Talk:Christopher Langan/Archive 4

Removed CTMU description

I removed the CTMU description because it is not notable and basically OR. --ScienceApologist 16:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Applicable policies and guidelines: WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, WP:N, WP:SCIENCE, WP:OR. Please review them carefully for the rationale why we should not go into an in-depth description of Lagan's musings on the state of the universe. I'll also note that CTMU article was deleted and there was no review indicating we should be describing it in this article.--ScienceApologist 16:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Concur: I agree with the removal, but wish to provide additional rationale:

1. To my knowledge, no contributor to this article (nor its associated discussion and archive) has yet demonstrated that CTMU has been thoroughly evaluated and reviewed by a reliable secondary source (as defined in WP:OR) as either a religious, political, philosophical, or other kind of non-scientific literary work;
2. Moreover, no contributor has met the (even higher) burden required for validating scientific research;
3. It has been argued in this discussion that (2) above is not necessary, but even if that is true ... that still leaves (1);
4. The burden of such demonstration resides solely with those who wish to incorporate such content into an article.

I believe a good-faith impartial interpretation of this discussion (and its archives) and the relevant policy pages indicate a mention of CTMU is indeed appropriate.

Moreover, I believe that even a basic exposition of CTMU could be argued as not violating WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, and WP:SCIENCE because it has been *characterized* as having philosophical *as well as* scientific implications. (See e.g., [1])

Nevertheless, this mere *characterization* is unfortunately not enough to justify detailed exposition within Wikipedia. Upon review of the discussion archives, cites, and the apparent lack of any third-party exposition of the CTMU thesis (regardless of whether it can be characterized as "philosophical", "scientific" or otherwise) there is simply not enough outside corroboration upon which to base a detailed summary in a Wikipedia article. If I am wrong, and there is such corroboration, I will be happy to recant, and help contribute and try to ensure the CTMU recieves fair and neutral treatment in this article. So far, though, it seems the burden of proof has not yet been met. dr.ef.tymac 19:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of secondary sources in the mainstream media have described or mentioned the CTMU in conjunction with Langan: Popular Science, The Times, Newsday, Esquire, etc. This coverage establishes the theory's notability in the context of Langan. Now, granted, these sources treat the theory in less detail than do the primary sources (Langan's own writings). But WP:OR explicitly allows, and even encourages, collecting and organizing information from "existing primary and/or secondary sources":

However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

Our combination of secondary sources (the mainstream media) with primary sources (Langan's own work) is permissible "source-based research", and allows at least a basic exposition of the CTMU in this article. That said, in writing such an exposition, we must adhere to WP:OR and take care not to add unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, and not to offer unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. But if we stick closely to the sources, cite what they say, and carefully qualify for neutrality, then I think we can provide readers with a basic exposition of the CTMU while also conforming to Wikipedia policy. Tim Smith 20:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

While secondary sources have mentioned and quoted Langan on his CTMU, there are absolutely no secondary sources which describe it as an idea independent of Langan's quasi-celebrity. If you want to see the material reincluded, start a WP:DRV. --ScienceApologist 20:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

We are not discussing an article about the CTMU independent of Langan. We are discussing a section about the CTMU in the Langan article. The secondary sources in which the CTMU appeared in conjunction with Langan (Popular Science, The Times, 20/20, etc.) establish its notability in that context. Additionally, at the CTMU AfD, the objection that deletion would be a disproportionate response was met with: "That isn't what we are trying to do. [...] We want to move coverage of the topic into the article on Langan himself." ESkog, the AfD closing admin, explained his decision to delete in part by saying that the CTMU could be "covered completely" at the article on Langan, even offering to temporarily undelete the article so that it could be merged. The deletion of the CTMU article in no way prohibits the inclusion of a basic description of the CTMU in the Langan article; indeed, such a description is required for the article to be comprehensive. Tim Smith 22:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the notability of the CTMU has clearly been established in relation to the subject of the entry. Furthermore, the legitimate secondary sources that there are discuss the CTMU sufficiently to support what is stated in the section. In that context the section does not constitute original research. It has not been demonstrated that the section violates any policy. FNMF 23:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What you both fail to realize is that it isn't the CTMU's mention that's the problem: it's the exposition of its content. Since the only verifiable source for its content is Langan and he can change it whenever and however he pleases, an exposition of it does not belong on Wikipedia per the policies listed at the top of this page. --ScienceApologist 00:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Main sticking point: Tim Smith, I agree entirely with your first response in this thread, and it seems to touch on the central deficiency here:

• (yes or no) has any contributor to this discussion yet demonstrated that Langan's CTMU thesis (and associated summaries) surpass the standard definition of "self-published works"?

My understanding is, so far, the answer to that question is "no" ... am I incorrect? Can a "yes" answer be substantiated? As you have already quoted in relevant part:

All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published ... sources

(emphasis not in original). I think you and I both agree that Langan's work is compelling, and merits exposition even solely on the basis of its philosophical content. The problem is, even the most dilligent and impartial substantive exposition of CTMU in this (or any other) article still seems to rely on what amounts to Langan's own personal notes. Absent a "yes" answer to the previous question, or proof of extensive treatment in a secondary source, I don't see how CTMU exposition can be rescued from a claim of WP:OR and WP:RS. dr.ef.tymac 00:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Note: this item was posted out-of-sequence relative to FNMF's post to preserve the continuity of a matter under discussion

Could you please explain why a section about the relation of the CTMU to intelligent design theory is acceptable, but a section about the CTMU itself is unacceptable? It seems that, rather than Tim Smith or myself trying to promote Langan's ideas (I have no interest in promoting Langan's ideas), the only material you will deem acceptable is material that you judge as "exposing" Langan's supposed advocacy of ID. This seems unfair to Langan, and does not seem to me to maintain a neutral point of view. There is nothing controversial in the section, the content of the section is notable in relation to the subject of the entry (with secondary sources establishing notability, as per BLP), and all statements in the section are supported with references. You have failed to demonstrate any policy violations. Rather than deleting the section, could you please provide an actual justification of your viewpoint with regard to policy specifics, rather than simply listing policies without referring to their content? This will help editors to evaluate your position and hence to come to a decision about its merits. FNMF 00:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Langan is notable, and not soley in relation to the CTMU. Therefore, anything he says or has written can be included in the article; asking that the CTMU be independently published is a red herring; that's the standard for an article on CTMU. If you don't want to read about the CTMU, you don't have to, but others might and will, and as long as we've accurately portrayed the thesis, I don't see the problem. --Otheus 06:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Langan is notable, and not soley in relation to the CTMU. Therefore, anything he says or has written can be included in the article; asking that the CTMU be independently published is a red herring; this totally misses the point of the policies and guidelines I cited above. I encourage editors who believe this to read the applicable policies carefully. Just because Langan wrote it does not mean it can automatically be included here. Wikipedia is not a quote mine. --ScienceApologist 10:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Material was removed without cause. Please read policy regarding "undue weight". It does not apply here. Per Tim Smith, FNMF and Otheus comments, this edit seems best. Let's work from here or get an opionion from an uninvolved admin, or maybe Jimbo. --Honorable citizen 11:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read the section below. This is essentially self-published research and is strictly forbidden by the policies listed above. I encourage you to ask for third opinions. --ScienceApologist 11:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you hold the minority view here. You would be advised to get a third opinion and stop your disruptive editing. --Honorable citizen 12:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Two things: Wikipedia is not a democracy, and are you a sockpuppet or a meat puppet? Your single-purpose, newly created account that has immediately delved into WikiLawyering is highly suspicious. Try branching out a bit. --ScienceApologist 12:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Actually, I thought Honorable citizen was a sockpuppet of myself, until I realized he edited the Ken Bennett article.</sarcasm> --Otheus 01:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand, Otheus, what is this supposed to imply? --ScienceApologist 12:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving Forward

Moving forward: Arguments are getting re-hashed. Speculations of improper motives are re-surfacing. This is not good.

The goal is a professional article that fairly and accurately presents the subject matter, consistent with WP policy, is it not?

• UNCONTESTED: Langan's CTMU thesis meets the definition of "self-published" work;
• UNCONTESTED: The CTMU thesis has been characterized in secondary sources, but neither reviewed, critiqued, nor summarized;
• UNCONTESTED: Mention of CTMU in this article is appropriate;
• UNCONTESTED: If *exposition* of CTMU is deemed appropriate in this article, all such exposition must be balanced and faithful to the original source;
• UNCONTESTED: The burden of evidence lies with the editor(s) who propose to add material.

-

• DISPUTED: CMLs self-published work is "strictly prohibited" vs the self-published work is "fair dinkum"

Relevant WP Policy (NOTE: undermines "strict prohibition," but see also "it is not contentious" ... )

Relevant WP Policy (NOTE especially: Editorial oversight, Corroboration, Recognition by other reliable sources, and Persistence)

Relevant WP Policy (YES or NO: Does a theory that purports to answer fundamental questions of scientific reasoning == "exceptional claim"? )

Perhaps some detatched consideration of how to proceed is called for on all "sides" of this dispute. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 15:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Some comments on the above. Firstly, in relation to Verifiability and Self-published sources: I do not believe that a self-published is OK so long as "it is not contentious" is relevant here. "Contentious" is not intended in the verifiability policy to prevent description of the philosophical, religious or any other kind of theoretical idea held by the subject of an entry. It is intended to prevent the repetition of unfounded controversial claims such as unverified comments about other people. It is far too broad an interpretation of "contentious" to extend it so that it becomes impossible to describe the ideas of a subject. All kinds of people hold all kinds of ideas that other people may find kooky or wrong, but that does not mean those ideas are contentious in any relevant policy sense. Secondly, in relation to "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources": it is in my opinion quite clear that by "exceptional claims" this policy is referring to claims editors wish to make in an entry, not to claims made by a subject of an entry which others may find "exceptional" because of their content. The policy is trying to make clear that the more unexpected or surprising the assertions an editor wishes to make, the better his or her sources had better be for those claims. In the section in question, the claims are not exceptional: the CTMU section simply states what it is that Langan claims, but makes no extraordinary claims. An exceptional claim covered by the policy in question might be something along the lines of: "Langan has proved that the CTMU is correct." Again, the section as written would not seem to violate this policy in any way. In conclusion, however much other editors do not like Langan's ideas, there seems to me to be clear policy scope for describing Langan's ideas in the entry. How far those ideas should be described is a debate it seems reasonable to have. Denying the right to some description of his ideas does not seem reasonable to me, given that this is a significant part of Langan's notability, for which there are both primary and secondary sources. FNMF 15:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on this, I'd say you've at least made a prima facie good faith argument that exposition is not inconsistent with your understanding of WP policy. But just for the sake of clarification:

• (yes or no) do you believe that exposition of a (yet unpublished) author's personal notes is appropriate in a Wikipedia article about that author, as long as those self-published notes have been merely *mentioned* in a reliable secondary source?
• if yes to the above, do you agree it's possible that said author may wish to later extend or modify his notes, thus invalidating or contradicting pre-existing exposition within a Wikipedia article?

These questions seem exceptionally critical in this case, since the CTMU thesis is sufficiently complex (some might argue inscrutable) to warrant special concerns. I believe your stated interpretation of policy might have more weight if you can credibly address this. dr.ef.tymac 16:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My answers are as follows: (1) the characterisation of the situation as an exposition of unpublished personal notes mentioned in secondary sources exaggerates the issue. The published primary sources contain a lot of information about the content of Langan's theory, so I don't think it is fair to describe the primary sources as unpublished personal notes. The situation is more akin to a philosopher or theologian who publishes a condensed version of ideas that they intend to exposit more fully in a later work. The fact that the later work has not yet appeared (or even that it may never appear) does not invalidate the earlier work as a primary source. The published material that there is is the material that is being described in the section. If people feel this material contains gaps, that's OK, because the section is not claiming the work is true. (2) I have never understood the argument that because it is possible Langan may change his mind, therefore we can't describe his ideas for fear of creating an out-of-date entry. One great virtue of Wikipedia is that entries can change over time. If new sources provide new information, of course the entry may require revision. The argument that this means no section about the CTMU should be included seems to be premised on the idea that the CTMU is a secret that nobody really knows the contents of, and therefore if Langan changes his mind about what its contents are, we have no way of knowing whether he's just making it up as he goes along, thus that it is really a con. My refutation of the relevance of this argument is that the CTMU section is a description based on the sources that there are that does not claim the theory is proven or true. Whether a more fully worked out version of the theory ever appears does not, in my mind, invalidate a section describing the character of the CTMU. After all, Langan's writings do not simply contain allusive references to having solved the problem of the nature of the universe, but are rather detailed attempts to explain how Langan claims to have solved such problems. Whether others find these claims convincing is beside the point: the point is that there is sufficiently detailed characterisation to enable a legitimate description of the claims. FNMF 00:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Duly noted. Some minor issues: 1) "unpublished personal notes" vs "condensed version of ideas" ... 100% o.k. with your reframing terms to fairly depict the situation, and I am sure you recognize it helps to sometimes pose questions in the terms least favorable to the proponent, in order to elicit the strongest direct response. You've responded, and that is much appreciated; 2) If I may paraphrase you, it's acceptable for Wikipedia to summarize a "condensed version of Langan's ideas" (that may or may not contain "gaps") since the ideas are detailed, not misrepresented, and do not include unsubstantiated claims of "truth". NOTE: This paraphrase is intended to fairly and favorably present your position, so please clarify if it's wrong.

I'm trying to condense this down a bit, because I know sometimes people don't have the time to read through the entirety of the more detailed posts. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 02:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you I am more than happy to engage in a constructive dialogue about how to understand and improve the situation at this entry. Your paraphrase of my position is fairly accurate. I would only like to make clear that, although I spoke of the situation as akin to a philosopher who presents a condensed version of their work, in this case the condensed version is quite detailed. There is little doubt that in his existing work Langan is presenting what he considers a detailed description of the mechanics of his theory, even if he does not explain in detail all the nuts and bolts. Despite the difficulty of some of his prose, I think what he is trying to do is still fairly clear to the careful reader. And I feel the CTMU section as included here demonstrates that fact, because it does succeed in conveying the character of Langan's ideas. FNMF 03:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we would never accept a philosopher's ideas that were neither independently published nor documented by secondary sources. Conveying Langan's ideas is not Wikipedia's job: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --ScienceApologist 04:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

His ideas are published. FNMF 04:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no, they aren't. They are basically self-published or put through on vanity presses or found discussed obliquely by news sources. They haven't been subject to critical review and have received no academic notice (which is the context for where such an idea should have its day). Pretending that Langan's "publications" are somehow part of the discourse that he wants to engage is not anything I can agree to. --ScienceApologist 11:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Langan's work is published in several sources. Saying that his work is not published does not undo that. The sources have ISBN numbers, which makes them indexed sources in the LOC. If you don't like the quality of the sources, that's not enough of a reason to deny they are published sources. Please stop editing this article disruptively and try to collaborate with other editors. --Honorable citizen 12:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The quality of the sources is definitely our concern per WP:RS. --ScienceApologist 13:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply to ScienceApologist: No need to be sorry. I feel I need to make something clear. In one of my comments above I was addressing the question asked by Dreftymac about whether it matters if Langan changes his mind about his ideas. In my answer to that question I explained that I understood the situation as akin to a philosopher who writes an early text, promising to publish a fuller version later. I therefore argued that the early text still counts as a primary text in itself, and may be discussed in the entry. But notice the word "akin." I was not arguing that Langan is a philosopher, nor that he should be treated as a philosopher. Why not? Because a philosopher is somebody whose notability stems from their philosophical work. Therefore, whether a philosopher should or should not have an entry may be determined by factors such as the degree of academic acceptance, or the number of books published, etc. Even if Langan's work is more or less philosophy, his notability does not come from his philosophical work in the way that it does for a philosopher. Rather, Langan's notability stems from an unusual combination of factors: that he achieved very high scores on IQ tests, combined with the fact that he worked as a bouncer for 20 years, combined with the fact that he claims to have solved the question of the nature of reality. It is this combination of unusual and apparently contradictory characteristics that has provoked interest in Langan, that has stimulated media coverage, and that has established his notability in an encyclopedia. Thus I was not, in making an analogy with a philosopher, trying to say that what should be included in Langan's entry should be judged in the same way as what should be included in a philosopher's entry. No, Langan's ideas have not received academic acceptance, nor have they been widely published (but they have certainly been published). But none of that means they should not be described in the entry. Langan is an interesting guy, precisely because his high-IQ collides with his marginality, and precisely because both of these facts collide in the fruits of his intellectual labours. The more this subject is discussed, the less convincing are the arguments that the entry must at all costs not be contaminated by any discussion of Langan's ideas. The insistence on preventing this "contamination" comes across as bias against the subject of the entry. FNMF 12:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What you describe above, FNMF, is a case for having an article about Langan and what the article should entail. You outline three points for inclusion: his claimed high-IQ, his work background/biography, and his claims to greatness. I agree wholeheartedly that these points are all worthy of inclusion and all notable. What you then do is make the following leap: since Langan has notability and certain subjects that are worthy of inclusion regarding him therefore everything attributable to Langan must be worthy of inclusion in an article about him. I think that this is the major source of contention between the inclusionists and the exclusionists. We can and should describe the points that make Langan notable (essentially which make him encyclopedic). We should not, however, use Wikipedia as a forum for describing his ideas because, essentially, they represent his original research and they are not notable (unlike the other facets outlined above). That he proposes CTMU is notable. What iterations and prose he associates with his pet idea are not only not notable: they fundamentally fail the tests of verifiability and no original research.

To put this another way: if Langan's entry is not to be judged the same way a philosopher's entry would be judged, as you contend, what comparable standard should we use? If we read WP:FRINGE we can see that there are a number of issues with including text that has not been subject to critique. I take that guideline very seriously and it seems to me that it poses some serious problems for including exposition of the CTMU. Perhaps, though, there is another way to look at it: what other article exists on Wikipedia that we can use as a template? There are 1.7 million possibilities to choose from, so I would like to see some precedent for dealing with what essentially is the original research of an individual who derives his notability by other means.

--ScienceApologist 13:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to read through my argument and to make your own. I must deny, however, that I make the leap you claim. I do not at all claim that "everything attributable to Langan must be worthy of inclusion about him." I am unsure why you think I made this claim. Secondly, I note that you subtly rewrite what I wrote about the sources of Langan's notability. You speak about his "claimed" high-IQ, in a way that suggests you are biased against the subject of the entry. You also agree that his claim to have solved the question of the nature of reality is part of his notability, but then deny that his ideas are notable. This is having it both ways. Why: because it is quite clear that these ideas are notable in relation to the subject of the entry. This is the criterion of notability that is relevant here. If Langan's claims about his ideas are notable, then it must be legitimate to summarise what those ideas are, so long as there are sources supporting the summary. In relation to WP:FRINGE, I note that not only is it not official policy, it is not even an official guideline, but merely something composed by some editors as a guideline they adhere to, however seriously. Perhaps one reason the guideline is not official policy is that it is not sufficiently nuanced to cope with the subtleties of certain entries. Finally, it is not that Langan "derives his notability by other means": as I tried to make as clear as possible, his notability derives from a combination of factors. By combination I do not simply mean the sum of three different sources of notability: rather, his entire notability derives from the juxtaposition of these factors. It is because of this juxtaposition that, for example, Academy-award winning filmmaker Errol Morris felt Langan was notable enough to interview, and this juxtaposition is why, when Morris (and others) did interview Langan, he asked him to describe his ideas about the CTMU. Again: Langan's ideas are notable in relation to Langan. No compelling reason prohibiting the description of those ideas has been put forward. FNMF 14:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I really don't care whether Langan has a high-IQ or not and, frankly, it is not the place of Wikipedia to establish the veracity of such a claim. However, I will say that accusing others of bias is pretty poor form. Everyone has a bias, no one is neutral. WP:NPOV is very clear about this. Here on the talkpage, we discuss issues as they come up. That I say that Langan claims to have a high-IQ is true. That you read into it some bias is fine, but it has no bearing on the article itself. You need to be careful about how you characterize guidelines and policies on Wikipedia. They are taken seriously and ignoring them should only be done for good reason, not for your own flights-of-fancy. You seem to be splitting hairs quite a bit with respect to this subject: too much for me to really take your advocacy seriously so let me reiterate my request: please show me another article on Wikipedia that reads the way you would like Langan's article to read and explain why we should follow such a model. I would say the best that we can do would be to follow the model of William G. Tifft with an eye to the fact that CTMU cannot be an independent article per the AfD while redshift quantization is. --ScienceApologist 18:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are articles I have copyedited (in my 2+ months of activity here) that essentially contain summaries from primary sources:

• Xenosaga_Episode_I:_Der_Wille_zur_Macht
• Captain_Falcon
• Humanistic sociology
• Jericho, Kansas (fictional town) and see Jericho (TV series)
• My Wife and Kids
• Nelly Furtado (much of the attributed sources are actually from quotations or interviews)
• Ancash Region (though this may have been simply translated from the Spanish article which was sourced)
• Jim_T._Enright
• Party
• Black_hair
• Destination: Void

I think the best, pertinent example may be that of Humanistic sociology. There are multiple secondary sources available, but the original author depended on the primary one. --Otheus 14:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that any of these articles really capture the essence of what I'm discussing here, though some of the biographies come close. Primary sources are fine to use if they are referenced by others. However, when describing novel ideas, it is best to use the reporting that is doen on these novel ideas by others. --ScienceApologist 20:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for consensus

Proposal for consensus: To ScienceApologist: It does appear that FNMF has met the threshold of a good faith rationale for inclusion of a summary exposition of Langan's CTMU thesis in this article; one that survives WP:OR. This rationale has specifically addressed direct references to current WP policy, it has been narrowly applied to CTMU (and not "anything [Langan] says can be included in the article" [that remark was made by a different user]).

There are many other articles that discuss unusual "theoretic accomplishments" made by people of varying degrees of notability, where such notability appears to derive at least partially from being out of step from the "norm" (either the person, or the theory, or both). (See e.g., Troy_Hurtubise, Novelty_theory, [but all such persons and theories are unique, and Langan should not be "lumped" with others, also, let's agree off the bat that some of these other articles may actually suffer problems of their own. Let each article make its case.])

If the kernel of FNMF's position is that this accomplishment (regardless of its inherent validity) merits description as a fundamental aspect of Langan's notability, that does seem to have merit.

The proposal is this: permit a very concise summary of CTMU (based on a fixed prior write-up of the idea), but also include all relevant disclaimers relative to the "accomplishment" indicated in reliable sources. (E.g., suffers the standard TOE critique, one physicist reviewed CTMU and admitted he did not understand it, etc).

This seems like a fair way to bridge the apparent dichtomy of opinions on this matter, while observing that some credible and consistent arguments have been forwarded in favor of inclusion. dr.ef.tymac 17:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In principle, a concise summary would work well. I would have to read what this concise summary said before agreeing, obviously.

I see there being a real distinction between someone deriving notability for making a claim and someone deriving notability for the claim itself. Langan derives notability for the former while others derive notability from the latter (e.g. David Irving). The content of the CTMU is irrelevant to Langan's notability: it is the claims he makes regarding it that make it notable (e.g. that it resolves fundamental questions of reality, that it proves the existence of a deity, etc. -- not how each of these are accomplished). So, in effect, I have no problem describing that Langan makes claims, I have a problem with describing how Langan makes the claims. — ScienceApologist — continues after insertion below

Er? Irving derived notability for the claim itself? Either I don't understand what you are saying, or your perception of Irving is based only on current events. But that's neither here nor there. --Otheus 01:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Irving's notability dervies from the content of his ideas which are thoroughly discussed by secondary sources. Contrast that with Langan's ideas and the sources which discuss them, if you please. --ScienceApologist 20:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is important because the sources that make Langan notable uniquely avoid describing the argument-form of his claims instead reporting the conclusions. If you will agree to describe the conclusions of the CTMU and not the original arguments that build to them then I think we will have satisfied Wikipedia's injunction against being a soapbox.

How's that?

ScienceApologist 17:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm pondering this. Exactly how would it be different if we, for instance, summarized a paper that was peer reviewed but otherwise had no secondary sources concerning it? --Otheus 01:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! We wouldn't summarize a peer-reviewed paper that had no critical review. See WP:SCIENCE. --ScienceApologist 04:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

My question was not rhetorical. My question again is: how is it different than a peer-reviewed source? Previously, you were citing OR. In the above, you are citing WP:SCIENCE, but as I gleaned from the talk page, there has been no consensus to move this to a guideline or other. It's still a work in progress, so while we can discuss its applicability here, it is not a guideline to be enforced. And I continue to disagree that the CTMU has anything to do with science. Langan never claimed it was, and those who oppose ID generally make the claim that ID is not science (I agree with this as empirically, but not necessarily true). But back to my question: how is it different? --Otheus 09:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If a single primary-source document is the only source for an idea, the idea does not belong in the encyclopedia. That includes when the source is peer-reviewed. Outside critical review and secondary sources are important in order to avoid promoting original research. --ScienceApologist 12:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist needn't worry about my commitment to Wikipedia policies: any casual glance at the very beginning of my involvement with this entry ought to demonstrate that I have upheld the importance of following policy while all around me others spectacularly failed to do so. As for the issue of bias, it is no doubt the case that nobody is perfectly neutral. It is also the case that it is very easy to point this out. More difficult, however, is to acknowledge the bias one has. And yet more difficult is to acknowledge one's bias, and therefore make the wise decision to recuse oneself from editing. I continue to believe, however, that where editors are biased against the subject of a BLP entry, that is what they should strive to do. Its a good principle, sadly neglected. As for the distinction between describing that Langan makes a claim and describing how he makes a claim, this sounds odd coming from somebody objecting to split hairs. I don't understand the policy basis for the distinction. ScienceApologist insists that the secondary sources do not describe the "argument-forms" of Langan's claims, but only "report the conclusions." Again, I do not understand the distinction ScienceApologist is proposing. What is an "argument-form"? Which parts of Langan's ideas are the argument-forms, and which part are the conclusions? It sounds as though ScienceApologist is really arguing that the entry should do no more than state that Langan claims the CTMU has solved the question of the nature of reality: is that what you mean by "reporting the conclusions"? If so, the secondary sources certainly describe much more than that. To me, the situation is quite clear: a clear policy basis exists for describing and summarising Langan's ideas. That is what the entry should do. No basis for any other conclusion has been presented. FNMF 13:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

FNMF, I would appreciate it if you would keep the discourse above the personal level. You are making oblique and direct accusations against me that could easily be self-applied per WP:KETTLE. Let's talk about the way the article is written rather than personal issues here, because while we can resolve the former we will probably end up nowhere if we try to resolve the latter.

When Langan is reported to say something to the effect of "the CTMU solves x-problem", that's a claim that is verifiable and attributable and I believe is the kind of prose that belongs in the article. When Langan is reported to say something to the effect of "a comprehensive theory of reality cannot be based on x", that is a claim that is essentially original research because it isn't about Langan's ideas but rather is about endeavors external to Langan. The distinction between these two sentences is plainly that the first example reports Langan's verifiable opinions about what his work does and the second example is basically a presentation of Langan's original research. I came across similar issues with Gordon Pask where certain editors wanted to describe Pask's claims about physics without couching them in terms of what Pask believed about his own models and theories. Wording as we currently have in the article is problematic because it encourages soapboxing. So the distinction between that Langan makes a claim and how Langan makes a claim is important. One is verifiable and attributable and the other is essentially original research. --ScienceApologist 13:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

this refers to your statement before FNMF's

ScienceApologist, your brevity created an ambiguity. By That includes when the source is peer-reviewed, do you mean (as I would guess what you meant) that just because something is peer-reviewed does not mean it belongs in an encyclopedia; or do you mean (in an obscure semantic construction) that inclusion of peer-reviewed sources belongs in the class of "outside critical review"? Sorry to be pedantic, but I'm confused, because earlier, you seemed to say the latter. --Otheus 13:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The former and not the latter. Sorry about the ambiguity. --ScienceApologist 17:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, tough standard. I thought primary sources could be used in these cases. So what if an author of a paper summarizes his own peer-reviewed work, as is often the case with Scientific American and Skeptical Inquirer? --Otheus 18:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources should be used when other references use the primary sources. If you are an author of a paper that summarizes your own work, you are writing a secondary source based on your primary source. There may or may not be issues with how we verify such an article, but at least this is moving a level of abstraction beyond originality of the research. Wikipedia is supposed to be behind the times, as it were. It's a reference work: not a place to show-off new and amazing ideas. --ScienceApologist 18:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This refers to your previous statement

ScienceApologist, are you claiming that NOR extends to the Original Research published by others outside of Wikipedia? Or are you saying that summarizing such research amounts to OR? If summarizing amounts to OR, then isn't it a matter of accurately summarizing Langan's work? --Otheus 13:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Summarizing research in a way that presents it baldly as research is problematic when it has received no notice or chance for critical review. --ScienceApologist 17:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. --Otheus 18:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand we want to discourage soap-boxing, but if someone "puts their money where their mouth is", and uses a vanity press to publish something, it still costs 5,000 to 10,000 USD. While that in and of itself does not mean that the book is notable, it does not constrain us to include the ideas from that book in an article (about something else, say, that person). --Otheus 13:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Vanity publications are not automatically excluded but should be taken with appropriate salt grains. Writing paragraphs based mostly on self-published sources is very problematic. --ScienceApologist 17:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so would you say this is the crux of the problem? Appropriately dealing with this self-published material? Otheus 18:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem: but more than this there are issues with primary source publications that are not self-published. Since the notability of CTMU is derived from the mainstream media, we should report what the mainstream media has said about it. I have included two quotes already in the article to that effect. --ScienceApologist 18:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? If so, you really, really need to read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_dubious_sources_in_articles_about_themselves: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field." Langan is neither well-known in the relevant field he makes his claims nor a professional researcher. 151.151.21.104 17:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

... which also states in relevant part: "Material from self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material" ... just thought I'd add that to further sketch out the issues at play in this dispute. Cheers. dr.ef.tymac 19:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, actually I was replying to your own insinuations that I don't take policy seriously. As for your statements about the difference between "solving x" and "cannot be based on x," I have to confess that, try as I might, I don't understand what you are trying to say. Nor do I understand what you mean by Langan's "original research": as opposed to what? Nor did you explain any further your distinctions between "argument-form" and "conclusions," etc. It seems as though you are trying to establish a basis for deciding what to include and what to exclude in the CTMU section. Unfortunately I haven't grasped what you think that basis is. FNMF 14:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to your attacks on me being somehow "biased" insinuating that you were somehow "less biased". That kind of posturing is really upsetting. I don't think you take policy and guidelines seriously because you make excuses for why you don't think we should take them seriously (e.g. your disparagement of WP:FRINGE and WP:SCIENCE). I'm sorry you don't understand what I'm trying to say. I'm pointing out that there is a style of prose which attributes and then there is a style of prose which soapboxes and they are different (if maybe subtly so). One style reports, for example, that a person believes they have made a cogent argument or believes that they accomplished something monumental. The other style reports, for example, that they have actually done it. The difference is extremely important and some of the present text does the latter and not the former by taking Langan at his word rather than describing what Langan says he believes he has done. --ScienceApologist 17:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) About bias: I continue to believe that a good principle to follow is for editors who are biased against the subject of a BLP entry to recuse themselves from editing that entry.

(2) About WP:FRINGE: I stand by what I said.

(3) About WP:SCIENCE: I haven't said a word about it.

(4) I don't believe anybody is arguing that the CTMU section should claim Langan has done this or done that.

I don't understand what portions of the section you object to. Maybe if you cited specific sentences, then explained what you think is wrong with those sentences, people might have a better chance of evaluating your argument. FNMF 23:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Problematic sentences of versions past:

Langan contends that the task of scientific observation can never be completed with absolute certainty, and that therefore "a comprehensive theory of reality cannot be based on scientific observation alone". In his view, such a theory must instead be based on the process of making scientific observations in general, a process he regards as itself based on the relationship of mind and reality. Langan sees mind and reality, theories and observations, as linked in mutual dependence, and presents the CTMU as a philosophical "metatheory" about this relationship.

Here's the problem: Langan's contention regarding scientific observation is totally original research. There is no critical review of this statement, nor has it been vetted by the communities which normally describe these ideas. The proposals in the above sentences are essentially the opinions of Langan about the external world: therefore they are essentially unverifiable. What is verifiable is Langan's belief about his invention: the CTMU, but you see that the CTMU is only mentioned at the very end of the passage as a kind of capstone to a lot of philosophizing that basically amounts to soapboxing. I like the current wording of the section which simply reports what Langan thinks the CTMU does rather than puts forth argumentation that lacks any form of external review.

--ScienceApologist 13:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I see absolutely nothing in the sentences cited by ScienceApologist above that contravenes any policy whatsoever. Of course they are Langan's views: what of it? I have no idea what you mean by the statement that they are unverifiable. They are verifiably his views: that's what counts. Your claim that they are unverifiable sounds like original research to me: what sources have said they are unverifiable? The sentences you cite represent the kind of philosophy that many many people have put forward. Editors should not set themselves up as judges of the verifiability of philosophy. That is for readers to judge. The notion that these sentences are unverifiable or original research, and therefore violate policy, is absurd. FNMF 14:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, Nelly! Looks like you have a vested interest in these quotes for some reason or antoher. There is no requirement at Wikipedia to source editorial judgements. That these quotes are soapboxing and not strictly verifiable because they constitute Langan waxing eloquently on subjects other than the CTMU is plainly obvious; indeed they represent Langan's personal philosophy: they are direct quotes from Langan's self-published website (which I think we should agree to avoid using). We want Langan's statements about what he believes the CTMU does, we don't want to include his personal philosophy which is essentially original research. --ScienceApologist 17:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean by your accusation that I have a "vested interest in these quotes"? What exactly are you accusing me of here? It looks to me like the quotes you have picked out as violating policy are a description of the contents of the CTMU. I really don't know what you mean. The CTMU is Langan's philosophy. You write: "they constitute Langan waxing eloquently on subjects other than the CTMU." But of course the CTMU is about subjects other than the CTMU: summarising the CTMU means describing what the CTMU says. You have not explained what you mean by saying that these sentences, which simply say what Langan contends, are unverifiable, nor why they constitute original research. FNMF 18:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The contents of the CTMU are subject to Langan's own whims. What Langan has reported to have said about the implications of his whims are verifiable and of notable import. They do not represent soapboxing. Describing his opinion on the state of reality is soapboxing. Langan is not noted for any of his contetions, he is just notable for having monikered his own theory of everything. The contents of this theory are beyond the scope of this encyclopedia. -ScienceApologist 18:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Your fine distinctions continue to elude me: "Langan is not noted for any of his contentions, he is just notable for having monikered his own theory of everything." I don't understand how this distinction is supposed to rule out summarising the contents of the CTMU. The CTMU is part of his notability; it is fair to summarise its contents. You write: "The contents of the CTMU are subject to Langan's own whims." But that is not true: there are published sources, and these are what was drawn upon to support the summary. The summary of the CTMU is a summary of what published sources say. How is that a question of "whim"? Why is a summary of the argument of the CTMU "beyond the scope of this encyclopedia"? It seems to me you have chosen to ignore the entire discussion that has occurred in this section, have given up defending your perspective by referring to policy, and are simply asserting that there shouldn't be any summary of the contents of the CTMU. I also note that you didn't bother to explain your accusations against me. FNMF 18:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

CTMU is mentioned in many of the media articles which give Langan his notability, but its contents are not discussed except obliquely. I would be fine if we relied totally on quotes from interviews to describe the CTMU. --ScienceApologist 18:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Finish incomplete removal of CTMU exposition (Intelligent Design) 20070415_ID

As discussed in a separate thread, the exposition of Langan's CTMU thesis in this article is under dispute. The exposition of CTMU was removed from one section of the article, but was left in another section. This incomplete removal is inappropriate. No contributor to this article has justified non-uniform treatment of the material, therefore all CTMU exposition and critique has been removed. dr.ef.tymac 01:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is the proper way to proceed. --ScienceApologist 10:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe at the present time this is not the proper way to proceed, but I have not had time to consider the full merits of the case either way. I am partial to leaving it in because I was among one of several editors that made good-faith contributions to meet the requirements of WP:V and WP:NOR with the inclusion of the CTMU section. Having worked on a number of articles which include, for instance, interviews from pop stars, pertinent facts from primary sources, and plot summaries and spoilers, this disputed section is well within the boundaries of what is acceptable. Again, from my experience here, which is broad in scope, but limited in depth and time. --Otheus 01:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Having also contributed to the disputed content, I think there are legitimate concerns on both sides of the inclusion debate. What is not legitimate, however, is the appearance of unbalanced treatment in the article itself. Regardless of whether it is in or out, regardless of who says what on the talk page, the article should be balanced, readable to a general audience, and not depict an obviously one-sided conclusion of a still-pending editorial dispute. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 14:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There is way too much MegaSociety PR copy-esque fluff in the CTMU and ID sections, they both read like promotional pieces, and there's been a lot of obstructionsism going on to keep it that way. It's becoming increasingly obvious that progress isn't being made here because a group of editors are intentionally holding things up. Wikipedia provides methods for dealing with this and it's time to use them I suggest. 151.151.21.104 17:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Reminder: Don't feed the trolls. --Otheus 17:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Reminder, please abide by WP:CIVIL. 151.151.21.104 17:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't feed trolls like 151.151.21.104. Since his IP address "jumps" on a daily basis, there is no point in communicating to him on his talk page. Banning his IPs are also not an option. Since he has refused multiple requests to use an account, since he repeatedly accuses others at being at fault while making no constructive comments himself, since he simply parrots the views of another editor, and since he seems to have no useful purpose here other than intimidate other editors (who are "intentionally holding things up" and "Wikipedia provides methods for dealing with this"), and for other reasons too lengthy to get into here, I would recommend he be treated as persona non grata, at least on this page, and at least until he wants to become constructive. Otheus 18:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

151.151.21.104 is not a troll in the usual sense, and it would be best if you did not describe this contributor as such. There is no requirement at Wikipedia to register an account. I disagree that this contributor makes "no constructive comments": there was a constructive comment made in the previous section. I don't know who you are insinuating this contributor is "parroting", but it is a very different argument than any that I saw above. I don't like the disparaging that you are doing, Otheus. If you dislike this editor, start an RfC. I'm not going to treat him as a persona-non-grata because I don't see any evidence for why I should. --ScienceApologist 18:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Good lord, ever hear of WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:BITE? I see you're here ever day too. Should that be a basis for treating you any differently? If not, then why for me? Go ahead and ignore my comments, but do so at your own risk. 151.151.21.104 19:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Calm talk: I think all participants in this forum will do well to refrain from characterizations of other people's intent, bias, motives or agendas, not only for the sake of the policy, but frankly because it has repeatedly proven to be unproductive, and really just quite tiresome. Also, please try to keep discussion threads relatively coherent; this will prove helpful when this article discussion becomes the central focus of mainstream media. :D dr.ef.tymac 19:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize to all (but one). I didn't realize I was making a personal attack; I honestly thought I was stating the obvious. But I realize I have been following this thread longer than most (other than FMNF and Tim and a few others), and I also had some other "run ins" with this user, which centered around this article, but are not germane to it at all. I acknowledge that the IP user may not be purposefully trying to be disruptive or provoking responses as does the "classical" troll. I further acknowledge that it is better not call him a troll. Otheus 20:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What is and is not appropriate for this article

Not appropriate

1. Langan's "solitary work" quote. Doesn't add anything descriptive to the explanation.
2. A continual rehashing of Langan's belief about a consistent theoretic model needing to include both explanations of mind and physical reality. One quote is enough.
3. The full title of Uncommon Dissent.
4. Extended listing of who quoted Langan in what source (that's better left to references).
5. A definite article in front of his CTMU idea. It is Langan's idea so call make sure it's indicated as a possessive.
6. Many split up paragraphs that read like a police blotter.

--ScienceApologist 23:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate

1. An accounting of the purpose of the Uncommon Dissent book.
2. A brief explanation of his CTMU idea.

--ScienceApologist 23:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What you call 'Langan's "solitary work" quote' actually reads "[t]he result of ten years of solitary labor"; its appearance in Sager 1999 is not as a quote of Langan, and was previously discussed. It adds to the article's explanation of the CTMU descriptive information about its history.

I see that you removed the full title of Uncommon Dissent (Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing) in this revert, instead labeling it a collection of "works that question Darwinian evolution", with "Darwinian evolution" pipe-linked to evolution. But the article later quotes Langan as saying that he "believe[s] in the theory of evolution", and in the book, another contributor contends that "it is incorrect to simply equate Darwinism with belief in evolution." Indeed, Darwinism and evolution are separate articles. In place of this misleading and non-neutral characterization of the book, I suggest simply providing its full title (linked to the book's own article, where the reader can learn more). Tim Smith 05:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

POV edits?

Seems as if has been POV pushing here and here among other places. A POV tag may be necessary for the article.

Seems as removing a lot of information (an editor's sole POV of "cruft") and ideas restatements. hmmm ... J. D. Redding 18:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. This is all justified above and thoroughly hashed out. Thanks for your input. --ScienceApologist 20:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Awful Article

What is this article even doing on Wikipedia? It was clearing written by the guy himself and is mostly irrelevant. No-one cares about his life history, and it doesn't really describe what he has "achieved" except in vague ways. Has he achieved anything? 129.67.50.212 20:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

His only "achievement" is a theory deleted from Wikipedia for being a load of rubbish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe Surely this article should be deleted too. We don't need a detailed biography of someone whos work doesn't even deserve an article. 88.109.98.50 21:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have any justifiable objections to deleting this? 129.67.50.205 16:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If you feel it should be deleted, you can list it at WP:AFD - I suspect it'll be kept, given the sourcing, but I haven't looked in detail. WilyD 17:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Where is the proof for his I.Q. score? It says "see Sager 1999" etc. but what does this mean? Taking an I.Q. test out of a magazine and self-scoring doesn't prove anything at all. 70.54.126.154 (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Purported BLP violations

User DGG has deleted a few sentences from this article on the grounds that they violate WP:BLP. I do not understand how this is the case, since the sentences simply describe something of the early life of the subject. Could this user please explain their reasoning for the deletion? In my opinion the sentences are relevant to the notability of the subject insofar as they go some way toward explaining the unusual life-path followed by the subject (please excuse the low-grade turn of phrase, "life-path"). The peculiar career of the subject is an essential part of his notability. Thanks. BCST2001 04:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

North American High Society IQ League

Why is the following unsourced sentence full of redlinks inserted?

Langan served as President of the North American High Society IQ League from April, 1998 until September, 2007. He was replaced as President by his good friend John W. Morgan, Mayor of the Cape Breton Regional Municipality in Nova Scotia, Canada.

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Strange presentation

Isn't it strange to present a person as an "autodidact" with a certain IQ? I don't know this person but I wonder if he really famous just for being autodidact and having an high IQ...--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The answer to your question is that it is strange. And the reason they present it this way, is that this man is not famous at all. 131.111.220.6 (talk) 10:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources and lack thereof

The references provided in the article list as sources Sager 1999, Fowler 2000, Wigmore 2000, Brabham 2001, and O'Connell 2001. While one or two of these supposed sources are verifiable via weblinks provided in the article, most are not. Since someone above alleges self-promotion here, I suggest verification of these sources and those that have lack valid weblinks be removed. 64.237.4.140 (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a technical problem with his IQ being 195

I have no problem with his IQ. However, his 3-part documentary from 20/20 is available on youtube here, here and here.

The margin of error is such that there should only be 2 significant figures. refresher course on sig figs brought to you by MIT

The problem with this page is that vandalism is on two fronts--the direct front and the indirect front. The indirect front attacks the article through QEA and makes anyone who reads this article agree that the article is very unintelligent.

Cite1 = whose IQ was reported by 20/20 and other media sources to have been measured at around 195

This comes across to intelligent people the same as

whose IQ was reported by 20/20 and other media sources to have been measured at around 195.472

can we please just say "around 190" or as high as 195

Cite2 =

Asked about creationism, Langan has said:

"I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind. Mankind is then a participant in the creation of the universe itself, so that we have a closed loop. I believe that there is a level on which science and religious metaphor are mutually compatible."

This is the worst "selectively taken" part of the discussion. This again reads like he is unintelligent. Can I have permission to review who put in this quote? He has several very intelligent quotes on creationism. This is his worst, and I haven't checked the source yet, but i'm 99.9% sure he said it. Without getting too technical, one of his best "Langan said about creationism : " a theory about entropy and that if the isolated system is defined to be the entire universe, than by the law of syntropy, energy(mass) cannot leave or enter the system, therefore if there was a "big bang" that arose out of nothingness, than it would violate the second law of thermodynamics. This was his best proof. I'm agnostic, but I'm a huge fan of this guy, so I want to help defend this article from other people with high IQ who are trying to make this article "conform to wikipedia's expectations" while slipping in their own agenda by making these two minor editorial decisions.

Can an admin please respond to my concern? (on this page--not my talk page) thank you 76.4.128.40 (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

OMG - in the middle of the edit, I got sucked into watching the 3 videos. At exactly the 8'16" mark I had to hit pause and run away laughing. I thought for the first 16 minutes that he is just "taping for television" and then when he threw in the clincher "we need to replace academia with an ultra high-iq society" I went ballistic! Oh my god, that guy is insanely surprising. I thought I had him all figured out. Ok, now I guess I can settle for pr-society and let him and his co-equals take up the 300 spots reserved for M. Oh well, I wouldn't have blogged this out, except I came over here and realized I forgot to his "save page". Unbelievable that I have to do a capcha to save a discussion page, but serendipitous at the same time. PS I was sober during the first 75% of this post, but decided to drink heavily before watching those 3 videos I cited, so that I wouldn't feel bad about myself. Thank god my ip-address isn't as invasive as my phone number or soc sec. 76.4.128.40 (talk) 11:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.128.40 (talk)

Ridiculous article should be deleted

Hahah, lol at the Brabham article:

Langan is already finding some approval among the scientific community. Theoretical physicist and former NASA executive Robert N. Seitz recently corresponded with Langan and is impressed with his theory.

"If I've ever met anyone brighter than Chris, I don't know who it would be,” Seitz says. "Every physicist is inundated with amateurs' ‘Theories of Everything,' but Chris' CTMU is very, very different.”

Since when does "CTMU is very, very different" constitute "some approval among the scientific community"? Since Brabham ran out of stuff to write about, got bored and chased up some kook from the mires of the "high-iq community" which basically constitutes sites like this hub of intellectual fecundity: [2] and the five hundred or so equivalent "no, WE'RE the smartest" pathetic groups of whiners floating around the Internet with absolutely no useful achievements other than the alleged ability to do IQ tests. At least Marilyn Vos Savant has DONE stuff. This guy has done nothing noteworthy ever. As a cursory look at the introductory paragraph of CTMU reveals, it's no wonder he never made it through any higher education that would have demanded some sort of intellectually rigorous discussion instead of

Among the most exciting recent developments in science are Complexity Theory, the theory of self-organizing systems, and the modern incarnation of Intelligent Design Theory...

Intelligent Design Theory is "among the most exciting recent developments in science"??? Only if you redefine "science" as "useless wank". Then it works, Intelligent Design is indeed an exciting recent development in useless wank.

Part of constructing a useful wiki is knowing what to include and what is useless pap in order to maintain the signal-to-noise ratio. It detracts from the usefulness of Wikipedia to have this article here. As a previous poster said, surely if CTMU itself does not deserve an article, why make an article about the guy who came up with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.100.249 (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Rubbish

Human intelligence doesn't appear in a vacuum¹ and while (as discussed in detail on the Form § of my POV page) I do believe it does have a density function according to which the 195/210 figure would be significant (but only to 1 fuzzy digit, in this case a purported fuzzy 6), the bottom line as it were of intellect (rather than raw intelligence) is manifest in the expression of opinions and statements about states of affairs in the world that betray the individuals true intellectual stature. As with Marilyn Vos Savant statements about i the imaginary unit, Langans statements about the conflation of Intelligent Design and Evolution, God, etc. betray his true intellectual stature. Whatever advantage he may have been born with to think, it has clearly not resulted in a uniformly superior thinker. Lycurgus (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

¹ The point being that it is a continuum, so that a person who is a 6 will be recognized as such by the 4s and 5s. Or recognized as not being. Lycurgus (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

But I oppose deletion of the article, it certainly reaches the level of notability of many of the other 2.6 million current articles. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Also read the CTMU description at the authors site. It appeared at first[3] to be a vacuous melange based on a recapitulation of a host of topics at a pretty superficial level with no apparent original thesis distinct from model theory and a number of other currents in math, philosophy, etc. Subsequently, it became clear it was much worse than that [4]. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Also to be clear, I'm not equating Marilyn with this individual. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 12:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Question

why is this page not about langa R.E. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.91.243 (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Notable

Can we get a check on why he's notable? I don't know the rules but I vaguely doubt his publications grant notability. Is his organization sufficiently influential? I don't think IQ alone really works, but maybe the story around IQ does. Anyway, the article should identify the source of notability in the first paragraph. 78.148.242.178 (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Malware

Looks like Langan has a new hobby...or else he has a serious problem on his web server.

Google lists his site as having 228 scripting exploits on it, some of which are capable of starting new processes on target machines. Not only is ctmu.org dubious, but all his other sites seem to be as well. Of the 99 pages Google tested on his IQ club site (megafoundation.org), 42 caused malicious software to be downloaded and installed without user consent.

This guy is mad as a box of frogs.

Does Wikipedia need an article on him? --Quarkwitch (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

These points have already been mentioned on this talk page. According to the "CTMU website comprimised" section the website has been hacked. The article has also been nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Michael Langan) and the consensus was to keep the article, although that was two years ago and you could nominate it again. —Snigbrook 14:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...

"Board-certified neuropsychologist Dr. Robert Novelly tested Langan's IQ for 20/20, which reported that Langan broke the ceiling of the test, scoring 195 which is off the charts. Novelly was said to be astounded, saying: 'Chris is the highest individual that I have ever measured in 25 years of doing this.'"

If Langan truly broke the ceiling of the test, then the appointed IQ would not be measurable... The ceiling is defined as the point at which a specific IQ test cannot accurately measure an IQ. Aside from the obvious silliness of Novelly's sentence structure, (Langan is the highest individual? Not Langan recieved the highest score? What about "I have ever measured in twenty-five years of doing this"? Why not something like, "I have measured in my career"? Anyway), the only other thing that jumps out at me is the "off the charts" allegation - what exactly IS off-the-charts? Is he just repeating the "broke the ceiling of the test" bit? If so, it is redundant and should be deleted. DiscreteBeyondreason (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Uncommented edit?

Why "CTMU has not been published in any peer-reviewed journal." was removed? If CTMU is published in peer-reviewd journal, I would like to know where!!

--anon88.114.51.77 (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design

Peer-Reviewed: First Article: http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2002/1/2-3/pcid_contents_2002_1_2-3.php

His concept of a conspansive manifold is actually similar in some ways to Chu Spaces, in my opinion, which is quite ironic considering Vaughan Pratt's following statement is almost identical to what Chris Langan has been saying, that evolution is a fact, but it does not account for the generation of complexity, his CTMU paper "A New Kind of Reality Theory" actually goes into great detail on this subject, it also has parallels (unintentionally or indirectly) to Wolfram's reference to network automata and recent work on generative network automata playing an important role in the foundations of physics and the dynamics of complex adaptive systems. Ultimately while Langan uses "teleological" concepts, he is actually describing a rather "teleonomic" system also, with computational/cybernetic notions such as "telic feedback" between state and syntax, and "binding telesis on the syntactic (distributed) and semantic (teleological and secondary-telic) levels." Which in some ways in reminiscent of the complementary duality of event and state in Chu Spaces.

Vaughan Pratt:

"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for any such theory should be encouraged. What I do believe is that the evident variations between individuals of any species, however caused, in combination with natural selection, are primary drivers of speciation, in accord with Darwin. Accounting for the complexity of life is a tremendously more challenging task that random mutation and natural selection cannot possibly accomplish on their own. Darwin never claimed his theory did so, and the vast amount we have learned since Darwin about molecular biology, cell biology, and ecology shows that it would have been wildly presumptuous for him to have done so.

The above is my position statement. The first two sentences reproduce almost verbatim the wording of A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism signed by some 700 scientists. The only replacements are the obvious "I am" for "We are," and more importantly "any such theory" for "Darwinian theory" since Darwin did not claim to account for the complexity of life but for the phenomenon of speciation, whereby the characteristics of a population can change over time: the longer the time the greater the number and extent of possible changes. Speciation can contribute to the complexity of life, as Darwin pointed out with admirable clarity, but unless it is the only such contributor it cannot be said to account for it, and nowhere did Darwin claim to have done so."

http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf http://www.nd.edu/~netsci/TALKS/Sayama_CT.pdf http://exfructibus.blogspot.com/2009/03/heres-little-exchange-i-had-with.html http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf http://www.ctmu.net/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.63.150 (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC) 76.202.63.150 (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)isotel

http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2002/1/2-3/pcid_contents_2002_1_2-3.php

NO, that is not academic journal, it is his own website!! [See this]

88.112.210.227 (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)anon

"CTMU has not been published in any peer-reviewed journal."

It is not irrelevant! It tells the status of CTMU; not scientifically meaningful.

88.112.210.227 (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)anon

iscid.org is not Langan's "own website". It is the Web site of the (now-defunct) International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID). Langan did not found the society or start the Web site. He was not on the society's Executive Board, nor was he on the Editorial Board of its journal, Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID). Rather, he was one of nearly sixty society fellows, who according to the Web site had "distinguished themselves for their work in complex systems". These fellows "serve[d] as the editorial advisory board that peer-reviews the society's journal". Langan's paper "The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory" was published in PCID Volumes 1.2 and 1.3, a double issue for April-September 2002.

Now, PCID claimed to be a peer-reviewed journal, and a paper about the CTMU was published in it. Therefore, for Wikipedia to say, without a source, that "[the] CTMU has not been published in any peer-reviewed journal", and leave it at that, violates WP:NPOV and WP:V. This is true despite criticism of the quality of PCID's peer review, and despite the fact that Langan was one of the nearly sixty ISCID fellows. Note also that PCID's peer-review policy changed in 2003; it was more stringent in 2002, when Langan's article was published.

Additionally, I see that the statement "CTMU has not been published in any peer-reviewed journal" was not only added to the article without a source, but was put in the lead of the article, and a user who tried to remove it was reverted for "vandalism". I urge all involved to review relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, particularly Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability, before engaging further. Tim Smith (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think I did follow neutral point of view.

CTMU article was removed from wikipedia as nonsense, and I acted with same reasons.

There should be more valid information about CTMU, because now picture is badly skewed.

I didn't find CTMU form any academic source. How to citate absence?

Also it is important to understand that science is not matter of opinion.

You can't find CTMU form academic journals, because CTMU does not fulfill scientific standards.

(ID is known to be pseudoscience, so I didn't count PCID as peer-reviewed journal)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources

I hope we can find solution to this.

62.134.199.5 (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)anon

Again, PCID is not reliable source, it is proponent of pseudoscience.

But how about "CTMU has not been published in any peer-reviewed journal, exept in PCID which is known to be proponent of ID"

This edit war doesn't do any good, lets stop it? --anon 62.134.199.5 (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right, "CTMU has not been published in any academic journal." is much better.

PCID is not academic journal and that is clean fact, useless to argue about reliability of their peer review process.

--anon 62.134.199.5 (talk) 09:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that it is a "clean fact" that PCID was not an academic journal. Our article says: "An academic journal is a peer-reviewed periodical in which scholarship relating to a particular academic discipline is published." PCID claimed to be a peer-reviewed periodical, and it claimed to publish scholarship relating to complex systems, which appears in our list of academic disciplines. Additionally, most of the members of its editorial advisory board were academics.

But regardless of whether you consider PCID to have been an academic journal, the fact remains that the statements being added to the lead of the article, namely "CTMU has not been published in any academic journal" and "CTMU has not been published in any peer-reviewed journal", are unsourced. Again, I urge the editors inserting these claims to review Wikipedia:Verifiability. In particular, please understand that:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

This is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. To see a Wikipedia administrator, particularly one who has been blocked multiple times for edit warring, call a statement "iherently unsourcable" (sic) while reverting another user and inserting it into an article anyway is shocking and disappointing. Tim Smith (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

According to our article, PCID is proponent of pseudoscience.

Absolutely unacceptable to call proponents of pseudoscience as academic journal.

"Once on the archive, articles passed on by at least one ISCID fellow will be accepted for publication."

So even they don't pretend to be peer review journal anymore!

About lack of citation... Do you want us to link all the academic journals that haven't publish CTMU?

But in my opinion, anyone could do search for them self; they don't find CTMU from academic journal.

So it is veriable, but not very linkable.

--anon 62.134.199.5 (talk) 05:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion that the unsourced statement "CTMU has not been published in any academic journal" can be included in the article because "anyone could do search for them self" in academic journals and not find the CTMU, contradicts Wikipedia's policy on no original research.

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

I urge you, as well as the user who restored this claim to the lead of the article on the grounds that it "needs no citation", to review Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. These are core content policies. Tim Smith (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"CTMU has not been published in any academic journal" is not my opinion, it is fact that you cannot find CTMU from academic journal.

And it is verifiable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Simple_or_direct_deductions

--anon 88.114.63.10 (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

First, the page you're linking to is not a policy or guideline, but merely an essay intended to supplement Wikipedia:No original research. Second, the section to which you linked, "Simple or direct deductions", covers only two cases: "relatively simple and direct mathematical calculation[s]", and "[s]imple logical deductions" (e.g. "if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C"). The statement in question, "CTMU has not been published in any academic journal", is not either of these. It is not a simple and direct mathematical calculation and it is not a simple logical deduction. It is not an a priori truth at all. It is an empirical claim that needs a source. Again, this is core content policy.

I have found a passage about Langan and the CTMU in Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers which can serve as a source for a related claim. I've added it to the appropriate part of the article; I hope this lays the matter to rest. Tim Smith (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)