User talk:Robertinventor/Old/Modern Mars Habitability/Old revision from Wikipedia with extra quotes

Removed quotes:

"'It is concluded that extant life is a strong possibility, that abiotic interpretations of the LR data are not conclusive, and that, even setting our conclusion aside, biology should still be considered as an explanation for the LR experiment. Because of possible contamination of Mars by terrestrial microbes after Viking, we note that the LR data are the only data we will ever have on biologically pristine martian samples"

This presupposes that the ephemeral surface habitats could be colonized by viable life forms, that is, that a subsurface reservoir exists in which microbes could continue to metabolize and that, as noted above, the viable microbes could be transported into the short-lived habitat.... Although there are a large number of constraints on the continued survival of life in the subsurface of Mars, the astonishing biomass in the subsurface of Earth suggests that this scenario as a real possibility

'"Claims that reducing planetary protection requirements wouldn't be harmful, because Earth life can't grow on Mars, may be reassuring as opinion, but the facts are that we keep discovering life growing in extreme conditions on Earth that resemble conditions on Mars. We also keep discovering conditions on Mars that are more similar—though perhaps only at microbial scales—to inhabited environments on Earth, which is where the concept of Special Regions initially came from

We argue that the strategy for Mars exploration should center on the search for extant life. By extant life, we mean life that is active today or was active during the recent geological past and is now dormant. As we discuss below, the immediate strategy for Mars exploration cannot focus only on past life based on the result of the Viking missions, particularly given that recent analyses call for a re-evaluation of some of these results. It also cannot be based on the astsumption that the surface of Mars is uniformly prohibitive for extant life, since research contributed in the past 30 years in extreme environments on EArth has shown that life is possible under extremes of cold and dryness

The case of ExoMars is particularly dramatic as the first priority of the rover is to search for signs of past and present life on Mars ... however, it has been explicitly banned to go to Special Regions because it will not comply with the minimum cleanliness requirements. As a consequence, the billion-dollar life-seeking mission ExoMars will be allowed to search for life everywhere on Mars, except in the very places where we suspect that life may exist.

---

Also here is the wiki source for the old talk page discussion from wikipedia - may have useful material.

For attribution of htis discussion - it's from

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Modern_Mars_habitability

Quotations in cites
. First thanks for working on the article. I just have a question about your most recent edit. You say it is "remove excessive and inappropriate non-free content, per WP:NFCC". However the material doesn't seem excessive to me. Some of the quotes are quite long, but not longer than is often used in quotes in the body of an article, at most a paragraph or so, and sometimes it is very short. For instance you removed the quotes here:





The reason for putting quotes into the cites is because it helps the reader to find the cite in what is often a long article with many sections in it - indeed it means they can read a quote from it by just hovering their mouse over the cite without going to the reference itself. Sometimes also the original source is behind a paywall so they may not be able to read it, and then a quote is especially valuable. It is of course generally accepted that it is permissible to give short quotes from non free content. Also, there can't be a blanket ban on using quotes in cites, because all the wikipedia cite templates have quote= parameters.

I could understand removing the quotes for other reasons, perhaps because it made the reflist too long, especially the longer quotes. If that was the reason I could respond by shortening some of the longer quotes.

But how is just quoting at all, in short quotes, going against guidelines on non free content? Please can you discuss here, do you still think this material needs to be removed, and if so, why? Once again thanks for your attention to the article, and if this is against the wikipedia guidelines for some reason, of course it should be removed, it's just that I don't currently see how it is and the quotes seem to serve a useful purpose and to aid the reader. Thanks. Robert Walker (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Non-free content criteria is the relevant policy page. While brief properly attributed quotations are permitted under the policy, adding excessive non-free content is a bad idea in my opinion. Quotations from your sources should only be included if the material has been challenged or is likely to be challenged. Your sources are readily available online, so there's no need for any of these quotations. Adding so much redundant material may make the page more difficult for people on a slow connection or those using a mobile device. (By the way, the prose on the page is 14618 words, and the suggested maximum page size is 10000 words). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh I see. You are referring to WP:LONGQUOTE where it talks about controversial material. I think the only material that you removed that could be regarded as needed for that reason might be the quotes from the section Modern Mars habitability.


 * For the rest of the quotes, just checked now, I think that the main reason for including them was usually either to help the reader find the quote in the cited article (but page numbers would do for that), or to add extra technical details to the material that may interest a specialist. But for that section, they put in their own words what the various authors say on the topic of whether they think there is present day life on Mars. For purposes of verification I think it might be enough to retain just these quotes, which are short and express their views clearly - which express what is a new view amongst many astrobiologists developed in the last decade since the Phoenix observations:


 * The quotes I'd like to retain, if you think it acceptable, are:


 * "The observation of high survival rates of methanogens under simulated Martian conditions supports the possibility that microorganisms similar to the isolates from Siberian permafrost could also exist in the Martian permafrost."


 * "Our results indicate that terrestrial microbes might survive under the high-salt, low-temperature, anaerobic conditions on Mars and present significant potential for forward contamination. Stringent planetary protection requirements are needed for future life-detection missions to Mars"


 * "This work strongly supports the interconnected notions (i) that terrestrial life most likely can adapt physiologically to live on Mars (hence justifying stringent measures to prevent human activities from contaminating / infecting Mars with terrestrial organisms); (ii) that in searching for extant life on Mars we should focus on "protected putative habitats"; and (ii) that early-originating (Noachian period) indigenous Martian life might still survive in such micro-niches despite Mars' cooling and drying during the last 4 billion years"


 * "The results achieved from our study led to the conclusion that black microcolonial fungi can survive in Mars environment."


 * That would be enough for verification I think. I'd prefer to retain the quotes that expand on the text of the article with technical details. But can understand your reasoning for leaving them out, and as you say, a keen reader can go to the original material. I think you are right that most of the quotes are available to read online. On the length of the article, I'm aware that it is somewhat long as wikipedia articles go. There are much longer articles of course, in Special:LongPages but most are shorter. I've already divided this article into two, as the original combined this with the Present day Mars habitability analogue environments on Earth. I can't think of a natural way to divide the remaining material, or I would have done so already. But will keep this in mind, and am interested in suggestions. I may perhaps be able to shorten the article somewhat still and will look at it, see if there is anything I can say more succintly and see if there is any repetition.


 * Are you okay with me restoring those four quotes on the basis that they help with rapid verification that those are the views of their authors? Or what are your thoughts on that matter? Robert Walker (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That would definitely be a lot more reasonable. Regarding article length, ordinary copy editing normally does result in a substantial reduction in page size. You might consider going through the article top to bottom and see what you can do. Looking at the article as a whole often results in ideas for ways to improve the layout as well. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay glad to hear it. I'll reintroduce those four quotes then when I have a bit of time and will have a go at some copy editing to see if I can reduce its length or improve the layout. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Why did you remove the quote "The results achieved from our study led to the conclusion that black microcolonial fungi can survive in Mars environment.". You cited this discussion but in this discussion this quote you removed is one of the quotations in the list above that  agreed was appropriate to add to the article. They are included under the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy which is the very thing on which you are challenging the article in your AfD. I put the quotes into the cites as less intrusive to the reader but makes it easy for anyone to check attribution of the POV. Can you please clarify why you have removed this quote from the article? Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I should not have removed it as it was in the list of quotes above and have undone that edit. Ca2james (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - is right in your view that the article should not have any more quotes for WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV over and above the four you approved? I added more quotes to support this because of an AfD that is in progress and he deleted them as you see in this edit.  I find his reasoning hard to follow as it does not seem to be excessive either in terms of numbers of characters or any kind of an issue of WP:LONGQUOTE especially since it is to support what many of the editors who are voting to delete this article regard as controversial material - not being up to date on the latest findings in this field. Robert Walker (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Modern Mars habitability. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/ExoMars/SEMK39JJX7F_0.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415162537/http://ijass.org/PublishedPaper/year_abstract.asp?idx=132 to http://ijass.org/PublishedPaper/year_abstract.asp?idx=132
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://plantpath.ifas.ufl.edu/faculty/statewide/schuerger/Schuerger_2012_PSS-3371.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Factual accuracy is disputed
The neologism of "habitability" WP:NEO is greatly abused in this article, as the context of many of the references cited. This article is a reflection of Robert's everlasting soap box, promoting the unavoidable viral Martian invasion, synthesis toward it, and bias towards life on Mars. Having interacted with Robert over many years, I expected him to dump his "modern" assays on Mars at some page, and this is it. I expect a zillion walls of text to follow claiming his his "scientific" friends are [still] outraged at my containment of his eternal biased assays, which will be best addressed at ANI at due time. This assay is tagged now for major inaccuracies, deficiencies and bias, for the benefit of all unsuspecting readers, if not of Wikipedia. BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The title "Modern Mars Habitability" comes from the title to a conference session organized by Carol Stoker, NASA Ames Research Center, and Alfred McEwen, LPL, University of Arizona earlier this year. Astrobiology Science Conference Session on the Modern Mars Habitability


 * Abstract for the session:


 * ""Modern Mars Habitability: Recent discoveries on Mars, including: Recurring Slope Lineae, ground ice, and active gully formation, have been interpreted as indications for the transient presence of water. The potential for liquid water on Mars has profound implications for the habitability of the modern Mars environment. This session solicits papers that examine the evidence for habitable environments on Mars, present results about life in analogs to these environments, discuss hypotheses to explain the active processes, evaluate issues for planetary protection, and explore the implications for future explorations of Mars.""


 * The first conference on this topic, titled "Present Day Habitability of Mars" was held in 2013 in UCLA, organized by the UCLA Institute for Planets and Exoplanets, the UK Center for Astrobiology and the NASA Astrobiology Institute.. Robert Walker (talk) 11:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * So that answers the neologisms banner. As for the rest of the banners, then no statements have yet been identified either in the banner or on this talk page or by inline tags that need a citation, as disputed in accuracy, or as WP:POV. The article has been here since December 2016 and has only had wikignoming edits since July 2017.


 * There is indeed a wide range of views on the topic of this article. This is covered in the section:  Views on the possibility of present day life on or near the surface Robert Walker (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I will remove the banners in the near future since it seems all the concerns have been addressed with no further replies here. Robert Walker (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Modern Mars habitability. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110416092053/http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/08/12/mars-life.html to http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/08/12/mars-life.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130603191033/http://norlx51.nordita.org/~brandenb/astrobiology/EANA2012/single_abstracts/Delatorre.pdf to http://norlx51.nordita.org/~brandenb/astrobiology/EANA2012/single_abstracts/Delatorre.pdf
 * Added tag to ftp://ftp.seti.org/lfenton/Papers/bridgesetal2012_sandfluxes.pdfA
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141012232023/http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/articles/2014/7/3/liquid-water-from-ice-and-salt-on-mars/ to https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/articles/2014/7/3/liquid-water-from-ice-and-salt-on-mars/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303225043/http://www.montana.edu/priscu/DOCS/Publications/JepsenEtAl2007LifeOnMars.pdf to http://www.montana.edu/priscu/DOCS/Publications/JepsenEtAl2007LifeOnMars.pdf
 * Added tag to http://erebus.nmt.edu/imagepages/icetowers/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140228064342/https://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2011/06/29/Mellon_Water_PPS_May2011_-_TAGGED.pdf to https://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2011/06/29/Mellon_Water_PPS_May2011_-_TAGGED.pdf
 * Added tag to http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/97JE01346/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170322112343/http://perso.utinam.cnrs.fr/~mousis/papier92.pdf to http://perso.utinam.cnrs.fr/~mousis/papier92.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303225043/http://www.montana.edu/priscu/DOCS/Publications/JepsenEtAl2007LifeOnMars.pdf to http://www.montana.edu/priscu/DOCS/Publications/JepsenEtAl2007LifeOnMars.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing for POV's in the article
This article's entry in the articles for deletion raises questions bout the sourcing of the POV's in the article. Much of that seems to be due to my omission of cites from the sentence in the lede that summarized the POV's mentioned in the rest of the article. This is now fixed. Another factor is probably the deleted quotes - which made it easy to verify that the views of the authors were accurately summarized, see above. I have restored the quotes mentioned there. Was planning to do so in April 2017, but I had a lot on and forgot. I have also added some more quotes to the remaining cites that support POV's presented in the article. I have a few left to do which I will look at soon. If there are any unsourced POV's remaining in this article please let me know!

In particular since you nominated this article for deletion in part because of a percieved POV slant - can you please let me know if there are any remaining unsourced POV's that you notice in this article? I can understand that it seemed WP:POV because much has changed in the views of astrobiologists on this topic in the last decade, and it is a topic of very active research, much of which doesn't get beyond the discussions in the pages of astrobiology journals and is not well known outside this rather limited field. Incidentally there is a vigorous debate going on right now, 2017 - 2018, in the Astrobiology journal - one of the top journals on astrobiology between Rummel and Conley, both former planetary protection officers for NASA with Fairén et al on planetary protection measures for future robotic missions to Mars. The view of the authors on both sides of the debate is that the surface of Mars is at least potentially habitable to modern Earth microbes. I will cite from this too. Robert Walker (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Have now added a couple of cites to that debate to the last paragraph of the lede plus a cite to Davila et al, all from the Astrobiology journal. Robert Walker (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Reliance on primary sources is part of the issue, but being POV is more than a sourcing issue: it's about how different ideas are weighted and expressed. In this case, there's a lot of detail that's COATRACK for this article. This article also doesn't reflect the weighting of ideas of Life on Mars article, which pretty much automatically makes this a POVFORK.
 * Also concerning is that this article reads as an essay, not an encyclopaedia article, with the informal tone, rhetorical questions, contractions (isn't, don't, etc), and non-compliance with the MOS. If kept, this article needs a major overhaul from beginning to end to comply with Wikipedia standards. I personally think it would be less work, and a better use of volunteer resources, to delete this article and work on expending the existing section in Life on Mars. We'll see what the community says. Ca2james (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Deletion of this assay is long overdue. Please be advised that copy/paste of this junk into Life on Mars article is not an option. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Cites for the lede
I think part of the reason this article was nominated for deletion was because I had many uncited statements in the lede. The reason was that they summarized the rest of the article and while preparing the summary for the lede I didn't always add the cites in for the sections I was summarizing. I have added cites to most of the remaining uncited statements, just by going to the relevant section of the article and copying the cites into the lede after the relevant sentence. There are a few remaining uncited sentences there that I will add cites to, tomorrow. As for the quality of the cites used, I am not sure what else I can do to address that. So far nobody on this talk page has challenged any individual cites and they are to sources that are often used in other articles in this topic area. They are normally regarded as acceptable WP:RS. Some are secondary, some are primary, but that is the same with all articles in this topic area. For instance, take the very first section Modern Mars habitability - how can you cover the Viking labeled release experiments without citing the primary articles on the topic by Levin, Miller et al, as well as the ones criticizing them by Quine etc? I use the same cites as the linked to larger article Viking lander biological experiments

do feel free to elaborate and explain further here, as I know that as the author of the article I should limit my comments in the AfD debate itself. But it seems reasonable to ask such questions on the article talk page. I would appreciate clarification on this matter - unless adding extra cites to the lede has solved the issue already? Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The lede is pretty much in its final form, now, after the major rewrite of it that I did after your criticisms in the AfD, but adding cites to it is a slow proces. Please bear with me as I continue with this. Robert Walker (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Quotes in refs
please do not add quotes to references. They were already removed in 2017 and are not necessary and run contrary to fair use. You re-added the four quotes you'd discussed above; please don't add more. Ca2james (talk) 02:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - The quotes are all short, they do not significantly add to the number of characters in the article, they are well within what is acceptable as fair use and copyright, just a couple of sentences from each source, and they assist editors to verify WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, which is especially important in view of the current AfD. See the discussion above in . Quotes are frequently used in cites in wikipedia in numerous articles. Which wikipedia guideline is the basis for your request? Robert Walker (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The quotes are not short and it isn't about characters in the article. Although quotes are technically allowed, they're supposed to be used sparingly due to copyright concerns. I'm going by the discussion above where quotes were first deleted. Quotes are really only needed if the source is offline or otherwise unavailable or the point is particularly contentious.
 * The question at the AfD is not whether or not each POV is attributed as there's no doubt that everything in this article reflects what others have said before. Moreover, there's a source; readers can go and read it if they want to. The question at the AfD is whether the concepts expressed in this article are properly weighted. All the detail creates a COATRACK weight problem with a different POV than in the main article. That's the POVFORK. Adding quotes doesn't address that problem.
 * The best thing you can do to to save this article is to start copyediting. Start by bringing the whole article in line with the MOS. Ca2james (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh I see what happened. Just re-read Life on Mars. This article was not a WP:POVFORK at the time I added it to wikipedia. This is what that section looked like back then: Life on Mars#Habitability - March 2017. I haven't kept an eye on it since then being very busy off wiki. It has been edited since then and now includes a singificant amount of WP:SYNTHESIS. Let me explain.

For instance it does accurately still have this quote, which I added - here a "Special Region" is defined as a region on the Mars surface where Earth life could potentially survive. So, these were the findings of the 2014 Second MEPAG Special Regions Science Analysis Group: ""From MSL RAD measurements, ionizing radiation from galactic cosmic rays (GCR) at Mars is so low as to be negligible. Intermittent Solar particle events (SPE) can increase the atmospheric ionization down to ground level and increase the total dose, but these events are sporadic and last at most a few (2–5) days. These facts are not used to distinguish Special Regions on Mars.""

This is a good WP:RS and an excellent secondary source and it correctly says that ""These facts are not used to distinguish Special Regions on Mars.""

If you look at the details then in more detail they explain: ""Over a 500-year time frame, the martian surface could be estimated to receive a cumulative ionizing radiation dose of less than 50 Gy, much lower than the LD 90 (lethal dose where 90% of subjects would die) for even a radiation-sensitive bacterium such as E. coli (LD 90 of * 200–400 Gy) (Atlan, 1973). Accordingly, it can be stated that the RAD data show that the total surface flux of ionizing radiation is so low as to exert only a negligible impact on microbial viability during a 500-year time frame""

So, the article quotes from them correctly at that point. However it goes on to say in the next section Life on Mars
 * ""Even the hardiest cells known could not possibly survive the cosmic radiation near the surface of Mars since Mars lost its protective magnetosphere and atmosphere""

This is confusing dormant and living cells. That section is an attempt at a WP:OR WP:SYNTHESIS refutation of the findings of the 2014 science study and is inappropriate in Wikipedia.

Meanwhile Modern Mars habitability covers this topic accurately and in detail in the section Modern Mars habitability. This article should be used to update the mainspace article, rather than the other way around! Robert Walker (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The quotes I gave are not WP:COATRACK because I cite quotes from the full range of views of modern astrobiologists, and the ones who treat it it is an open question whether there could be extant life on the surface of modern Mars include some of the most eminent planetary protection experts and astrobiologists in the field today. The quotes you just deleted included cites from both sides of the planetary protection debate: It is basically the mainstream view nowadays. The intro to the DLR page I just linked to well summarizes the mainstream view: ""The low average temperature and low water activity of the Martian near-surface environment makes it challenging for living organisms to persist and propagate. Nonetheless, recent mission results indicate that environmental conditions exceed locally and temporarily the lower thresholds for life to exist. Furthermore, specific soil minerals, or combinations thereof, appear to provide a suitable habitat for microbial life, especially if associated with low-temperature brines or hygroscopic salts. Thus, a quantitative understanding of the habitability potential of the Martian near-surface environment, past and present, is very much needed and the focus of HOME.""
 * John Rummel - former NASA planetary protection officer from 1997 to 2006
 * Catharine Conley - planetary protection officer from 2006 to this year
 * Dirk Schulze-Makuch - famous astrobiologist who advocates dropping planetary proteciton measures.
 * Alberto Fairén - another astrobiologist who advocates dropping planetary proteciton measures.
 * Charles S. Cockell - an eminent British astrobiologist, author many review articles in the astrobiology journals and with 277 publications on the topic to his name.
 * Several cites by members of the DLR (german aerospace equivalent of NASA) who are researching into present day habitability of Mars.

Actually I might add that as an in text cite to the lede as a good overall summary of the mainstream view? On this too, the main space article needs to be updated to match this one, rather than the other way around. Robert Walker (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Article in process of restructuring / copy editing
- I am working on the article as per MOS as you suggest. Have added the template Under construction for the duration. Expect this to take a few hours of work total, but I can't work on it continuously, so am unlikely to complete it today. The lede will be my first priority. Robert Walker (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am pleased to see that you're working on bringing the article into compliance with the MOS. It will take many hours to do the work; if consensus is to keep the article I can help with the fiddly bits. I don't have a lot of time these days and would prefer not to work on an article until I know it'll survive AfD. Ca2james (talk) 02:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay - that makes sense. I do wish you'd chosen any other time however. Two of the delete votes refer to a "bloated lede" which was just an accident, material left there mid-edit. And of course anyone has the right to take an article to AfD at any time without notifying the creator or giving them an opportunity to work on it. But you didknow I was in the middle of a t-ban as you voted there. Why not wait until after the t-ban, which typically only lasts a few days, sometimes a week or so, it's been here since March 2017. Or why not do it months ago? If you'd raised your concerns on the talk page first, I could have fixed issues before the AfD.
 * It is tricky to fix an article in the middle of an AfD because it means voters will often be voting on an article that is mid edit and in the middle of restructuring, as one works on the issues. This is what I meant by saying the timing was unfortunate. It could be deleted just because of the timing of the AfD, when if you'd notified me on the talk page first, at a time when I was less caught up with the topic ban appeal, I could have fixed the issues you raised which asa I said are WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV rather than WP:POV and I do not think I have given undue weight to any of the minority POVs. For instance the view of Levin is historically significant and though his is a minority view, it is now supported by several other scientists, and it absolutely has to be covered in detail in an article like this. That is not WP:POV. It would be WP:POV to leave out his view. Robert Walker (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Robert is unable to understand the problems with his vast assays, POV, and synthesis, so he is not the one able to "fix" it. Delete. Rowan Forest (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion: Title change to Possibility of modern Mars habitability
A friend of mine off wiki suggested that one of the issues here might be the title. I got the title from the name of the 2017 Modern Mars Habitability conference. But it was of course understood as "Modern Mars habitability?" rather than "Modern Mars habitability!". Since tone doesn't get represented in print, and adding a ? seems lame, one idea is to change the title to

Possibility of modern Mars habitability.

Could this be part of why it was seen as WP:POV? If so it was just a mistake on my part. It was not intended to influence the reader. I just copied the title of the Modern Mars Habitability conference session in 2017. I tried moving it right now but advises me that I can't change the title during an AfD unless it is agreed during the discussion.

I have. however, added an extra couple of sentences to the end of the lede:

""There are, as yet, no confirmed habitats for Earth life on or beneath the surface of Mars. However there is a great deal of interest in searching to see if any of these potential habitats exist.""

Robert Walker (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * @RW: The title is just the first symptom. The issue gets far worse after the title line, just like the serious problems we had with the very old version of Four Noble Truths article you once passionately wanted to retain / restore / keep parts of. Please consider voluntarily moving everything to a blog somewhere, and then accepting the article's deletion from wikipedia. Just my request for you to consider, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion and actually that was my first action, when it was nominated for deletion, to copy it to another wiki. If it is deleted will copy the final version to that other wiki. I do not feel I should discuss sourcing of this aricle with you since you have connected it to my topic ban topic. Not in this wiki. Sorry about that. Robert Walker (talk) 06:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

On reflection I think I can say a bit about sources, just forget what you said about my t-ban - it's another toic area and irrelevant for this article.

First, yes, I do have several WP:OR ideas in this topic area that I have posted in blog posts and in my online books. But I would never put any of them in a Wikipedia article. All the views in this article are by the authors cited in the article. The issues I have are just with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV not WP:POV

The authors are selected as the best ones in the field. Some of the top ones I cite here are Many others. It's not a bunch of bloggers I'm citing or something. They are top astrobiologists and astrobiologial teams at the top astrobiological institutes in the world. Authors of numerous papers in the most presigious astrobiological journals. And wherever possible I use the secondary sourcing. For instance MEPAG is a bit like using IPCC for climate or USGS for volcanoes. Couldn't be more mainstream.
 * Cassie Conly and Jim Rummel - former Planetary protection officers - like the planetary protection face of NASA.
 * Nilton Renno. He worked on the Phoenix mission, he runs the Curiosity REM "weather station on Mars" and is one of the top experts on Mars surface conditions. He wrote an overview article on water on Mars that I use extensively, he run the Michigan Mars similation chamber where they do numerous experiments in Mars surface simulation and he was the one you may remember was on the news about "swimming pools for a bacterium" about the droplets that he found forms within hours if you place salts including perchlorates on top of ice in his Mars simulation chamber - a situation that probably happens fairly often on Mars.
 * Charles Cockell, British Astrobiologist at Edinburgh university, written numerous publications including many review type papers - and he also is especially interested in the question of whether you can have uninhabited habitats on Mars.
 * Many experts from DLR, the program in Germany - who focus on testing lichens and cyanobacteria to see if they can survive on Mars with no water at all, just the night time humidity. They have also sent experiemnts up to the ISS attached to its exterior.
 * MEPAG - Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group for Mars.
 * I have to cover Gilbert Levin because he is the only one who has been saying right from the 1970s that they discovered life on Mars back then. He is minority view science, not fringe. He has been joined recently by Joseph Miller, an expert in Circadian rhythms who re-analysed the Viking data.

I do not think it is possible eto get better sources than the ones I used in this topic area. Anyway enough on that. Robert Walker (talk) 06:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Attribution
This article uses material from the 13:35, 25 May 2013 revision of Water on Mars on Wikipedia ( view authors). License under CC BY-SA 3.0

Moved attribution declaration from article to Talk Ca2james (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)