Talk:B. Alan Wallace/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Other Salient Outlines pertinent to re-editing the biography

Arguments of now-blocked user collapsed for page readability

Alexander Piatigorski (1929-2009) emphasized in 'Buddhist Forum' lectures (at SOAS, Lon.) the philosophical wisdom and originating sources of research on the dimensions of consciousness studies in culture. The man studied and researched this principled branch and its continued developments attributed to the term: Yogacharya/Vijnavarda (among four originating ancient philosophical schools of Indian Buddhist philosophy). The templates of consciousness research then were available for co-extensive integral scrutiny. Piatigorski was a prominent figure and philosophy master among others, in primary research and practice of Buddhist and related specific contiguous debate at SOAS (Lon.), with respect to their intent developments of progress for dialogue on such scholarly research (on 'trans-cultural hermeneutics').--DynEqMin (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)--DynEqMin (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)--DynEqMin (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC) These efforts contributed to functional natural language of present integral analysis with respect to the appropriate Sanskrit, Pali, and all related language lexicons as contemporary faculties of resource. Wallace from the start was gifted as a 1st pioneer in that complementarity of evolved dialogue in various traditions of psychology, Buddhism, dialectics, epistemology and science. Piatigorski outlined such primary research and specifically on dates of originating sources representing bone-fide scientific beginnings of consciousness studies in their acknowledgement for contemporary science. He insisted that the Yogacharya had been present from since the 3rd c. B.C. (these exact sources are therefor pertinent to Professor Piatigorski's Wiki editors); as assimilated among traditions of that research from Buddhist realist to the pragmatic Middle Way-Centrist and beyond, regarding an empirical science of mind specifically including research on functioning 'exceptional mental balance' and flourishing as of course foundational. The ongoing procedural responsibility given to Wallace was in parallel investigation of these presidents and definitions, to further the principles of that natural language (NL) of general epistemology mirrored at Piatigoski’s intercollegiate university department. That general pioneering hermeneutics made foundational contributions to contemporary interdisciplinary-science (a topic of astrophysicist Piet Hut), as other pioneers like Jung and Wolfgang Pauli did. This required contiguous intercollegiate research and procedural update to the definitions and protocols for discussion on that research. All Wallace's positions in prior scholarly studies directly relate to those purposes.--DynEqMin (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)--DynEqMin (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)--DynEqMin (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC) The topical outlines representing networks of commentary in pertinent mention have been configurations to elucidate and demystify most pragmatic consciousness studies in science and culture beyond mystical or mysterious notions of their merits.--DynEqMin (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC) Note: Piatigorski’s later works were: Thinking and Observation, 2002; Introduction to the Study of Buddhist Philosophy of 2007. His work also included an endearing study of what the British philosopher Charlie Broad had to say in prior elucidations at the turn of the 19th century.--DynEqMin (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC) - Another salient outline: Another worthy acknowledgement is apt pertaining to Wallace's contributions in configuration of a contemporary: 'interdisciplinary-science' and that of 'world-view'. Piet Hut also assumed this same responsibility and through appropriate endeavour was granted a title of Interdisciplinary Chair (at an Ivy League faculty). His writing on these definitions and internal praxis are elucidated on the Kira Inst. Website. Piet Hut is also a practitioner and mentor in quintessential aspects of that 'mindfulness introspective', as together with research on its conjoined scientific-praxis. WIthout contention, these are pan-Asian aspects of origin from the Sanskrit beginnings. While this is so, such contemporary research on the well-founded and formulated 'phenomenological method' is a foundational definition, so Wallace being a master of all the 'Sanskrit correlations', deemed it so to thoroughly master the Himalayan language and Pali as a contemporary definitive bridge of correlation. A 'Science Master' of the International Shamatha Project, with a byname of complementarity for the expressive western language as Int. DynEq project, is a demystified title nominated for general readership by mentioned SciCVN support proposals as clarification notes on those pages. By the way, are proper titles not mentioned in Wikipedia, as honorific language is at times essential for peaceable reasons of function. --DynEqMin (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)--DynEqMin (talk) 09:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia's "manual of style" says not to do so - and so we don't. (WP:MOS) I think perhaps you would do better trying to add material to the articles on Buddhism - this is a biography article about one person, and so a lot of material which might belong on those other pages is not well-placed here. Collect (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC) With due respect, other notes given here contradict this reply. It is a compliment but 'not-pertinent' and forgiven. I wanted to dialogue with editors on the proper integral acknowledgement of persons and features of proceedural attainment, concerning the 'contemplative neuroscience' of Wallace's definitive configuration, and selfless efforts in relation to true paradigmatic-shifts of science. I just looked at the present Main Page editing, and yes, its again becoming wishy washy with what Wallace with mutual and open functionally calls 'metaphysical assumptions' (outright mistakes).--DynEqMin (talk) 09:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC) An integral clause might read: 'Himalayan and related studies to the other parts of Asia and other cultures, that are co-extensively ancient and contemporary, with correlations to western development as foundational established aspects in culture and science'. All these aspects are implicit protocols of 'inner and outer' peace-keeping and peace-building, in relation to contemporary aspects of the ancient 'inner and outer sciences'.--DynEqMin (talk) 09:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC) With due respect for your efforts. Quote: he "taught for four years in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of California at Santa Barbara. The way the text presently emphasises the religious is so out of context, it is provably 'more a part of editor background-debate than biography'. This is trying to make out that Buddhism is a religion like the word has been est. in conflictual ways. Primary published work over the last fifty years has est. that correlation as a falsity. The ubiquitous word: Skt. dharma defines the issue adequately (mentioned in other clauses), a word defined across Asian language adequately, in a mutuality of various ways correlated from the Sanskrit. Background Sources: Dialogues by Wallace when at Stanford to faculty and graduates, on obvious ethical trans-disciplinary foundations of attenuation with concern to religious dogmatism in scientific materialism: these efforts were honoured by concerted recommendations for an endowed chair of studies representing pre-ISP work. However, because he was teaching on behalf of Buddhist studies represented in those of 'religious-ethical studies', with work emulating full professorship, the cross-disciplinary merit of his work transitioned elsewhere. The present editing in question is akin to previous versions. This new edit started off with only one line first being left on it. There also should be some passing mention of forty publications and the articles published in scientific journals. Then to list the diversity and inclusivity of their various genres would be a helpful encyclopaedic aspect.--DynEqMin (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)--DynEqMin (talk) 09:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)--DynEqMin (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)--DynEqMin (talk) 09:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)--DynEqMin (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)--DynEqMin (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC) With the new edit the front page looks even more demeaning in some ways than before, and this is in no way for the reason of a lack of scientific consensus established by primary dialogues over the last four decades. The page looked fairly O.K. but still wishy washy before, but for one line of false-criticism that diminished from many lines previously.--DynEqMin (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)--DynEqMin (talk) 09:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Also with respect to re-editing so far: ' B. Alan Wallace (born 1950) is an American expert on Tibetan Buddhism. He holds a Ph.D. in religious studies from Stanford University, and his doctoral dissertation in 1995 was on The Cultivation of Sustained Voluntary Attention in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism. ' This all rhymes, but really does not confer real acknowledgement of the huge resposibilities outlined in reply. The contexts of reliance entrusted to Wallace over the decades by myriad organisation on foundations of culture, science, and practices of the 'mindfulness introspective' as prominent parts of said research, without ideological reification of its single aspects of culture and integrity. All this is to the contrary of re-ridiculing anyone for previous issues.--DynEqMin (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)--DynEqMin (talk) 09:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Concluding Outlines: All these aspects of ISP research do not belong to a single tradition of expertise, but to generic syntheses of research, originating from Sanskrit foundations including those in contemporary Indo-European and other transitional language, to the various dedicated Buddhist forms of 'intercultural hermeneutics' (SOAS, University of London: Dr. Seyfort Ruegg's defining terms; 'Buddhist Forum' published paper), and beyond to trans-cultural hermenautics without ideological reification. The maps of correlation to Indian Buddhist and related Asian philosophical schools, are of inclusive perspectives, representing parallels of larger complementarity among what can be phrased as the ancient to contemporary: inner and outer sciences, originally mapped by the Sanskrit templates. A theme in all 'phenomenal meditative research' (dharma) and that of 'consciousness studies', is a foundational 'equality of wisdom', and equanimity as restorative of that 'symmetry': clearly not a 'flat-earth' of evenness (nor false symmetry of indifference or imbalance). This perfectly relates to aspects of 'trans-cultural hermeneutics', free of ideological reification in speaking of human flourishing as participated basic aspiration (2015 intensive research narration as furthering definitions of mindful-introspection).--DynEqMin (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)--DynEqMin (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC) Part of the ISP intensive research seminars are dedicated to quintessential aspects of traditional Buddhist and relational advanced practice (clear purposes of authentically engendering mutual human flourishing), qualified by integral-mentorship of advanced contemporary-understanding; these aspects are bracketed from the explicit-advanced medical, psychological, and social presentations; that is, implicit aspects to deep dimensions of consciousness are integral to a forwarded worldview of mutuality and consciousness studies in quantum physics, and dedicated assimilation through mentor and student relationships. However, from the start, all such aspects of first-person cultivation are guided by emergent protocols and principles, contemporarily related to founded aspects of interdisciplinary ethics. Thus, the descriptive phrase: 'mindfulness introspective' is generically apt for general understanding devoid of biased 'static representational view'.--DynEqMin (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)--DynEqMin (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

Arguments by now-blocked user collapsed for page readability

This article has been tagged as being non-neutral by DynEqMin. I invite them to state their reasons for this claim. Please indicate specific statements that are non-neutral, or specific facts that have been omitted that affect the neutrality of the article. If specific facts have been omitted, please provide a reliable source verifying the fact. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC) Discussions the details have been stated in full. Your grammar here is incorrect. There is a new note on the DynEq talk page (in addition to reams above (with all sources available, past and present) that outline this record; in addition to the precise answers I gave on the above qualms. Please refrain from superfluous talk on this page or irrelevant categories, it is not a bickering page. Thus, best to remove these remarks and commence discussed changes. Respect you! --DynEqMin (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC).--DynEqMin (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC) @DynEqMin: Yes, you have stated lengthy arguments. What I was hoping for was a less lengthy argument, indicating specific statements in the article that are not neutral, or specific facts that have been omitted that render the article biased. A specific fact can be stated in a single sentence; it should not require three paragraphs. As for the "DynEq" page, I don't know what you're talking about. There is no User:DynEq registered at Wikipedia. As for the claim that this talk is superfluous: it is not. You placed a tag on the page, and I would like to discuss that tag. If you are not able to provide specific examples of the neutrality problem, I would recommend removing the tag. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC) We need adjudication here because of denying constructive dialogue. The page looks as it did before for so many years with all the incredible falsities. Of course I meant the replies were on the DynEqMin talk page and perhaps yours. What was wrong with the previous templates, and please answer (to all the time wasting on someones bio). All your remarks are entirely demeaning, and I did discuss in full all the aspects including leaving the Int. Shamatha Project out on my talk page, and on yours. Adjudicator --DynEqMin (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC) The {{help me}} tag is not the proper way to ask for a new opinion. Please either go to Dispute Resolution or ask for a Third Opinion. Primefac (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC) I agree. I believe it is time to bring a third opinion to bear on this matter. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 23:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC) I have made a request at WP:3O. We should let it lie until a third opinion volunteer has weighed in. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 23:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC) Third-person: Let's commence with understanding the tri-person perspectives already outlined, in these contexts we are not talking of personaluties amidst concerns highlighted.--DynEqMin (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC) Response to third opinion request: I've looked at the article and the comments on this talk page and the editors' talk pages. I can't see any sign that it's non-neutral. It seems like a fairly standard short biography for a person of marginal notability. If there is some sort of controversy regarding this person, then it should be included, based on reliable sources of course, but without that there is no evidence that the article is biased in any way. I'll keep this page on my watchlist for a while in case there is something that I am missing here. But at this stage, my third opinion is to remove the neutrality tag. Mark Marathon (talk) 05:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC) Is the 'first renaissance in the mind and cognitive sciences' of marginal notability? Are wholly meritorious changes to the dogmatic static-representational features among the various branch-sciences marginal? In these dialogues there has been no beginning to discuss the pertinent issues, and in these of integral foundations of culture and its dialectics No discussion on personal, interpersonal, and transpersonal abusive remarks remaining on these pages for years. The third-person input was as biased as before on queries to the template outlines that are non-controvertial and valid (all people have been doing is joking that they could not understand the English of the template lexicon). All the 3rd-persons around did was to again and again deliberately ask questions on the very material where adequate reason and sources were implicit. Wallace is most widely recognised as a peacekeeper and peace-buider of the first order, and in the project outlines of empirical and pragmatically functional science (4 decades of excellent records), he has proved fully competent and reliabe to mediate all the issues of his most disciplined purview (this is prodigiously conditioned by other pioneers such as William James, and myriad pragmatic masters (F. Merrill Wolf for one). His input has been acknowledged by the UNA UK. He was a leader of intercultural primary hermeneutical studies in Switzerland over a decade (1970-80), at a historic place where the League of Nations used to meet (an intercollegiate and non-sectarian related facility; this was not because he was privileged but of suitable moral fibre as a leader of all these studies). That early phase of high-level research was in ways supervised by the United Nations and its senior 'model U.N. activists', including having a neighbour of Sir Charles Chaplin himself: so let's not get too personal in any way here as to the seriousness of what this page and its pure waffle has done and is doing. And by the way, the kind of organisation being addressed here, are no experts on fringe science or psuedoscience; it has been as stated, Wallace who has put the hard work into all the causes above over the last forty years as just as as secondary task.--DynEqMin (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)--DynEqMin (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC) Well; you reduced its mass by... half a Kb; but I'm not sure it has necessarily assisted a more holistic understanding of the overall disquisition. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC) @Mark Marathon: As the 3O volunteer, do you have a response to DynEqMin's latest comments? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 02:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC) I am sorry, but I don't understand any of that. Could you please rephrase it using simple terms that lay-people can understand? I appreciate that English may not be your first language, and I believe it will aid clarity if you refrain from using terms such as "intercultural primary hermeneutical studies" that a majority of English speakers simply will not understand. Can you please just lay out for me what information regarding Alan Wallace you believe is missing from this page? Mark Marathon (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC) DynEqMin, I notice that you have reinstated the neutrality tag. This is considered bad form while discussions are ongoing. You are at this stage engaged in an edit war. Mark Marathon (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC) I have begun properly editing the page, showing in the notes at every stage what is plainly erring and uninformed. In this I hope you all appreciate I have stood by the non-bias written in the effortful outlines. Now it also omits all kinds of bias from all points of view and is much concise. I say at every stage I have made a coherent note for the overseers, and the board. Lets be clear, the science page we are talking of is Wallace's person; it lucidly concerns guarding human flourishing and not the creation of more conflict. Colleagues who have interacted in this space have given me some trials, well. I as well, admitted. If any of us want philosophical bickering this really is no longer the place, this whole bio expresses in all its very details of a collaborative project parallel to the Genome Project. Its 'science master' has never had any bias-pretentions other than mutual consideration for all benefit (a functional principle in contemporary terms). Someone above and two before (wonder if the eshelons are present yet) suggested I was 'conflict-making' with other editors, but all that has taken place since the outset was all others concerned making discrepancy against me (3rd-person). This being the truth, we all must have shared implicit virtue together to transform any transition on from 'prior times' in these contexts. There is no need for any more of the tags after allow me to fill in the rest of the spaces with what should now be procedural and without favourite theories of any such paranoia. I am now familiar with some meanings you guys use, but this is not going to make the situation complacent again. To commence at least we acknowledge with the two beginning epistemic sources above (as together an inclusion of a more pertinent close prodigious connection with pragmatist Merrill Wolf). Therefore, a great science pioneer, and master of linguistics (to duly acknowledge just a few congruencies). Let's see if representatives of the CEO or others from his department have things coherent to say on the pseudo pretexts themselves causal of these conflicts (perhaps Chomski will join with wisdom to give all perspectives!). Otherwise there are no causes for antogonistic objection. No, without any disrespect, perhaps the CEO is not really a so informed dialogue partner from every perspective as has been Wallace's job, to intimately review all along the pseudo issues without pretence to transition: these are most serious issues for the planet a quantum-science level. Dr. Wallace as he respects all these outlooks, respects and acknowledgement are due to that. His knowledge also is not at all contrived conceptually whilst respecting all the constructs present: these are definitively the evolvement of definitive perspectives, of contemporary 'radical empiricism', of wholesome benefit to all. Actually the discipline as stated above is not about belittling people of persons, and to be sure, Wallace would not give misleading dialogue in considering the perspectives of these spaces as a 'cognitive and mind science master'. I can only intuit nearly nothing in compare at least is stood for here: and deep respect has been expressed. I might get along now with the end of this beginning and rest if any due changes further can be expressed in that absence. I hope all concerned will help in bringing such caring attention to these furthering aspects and to give the board members that space and chance in not being religiously dogmatic and further hypercrical in badly needed contemporary ethical disciplined concern. I thank. --DynEqMin (talk) 07:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)--DynEqMin (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)</cl> I think User:DynEqMin is using Google translate; this would explain much. Although it does not explain the removal of tags or a lack of paragraphination. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC) @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I don't think so. If you take a look at the SCICVN link that DynEqMin added to the page, you'll note the same bizarre use of incomprehensible language. I suspect the same author is responsible for both. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC) Yes you're right WikiDan61. Both suffer from the same same verbiose turgidity. Surely that's a spam link in any case? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC) @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I don't know that it's necessarily spam, but it falls afoul of WP:EL in that it gives us no further information about Wallace. So I'll delete it. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC) Notes reiterated beside the talk--DynEqMin (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC) My notes: reiterated According to SciCVN.org the support model backed by lucid and ubiquitous record, the level of his knowledge is that of a first-class background model-U.N. peacekeeper, whose pragmatic research of intercollegiate corroboration has configured all the necessary understanding for a foundational purview of trans-disciplinary science; in terms of what is aptly phrased as 'inner and outer peacekeeping and peace-building' (as a reflection of ancient and contemporary 'inner and outer science': now as a mindfulness-introspective). This was something that remained for a while not even accurate with the derogatory word expert remaining on its own. You would be stupid to be an expert without being a pioneer. 'B. Alan Wallace (born 1950) is an American pioneer on Buddhist and general foundations of science and culture ('pragmatic intercultural-hermeneutics').' The Wiki editors let this one stay there a while with the word expert instead of pioneer: actually these two would have to go together. Perhaps they will be reforming it according to guidelines here, although they used one suggestion so far. The natural-language (NL) interfaces of network practice (along with their principles of validation) express a valid contemporary-lexicon, longitudinally pioneered, and consensually guided by standards of epistemic scrutiny; conducted by general research-guidelines of primary import as a responsibility of Dr. B. Alan Wallace in conjunction with a larger network of founding scholars and organisations in parallel-fields of science. It should be noted first-off that as he does not advocate yet another belief system for science, or spirituality, and the extraneous remarks formerly in a ‘criticism’ section of his Wiki (now not present although still as false kinds records on the Talk page as together with a completely bias writeup of the biography because Wallace was a primary founder of the introspective branch of 'contemplative neuroscience') were kept there without visible intervention, and look like a kind of counter-intuitive joke like a Zen Koan on humility (plain deformation of character as reported to UNA UK and other legal organisation). *3 The ISP is original in its dedicated non-sectarian functional phrasings, clearly comprehensive of what is included in the scientific working-hypotheses that a science of consciousness maps. This is of greatest approval, through its mapping of scientific aspirations included in the authors manifold publications such as a Contemplative Science of the Mind, related to prior historical phrasing as a natural philosophy of mind: a prior entry for science in much the same way scientists used to be called natural philosophers. New disciplines have concertedly evolved out of such extensive pragmatic nurture and paradigmatic shift into a world-view of interdependent dimensional realities, with such comprehension definitively known in positive and affective psychology, contemplative-neuroscience, social science, and other branch-sciences of empirical association to a science of consciousness; as a world-view of such presidents to a functional interface that is a quantum-world-view of science in its developmental and paradigmatic shifts (functionally expressed as integral, not least by MB Mensky’s principled guidelines): as branch-science collaboration that acknowledges MB Menski’s principled and called-for empathetic recommendations (specifically published in 2005 and 2010 by the Russian Academy of Sciences, Physics journal) of mutual collaboration, sufficient to be expressed by a natural language (NL) synthesis of propositional-calculus. That interface then indicates a high-level consultation on co-emergent templates of insight into a world-view relative to quantum-cosmogony, by way of nurturing practical interfaces of foundational corroboration; in dialogue and consideration of developmental-templates as contemporary projects of basic generic contemplative-inquiry: that is, through reliably discursive outlines in view of quantum-shifts of perspective on manifold scientific realities. These also consist of research protocols and principles, of guiding exploration of deepening insight with reliably established standards as functional roles clearly established by the 'Int. Dyn.Eq. Project'. It accompanies its prior collaborative and international research-history of interdisciplinary dialogue (since the 1970’s), serving to elucidate primary postulates and topics of historically related concern. Work on the interfaces of both secular and spiritual ethics are highlighted concerns, bearing clear presidents as worthy protocols for an ‘inter-faith’ of reliability for cooperative factors that equally improve standards in relation to both spheres; where since the nineteenth century there has in fact been a slow paradigmatic-lessoning of confusion (developmental shifts) with respect to such an introspective interface: but in parallel to global aspects of intransigence and lacks of caring attentiveness or progress in explicitly practical remedial-work on a corresponding world-view of the material eco-substrate. 1. For detailed information related to the Shamatha Project and its findings, visit: http://mindbrain.ucdavis.edu/labs/Saron/shamatha-project and: http://www.sbinstitute.com/shamathaproject.html: 2. Dynamic equilibrium (byname: ‘Dyn.Eq.) being a contemporary term determined by Wallace as most intricately related to near attainment of Shamatha, and the goal of exceptional mental balance. 3. On Wikipiedia, since a last view in Sept. 2015, and for at least the last three years previous: omitted in Sept., but continued with other blatantly biased formats of that highly functional 'master scientist' of the ISP.--DynEqMin (talk) 04:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC) Can you provide a short synopsis of what the problem actually is? All I gleaned from that wall of text is that you think "expert" is a derogatory word when compared to "pioneer". Also, we don't need the excessive backstory on Wallace. This is intended to be a short biography on him (readable by a layperson, mind you), not a dissertation on his research topics. clpo13(talk) 04:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC) You may want to explain what "false kinds records on the Talk page as together with a completely bias writeup of the biography... plain deformation of character as reported to UNA UK and other legal organisation" means. If an explanation isn't forthcoming within 24 hours I will report it as a threat of legal action. Mark Marathon (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

an "ongoing vacuum state of consciousness" (a concept originating in Buddhism)

This statement implies that the concept "ongoing vacuum state of consciousness" is a notable topic within the religion of Buddhism rather than merely an opinion of B. Alan Wallace. Is there a source text which might indicate which of the many varieties of Buddhism conceived this idea? If not, is there some material which indicates how Alan Wallace came to link it to his understanding of Buddhism? --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

See my response to User:Manul above. The phrase "ongoing vacuum state of consciousness" obviously is a particular description or metaphor of substrate consciousness that comes from Wallace, not directly from Buddhism. I thought it is clear that the word "concept" refers to substrate consciousness, not this particular description, but I see no problem with moving the fragment in parentheses in the way I already suggested. Chilton (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Or one could perhaps change "concept" to "view" (Wallace states: "in the Buddhist view, it is more like an ongoing vacuum state of consciousness"). Chilton (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Whether this is a "concept" or "view" which originates from Buddhism we need to source such claims. In this case the presentation of the article seems to suggest that mainstream Buddhism accepts this notion, whereas we might be more accurate to say that it is just the opinion of one man. Can you link me to a reliable secondary source where this phrase is actually used? I found it in a number of blogs related to Alan Wallace but there did not seem to be a single scholarly article (the kind of thing we can use as a reference). --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think Wallace is not a good enough source for claims about Buddhism? He is cited in other articles on Wikipedia. He's a translator of Buddhist texts and this is the translation he likes to use for the corresponding Sanksrit term ālaya-vijñāna. He uses it in his translation of Dudjom Lingpa's Vajra Essence (a Tibetan Buddhist text), for example. I don't know if anyone else uses the exact same term. Chilton (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's a quote from his commentary to Vajra Essence:

The Sanskrit term for this second layer, this ground of the ordinary mind, is ālaya-vijñāna, which is translated as the "substrate consciousness." (This corresponds closely to the Theravada Buddhist term bhavanga, or "ground of becoming.") Chilton (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

My proposition is to move the fragment in parentheses and replace "an" with "which he characterizes as an". Chilton (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

This a rules for all biographies of living persons. We're only thing we're allowed to use their own statements if it's attributed as their opinion. —PermStrump(talk) 20:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you quote the relevant part of this page? The word "opinion" doesn't even occur on it. Chilton (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Another possibility is to change "a concept originating in Buddhism" to "his translation of the Buddhist term ālaya-vijñāna". Chilton (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

My emphasis underlined...

WP:BLPSPS: Never use self-published sources...as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see [WP:BLPSELFPUB]). 'Self-published blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs.

WP:BLPSELFPUB: Living persons may publish material about themselves...Such material may be used as a source only if:

1. it is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

It looks like we're talking about blogs from the edit history, so I think this is actually a selfpub issue not, primary, but WP:BLPPRIMARY is probably good to read to. Basically it says we're supposed to avoid primary sources in BLPs except if the same material is already sourced to a secondary source and the primary source is just supplementing the secondary source. —PermStrump(talk) 21:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

"Never use self-published sources...as sources of material about a living person" - does this mean that the Novella blog post is not a valid source for this article? Chilton (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I just figured out we're talking about the book of interviews, which I guess is primary. There are some exceptions for blogs by experts, so Novella might be ok. I have to research it more. Can you link or paste the material from each source that is contested? I'm having trouble following the edit history because there's been so much back and forth. —PermStrump(talk) 21:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The interview is referenced by Novella, so I don't think there's any room for arguing that it constitutes a misuse of primary sources.

• What I am contesting:

"Wallace has three primary points I want to address. The first is that consciousness does not derive from the brain but rather from “substrate consciousness.” The second is that if science is to understand the nature of substrate consciousness it must expand its methods to include a Buddhist style of introspection. And third, that quantum mechanics supports these views." from here (only the third claim). It was used in a previous version of the article.

• Other contested material:

"Advanced contemplatives in the Buddhist tradition have talked about tapping into something called the “substrate consciousness."

"All I’m presenting here is the Buddhist hypothesis. There’s another dimension of consciousness, which is called the substrate consciousness." Both from here.

I also pasted below my summary of the dispute. Chilton (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Validity of using Novella's blog post as a source

I think WP:BLPSPS makes it clear that Novella's blog post is not a valid source for this article. The exemption for professionals only holds when the blog is run by a news organization and is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control, which is clearly not the case here. Please correct me if I am mistaken. Chilton (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

No, we don't suspend the WP:NPOV policy on BLPs or on any other kind of article. In particular we don't suspend the WP:PSCI section of NPOV. In reporting a fringe view we are required to include its reception; this is directly from WP:PSCI. Also see WP:FRINGE, in particular WP:FRIND and WP:PARITY. Wikipedia is not a platform the promotion of fringe views. Novella is an expert in the field of neuroscience and is absolutely suitable as a source per WP:PARITY. I have been wishing to find a better source, but until we have one, we have PARITY. Novella discusses Wallace's scientific-sounding hypothesis, and we include it per the WP:PSCI requirement. It would of course be completely out of bounds to use Novella as a source for facts about Wallace's biography -- that's what WP:BLPSPS is about. For instance if Novella said that Wallace committed some crime or received some award, neither claim could appear in the article using Novella as a source. Manul ~ talk 22:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS says "never" with only one exception. What you expressed is your opinion on when it is necessary to go against it - are there any Wikipedia rules to support that? It doesn't necessarily mean going against other rules - for example the account of Wallace's theory of consciousness could be removed altogether. Chilton (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this one. I'll post about it on WP:BLPN. —PermStrump(talk) 23:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@Permstrump: Oh goodness please don't, at least not yet. This is already on two noticeboards. Adding a third will is bound to contribute to the confusion. Besides we may be close to a clean resolution if people agree to just not include Wallace's views on consciousness (see below). Manul ~ talk 23:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I only know of it being on one noticeboard, where the discussion is closed (as I canceled my request). Did you put it on another noticeboard without notifying me? I think that goes against good taste at least. Chilton (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• No, it doesn't go against WP:BLPSPS. Actually I think it is a superb idea to purge the article of all references to Wallace's views on consciousness. I am not being sarcastic. The reader would be less informed, but we wouldn't have spend any more time on this. The point about WP:PSCI is that if fringe views are mentioned, then we must include their reception. But if they aren't mentioned, then we don't. What do you say? Manul ~ talk 23:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• To be precise, it says that we should include their reception, not that we must, which is less binding than WP:BLPSPS. Let's wait and see. Chilton (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• "No, it doesn't go against WP:BLPSPS" - how do you justify that statement? WP:BLPSPS clearly says "never" with only one exception, which isn't applicable in this situation. You can't just invent your own rules. Chilton (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know it was already on 2 noticeboards. Is this relevant to either of those discussions? Where is it already posted? —PermStrump(talk) 23:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I posted it on the dispute resolution noticeboard, but cancelled my request, so the discussion is closed. I don't know anything about another noticeboard - User:Manul didn't notify me. Chilton (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

One editor's summary of the dispute

The article claimed that B. Alan Wallace "cites quantum mechanics along with paranormal phenomena such as clairvoyance and extrasensory perception" as evidence for a certain aspect of his proposed theory of consciousness, namely what he calls substrate consciousness. I haven't found any such statement in any of his writings or speeches, although he does sometimes reference quantum mechanics and paranormal phenomena, eg. when criticizing reductive materialism* or discussing other aspects of this theory. Unfortunately, the source given in the article (a blog post by Steven Novella) also mixes these things up and makes this claim, without providing anything to back it up. I pointed it out to the other editor involved and asked for a primary source (eg. an interview or book by Wallace), but he insists that it is my obligation to supply a source to contradict Novella. This is pretty much impossible, as it would have to imply that Wallace never stated what Novella says he did, which is a very specific claim. I also don't think Wikipedia requires providing contradicting sources as the only possible justification for deletions.

I replaced the controversial ciaim with another, which is also supported by sources in my opinion, but the other editor disagrees with that.

He also has a problem with the phrase "a concept originating in Buddhism", even though it is sourced (see discussion for details).

*Note: criticizing reductive materialism doesn't count as supporting this particular theory of consciousness IMHO, as there are many nonreductive accounts of consciousness. It would be extremely imprecise for the article to claim that. Chilton (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm just going to take one thing at a time, because there's a lot going on here. I'm looking at the section "View of consciousness", where it says, "Wallace hypothesizes that individual consciousness emerges from what he calls "substrate consciousness", an "ongoing vacuum state of consciousness" (a concept originating in Buddhism)." We need sources other than Wallace's own statements connecting "substrate consciousness" or "ongoing vacuum state of consciousness" to Buddhism. Do we have one? —PermStrump(talk) 22:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

There are books by Buddhist contemplatives he translated, in which he uses "substrate consciousness" as a translation for the Buddhist term ālaya-vijñāna. Other translators may use different terms, but it refers to the same thing. Chilton (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

If it's a concept that comes from Buddhism, how is it his hypothesis? Which part of it is his and which part comes from Buddhism? What sources makes that explicit connection? Without a source saying that, it's synthesis, which is a violation of original research. —PermStrump(talk) 22:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't sound like what we said in the article.[1] —PermStrump(talk) 22:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

His hypothesis is that the Buddhist claim is true. My understanding is that he doesn't add anything to the Buddhist theory, although he describes it in his own words."What sources makes that explicit connection?" - for example the XIX century text Vajra Essence by Tibetan contemplative Dudjom Lingpa, which states, among other things (in Wallace's translation):

Consequently, compulsive thinking subsides. and roving thoughts vanish into the space of awareness. You then slip into the vacuity of the substrate. in which self, others. and objects disappear. By clinging to the experiences of vacuity and clarity while looking inward, the appearances of self. others, and objects vanish. This is the substrate consciousness.

"This doesn't sound like what we said in the article." - I think the Oxford article doesn't contradict what Wallace says, but presents another aspect of the same thing. Also keep in mind that this is a term with nearly 2000 years of history and subtly different definitions in different schools of Buddhism. Above, I pasted a link to a YouTube video, in which the Dalai Lama confirms that Wallace's understanding is correct. Chilton (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

So then isn't it a Buddhist belief that Wallace adheres to as opposed to his personal hypothesis? —PermStrump(talk) 23:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

No, he very explicitly presents this as a hypothesis to be tested (he proposes ways to go about that), not something he believes. See the interview with Paulson. Chilton (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

This could be studied, together with skeptics. Train very advanced contemplatives to tap into this substrate consciousness — this storehouse of memories from past lives, if it in fact exists — and do this in conjunction with neuroscientists and psychologists. If I had unlimited funds, I’d say this is one of the most important questions we can ask. Chilton (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Is the book source just a copy of the Salon article or is there more to it than that? —PermStrump(talk) 23:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Honestly I don't remember - it might be that I introduced it by accident. Chilton (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

This secondary source, which is published in a peer-reviewed journal, disagrees that that this is a testable hypothesis:

Referencing terms from diverse disciplines that have associations, whether linguistic or conceptual, does little to bring them into productive, mutually informing dialogue. To further illustrate, Wallace solves the mind/matter problem by simply asserting that the ground state of consciousness attained through samatha is the source of all mind-based events. So, by sheer assertion, Wallace claims he has solved the mind/brain problem. It is doubtful that scientists will be amenable to Wallace’s esoteric, unverifiable Buddhist statements, because contemplative science is not a falsifiable or testable theory. Without invoking Wallace’s idea of a contemplative science, researchers can still shove monks into machines and allow magnets to skate across their fluctuating cognitive states. It seems doubtful that neuroscientists will be enlightened by Wallace’s claim to call profound meditative states primordial substrates of consciousness that transcend space and time. In this respect, as I mentioned previously, the subtitle is highly misleading: Neuroscience is hardly dealt with in the text. Wallace prefers to deal with metaphysical solutions rather than data sets.

References

We can say that Wallace shares this particular view with Buddhism and cite his personal statements, but we can't present it as science just because he claims it's a testable hypothesis unless that's supposed by a secondary source. —PermStrump(talk) 23:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The article doesn't say anything about his hypothesis being testable or it being science (to the contrary). Chilton (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

It would also be contradictory to state that this is just a view he adopted, since he explicitly expresses doubt about it being true (see the bolded fragment in the quote above). Chilton (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

It explicitly states that it's not testable: "...contemplative science is not a falsifiable or testable theory...It seems doubtful that neuroscientists will be enlightened by Wallace’s claim to call profound meditative states primordial substrates of consciousness that transcend space and time." —PermStrump(talk) 00:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh. I meant the Wikipedia article. Sorry for introducing confusion. Chilton (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

Could we please agree to remove Wallace's views on consciousness from the article? This should make everyone happy. It happens that I wrote that section, and I more than willing to abandon it. All these discussions can end right now! Paradise is at hand, if only we would reach for it! Manul ~ talk 23:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

You just said that "it doesn't go against WP:BLPSPS", so I don't know how you would want to justify these deletions. Chilton (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

What? There's no policy that requires us to include Wallace's view on consciousness. That's what justifies the deletion. Yes or no? We can be done right now if you say yes. Manul ~ talk 23:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Please answer my questions (eg. the ones right above) before you expect me to be willing to answer yours. Otherwise it's extremely impolite. Chilton (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The way his views are currently presented as testable hypotheses require contextualization from outside sources, so if we're going to include it, it needs to be framed by mainstream views. There is no requirement that we have to include his views on consciousness. —PermStrump(talk) 00:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

What he proposes is presented as a hypothesis, not as a testable hypothesis (unless saying he believes that evidence of "substrate consciousness" may be obtained through meditative states counts). Chilton (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

What? You had the answer to your question before you asked it. I said: Novella discusses Wallace's scientific-sounding hypothesis, and we include it per the WP:PSCI requirement. It would of course be completely out of bounds to use Novella as a source for facts about Wallace's biography -- that's what WP:BLPSPS is about. For instance if Novella said that Wallace committed some crime or received some award, neither claim could appear in the article using Novella as a source. Of course none of this matters if we can agree to the deletion, which will put an end to all discussion. Are you ready? Manul ~ talk 12:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

"You had the answer to your question before you asked it." - no, otherwise I wouldn't ask it. How do you justify that WP:BLPSPS is only about facts from a person's biography, and not his or her specific claims, for example? I think the claims in the current version of the article can be traced back to primary sources, but the statement that Wallace "cites quantum mechanics along with paranormal phenomena such as clairvoyance and extrasensory perception" as evidence for substrate consciousness couldn't. You still didn't provide any answer to my other questions, eg. the one about the other noticeboard and my repeated question on what kind of answer you expected on WP:PSCI (which makes it ridiculous to accuse me of failing to provide it, but it didn't stop you). Also the thought experiment above and a few others. Chilton (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)