Talk:Robert Lawrence Kuhn

Hagiography/Autobiography?

This article looks like a hagiography created by one user using a series of sockpuppets. History shows editing by a series of IP addresses, each address has only been used to edit the biography. Author has highly detailed knowledge. If this is not outright autobiography then it's at least someone who knows the author down to the contents of his CV....--Saganaki- 07:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are correct. It definitely appears to be the work of one person. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Response from Kuhn

Hi Guys: Here's the story; I appreciate your sage advice/help. Some time ago, I was alerted to a Wiki bio posted on me that was very short and almost totally in error, and what was marginally correct was 30 years old -- there was little reference to anything I had done in recent years -- in other words, an embarrassing distortion. Friends, associates were emailing me -- I host a PBS series, Closer To Truth, on the implications of frontier science, www.pbs.org/closertotruth. What to do? So I added accurate, recent material, perhaps in the Wiki Spirit too much (which I've just taken out). Furthermore, a recent posting criticized my admittedly controversial biography of former Chinese President Jiang Zemin, which was the #1 best-selling nonfiction book in China in 2005 and was published worldwide by Random House / Crown, “as being propaganda and largely untrue, having been commissioned by Jiang Zemin himself”. This calumny is wholly untrue, but in the Wiki Spirit, I did not delete its false and scurrilous accusation (almost anything related to Chinese politics, I understand, can become emotional and there are diverse points of view, all of which should be heard), but rather in response I quoted myself from Foreign Affairs magazine, a most reliable source, in answering the same charge. Seeing and appreciating your comments, I’ve just tried to pare down the bio, make it more NPOV, an acronym I’ve just learned. I’m an amateur at this; I'll happily have Hands Off, if’s that’s the policy, so long as inaccuracies are not promulgated and defacing (however subtle) is not permitted. Much of this material on me can be confirmed on the Internet (though some of the bios are outdated). In conclusion, I love Wikipedia, appreciate your commitment and vigilance, want to conform, but do not want errors of any kind to remain nor inserted biased commentary to go answered. Help, my friends! Robert Lawrence Kuhn 29 October 2006.

Article revised January 2007

• It would appear that the "short bio" that "embarrassed" Dr. Kuhn was replaced by an extensive self-promotion by Robert Lawrence Kuhn himself which in turn resulted in the vote for deletion, because it was mere puffery and not biography. Much of that objectionable material has now been removed or revised to conform to Wikipedia style and the material that Kuhn refers to as being "what was marginally correct was 30 years old" and which he had deleted, has now been replaced with a solid documentation to show how his past led to his present and why the two are interlinked. Other references and links and documentation to support this biography should be continually added, including such basic details as his year of birth, place of birth, etc. As an aside, Dr. Kuhn seems to be using Wikipedia to defend his published works from accusation of propaganda that were made elsewhere. In that same spirit it would appear that PBS was unaware of Dr. Kuhn's close affiliation with Garner Ted Armstrong and Herbert W.'s AICF. Clearly this article requires monitoring by many editors in case further attempts are made to turn it back into a form of censored grandstanding.

Appeal to the Reviser

• I welcome and appreciate the efforts to conform my bio to Wikipedia style, but please do not inadvertently distort my life and career (which may relate, understandably, to the personal knowledge and interests of the reviser). I have tried to retain what is true, even when I do not agree with what is said or how it is said, and to balance the amount of material reflecting different eras of my life. I corrected a number of specific and general errors. I am not, and never have been, a “media spokesman for China”. I try to tell the “real story of China,” warts and all, admittedly a tough task about a complex situation. For all my advisory work since 1989 I have never been paid, directly or indirectly, by the Chinese government. My first visit to China was in 1989; my association with AICF ended in 1978 and while working at AICF I never had anything to do with any China-related activities it may have had (which I can barely recall); to suggest a causal (or even a casual) relationship between my current work in China and a long-ago association with AICF has no basis in fact whatsoever. The reason I was first invited to China in 1989 was because the State Science and Technology Commission, China’s highest body responsible for the country’s science and technology, sought my advice in their beginning efforts in market reforms of science and technology in China, and since I was both working as an investment banker and trained a scientist I was invited (along with several others). My first degree from Johns Hopkins was a bachelor’s degree, not “a [sic] associate degree” -- Johns Hopkins, to my knowledge, never offered an associate’s degree. I understand cutting "Phi Beta Kappa," but please do not downgrade my degree. The editor seems to have personal knowledge of my early years (we may have been friends) but almost nothing of my past 28 years. (If he would like to catch up, I invite him to please get in touch with me; he can then make informed editorial decisions -- and it might be fun.) Robert Lawrence Kuhn - February 2, 2007.

Response to Dr. Kuhn

The trouble with your response is that it is a distortion of reality. Trying to pass of a connection to the Worldwide Church of God, Herbert W. Armstrong, Garner Ted Armstrong and the The World Tomorrow television program as all being related to China and the Ambassador International Cultural Foundation is totally incorrect. Even the picture that you have now replaced came from Armstrong's church newspaper and a feature about you as project manager of program content for Garner Ted's TV show.

The same is true of the theology project at the Worldwide Church of God which eventually led to the WCG and the State of California becoming locked into a legal constitutional battle that reached to the United States Supreme Court.

The other matter swept aside concerns AICF and its entanglement with the Jewish community in Los Angeles where Rabbis began asking questions why both you and Stanley Rader who were members of the Jewish community were running a controversial organization which claimed to be a member of the Christian community.

With regards to excessive editorial contractions concerning your educational qualifications, the problem was created by the puffery that was previously in place and which appears to have once more emerged. No distortion was intended. But the time it takes to turn self-promoting puffery into a NPOV article is not insignificant. Since this article is supposed to be a public and non-controversial and non-POV biography, it cannot become a mere self-promoting press release and yet most of the previous material had been lifted from other sites where it served just that purpose.

• A correction has now been made to the academic credentials of Dr. Kuhn and to the text linking AICF to the Chinese government (instead of linking Dr. Kuhn to the Chinese government.) This article was originally amended because it had become a vote for deletion due to the self-promotion material that it came to contain (material that was added to the first stub.) This current rendition is more in keeping with a historial time flow of Dr. Kuhn's life and activities as a notable public figure. It would be helpful to have a year and place of birth, etc., and perhaps Dr. Kuhn can supply this information. However, his debate with others over that issue that has nothing to do with this article or even whether his book was or was not influenced by the Chinese government. It simply does not belong here - especially since that debate had been imported into this article from elsewhere and it had nothing to do with Wikipedia. The overall approach to this article should be that of a NPOV biographical time flow and not a series of latter-day and disjointed self-promoting claims - too many of which incorporated puffery "leading" this and "leading" that!

Working with editors

I’ve tried to reflect the spirit of the editor by maintaining his outline and words, shortening throughout (except references and links), and emending repetition, balance and factual errors. For example, the immediate repetition in the opening paragraph and the next two of how I (supposedly) “first came to international attention” and “first came to prominent attention” and the associated double link to the same series of articles (by the way, I appreciate finding the old articles and providing the link). I never had any association with China until 1989, including absolutely none through my long-ago association with AICF (which ended over a decade earlier). I am all for a NPOV and appreciate the work of those who make Wikipedia such a remarkable enterprise. Robert Lawrence Kuhn – February 5, 2007.

• The problem that first comes to mind is that of puffery where details are enhanced as though they are a part of a public relations kit. This is not a PR kit it is a biography and the only reason why it appears at all is because it concerns a person who has come to the attention of the general public who may be looking for details about the life of that person on Wikipedia. It is not intended to be pro or con, it is intended to be neutral in the manner of the old Dragnet series - "just the facts". The facts require documentation elsewhere and they must not be original research, in other words this article cannot contain information that is not already documented elsewhere and which cannot be verified elsewhere. Debates concerning works that others dispute have no place in Wikipedia, unless those debates are on the discussion pages of Wikipedia and they originated on Wikipedia. Importing disputes into articles is not within the scope of Wikipedia guidelines. If you can improve this article by using the standards mentioned which can be found in detail by following the Wikipedia links at the top of this page, then please do so. If you make corrections, additions or deletions to the article please state what it is that you have changed because no editor wants to waste time by combing through text in a hunt and seek enterprise.
  • Well said. I seek balance among the different parts of my life as well as maintaining the NPOV. Everything is from public sources (most of which is online). Please do not truncate my post-1978 work (much of which is available online) and expand my pre-1978 associations by telling detailed stories in my bio (please link to them instead). I also changed a few minor matters, such as adding President Hu Jintao’s first name, completing a fragmented sentence, and the like.
    • No attempt has been made to truncate or expand anything. However, there are only two areas that make this biography notable according to Wikipedia standards. These two are the WCG to AICF period and the current PBS series. Since the very first article in The Plain Truth magazine has a direct follow-through relationship to the PBS series which builds upon that first series of articles, those are the areas of public interest. Everything else is merely a support to those areas by way of showing links.
      • Please consider, in terms of relative importance, the social and political significance of my biography of President Jiang Zemin, the first biography of a living Chinese leader published on the mainland since the founding of the People’s Republic of China, that it told personal stories never before published thereby bridging the gap between leaders and people, and the fact that it was the best-selling book in China in 2005 (and written by a foreigner). Is not China more important than the WCG/AICF? I ask you to consider not devoting more than twice as much space to WCG/AICF than to my precedent-seting biography, which was directly my doing. Please let's understand each other.
        • There was no association whatsoever between AICF and the initiation in 1989, more than a decade later, of my work in China. What can I do to convince you of this? (There are also sentence fragments that I completed.)

No attempt is being made to say that there is a connection. However, you helped to create AICF and AICF did get involved with the government of China with the help of your erstwhile companion Stanley Rader. There are many coincidences of course, the AICF was funded by a nominally Christian church and both Stanley Rader and yourself are of the Jewish faith and both AICF and yourself became involved in China and the work that originally brought you to fame was first published in a series of articles in The Plain Truth magazine and advertised by Herbert W. Armstrong in Reader's Digest.

Then there is the connection between yourself and the entire theology of the WCG which you had a had in writing, plus your directing of the editorial side of Garner Ted Armstrong's The World Tomorrow television program.

Now it would at least appear that since this former part of your life is mirrored by your own television series, your own Foundation and your own interest in China, that a normal, average person would conclude that the two episodes are related, especially since they all concern the same person.

It is understandable that you might wish to bury the past, but this is an encyclopedia where people come to find answers. The original article written by you and which replaced the original stub shouted that you had no connection to that other person of the same name who was made to vanish by your ownediting. That is why Wikipedia is a NPOV encyclopedia of knowledge and not a personal public relations web site.

Specifics

Our discussion is over relative amounts of detail (number of words) devoted to differnt parts of my life. I appreciate your fascinating with WCG/AICF, but shouldn’t this level of historical detail belong in a separate article on each, with appropriate links? Perino’s on March 16, 1975? That may be nicely written with a dramatic flair, but the way it happened was more complex and hence the sentence is misleading. Quoting the Pasadena Jewish Temple? Everyone knows a synagogue's mission. Why not the same level of detail for all my work, particularly my biography of Jiang Zemin and other China-related activities, the Closer To Truth series, etc.? (Check the web.) Compare the space you allocate to WCG and AICF with Investment Banking and China. The history of human endeavors such as WCG/AICF should be written, but again in their own articles with references and links. There is no fact that can remotely support the statement, “Among the many high level meetings with world leaders were visits to China which created opportunities that later played a large part in the career of Robert Kuhn.” Also, there are sentences that have problems, such as the first in the second paragraph under AICF. Who should correct these?

• There is no fascination with WCG/AICF, that is where your public career began in a very public way. Indeed, there are articles under the other topics (with the exception of AICF, but there is one for Quest, WCG, Armstrongs, magazine, radio and TV programs, etc.) The reason for the first line of the second paragraph is because it concerns the beginning of AICF and your part in its creation. That section does need rewriting due to the continuous switching in and out of text and it has become messy. With regards to your China related activities they are somewhat perplexing.
• On the one hand you argue that others (elsewhere) have accused you of ghostwriting copy for the Chinese government - which you claim is not true, but on the other hand you portray yourself as an ordinary author. So on the one hand if you are an Chinese agent this would be notworthy (perhaps, perhaps not), in and of itself. If you are just an author then that is how the paragraph should be styled and shortened with all of the political intrigue removed. So which one is correct?
• You ask about the space devoted to your banking interests, etc., but unless you are acting as a government agent, why would this even be of interest to anyone reading Wikipedia? After all many people are performing the work that you say that you are doing and they are just private citizens going about their private lives. Without intending to be rude, why would anyone care what you do in the world of banking? But the constant hype of "leading" this and "leading" that belongs on the bank portfolios and advertising, not on a Wikipedia biography.
• The only other aspect of your life that concerns the public (and therefore a Wikipedia biography) is to note your current television work for PBS.
• But again, only those portions of your life story that concern the public and which would give readers a reason to search out or link to your biography, are those parts which have been or are still being lived out in public, should then be included in the article.
• So the first and most controversial and flamboyant part of your life concerns the theological work you performed as a member of the Jewish faith for a controversial and highly visable Christian church; the articles you wrote for its publications and your part in creating its affiliated cultural foundation.
• The second part concerns you as an author of books and articles available to the general public that merit attention due to their wide promotion and distribution.
• Finally, your television work for PBS, of which we really know very little aside from the repeated PR texts lifted from the PBS site. What needs to be covered is how these television programs (not just the current series), came about. It would seem that they must in some form link to your earlier work for Garner Ted Armstrong's show since that seems to be where your broadcasting career began. Or is there something earlier and later that you would like to add in order to make this biography flow as a single story about one person?

Specifics are Good

• My claim about my biography of Jiang Zemin is that it was precedent-setting in China in three ways: (i) the first biography of a living leader published on the mainland since the founding of the People’s Republic; (ii) the consistent and pervasive presentation of a Western or American view of numerous events and topics (e.g., the U.S. accident bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia in 1999; the Spy Plane Collision in 2001; North Korea, Cuba; etc.), so much so that even after the censorship (of the Chinese edition) the Chinese publisher had to include an upfront disclaimer (i.e., “Certain viewpoints and opinions of the author, as a Westerner, bear a definite distance from those of our own. Hopefully the reader will understand.’)—although you elected to cut this disclaimer, I think its inclusion on the first page of my book (Chinese edition only) is one of the most fascinating features of the entire project; (iii) the telling of so many personal, first-hand, never-told-before stories of Chinese most senior leader bridges the gap, of long tradition in China, between the top leader and the common people, making the leader a real human being not an unapproachable god / emperor. (Jiang Zemin himself was quoted in the media as telling his close friend, “He [Kuhn] wrote objectively; he didn’t try to beautify me.”) In addition, as I’ve stated, the biography was entirely my idea and I maintained absolute editorial control. Although the book is recognized to be precedent-setting in China, regarding its contents, readers will make their own judgments. I do not recall arguing that others have accused me of “ghostwriting” copy for the Chinese government; my own name is on my articles and books. Some critics were so surprised to see my book published on the mainland that they assumed that it must have been “commissioned.” I answer this understandable but unwarranted assumption in Foreign Affairs (I trust you’ve read my entire letter to the editor). I wrote a further rebuttal to the critic, alas unpublished. Subsequent events support my position: I would ask any China researcher to discern the vast difference between the initial publicity that my biography received in China in early 2005 (none from the major national media, the only PR generated being whatever we could engender ourselves on the local level) and the initial publicity received by the recent official biographical book about Jiang and his book of speeches published by the Chinese government in mid/late 2006 (the publicity in all national media was substantial and coordinated). Nonetheless, even without national media support, my biography was the best-selling book of the year 2005 in China, which itself became a milestone and a fascinating probe of Chinese reform.

• Your final query is a fair one. Underlying my lifetime of intellectual pursuits is the fundamental conviction, formed as a young teenager, that the human brain, being the most complex manifestation of matter in the universe, must be a key for understanding the nature of reality. This realization has been at the core of much of what I have done, however unusual: skip half of high school and most of college (I entered Johns Hopkins Medical School at 17, two months before I turned 18, never having graduated high school but getting a bachelor’s degree after two years); leave medical school to get my Ph.D. in pure brain research (neurophysiology of the cerebral cortex) at UCLA; become interested (in the 1960s) in theology / religion (brain-mind nexus, materialism vs. immortal soul, question of substance dualism, whether there exists a nonphysical mind component or for that matter anything nonphysical at all, biblical theology of mind/spirit/soul) and consequent interest in WCG theology, especially Herbert Armstrong’s teaching that immortal souls were not biblical but that there did exist some ill-defined, non-conscious “spirit in man” (which resonated at the time, when just finishing my PhD, with my own independent sense of brain and mind); and then, over the ensuing decades, continuing readings, explorations and writings (cotemporaneous with the chores and stresses of earning a living and building my business, finance, writing and China careers). My lifelong interest in brain-mind, and in the finely tuned universe in which they appear, has found its most fulfilling expression in the Closer To Truth public television series, in which I explore the meaning and implications of state-of-the-art science and new knowledge in diverse fields. While I may tackle unusual subjects on Closer To Truth, I always try to maintain a high standard of rigorous critical thinking. Most of the subjects revolve around, overtly or subtly, the cosmos-consciousness axis, which, strengthened by such critical thinking, reflects back again to my lifelong core conviction that the human brain is the key to reality. The new season of Closer To Truth, now in production, deals with cosmology and fundamental physics, philosophy of cosmology, philosophy of religion, and philosophical theology.
  • Thank you for your response because the second part provides a reasonable and documented continuity of biography around which specific details can be elaborated in a modified version of what is currently on line. With regards to the book, it needs to be abbreviated considerably since it is its own subject and could merit a linked article of its own for the reasons stated by you. To the PBS work. It would be helpful if you could also provide a brief explanation as to how you came to work with PBS by using a similar line of explanation concerning your link to Armstrong and his interpretation of the word "soul". For instance, it is possible to find a link to Armstrong's booklet somewhere on line by way of further expanation as to what that issue was all about without cluttering up the biography. If you can provide a similar link to the reason for the acceptance of your work by PBS, that would not only be very helpful, but it would also complete a thematic storyline.
  • Afterthought. Could you also clarify two other related issues: 1) the relationship, if any, between yourself and Stanley Rader; 2) your understanding of and participation in the Rader-Armstrong visits to heads of state as "the ambassador for world peace without portfolio." Orlin Grabbe, for instance, has implied in a web based essay that these visits were perhaps not as non-governmental as they might have appeared to be at the time.

• Interesting ideas, thoughtful suggestions. Please give me a few days to respond intelligently. (Some personal responsibilities as my aunt, my 91-year old mother’s “baby sister,” just died.) Earlier, I made some factual edits to the bio in China, IB and author sections, corrected book citation errors in the reference, and added a few words to the intro; I did not touch a word of the WCG / AICF sections, though I do think they need some work. I’ll post presently. Now quickly…. the PBS story is divided sharply between the story of the content of the show Closer To Truth, which was and is entirely of my choosing and direction, and the story of the complex navigation of how an unknown, under-funded, low budget, difficult-subject, intelligent talk show tries to distribute to PBS and other public television stations. The key to the latter was the PBS station in Orange County, KOCE, whose CEO, new at the time, took a chance, if you will, on an unknown character with a radical idea for a high-content, limited-audience series.
• I hadn’t thought of it but I do agree that the significance of, and the controversy over, my biography of Jiang Zemin -- both sides, all sides actually since there are a lot more than two -- would make an interesting independent article. How to do this with NPOV? The exchange in Foreign Affairs, including my unpublished second response, plus my paragraph above, would be a start for research material. Who should do this? I can try for NPOV, and you and others can edit? I’m a bit biased, of course, but there is serious substance here, some specifics of which I related in my paragraph yesterday -- particularly the three points I enumerated for which my book, arguably, set a precedent in contemporary China.
• My relationship with Stanley Rader, an interesting one, I can describe, but nothing much first hand about the trips (I never participated, providing support while not putting much stock in them). Orlin I knew, liked, and worked with for a time; last time we met, in 1979 or 1980, we had dinner in Cambridge; he was at Harvard and I was at MIT.
• To reiterate, there is no causal relationship between my early interests in WCG theology and my current PBS series, Closer To Truth. However, there is a direct causal relationship, independent for each, back to my fundamental and lifelong conviction that a key to understand the universe, consciousness, and perhaps existence itself, is the human brain, which is the most sophisticated organization of matter in the universe. If there is any unity in my life it is fascination with the human brain, since only by means of the brain can we perceive and access reality and wonder about the mysteries of consciousness, cosmos, nonphysical things and God. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), the best online reference to the WCG concept of “soul” or “spirit in man,” to my limited knowledge, are those ancient articles of mine that you, as literary archeologist, unearthed and have already posted.
  • Links added to article with more to follow. What is your interpretation of the essay on line by Orlin Grabbe ("Memories of Pasadena") in which he infers that the Rader/HWA visits overseas were of interest to the CIA, etc?
    • I don’t take it seriously. Conspiracy theories abound.

• On WCG/AICF, in the spirit of seeking historical precision, I did / do suggest some clean up in two ways: (1) Minor verbal edits that do not change the meaning, indeed that clarify it, even though, in many places, I do not agree with that meaning or context (this I posted); for example, identify Armstrong and Rader at first usage. Another is that I never worked for Rader, I was not his “assistant”; I worked for Ted. (My relationship with Rader was parallel and collegial, though he, obviously, had far more influence. I respected Rader’s position, recognized his brilliance, appreciated our interactions, and disagreed with him, directly and vigorously, on many issues.) 2) Modest changes reflecting what I believe to be correct history. For example, the STP did not “create a rift,” but it did “exacerbate a rift.”
  • For accuracy, the concert series was my idea, supported strongly by Rader. Although the artist-engagement cycle for that year (1975) was long over, and the Music Center leadership advised us, in a personal meeting downtown, to “present high school orchestras” and leave the serious classical music to them, I structured and booked that entire first season personally and solely, including a redeye flight with my pianist wife to New York to meet, convince and sign Vladimir Horowitz to two high-profile concerts, his first in LA since 1952, much to the chagrin of the Music Center. (I had to convince not only Horowitz himself but also his high-powered wife, Wanda, the daughter of Arturo Toscanini.)
  • Similarly, I originated the STP; I structured and developed it and wrote it almost entirely by myself. I didn’t intend it that way. I genuinely even aggressively solicited input from many others, but I only received modest material in response and could not even use much of what I received. Thus I was forced, for worse or for better, to write most of it myself. (Good material was contributed, as I recall, only from Brian Knowles and Lester Grabbe, Orlin’s brother, who would later become a distinguished scholar of the Persian period)
• The second version of the edited WCG/AICF, the one with historical corrections, I did not post, but offer it below, so that you can decide what, if any, to use. I will state again that I do not believe that my bio is the place to tell these stories of the WCG and AICF, from Attorney General to Perino’s, which should be stories in their own articles, referenced and linked, as you see fit, to my bio. But this decision, I guess, is in your control, and therefore I seek to at least make accurate that which is there. Again, for the record, Armstrong’s “visits to China” – though there may have occurred, I cannot recall a specific one -- created no opportunities for me at all and had no influence on my career whatsoever. My advisory work in China began over a decade later, and it is a historical error to assert a connection when absolutely none exist. I have now found a comprehensive, 26 page, color brochure illustrating all these international trips; it was printed in 1975 and featured every country visited by Armstrong up to that time, and China is not among them. Perhaps he visited China later, but apparently he had not done so by 1975. Furthermore, I have never had later contact with anyone whom he or Rader met. My relationships in Japan, for example, came about because several of my early books, on strategies for medium sized firms and investment banking, were translated into Japanese, and the Japanese, like the Chinese, have a very high regard for scholars and writers. As for China, as I’ve stated, I was invited in 1989 because I was a scientist as well as an investment banker to advise the science leadership on plans for market reform. In the suggested version below, I redo that sentence to make it somewhat more accurate – but I have not posted it. (Even more accurate still would be to take it out.) Regarding that “March 18, 1975 date” and Perino’s dramatization, I have no idea of its veracity but I do recall a more textured development. On Jiang Zemin, see my comments below. Notwithstanding any of the above, I appreciate your sincere commitment to the vision and ideals of Wikipedia, one of the truly great endeavors of our age.

SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS

Worldwide Church of God

Dr. Kuhn first came to prominent attention of the public in January 1972 when "Why the Vast Difference between Animal Brain and Human Mind?" appeared under the byline of Robert L. Kuhn. It was the first in a major series of articles in The Plain Truth magazine published by Ambassador College, a subsidiary institution of the Worldwide Church of God (WCG). The series ran for five months and was promoted by publisher and WCG Pastor General Herbert W. Armstrong who bought full-page advertising in general interest magazines such as Reader's Digest.

Earlier, Kuhn had written articles of a spiritual nature in 1971 for another Ambassador College magazine called Tomorrow's World. He then worked for Garner Ted Armstrong by heading up his research team which originated material for The World Tomorrow television program.

In 1978 Dr. Kuhn created and developed, supported by other leaders of the WCG, a Systematic Theology Project (STP). Since Herbert W. Armstrong was touring the world in the name of AICF, and since aspects of the theological documents in the STP contradicted Armstrong’s prior religious teachings, it exacerbated a rift as various factions began to choose sides. Herbert W. Armstrong denounced the STP and the WCG crisis mushroomed into a takeover of the Worldwide Church of God by the Attorney General for the State of California. The legal fallout reached the United States Supreme Court where Stanley Rader (WCG Financial Director and Chief Counsel), who was acting on behalf of Herbert W. Armstrong, emerged as the victor, while Kuhn who had linked himself with the faction that was also supported by the already ousted Garner Ted Armstrong, was terminated from his employment with both the WCG and its affiliated organizations.

Ambassador International Cultural Foundation

On March 18, 1975 Robert Kuhn and Stanley Rader met with Herbert W. Armstrong at Perino's Restaurant in Los Angeles to launch the Ambassador International Cultural Foundation (AICF). The purpose of AICF was to host a series of concerts featuring leading names in classical music (later jazz, popular music and various forms of dance as well) at the Ambassador Auditorium which had been styled as the "Carnegie Hall" of the West Coast. On September 24, 1975, the AICF season of over 60 concerts, booked and managed by Kuhn, premiered with Luciano Pavarotti and featured Vladimir Horowitz in his first West Coast performances since 1952.

In addition, AICF published a literary-cultural magazine originally named Human Potential and later renamed Quest, and promoted worldwide visits by Armstrong and Rader to many world leaders styled as Ambassador for World Peace without portfolio. These tours included various attempts to promote Middle East peace by facilitating private meetings between prime ministers, presidents, kings and emperors. Among the many high level meetings with world leaders were visits to China which may have some resonance with Kuhn’s later career.

AICF was not without controversy since the church was nominally designated as a part of the Christian faith, both Rader and Kuhn were members of The Pasadena Jewish Temple & Center (PJTC), "a synagogue and community center affiliated with the Conservative Movement whose members observe a wide range of Jewish beliefs and practices." As a result of this fusion a religious backlash became the focus of various articles including a publication called Ambassador Report published by dissident members of the church. In 1978, during this period of turmoil, Kuhn severed his connection to the WCG and its affiliated subsidiaries. However, AICF, which Kuhn had helped to create, continued in operation until the death of Herbert W. Armstrong in 1986.

Comment on this section

Since this is a single article about one individual it is necessary to show continuity in this article in the same manner that a human life has continuity. One may be born. Go to school. Go to work for entity (a). Go to work for entity (b), etc., etc. However, since human life is a continuous process and not a series of "chapter breaks" that have beginnings and endings and blank spots in between, it is necessary to reflect connections and relationships.

This applies to the period of the WCG and AICF, which while they relate to each other are actually subtexts of activities within one timeline. To decapitate The Plain Truth article by listing it in passing as if it was the product of an independent publishing house would not be a true relection of reality. When we factor in your interest in mind-body (shades of Descartes and perhaps Koestler) which flows directly into your WCG writings which in turn flows directly into the theological ovehaul of a Christian sect by a member of the Jewish faith (that is mind-boggling all by itself - sort of like a Moslem overhauling the Catholic faith), but which is in turn tied to mind-body interest that both predates and postdates the WCG (phew!) it is necessary for the sake and sanity of the dear reader, to show how all of this fits together within the context of a single human lifespan.

Since it appears that an interested reader can access all of your articles in The Plain Truth series from that single listed source, it is better to leave that source where it is because the links are there and the context is also there. Wikipedia thrives on NPOV and clearly the librarian administering the linked texts has not attempted to interfere with or modify or corrupt the cyber content of the magazines. As to their location they might by compared, say, to a Methodist Library or a Baptist Library or a Catholic Library. In other words the location is not important.

The only suggestion relating to suject of "spirit in man / immortal soul" is that any of your writings for the WCG on this central subject that are available from the same cyber library mentioned above, should also be linked.

• See below about the five mind-brain articles, which I scanned into one file and which, collectively, tell the complete story (as of 1972). How to upload these efficiently so they can be easily accessed? The current posting seems to be only the January 1972 issue, which contains only the first of the five articles and also includes the issue entire magazine. Better to have one file with all five articles (it includes two covers). How to access this? I uploaded but cannot get a download beyond the first page - see below.

On the subject of AICF, perhaps the end-line: "which may have some resonance with Kuhn’s later career." should read "which may have run parallel to Kuhn's later career" From what you have already stated Rader/Armstrong seem to have been active in China during the same period of time that you became active in China.

• I can accept your wording, with this modification - "which may have had parallels to Kuhn's later career" . I never would have stated that "Rader/Armstrong seem to have been active in China during the same period of time that you became active in China." Armstrong was three years dead (1986) when I first went to China (1989), invited by the Science establishment, and I didn't begin serious work there until 1994/5.

It would distort the article to separate WCG/AICF since the reader would not have any idea of how and why all of these related interests flow together. In that same regard it would be helpful if you could explain how you came into contact with the WCG since the article does explain how you parted company with the WCG and in the same vein you have already explained (although it still needs to be worked into the article), how you became affiliated with PBS. Therefore the article should explain how the WCG episode began. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.129.159.171 (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

• Telling the lifestory, I'm beginning to fear, might take as long as having lived it :-).

Help Request - Uploading Five Mind-Brain Kuhn Plain Truth Articles

I scanned all five of my Human Mind - Animal Brain articles from The Plain Truth, January - June 1972, 36 pages in total into one PDF file. Supporting the views articulated above (Comments on this Section), this file would be much more relevant than the current posting which is only the first article in the Jan. 1972 issue -- and the file contains the entire magazine, not just the first article. After scanning all five articles in the file, I compressed the file and uploaded it, but when I try downloading it I can only seem to download the first page and then I get error messages. Also, the download seems to take a long time. Here is the URL: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Human_Mind_-_Animal_Brain_-_Kuhn_-_Plain_Truth_Parts_1-5_Jan-June_1972.pdf. The file is 4.7 megs but I dont think size is the problem because the same thing happens when I tried uploading and then downloading just one of the articles (750k). The uncompressed file, at 15 megs is at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Human_Mind_-_Animal_Brain_-_Kuhn_-_Plain_Truth_Jan-June_1972.pdf. I'm rather the novice here, first time. Is there a better way to do this? Thanks!

• • Perhaps I could upload this file of the five Mind-Brain articles to another site, which could be linked here and which anyone could access. Any suggestions?

• I've added links and uploaded files to external sources, not on Wikipedia (the download only gave the first page). I added a reference and link to a recent article I wrote for China Daily, "Does God Exist?" http://www.esnips.com/doc/a2b4ee0c-abf7-4327-b75d-de814960cc26/Does-God-Exist---RLKuhn---China-Daily---12.2.06.pdf

Jiang Zemin biography

The controversy surrounding this biography has been removed to the Jiang Zemin article which was demanding attention and sources cited. That article also requires clean-up and Dr. Kuhn might wish to lend his time to performing that task and removing some of the duplication relating to him within the External sources section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.128.85.142 (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

• • Good idea and move. At your suggestion, I’ll do minor clean up, mostly wording, perhaps limited to your addition. It’s a polarizing subject – China in general and Jiang in specific -- my book speaks for itself and I respect the opinion of others. Since I have no interest in Wiki Wars, I’d appreciate if you (and others) might monitor the site.
    • The way to avoid Wiki Wars is to report subject matter in a context which is linked to independent (NPOV) and historical documentation that is clearly not the work of the editor/author. Additions of that type can only be rebutted by similar links which in turn leaves the reader with a choice of how he/she will then interpret it.
      • OK, thanks; I'll give it a go.

Added reference to new page on Jiang Zemin biography - The Man Who Changed China: The Life and Legacy of Jiang Zemin -- which Colipon created by moving section in Jiang Zemin page, which 70.128.85.142 had previously removed from this bio and transferred to Jiang Zemin bio page.

Photo - Proper License

Proper license added to photo, releasing into the public domain

Contact?

Mr Kuhn, Gordon Fang here. Is it possible to reach you by e-mail? I found your book (which I read in full, finished in about 3 days because I felt connected to pretty much all of the content as I lived through the era in China myself) and various other works extremely interesting and I just have a few general questions that I'd like to ask. I admire your courage to take up the task of writing a biography of a Chinese leader (or now, leaders). I can ask them here if you so prefer. Colipon+(T) 09:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gordie. Appreciate your comments; you understand the situation well. Three days to read; four years to write! How do I give you my email without releasing it to the entire world? Or how do I get yours? I'm not experienced in Wiki Ways. Are you still in Shanxi? I was in Taiyuan several months ago, may be back later this year.

Proposed deletion

I am concerned this article is way too long given the subject.

I am also concerned that the biography was written by the subject himself and is a full of self-promotion.

I don't understand why an fully educated professional like Dr. Kuhn needs to grandise himself on Wikipedia with a giant biography? Why not just create a website for yourself and put everything you did in your life on there?

If you do feel the need to create a Wikipedia biography, how about one that is a few lines long describing yourself for the easy and quick reference of the Internet community? That is appropiate considering you have produced a PBS-broadcast television series.

I feel Mr. Kuhn's use of Wikipedia in this manner is childish, immature and abuses the true purpose of this great resource.

Furthermore, his continuous desire to amend and correct every detailed aspect of his Wikipedia biography when others have questioned specific parts, all of these parts so specific that in acutality they are not even supposed to be part of a Wikipedia biography for a person of his notriety, strikes me as really bizzare.

To the Wikipedia editors, I recommened this article for immediate deletion in its current state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.63.248 (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible source material

The article recently had a large amount of content deleted. I repost here a link to the appendices section from that earlier version before the removal because it may contain useful source material that can be used for future expansion. References, External links -- œ^™ 09:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Mr Kuhn appears as a polite responsive man although perhaps over eager to write his own authorised autobiography. I have a serious concern relating to CCTV9 the English language state run TV channel. Mr Kuhn seems to have a role in this channel. I notice his daughter also had a job there. It seems to me that CCTV9 seems to have an editorial policy that differs from what one would expect in China. My questions to Dr Kuhn. Why were you invited to China in the first place? Who invited you and why? Your work seems somewhat esoteric and I cannot imagine that in China c1989 it would have been sufficiently important to merit an invite. Next, Do you have any editorial responsibilities at CCTV9 or are you only a talking head? Three and this is very important. Are you by any chance connected to the Kuhn and Loeb banking family? Finally what if any links do you have to Israel? Are you an Israeli dual national. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Alexander Taylor (talk • contribs) 01:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your questions. Here are my answers. I was first invited to China in early 1989 by the State Science and Technology Commission to speak at a conference on reforming China's science industries, a vital factor in China's remarkable development (which at that time was just beginning). I was invited as an investment banker who had been educated as a scientist (PhD in anatomy/brain research) and who understood the commercialization of science and technology. My invite was catalyzed by my mentor in the U.S., Dr. George Kozmetsky, who was the long-time dean of the business school at the University of Texas at Austin (where I was a senior research fellow) - Dr. Kozmeksty, a technology visionary (he was co-founder of Teledyne), was an informal advisor to China's science leadership at the time. After the crackdown in Tiananmen Square in June 1989, I did not return to China for about 15 months - I tell the story of why I did not return, and then why I changed my mind, openly in my books and in an interview in Barron's.

I have no editorial responsibilities at CCTV9 (now CCTV News); I am a semi-regular commentator on international affairs. I present my own views -- for example, I've defended the Chinese position that tariffs against China are no solution to the U.S. balance of trade problems and I've defended the American position that the Chinese currency is undervalued and should appreciate, albeit in a controlled manner.

I am not related to the Kuhn, Loeb banking company or family. My grandfather (Kuhn) immigrated from Hungary; other grandparents immigrated from Romania, Austria and Lithuania/Poland. All came as children; all were poor and proud to be Americans; all worked very hard. My great uncle fought for America in World War I; my father and three uncles fought for America in World War II.

I visited Israel several times, related to a tech company, but not in over 15 years. I am not and have never been a citizen of any country other the U.S. Analysis357 (talk) 06:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Robert Lawrence Kuhn. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20050507102938/http://www.americanscientist.org:80/template/AssetDetail/assetid/25691 to http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/25691
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070213220233/http://www.foreignaffairs.org:80/20060101faletter85164/robert-lawrence-kuhn-bruce-gilley/one-country-two-prisms.html to http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060101faletter85164/robert-lawrence-kuhn-bruce-gilley/one-country-two-prisms.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091017090349/http://space.tv.cctv.com:80/video/VIDE1255090230714887 to http://space.tv.cctv.com/video/VIDE1255090230714887
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120302011901/http://www.shanghaidaily.com/sp/article/2009/200909/20090925/article_414823.htm to http://www.shanghaidaily.com/sp/article/2009/200909/20090925/article_414823.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110705194857/http://video.imqq.com:80/play/ZIKu7MZKtEl/shanghai to http://video.imqq.com/play/ZIKu7MZKtEl/shanghai/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121024093023/http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-06/24/content_12771411.htm to http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-06/24/content_12771411.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110905173449/http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/life/2011-09/02/content_13603790.htm to http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/life/2011-09/02/content_13603790.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Lawrence Kuhn. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://classic.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1749050647&play=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930183117/http://www.esnips.com/doc/a2b4ee0c-abf7-4327-b75d-de814960cc26/Does-God-Exist---RLKuhn---China-Daily---12.2.06.pdf to http://www.esnips.com/doc/a2b4ee0c-abf7-4327-b75d-de814960cc26/Does-God-Exist---RLKuhn---China-Daily---12.2.06.pdf

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Can someone check "Factual Errors, Please Help" below? Many thanks. Analysis357 (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Factual Errors, Please Help

I see that someone has added a new first sentence under "Criticism", that is factually not correct: "The fact of Kuhn making residence in Beijing, China, as well as taking payment from the CCP for the majority of his personal compensation, either directly or via purchases of his books, has brought much criticism on Kuhn and the neutrality of his works."

I have never made residence in Beijing or anywhere other than in the U.S., though I have made many trips to China, mostly to Beijing. (I have not been to China since the beginning of the pandemic in January 2020.) I have never taken payment from the CCP, and while I have been paid for my commentaries (written and video) and TV productions, and for several books, these amounts were modest and in accord with industry standards, and constitute in the aggregate over the years a minuscule percentage of my personal income, which has come from investment banking, corporate advisory, sales of businesses that I helped build, and personal investments.

Wikipedia requires sourcing and references. Here there are none.

People have every right to criticize my commentaries, which I welcome, but not to make stuff up about my life and present it as fact.

Moreover, the excerpts of criticisms of my work are so skewed as if deliberate distortion, with the primary reference written in 2010 and vast others omitted. Perhaps the most thorough and recent investigative report of my activities in China, including criticism, was completely ignored - "Inside Man", published in The Wire China (founded and edited by Pulitzer Prize-winning, former New York Times investigative journalist David Barboza), September 27, 2020 - https://www.thewirechina.com/2020/09/27/inside-man/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Analysis357 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedians, please help.

Analysis357 (talk) 04:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Robert Lawrence Kuhn Analysis357 (talk) 04:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC) Analysis357 (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• This is not an administrative issue; administrators have no authority over content issues. However, as an individual editor, I have removed the statement about residency in China and payment from China because it is not supported by the reference provided. Unfortunately, I'm not a subscriber to The Wire China and the article is behind its paywall, so I can't verify the content and therefore cannot add it as a reference. Thank you for posting your request here instead of editing the article directly. Much appreciated. Katie^talk 13:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  Understood and appreciate, Katie. Here is a link to a PDF of the full article in The Wire China - http://rlkuhn.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Inside-Man-Kuhn-The-Wire-China-September-27-2020ar.pdf. Analysis357 (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• If you were paid by China Daily and China Central Television then you were paid by the Chinese Communist Party. I don't understand your argument, have you never been paid by the CCP or have those payments been "modest and in accord with industry standards"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  All media in China is controlled by the government and the government is controlled by the CCP, so in this derivative sense, all payments to everyone in the Chinese media sector are controlled by the CCP and thus “from” the CCP. Then, the same logic would apply to all state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in China, such that all payments from SOEs to any corporation or individual, say, for purchasing agricultural products from American farmers, would be equally “from” the CCP. (An argument can extend this to all private companies in China, in that all are regulated by the government, more so recently.) I do not equate media and agricultural products, but I do say that what I have done in or about China has been open and transparent. A detailed description of my activities in China, as noted above, is the thorough investigative report, including criticism, that was published in The Wire China (founded and edited by former New York Times investigative journalist David Barboza, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his “striking exposure of corruption at high levels of the Chinese government”); September 27, 2020. See https://www.thewirechina.com/2020/09/27/inside-man/. There is a paywall, so here is a link to a PDF of the complete article - http://rlkuhn.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Inside-Man-Kuhn-The-Wire-China-September-27-2020ar.pdf Analysis357 (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

China Daily is a branch of the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party, not a SOE or media organization indirectly controlled by the party through the state. Surely you know that? If you received pay from China Daily you were paid directly by the CCP's publicity department. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

My Contributions Keep Getting Reversed!

Hey there!

I've noticed that my work is getting reversed when trying to edit Robert Lawrence Kuhn's page? I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia but I wanted to write this message so that I can hopefully clear things up.

I'm actually a huge fan of Robert Lawrence Kuhn and his work. And as a philosophy student (now graduated), his show Closer To Truth has been a pretty amazing escape for me. The reason this matters is that I've wanted to contribute to his Wikipedia for quite some time (AND the Wikipedia page for his show Closer To Truth!), and I've recently found time to give back, in a way, for all that his show has given me by updating his pages. I know it sounds ridiculous, but I've spent a lot of time and effort learning about his life through this process, learning about wikicode, and so much more! I've also tried to remain as unbiased as I can by not making him out to be some God-like figure.

Anyway, I was notified by someone called Horse Eye's Back recently that there was a suspicion of a Conflict of Interest, to which I happily tried to clear up. But it happened again! :( And all that I'm asking for is that I can have the opportunity to not let my hard work go to waste --as a perfectionist it's almost hurting me mentally.

As I post this message, I'll republish my changes. Please read them over and consider leaving it as is for the next fan or critic to contribute to. :)

Thank you! JoshuaJT (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

They literally can't be left because they're BLP violations... For example the use of China Daily is strictly forbidden in this context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

See WP:CHINADAILY for more. Always best to stick to WP:GREL sources. Amigao (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey Amigao & Horse Eye's Back!

I've removed the deprecated sources mentioned above. Thank you for pointing that out. I've learned something new about this Wiki edit thing! I believe it looks good now, but I would greatly appreciate more feedback if my edits are still in some way non-compliant. JoshuaJT (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Much of this new edit appears promotional, which is forbidden. For example the bits you've added about his program. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Well back when I was originally researching for this whole thing and made the changes, I thought the final product was pretty balanced overall. The bits you're talking about are totally why I felt like his Wiki article was unbalanced actually. I'm subscribed to his newsletter and watch his show frequently enough to know that the work being done there for philosophy and science definitely deserves a better description on Wiki. At least that was the thinking that drove me to make these edits in the first place. JoshuaJT (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Why would that matter? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I'm just trying to see why it's promotional. I thought I made my edits balanced enough to the degree that it wouldn't cause so many issues. I'm still just trying to work through the conventions here. JoshuaJT (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

No amount of promotion is allowed. Its not a matter of balancing promotional and non-promotional. For example "The YouTube channel of Closer To Truth has garnered significant attention" appears to be promotional original research. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, well my intentions are definitely not to promote. I suppose I was just hoping to contribute to the article by ensuring there was an adequate portrayal of his work. It seemed outdated kind of biased when I first read it. JoshuaJT (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I do see what you mean by the YouTube channel part though. JoshuaJT (talk) 07:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Basically the whole Closer To Truth section as re-written is original research. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I've corrected the errors you've pointed out, fixing what could be considered original research -including additional citations for support. Please review and suggest any further changes that need to take place with respect to, and in accordance with Wiki's policies. I promise I'm learning! JoshuaJT (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It's been requested by Amigao that I gain consensus on the latest version first before submitting. If there is anything else needing review, please let me know. JoshuaJT (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I want to highlight that my contributions are quickly undone, despite calls for consensus on this talk page. If there's no active dialogue here to form an agreement, I don't see why my edits shouldn't remain, as they don't violate any of Wikipedia's rules. Additionally, refer to WP:CON. The practice of reversing edits citing consensus requires the reverser to explain their reasons, not just suggest discussing in the talk page without follow-up. JoshuaJT (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

JoshuaJT is blocked from editing the article directly; they never clarified their pretty obvious conflict of interest and continue to insert promotional and poorly verified material. Drmies (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

No, I've clarified my non-conflict of interest numerous times. Please read the prior remarks. Can we bring in some different moderators to review this situation? JoshuaJT (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request

Hi there,

As discussed in the talk, I would like to add an additional sentence that covers Robert Lawrence Kuhn's role in the television series "Closer To Truth" to the introduction section of his article. The addition would provide a more comprehensive overview of his career and contributions. The proposed text is as follows:

"Additionally, Kuhn is known for his role as the creator, executive producer, writer, and host of the public television series 'Closer To Truth,' which features discussions with scientists, philosophers, and scholars exploring fundamental questions about the cosmos, consciousness, and meaning."

This addition would be supported by the following sources:

As sources, ISSR comprises respected scholars and academics from various disciplines, which supports its credibility as a scholarly source. And the official website for Closer To Truth supports factual information about the show’s purpose, content, and contributors, serving as a primary source for direct details about the series.

Lastly, I would like to update the lead image to a more representative front-facing photograph of Kuhn. The existing image, where he is not facing the camera, does not align with Wikipedia's guidelines for biographical articles, which suggest "a biography should lead with a portrait photograph of the subject alone." A clear, front-facing image is more engaging and provides visual confirmation that readers have arrived at the right page, as advised under "Images for the lead" which emphasizes that "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic." Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. The proposed image can be found in Wiki Commons here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Robert_Lawrence_Kuhn_During_Interview.png

Thank you for your consideration. JoshuaJT (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi 301dot & Drmies. As requested, I've submitted an edit request and have waited some time now. Please let me know if I can implement the changes. JoshuaJT (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello JoshuaJT--I'll ping 331dot for you (the number is not meaningless). OK, I am not going to insert that text. If he is supposed to be "known" for that, we would need to have secondary sources proving that he is in fact known for that. The program's website, if that's what that link is, cannot do that, and neither can that ISSR link, since that's to an organizational website where, I assume, members submit their own biographies. It is not, in fact, a scholarly source, even if it is the website for a scholarly organization. Content, especially biographical content, needs secondary sources. I've taken care of the image. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Understood, and thank you for clarifying 331dot's name for me!

I have found two alternative secondary sources, both of which members do not submit their own biographies.

1. IAI (Institute of Art and Ideas) - Credible for scholarly content:

https://iai.tv/home/speakers/robert-lawrence-kuhn

2. The Jerusalem Post - An established and reputable news source:

https://www.jpost.com/kabbalah/what-is-kabbalah-687490

Thank you for looking these over. JoshuaJT (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Drmies, just realizing I didn't ping you in my last message, so I wanted to make sure it didn't get lost or forgotten about. Will use the @ going forward! JoshuaJT (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

JoshuaJT, these sources are not an improvement, IMO. The iai.tv, what even is that? An institute of art etc., and he is a speaker for them, so there's no way that it's an independent secondary source reporting objectively. The other one, from the Jerusalem Post, it verifies that he's "host of Closer to Truth," which is fine, but no one doubts that, and the whole "is known for" is a step beyond "is host of". Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)