e.g. on sample containment in the same section talk about how they plan to send a separate clean capsule to collect the entire capsule from Mars within it, in vacuum of space, and seal it, as a way to break the chain of contact with the Mars surface.


 * Yes they may well come over more clearly as separate sections as in my user space version, will review this.


 * As for doomsday phobias, I am attempting to get hold of a copy of the 2000 article by Zubrin. Will need a source to refer to, to include it. And secondary sources by opponents quoting Zubrin in order to attack his views are not suitable for this, and anyway Imo the ICAMSR page you gave doesn't describe his views clearly enough to know what they are. A primary source attributing back contamination concerns to doomsday phobias is worth mentioning. Since he had replies in that same issue I expect there will also be replies from others saying that they are not doomsday phobias and those also would deserve mention too probably as a separate section to avoid confusing of whose view is whose. But will need to read it first and see what the material is before plannign what to do with it. Robert Walker (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Section Issues with in situ study as a way to significantly reduce contamination risks
Added this comment (only visible in the wiki source text)

If anyone knows a source for their argument do say, so I can present their argument in this section - it wasn't clear to me from their website what their source for it is. Robert Walker (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The argument is that you can't prove a negative. It doesn't matter how many rocks you turn over. There will always be other rocks that you didn't kick over that might harbor Andromeda Strain superbugs capable of causing cross species hyperdiseases and mass extinctions--just like Mars organisms killed the dinosaurs according to DeGregorio. That is why your and ICAMSR's argument that we must do more in situ research is a disingenuous ploy to derail Mars exploration. You will always be able to say we haven't done enough research yet. Warren Platts (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, you didn't source your quote. And it's not from NASA OPP either. You got a lot of nerve accusing me of not reading the references.Warren Platts (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren, I got the quote from the OPP page cited, pretty sure. But they may have got it from somewhere else if so do say as it may help to understand to read it in context.


 * As for the argument you just gave, I know you say that that is their argument in your version of the page. But you don't have a source for it at least haven't yet given one. Please give the source - for the entire argument - a page where the PPO give the reasoning for their conclusion - and I will then put it into the article. But I can't use the argument you gave as the only source I could give for it would be you as "Warren Platts says that the reason the PPO came to this conclusion is ..." - could do that if you were a notable source but not just because you made the argument on a previous version of the page.


 * I have plenty of arguments that lead to the opposite conclusion, but it is not appropriate to give them either, unless I find a source critical of the PPO quote as a direct reply to it.


 * I do want to give their argument. Am not trying to introduce bias by leaving it out. Just, want it to be presented accurately exactly as they present it. Your argument I find personally not that convincing as an argument (because it doesn't address the reasons why those concerned feel it is risky and the reasons why they think in situ research and testing eliminate those risks to the natural contamination levels, it is just a blanket argument that argues against a straw man position not held by anyone, the position that you should aim for total 100% certainty that no back contamination is possible at all, with mathematical certainty, no-one suggests that in the papers I read and anyone with any sense would agree it is impossible, so it is a "straw man")


 * I feel it is likely they have another argument that directly addresses it and takes into account things such as actual practical capabilities of equipment we can send to Mars probably, and whether or not, given the range of possible ways you could argue, it simply is unencyclopaedic to attribute an argument to them without a source to back it up.Robert Walker (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't get it: What is so hard to understand about the argument? It's pretty simple: (P1) if more in situ research cannot eliminate uncertainty, then samples should be treated as biohazards; (P2) more in situ research cannot eliminate uncertainty; therefore, (C1) therefore, samples must be treated as biohazards. Simple modus ponens. And your quote does not come from the OPP. Read the frackin' source to figure it out. It's not my job to do your fact checking! Warren Platts (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It's your P2 that needs to be supported, or else your P1, depending what you mean by uncertainty.Robert Walker (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It's sourced. It's right in the very quote you quoted. What is it that you don't understand about that quote. It's very clearly written. Warren Platts (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Those advocating a step by step approach starting with in situ search for life, then biohazard testing in orbit, finally human quarantine, i.e. Levin or ICAMSR [which are the same thing] of the still alive authors writing on it, would surely say that whole process reduces the uncertainty to acceptable levels e.g. to levels equivalent to the natural contamination standard, or the same or safer than e.g. your example of drilling into an oil well or sealed underground aquifer that's been isolated for millions of years, though I don't know of any writings by them referring to the natural contamination standard.Robert Walker (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "would surely say" Now we're getting somewhere. IOW, you admit you're inventing unsourced OR. The fact is they don't say how much more in situ research would satisfy them. If 20 successful missions aren't enough to satisfy them, why should we think that another 20 missions will satisfy them?  Warren Platts (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sadly the author who advocated the natural contamination standard as one to consider for forward contamination didn't specifically apply it to backward contamination, and I haven't yet seen a discussion of it as a standard for backward contamination or I would include it here. Wish I could, as it would help make the whole thing a lot clearer. As it is all the arguments presented are a bit vague as no "acceptable level of probability" is given - even for the official view they say that a million fold reduction is enough in their view given that the original probability is alreadyd low, but they don't say how low the original probability is in their opinion which makes it hard to compare suggestions and ideas. It is all so vague for a mathematician. I know they can't assess the initial probability in the normal fashion, but they could have got their experts to estimate a likely level of probability and then published a range of estimates given by the experts as to the probability of an existential risk outcome, but they didn't and no-one has to my knowledge.


 * It is the same the other way too, the ICAMSR don't define an acceptable level of probability either to be achieved by their precautions.Robert Walker (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course not! If they were specific rather than vague, they open themselves up to refutation! Warren Platts (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * However, if we understood them to mean a level of uncertainty greater than that for e.g. your examples or the natural contamination standards, then a return without those precautions is a still very low but higher level of probability which they find unacceptable.


 * So to find a problem with their proposals, you would need to show in detail why it is that you think in situ research, combined with a slow return with biohazard testing in orbit first, can't reduce the levels to the natural contamination standard or whatever is the suggested standard to achieve for acceptable levels of risk. Robert Walker (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No. The burden of proof is on them. They need to prove that more in situ research would reduce the risk to the point where the samples wouldn't have to be treated as biohazards. Of course, that is an impossibly high goal. No doubt chosen on purpose just because of that.Warren Platts (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * In short, it needs to be an answer to a particular position, or range of positions and needs to go into detail. Your argument is an answer that would be adequate for someone who requires absolute certainty but no-one holds that POV as far as I know. Which is why I call it a "straw man" argument and why I think it unlikely that it is the one the OPP have in mind. Robert Walker (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Right, so you admit that more in situ research cannot eliminate residual "concerns" and that therefore, samples must be treated as biohazards. Exactly the NASA position. Unbelievable... Warren Platts (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no problem giving numbers for the things myself. I think that Nick Bostrom's 1 in 10^18 probability of existential risk is a reasonable starting point, based on the number of future humans who would be affected if humans went extinct or had permanent reductions in life prospects. If optimistic about human colonization of the galaxy that figure can be multiplied by quite a few more orders of magnitude. But it is a reasonable starting point I think.


 * So for instance if the initial "very low" probability is 1 in 1000 then a million fold reduction makes it 1 in a billion which for me is far too high a probability for existential risk. But if it is 1 in a trillion, then it makes it 1 in 10^18 which is borderline acceptable for me. I don't think any expert right now would come out and say the probability is as low as 1 in a trillion except for those that are sure there is no risk at all.


 * So - if the in situ investigations can reduce the chance of a back contamination risk from its current level whatever it is (say 1 in a thousand or 1 in a million??) to say 1 in a trillion, and then you use reasonable additional steps such as biohazard testing in orbit with terrestrial organisms then quarantine in orbit and finally return to Earth with care.


 * Indeed if you do it that way especially if astronauts also exposed to it and before that biohazard testing, and if you do it only decades later (as would be on my approach where there is no urgency at all to return samples) you might not even need a biohazard facility at that point if you have already achieved another millionfold reduction by those additional measures.


 * Or if you want the samples more urgently, then do the biohazard + containment after the in situ investigation and biohazard testing in Mars orbit - and that would probably take it down to much less than 1 in 10^18. But in that case - only if the mission planners and engineers take the whole thing seriously. If they say "it is so obviously harmless, no need to be that careful" then that means they are no longer achieving the extra millionfold reduction they set out to achieve and it is more of a token guesture. And far more testing of the mission is needed than the current plans e.g. try out of a sample return with nothing in the containter except test material to see if it escapes, e.g. indeed try it out with anthrax as in Carl Sagan's suggestion - or at least, some micro-organisms - more modern version, have a mix of GTAs and really tiny 0.2 microns micro-organisms with bio markers on them so easy to detect, and see if any do get released during the test sample return. If you do that properly and show that it really is a millionfold reduction of a one in a trillion original risk then that would be very reassuring.


 * Unless of course the biohazard testing or the examination for life brings up things that suggest caution in which case instead of reducing the probability might actually increase it and then of course you know that it has and proceed with due caution.


 * Do you see - how putting in actual numbers really helps with clarity in the debate. I don't know why no-one does this on either side, it makes a whole lot of sense to do it to me. One of the things I tried to do in my opinion piece is to suggests experts try putting numbers to their thoughts about probability of BC of MSR. Robert Walker (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, yes. It shows how ridiculously bending over backwards NASA is going to assuage Chicken Littles on this planet. There are on the order of 10's of billions of bacteria and mere 10's that dangerous to humans. So the odds of a bacteria being dangerous are on the order of 10^-9. Then the odds of a dangerous bacteria causing an extinction must be on the order of 10^-6 since there are millions of higher species yet we don't see them going extinct due to diseases as a matter of course. Then there is the fact that we've been bombard by trillions of kilograms of Mars material, and there is no evidence whatsoever that it causes ecological disruption. And there is the fact that we've been digging up new bacteria that have been isolated from the Earth's surface biosphere for millions of years, so that's another 10^-3 at least. So we're already up to your 10^-18. NASA plan makes that 10^-24 a sum so small it defies imagination. Warren Platts (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hope you don't mind me reducing your indent it is just to avoid having to answer on the right hand side of the page


 * First, your odds idea works if you take a random bacteria from the earth belonging to a single species (of course a sample could have many species), and estimate chance of it being a human pathogen, yes. List of human diseases here caused by known micro-organisms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_infectious_diseases has 215, and extra ones here including many that may be associated with cancer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_diseases_associated_with_infectious_pathogens but of course many of those not lethal, but many that reduce human life prospects. Total numbers of species - hard to say, especially also, with asexual division and especially also when you have GTA assisted gene transfer between diverse species prevalent it's not too clearly defined what is and isn't a separate species. Could be your 10 billion, is towards the higher end I think. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC539005/


 * But whatever what that is leaving out is the potential that Mars because of its novel environment may be more hazardous than a random micro-organism from Earth. In particular e.g. micro-organisms like radiodurans with DNA repair and resistant to ionizing radiation, and UV radiation, and micro-organisms that are able to do well in near vacuum conditions or indeed prefer them to Earth normal conditions for instance. Also ignores possibility of GTA type agents that transfer Martian DNA to other micro-organisms and pathogens of micro-organisms that may be pathogens of Earth micro-organisms and have evolved on Mars so novel to Earth micro-organisms.


 * Also important because so totally unknown what the effect could be, possibility of life that follows a different path altogether from Earth.


 * Also that the pathogens and infectious diseases on Earth are the unsucccessful ones in a way - the more lethal they are the less well adapated and the most well adapated become symboints and an essential part of us and e.g. there are estimated 10,000 species that co-exist with humans in the human mimcro-biome and in numbers, ten times as many as there are human cells. So it's those really that you need to think of as your potential pathogens from Mars and that's just for human pathogens. Over the billions of years of evolution our ancestors encountered many different types of micro-organism and either found ways of workign with them co-operatively or ways of keepingthem out and the infectious diseases we have now are just the ones that haven't yet been dealt with in that way. And means also we have a wide range of ways of coping with unknown micro-organisms from Earth as our bodies have historically come across things like them before almost certainly. The martian micro-organisms are likely in one way or another to be unknowns, which can go both ways but by no means certain it means they are easier to deal with especially ones that infect other micro-organisms or micro-organisms that just don't notice our defences and aren't particularly adapted to us, but are a nuisance because of biproducts they create or their shape or size etc.


 * Also micro-organisms that have no effect on humans but disrupt ecosystems, e.g. some micro-organism that replaces the micro-organism components of soil or the sea or water might make a major difference to human life prospects on Earth and lead to widespread hunger and starvation even if we are not killed directly, could end up with an Earth that is much harder for humans to survive on than our present day Earth - all this of course low probability not trying to scare anyone, extremely unlikely to happen, but tiny probability of it for sure.


 * The usual answer to Zubrin's comment, and I think I'll put it in there even though not a direct answer, as a separate section as more recent research is - that though there are many meteorites landing on Earth every year, there are not the same numbers being sent away from Mars every year. Haven't yet observed an impact on Mars that would be able to send meteorites to Earth. They almost certainly all come from occasional impacts and the last might well be 100,000 years ago. And species that inhabit the parts of Mars most likely to be hit by meteorites and also able to withstand the shock of the ejection and the vacuum of space are likely to have got here already. And when he talks about micro-organisms inside the rocks - that obviously doesn't apply to micro-organisms that live in brine habitats on the surface of Mars or near to the surface or as lichen on rocks, won't be inside rocks, and unlikely to ever end up inside rocks even as dormant states or spores, so only to endoliths on Mars really, and many of those would inhabit surface layers of rocks. Again those have probably already arrived from Mars in past if they exist. And there may well have been extinctions in the past caused by Mars micro-organisms. For all those reasons I regard his argument as pretty weak really. But don't say anything of course that would be editorial comment, but I can put some of this in a separate section as it is covered in some detail in the later NRC study and the ESF one might mention it too (I forget now).


 * Not saying this answer is right. Just that it is a subject of vigorous debate, you can put forward that argument yes, but can't expect universal acceptance of it or its conclusions by others and indeed mainstream view doesn't accept it.


 * I do agree that the official reports are bound to be slanted towards the more cautious side, but for a different reason. Think about it, if you yourself were asked to assess whether the MSR will be hazardous, and if you know that your name will be on the line if the MSR is returned and proves to be a major hazard even if not extinction of humans, if it is a major hazard and even if contained as a result of some major multi-billion or multi-trillion dollar program, if the US ends up having to do relief operations for its own citizens and others world wide - your name is going to be on the list, and there would be a major review and Challenger type enquiry into how the mission got to be approved - so of course you are going to be ultra cautious.


 * Personally I think that is a good thing, at least some people involved in the process have an element of personal responsibility, take it seriously, are bound too, because their name is on the bottom line if it goes wrong. Robert Walker (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OMG... The truth is finally coming out. It's clear you truly don't have a clue about what you are talking about; the more walls 'o BS you write only makes it worse. This is what happens when dilettantes pretend to be experts in fields they have no credentials, who skim references for tidbits that seem to support there outlandish theories, combined with fatuous righteous indignation. It is clear you have never even taken a single class in immunology. Your theory about extremophiles being more dangerous than ordinary bacteria is flat out against everything in experience and the literature. Your theory that immune systems are only designed to react to things we have encountered in our evolutionary past is ignorant. Your theory that the staff at the Office of Planetary Protection are worried about being before a court of inquiry is pure fantasy. I could go on ... Warren Platts (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually that last point about the PPO is based on an interview with the previous planetary protection officer. Planetary Radio interview with John Rummel A better way to express it - "the professional responsibility that most members of scientific groups would express when faced with a paucity of real data." as in the Margaret Race quote. I didn't mean at all that anyone in the report was unprofessional or wrongly motivated.


 * The thing about the Mars life being potentially dangerous, and that you can argue it either way, is just what Ledeberg and Sagan said and supported in the ESF report. Robert Walker (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * None of whom say that MSR should be postponed because it's an existential threat. You need help Robert. Warren Platts (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

New sections ESF update on biohazard risks of MSR, and on risk assessment probabilities
I decided to just remove the phrase about viral growth outside a host in the NSC section. It was superceded anyway by the later ESF update and seemed tricky to paraphrase what they meant by that, in a sufficiently concise way, and not sure I understood their point correctly.

Instead, have added a new section about the ESF update and particularly about the reasons they gave for concern about GTAs.

Have also added new sections on their material on probability assessments plus a research that Margaret Race did on the range of different perceptions of probability and risk amongst microbiologists. Robert Walker (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * More cherry picking of the scariest quotes. And why do you refer to the ESF report as an "update". More spinning. And there is no NSF report. You also don't note the fact that the ESF report says that SMR can be done safely. They do not argue for more in situ research. They are not against "early" MSR. And your entire section on more in situ research is unsourced WP:SYNTH.Warren Platts (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks I fixed the NRC for NSF. As for update, they say themselves in the report that they base it on the earlier NRC report and that due to new science research the size limits have to be reduced from the size limits of the earlier report. And I thought it was clear that they consider it to be safe to return it provided those new size limits are achieved. Will review and make it clearer if I can. Robert Walker (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * And your entire section on in situ research is unsourced WP:SYNTH.... Warren Platts (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay will check this. It is partly structure I think, as it refers back to the previous sections which gave the reason for in situ research first. The telerobotics section refers forward to the next section where it was recommended by telerobotics experts at that conference. Robert Walker (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As for the ESF saying that a MSR will be safe, actually just had a look and can't find a quote where they say that. They just talk about acceptable levels of risk, perhaps something from the section where they compare the mission with biohazard, hospital and airplane safety might be suitable, will come back to this later as it will take a bit of time to sort out a good quote + paraphrase.


 * And your section on the attitudes of microbiologists is extremely cherry picked. All you are doing is piling on editorial slant on top of editorial slant. You must think your readers are idiots. You are attempting to pull wool over the eyes of the uninformed. It does not belong on Wikipedia. Warren Platts (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I am simply quoting the material on MSR in the Margaret Race report. Perhaps you could say it is biased because she is one of the authors concerned about planetary protection, but most are, and I have no reason to believe that she biased the results in her report. It also fits my own experience of talking to micro-biologists. I know it is an old report and say so at the start. If you know a more recent survey of microbiologists with a special interest in and understanding of exobiology, do say. Or indeed other surveys of scientists with a relevant area of expertise, or for that matter uninformed people as well, doesn't matter anything like that is relevant to this article. But must be published or in some way notable according to wikipedia of course.Robert Walker (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You are not simply quoting. You are cherry picking quotes that seem to support your editorial POV and leaving out the quotes that do not support your POV. READ THE ARTICLE instead of just skimming for quotes that support your POV! Warren Platts (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay I will check it carefully and review this section. Remember also that after roughing it out I plan to go all the way through checking every single citation against the text of the article which should help to pick up this sort of thing as well. But good to have it pointed out right away. Robert Walker (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, at least you admit to cherrypicking quotes to support your editorial opinion. I guess that's progress.... Warren Platts (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Just said I need to check it. It can happen or course, hard not to pay a bit more attention to sections of an article that are more aligned with your own POV, though - can also have the opposite effect, that you also particularly notice sections that are opposed to your personal POV as well, and that is one place where having another editor with another POV can be really helpful. It was not intentional if it happened and will check carefully to see if I did. Robert Walker (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I include the decadal survey at the end of the article, but they didn't survey for opinions on back contamination risk as far as I know. Robert Walker (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * So what? Warren Platts (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Just meant, if the decadal survey had done a survey for opinions on back contamination risks, then I could include it in the article just as I did for the microbiologists. But I haven't yet come across any other surveys. The decadal report also had 199 white papers presented by individual members, and it is well possible that amongst all that there may be interesting POVs but would be a long process to trail through all that material assuming it is online (probably is as most of the material is including full video recordings of all the debates they had apparently) Robert Walker (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

What does kuru disease have to do with Mars Sample Return???
Other than adding scare factor? Warren Platts (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If you look at the version in my user space I already removed that. The only reason for including Kuru disease was because of the long quarantine period. I just wanted to give an update on most recent ideas about lengths of quarantine period since Carl Sagan's was from so long ago.. But in most recent, I instead simply gave an update on his figure for Leprosy which makes more sense.


 * But of course you KNOW that kuru disease is caused by prions. This is your way of sneaking in the implication that we also have to worry about Martian prions. A crazy idea that no one, not even ICAMSR mentions. More editorial slanting. Warren Platts (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Not at all. That was not my motivation for including Kuru disease. Anyway have now fixed it.


 * Prions are mentioned here http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/misc/Astrobiology/Quarantine-Certification-Martian-Samples.pdf/ Probably don't need to make too much of them, as the conclusion was that they are of no concern, but could just briefly mention them somewhere as in a short sentence "Prions have also been studied, with the conclusion that they are of no concern" or some such.




 * That's an older paper before the more recent research on GTAs and so doesn't mention them. But I assume the conclusions about prions are still valid. Robert Walker (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of unsourced content
Warren, a matter of wikipedia ettiquette, the normal way to deal with unsourced material, except in cases such as obvious vandalism, is to add. If you consider that it needs immediate attention you can talk about it on the talk page.

It is disruptive especially when an article is mid edit and you are in the process of adding citations to it. Please don't do it, just mention your concerns here. If after discussion here it is decided that the material must go that is fine.

I will revert your edit and replace it with a Robert Walker (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I was doing you a favor by putting that section into a more neutral POV. The way you had it written implied that NASA is negligently and recklessly embarking on an adventure that puts the whole human race at an existential risk. That is certainly not the case! But if you really don't want to change the article to a more WP:NPOV, I guess I can wait until Sunday before doing more editing! :-) Warren Platts (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, if you have issues with POV for a sentence or a section, please use the template POV-SECTION or POV-STATEMENT see Neutral_point_of_view. This will be really helpful. You could also say what the issue is as a comment in the wiki source using the markup Robert Walker (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, what's the point: the article will cease to exist in a few days... Warren Platts (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)