Talk:Christopher Langan/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

CTMU website

There is more than one website with information relating to CTMU however this section previously referred to the "CTMU website" being hacked. Obviously, this is no longer a current discussion. CTMU.org is readily accessible by Google as at 3.8.2015

Some of Chris Langan's essays may be found here: http://www.scribd.com/isotelesis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isotelesis (talk • contribs) 20:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Concerns

I just today heard Malcom Gladwell reference Christopher Langan so I want to look what his story was and first landed on this wikipedia page. I wanted to learn more so followed the link. After extensive googling I am under the strong impression that much here is questionable. First on the wikipedia article itself. The sourcing is poor and at times out of context. There is no source for the 210 IQ number but himself. He claims that number in an interview. That is the Morris interview shows him, and no external source at being at that IQ. This is not independent verification and is in conflict with the current phrasing of "whose IQ was reported by 20/20 and other media sources to have been measured at between 195 and 210". Even the 195 number is suspect. While 20/20 per transcript did solicit a test, no IQ number is reported, but instead the transcript states In the past, his IQ has been measured at 195 indicating that this too may have been self-reported and is actually not compounded by the 20/20 report. All other sources simply refer back to this report. There are sources calling this his certified IQ without much of a tangible proof or show of sound methodology. It seems likely that the IQ number springs from an Omni magazine test (original research warning) which is discussed here: http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/ where Langan is reported to score high on a second attempt. Given that this was an off-line un-peer-reviewed test it is questionable if the IQ numbers "estimated" here actually hold up.

The current wikipedia article is also questionable on other grounds. It gives the impression of false respectability. Let me make plain what I mean by that. This source [1] claims that the inventor of the Omni test mention above was the original founder of the Mega Society in 1982 and that Langan tried to make it his own later. The source mentions that Langan lost litigation over the name of the society (more original research). Finally, the article gives the impression of the society that he publishes at is respectable, quoting the AAAS. But if one follows the link it actually is about AAAS adopting a resolution that states about intelligent design that "makes it improper to include as a part of science education" and the linked article notes the conflict on interest in the supposed peer review of the society. I quote "He is also a Fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID), which promotes intelligent design, and serves on the Editorial Board of the Baraminology Study Group, a creation science group. Given these associations, Dr. Sternberg would appear to be, at very least, an advocate for "intelligent design" and critical of standard peer review processes as they bear on the scientific assessment of the "intelligent design" hypothesis.". Hence rather than the link to the AAAS affirming the status of professional society on ISCID it draws the quality of the organisation into question. I don't see how links like that can be assumed proper sourcing. Overall I feel that this is one of the poorer wikipedia articles I have read on a person with clearly poorly sources even misleading citations. If there was a vote to delete, I would advocate for that. In lieu of that there clearly is serious need for clarifying the citations and putting the text in proper light (remove self-claims or mark them as such, make clear what citations actually say rather than use them to give impressions, etc) 99.150.131.106 (talk) 06:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the above. This is complete quackery. And if you listen to this fellow here he's downright scary, advocates eugenics, and much other bizarreness.38.98.85.130 (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure who these commenters are, but I have some personal knowledge about these controversies. Langan was the highest scorer on the Hoeflin Mega test, the hardest IQ test ever devised, which was the qualifying exam for the Mega Society. The accuracy of this test is much lower than most IQ tests because of the fundamental statistical difficulties of high-range testing. I believe this is where the lower number (195) comes from. The higher number (210) comes from combining several partially correlated tests, which is a valid procedure, however the details of his particular calculation have not been made public so far as I know. IQ is a rarity measure rather than a direct measure of intelligence and it is somewhere between difficult-to-interpret and meaningless at such high levels. At any rate Langan is very intelligent.

The dispute over the Mega Society was with Kevin Langdon, a member of several other high IQ societies (his qualification for those societies is unclear), an extremely difficult and argumentative person. (I could use harsher words here - he is perhaps the most infuriating person I have ever dealt with.) Langdon won control of the Mega Society with a baseless lawsuit which Langan did not have the money to travel from New York to California to defend - the case was not litigated, a default judgment was entered for the plaintiff and Kevin Langdon assumed control of the Mega Society. Chris Langan founded the Mega Foundation in response. A great deal of work was done on the Mega Foundation's website and its associated mid-tier (160 IQ) Ultranet society flourished for a couple of years (, but it seems to have died out over the last few years. Facts not in dispute are that Chris Langan qualified for and joined the preexisting Mega Society, became its president, was forced out by Kevin Langdon, then founded a competing organization, the Mega Foundation.

Langan did publish in some Intelligent Design journals, but his theory was never in any way connected to biblical religion. His theory is that the universe is a self-creating math/linguistic phenomenon, a self-processing language, which is itself intelligent and the totality of reality generated by this may be identified with God. (This is as I understand it - his language is very dense and uses many coined words.) His choice of venue to publish his ideas was politically poor, but it shouldn't affect evaluating the merits of his thoughts. I have never had any direct communication with Langan, nor am I a partisan of his, but I think he has an interesting story and thoughts which I believe meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Enon (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

That Langan's claim to fame is membership in a high IQ society in itself indicates quackery. People who actually are geniuses generally make in known through their work, publications, inventions, etc. It is usually a crank who brags about their IQ.

Internationalise

The article says "Board-certified". What board?

—DIV (138.194.12.32 (talk) 08:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC))

I'm curious about that, myself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Following the "neuropsychology" wikilink and scrolling down to the external links section I find: "The American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology - Board certifying body for practicing Clinical Neuropsychologists. ABCN is a member of the American Board of Professional Psychology". I don't think this point really merits inclusion in the article. 71.23.13.63 (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering

Hi. I'm the subject of this article, and I find myself wondering about certain recent modifications.

First, I see the epithet "crank" in the References section (source #29), and wonder whether this is really appropriate in a Wikipedia bio article (I'm not an expert on WP:BLP, but as I understand it, such insults have been specifically prohibited). Granted, it's in the references, but those are on the page in plain English along with the body of the article. It seems to me that not only was this title chosen for its insulting character, but that any page bearing such a title is ad hominem in nature, which suggests that its scholarly value may leave something to be desired.

These misgivings were confirmed when I visited the site and ascertained that its author, a blogger of no particular notoriety, is seriously confused regarding certain distinctions basic to the essay he is criticizing. For example, he erroneously denies the distinction between the mathematical object "set" and the formal language "set theory", taking exception to certain widely accepted definitions of these concepts which appear in Wikipedia. This is not the only critical error he makes. (While he claims to have a degree in computer science, the target of his criticism is not computer code.) In short, he exhibits no understanding of that which he claims to be criticizing.

Much the same applies to another blogger whose attacks are linked in the references (sources #30 and #31). As nearly as I can tell, the blogger in question is merely an opinionated college student with no appreciable knowledge of metaphysics or of my work in that field. Unsurprisingly given his apparent lack of technical knowledge, he too relies primarily on ad hominem rhetorical techniques.

Lastly, my work and I have been extensively discussed (pro and con) over the last decade, often by people claiming to be qualified professionals but strangely reluctant to attach their full identities and bona fides to their criticisms. This casts doubt on the sentence "Few have sought to either publicly support or refute Langan's ideas." Such sweeping statements are generally hard if not impossible to verify, and may therefore be inappropriate in an encyclopedia article.

That should do it for now. As I say, I don’t claim to be an expert in these matters. But just in case, perhaps someone more knowledgeable might want to have a look. Christopher Langan (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

IQ, credentials, knowledge and personality

First, regarding IQ: If numbers in the area of 200 are reasonable or not, I can`t say. However, according to Gladwell, Langan got a perfect score on the SAT (and also a test conducted by the army, if I remember correctly). Also he "hit the ceiling" when the TV-show 20/20 had him tested by a neuropsycologist. His raw-score on his second attempt on the MEGA-test was 47, out of a possible 48, and the result on his first attempt, under the pseudonym of Eric Hart, was a raw-score of 42. The creator of the test, Ronald Hoeflin, said the score of 47 was valid. If all this places him in the region of IQ 200, I don`t know, but it should be sufficient to state that he has a "brainpower" very seldomly seen.

Credentials and knowledge: Langan has not completed any college education, a fact he never denies. The value in formal credentials are that they are indicators, not proof, of a certain level of general knowledge and intelligence. This, of course, does not exlude the possibility that one can be highly knowledgable and intelligent without having such credentials. Given the section above, on Langans`IQ, it seems likely that Langan is such a person. In fact his writings indicate a level of general knowledge very seldomly seen, not just in those without a college degree, but also among them with such credentials, as they are usually more specialized than Langan seems to be.

Personality: The only sources I have available are those that are publicly available. I draw a different conclusion than those who think of Hitler the minute they hear the word "eugenics". They have usually seen the documentary made by Errol Morris, which in editing, music/sound-effects and camera-angles, seem allmost tailor-made in order to create such assosiations.

However, wether Langan is a nice guy or not, should be completely irrellevant if one is to evaluate his ideas, writings and theories. Shouldn`t they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.9.205.96 (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Doing the math on IQ, saying it is in the region of 190-210 does not make sense. According to http://www.prb.org/Articles/2002/HowManyPeopleHaveEverLivedonEarth.aspx, there has been 107 billion people that have ever lived, including probably more that 80 billion who lived before 1AD. That aside, an IQ of more that 201 means that your IQ is higher than 120billion people, more people that have ever even existed on Earth. Even more absurd is an IQ of 210, which means that your IQ is higher that 8.9 trillion other humans (that have supposedly taken the test). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.184.184 (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia article on the CTMU

As I understand it, there has previously been an article on the CTMU here in wikipedia. This was removed. I find this strange for several reasons.

If the arguments for removing the article conserned the validity and credibility of the theory itself, then what about all other ideas out there which are not only unlikely, but evidently wrong? For instance, nobody today argues that everything in the universe is build of "the four elemental substances", water, air, fire and dirt. Yet I`m sure you can find articles on wikipedia that mentions that this was a common belief in ancient Greece.

If the arguments for removing the article concerned the notoriety of the theory, then we have a paradox:

An encyclopedia (as wikipedia) would generally be evaluated by two criteria.

1. The quality of the content.

2. It`s comprehensiveness.

Regarding the first criterion, the whole idea behind wikipedia is that we all work together to ensure the quality of it`s content. Regarding the second criterion, removing the article on the CTMU directly decreases wikipedias ability to meet this criteron.

Therefore, if the article is "out there somewhere", I think it should be returned to wikipedia.

Heyerdahl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.9.197.16 (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought CTMU was supposed to be merged here, the reasoning being that all its notability was related to Langan. If it's not here now, perhaps a paragraph should be restored. Checking it over, I see two paragraphs and two quotes. That's probably enough. If you have specific suggestions as to improvement of that section, please present them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion is simply to bring it all back, whatever it was, if it still is "out there somewhere". It would be our collective project to ensure the quality and it would emprove wikipedias comprehensiveness.

Heyerdal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.9.196.83 (talk) 10:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It was not notable enough for a stand-alone article. If that has changed and you can find further mention of it in reliable sources, then present then and we can discuss it. Guettarda (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Although I don't agree, it seems to me that the anon wants more on CTMU in this article. That doesn't require reconsidering the consensus that it is not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Guettarda (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, what I`m saying is that it would be good for the comprehensiveness of Wikipedia. If there is a criterion of notability, this contradicts the criterion of comprehensiveness. If I, for example, had crazy ideas about everything under the sun, then I would agree that they should not be included in Wikipedia, because of lack of notability. Langan though, is something else. Therefore I find that his theory satisfies the criterion of notability, and enters the realm of Wikipedias ambition of comprehensiveness.

If he is known in your country as "the smartest man in America", then some people, including myself, would be interested in knowing what his extremely ambitious theory actually is. I call it extremely ambitious because the claims he makes for his theory are extreme. So, why not get it out there? Then we could all make up our own minds about his ideas.

On a side note, and this is not directed to you personally, but to everybody. Perhaps everybody could, in the interest of fairness, ask themselves: "Do I react with strong negative emotions toward this person, i.e. Langan? If so, what is this all about? Is it his fault, or could it possibly have something to do with me? If so, is there the slightest little chance that this could cloud my objectivity when it comes to evaluating his ideas?". I ask myself such questions and it has changed my attitude towards a lot of things.

I have actually read his 56 page paper on the CTMU and other relevant sources, but I don`t understand it. A good question in a situation like this is: "Does my inability to understand the theory automatically mean that it must be wrong?".

The reason that I defend Langan here then, is obviously not that I subscribe to his theory. It is that I find many peoples` reaction to this guy, on youtube and in blogs, to be highly transparent. There is a total absence of ability to look objectively at what this man actually is saying.

Heyerdahl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.9.196.83 (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Not "my country", fwiw, but it boils down to coverage in reliable secondary sources. Since the idea has largely been ignored, it's hard for us to say too much about it. Guettarda (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

— Carl Sagan, Broca's Brain (1979), p. 64 ISBN 0394501691

(Wikilinks added by Wikiquote.) The fact that nobody claims to understand it would lead one to believe it's wrong. (I'm afraid the same applies to Heim theory....) It may not necessarily be correct, but it's generally the way to bet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This comment was not really good at first (sorry about that), but now it`s edited.

Arthur Rubin, you first said that it was a false statement on my part that Bob Seitz takes Langan seriously. I then provided evidence to the contrary. After that, you ignored the issue. This is important as it directly conserns Langans credibility. Do you accept now that Seitz takes Langan seriously?

If Anon (Enon?) also wants more material on the CTMU, then I think we should. If anybody have access to the material on CTMU, please bring it back.

Heyerdahl

The article just says that Seitz thinks Langan should be given a fair hearing. That's not quite the same as that Seitz takes Langan seriously. There are any number of people who I don't take seriously, but whom I still think should be given a fair hearing by appropriate experts (unless they decide, as experts, that there is nothing there to be taken seriously.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that there is at least one article stating that Seitz is impressed with Langan's work (with a direct quotation from Seitz himself), would seem to be indicative of Seitz meeting the criteria of "taking Langan seriously". In any case, the fact that Seitz actually administers the website for Chris's Foundation would also seem to indicate that Seitz does indeed take him seriously.

On another note, whether Seitz takes him seriously or not really has no bearing on the cogency and validity of Langan's ideas. That would simply be a blatant appeal to authority.

John Aiello (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

John Aiello, I agree on both counts. It seems clear that Seitz does endeed take Langan seriously, but it also, as you say "has no bearing on the cogency and validity of Langan's ideas. That would simply be a blatant appeal to authority."

Arthur Rubin, I`m not going to let go of this quite yet. As you probably notized, I apologized for the last comment and edited it. Are you willing to admit that you were wrong when you said it was false of me to state that Seitz takes Langan seriously? On what grounds did you make that statement anyway? It doesn`t seem like you were aware of the two pieces of evidence just given you.

Arthur Rubin, the main issue is still the CTMU. Are you willing to accept that it should be brought back?

Heyerdal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.9.197.220 (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you were lying when you stated that Seitz takes Langan seriously, and it's a reasonable conclusion from the Popular Science article, but it's not specifically stated. It's not relevant to anything we can say about CTMU in the article, anyway.

And I'm not sure the details about CTMU should be brought back; any interpretation would need to be from a reliable 3rd-party source; as, to the best of my knowledge, no 3rd-party source claims to understand it, this is problematic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, you still haven`t told us on which grounds you made the statement in the first place, but very well, let`s move on.

You write "The fact that nobody claims to understand it would lead one to believe it's wrong." and "...to the best of my knowledge, no 3rd-party source claims to understand it,...". I take it this means that you don`t undrestand it either? That`s completely fine, as I say, I don`t either. But if that is the case, then it would also mean that neither you or me are in a good position to be sure of it`s falsity.

Who wrote the material on the CTMU that was here earlier? Was it a biased source?

Heyerdahl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.9.197.220 (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point - what we think or conclude about the CTMU is irrelevant. What matters is what reliable sources have to say about the topic. Guettarda (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "what we think or conclude about the CTMU is irrelevant." That is sort of the point I`m making when I argue that none of us understand it suffieciently.

When I ask who wrote about the CTMU and if that person was biased in any way, then I`m actually asking you guys:

-Was it a reliable source?

-If not, why not?

-If it was a good source, can we have the material back?

Heyerdahl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.9.197.220 (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I`m waiting for a response.

Can we have the previous material on the CTMU back?

If not, why not?

Arthur Rubin, do you claim to understand the CTMU?

These are legitimate questions.

Heyerdahl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.9.196.68 (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

In regard whether I understand CTMU, I'm not sure. It looks like intelligent design cloaked with "conciousness of matter", but I might be missing something. It seems to me that we have enough on CTMU in the article, as, per WP:FRINGE, to say more, we would need a third-party reliable source, and there aren't any. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

IQ claim

Hi everyone, not a regular wikipedia editor but I thought I'd make a brief comment on this page. In the lede it mention that media sources claim Langan has scored 190-210 on IQ tests. Certainly I don't doubt this is true; however, as any researcher will tell you no reliable, valid IQ test claims to be able to reach this level of granularity. The tests which are advanced to support the claim (eg. Mega Test) are not IQ tests unless you would also consider any random online IQ test also legitimate (thus anyone could claim any ridiculous IQ score they feel appropriate). Furthermore, in the case of the mega tests, the correct answers for the test were readily available from numerous books/online sources not long after the test was devised.

I'm painfully aware that there are a whole host of WP policies that I am not familiar with so I won't belabor the point, however, the claims in the lede are patently false. To anyone who understands IQ testing it would be analogous to someone claiming that they ran a 5 second 100 metre; or for the burlier amongst us, threw a discus out of the arena. It's possible Christopher Langan mistakenly believes he legitimately has this IQ, it's also possible that media have mis-reported or failed to conduct due diligence on his claim. Whatever the reason, in my opinion, it's worth noting that the claimed IQ score is highly unlikely to be true. 203.38.24.65 (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Your misgivings about the claim are valid. I have been finding sources that should be able to back up those misgivings in a manner appropriate for a Wikipedia biographical article about a living person. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

As I read through the archive of this talk page I see the issue has a long and tortuous history. If I can extend the analogy I used above RE: 5 seconds to sprint 100 metres; it's actually even more egregious than that. It's like claiming 4.99... seconds extending past the point where reliable time measurements can be made. Not only is the claim highly dubious due to it's magnitude it also exceeds the ability of the available measurement tools. However, I've read through some of the arguments of other editors and I can see it's a vexed issue and I now understand why the wording in the lede is the way it is.

I think the article demonstrates a necessary failing with WP - while Langan is definitely notable - he is only notable because of a misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation of his IQ score. Gullible media outlets have accepted his claims because it's probably beyond the scope of a busy journalist or author to ensure that they are correct. Based on my understanding of WP policies (inadequate and probably incorrect to be sure) the fact that his claims are almost certainly false carries no weight because no published sources have stated as much. Unfortunately there are very few publications that would care to refute the claim. I agree the focus of an encyclopedia must be what is verifiable rather than what is true and I don't see any way out of the quandary - just an observation. 203.38.24.65 (talk) 08:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

There are sources. I have found some and added them to the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

My attempt to fix the problem has been reverted twice. See the article history for the full details. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Names of tests Langan has taken? Where are those reported?

The article text currently says, "Billing Langan as 'the smartest man in America,' Mike Sager's account of the weight-lifting bouncer and his CTMU 'Theory of Everything' sparked a flurry of media interest. Board-certified neuropsychologist Dr. Robert Novelly tested Langan's IQ for 20/20, which reported that Langan broke the ceiling of the test." Later in the article, the text says "In 2004, Langan moved with his wife Gina (née LoSasso), a clinical neuropsychologist, to northern Missouri, where he owns and operates a horse ranch." That's two neuropsychologists. Was Langan already married at the time his IQ was tested by the unrelated neuropsychologist? What tests or manuals about testing did either of them have access to that Langan might have heard about before he took his test? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. NightSky (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is all about reliable sources, and most of the most embarrassing things that have been posted on Wikipedia have been an outcome of not looking for reliable sources. That is my question here: what reliable sources are there about exactly what standardized IQ tests, when, under what circumstances, and with what scores have been taken by the person described in this biography of a living person? It is exactly reliable sources that keep Wikipedia from being "original research" in the Wikipedia sense of that term. Anyone on the planet can check the published sources, for example sources on IQ and human intelligence (and other reliable sources not yet collected into that source list) to provide perspective on extraordinary claims related to human IQ, for example. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we get an administrator in here for an opinion. In the meantime, it would be best to keep the article as is and save speculation for elsewhere. NightSky (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I encourage any other editor, administrator or not, to check the sources and look at the article in its overall context. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it was never claimed that he took a standardized IQ test. I'm not sure how we can make that clear if no source noted it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

What would an unstandardised IQ test even look like? IQ is a standardisation of a raw score on a test - do you mean that Langan might be conflating a raw score with an IQ score? 203.38.24.65 (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, an unstandardised IQ test is an oxymoron. If it's unstandardised it's a puzzle, or a pop quiz, or whatever term you like to use; but by definition it's not an IQ test. 203.38.24.65 (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

By "standardized", I would mean "standardized by someone who knows what IQ is and has some idea how to relate scores on the test to 'IQ'". There is no evidence that Langan ever took such a test under controlled conditions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked into it but I'll take your word for it. Certainly the score he claims could not have come from an IQ test. Sorry if I sounded accusatory above; it was unintentional. 203.38.24.65 (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

My 2 cents

I reinstated Weiji's edit because there were aspects of it that were/are in my opinion valid such as the insertion of the {dubious} inline template. However, I re-instated the URL he/she removed and I deleted the 3-4 sentences about IQ tests as I found it to be inappropriate content for this article. To me that content has elements of both WP:OR and WP:COATRACK and should not be in the article unless some of the sources cited in that content specifically mention Langan.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from on those several decisions. I take it that it would be germane to mention reviews by psychologists of the Mega test, one of the tests Langan is known to have taken, right? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As I noted above I don't see any way out of this quandary. The claim is obviously false but I doubt any serious researcher in the field has bothered to address the specific claims made by any one of the hundreds of spurious IQ tests that have proliferated over the years. Before you start a conversation over the statistical and psychometric merits of the Mega Test it's worth noting that it was compromised not long after it's release into the High IQ testing world. Even if the test was empirically validated (which it wasn't) it wouldn't matter, you could literally find the answers online. 203.38.24.65 (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

If we try to use sources to comment on, or explain the Mega test (or any test) then we are doing original research. Our job is to summarize sources that report on things Langan did. If Mega is a lame test, OK, then put a wiki link there and let the reader go to the Mega test article if they so desire and make there own assessment. But we can't color the article with off topic info. So just to be clear, if a source does not mention Langan it should not be in the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The principle "if a source does not mention Langan it should not be in the article" sounds commendable, but if applied to every WP:BLP article it would eliminate hundreds of relevant statements from articles. If, for example, someone claims to have this or that IQ score, that opens the door to mainstream reliable secondary sources about the interpretation of IQ scores. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't imply that the "Mega Test" is considered to be an IQ test (by other than Langan) unless we have a source for that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The IQ-tests

Since this subject comes up again, I will try to contribute. As I wrote above:

According to Malcolm Gladwell, Langan got a perfect score on the SAT and a test conducted by the army. Naturally, these are standardized tests. (In Gladwells book "Outliers").

The TV-show 20/20 had him tested by a neuropsychologist and Langan "hit the ceiling". Obviously, this was also a standardized test. (This you can find on youtube).

His raw-score on his second attempt on the MEGA-test was 47, out of a possible 48. The result of his first attempt, under the pseudonym of Eric Hart, was a raw-score of 42. The creator of the test, Ronald Hoeflin, said the score of 47 was valid. The Mega Test is NOT a standardized test and is NOT considered a valid IQ-test in the psychometric community. It is an experimental high ceiling test, the purpose of which, was to be a qualifying test for ultra high IQ-societies.

Someone above wrote that the answers to the Mega Test was available online a short time after the test was delivered. Well, since the test came out and was taken by Langan in the mid 1980`s, this is clearly not true. If you want to ridicule Langan, might I suggest that you get your facts straight first.

Heyerdahl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.15.101.212 (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Even if we simply took the claims at face value, as the individual above does, they still wouldn't support an IQ of 195-210. The claim can't possible be proven with the current psychometric tools (so who knows if it is true or not). 203.38.24.65 (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I`m sure you are right that these scores doesn`t prove an IQ in the 200-range. I have certainly never said I`m sure that Langan actually has such a score. However, when it comes to taking "claims at face value", it seems reasonable to believe the score provided by 20/20. Wouldn`t you say? When it comes to Gladwell, well, he probably looked more into it than we have.

You ignored my comment about your claim that the answers to the Mega Test was provided online shortly after it was devised, that is, in the 1980`s. Why not just admit that you were wrong about this? Such a level of honesty would make this discussion that much more interesting and fruitful.

Heyerdahl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.15.64.76 (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that wasn't my intention; you are correct you couldn't find the answers online in the 80s, you had to buy the books that had the answers in them. As Hoeflin himself has acknowledged the test was compromised; by the mid 90s he had stopped even bothering to pretend. But so what? The Mega test is a collection of puzzles. It's not an IQ test. No IQ test can measure the level of granularity required to prove the claim. As has been noted elsewhere the claim is prima facie absurd - similar to a person claiming to have sprinted a 5 second 100m. The only difference is that most people understand the absurdity of the sprinting claim but not the IQ claim. 203.38.24.65 (talk) 05:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I know this is only tangentially related to the page, so anyone that knows the social mores better than I do here at WP feel free to tell me to pull my head in. However, the comment above, if true, shows a deep misunderstanding about the nature of human intelligence and one of it's measures (IQ). Consider the theoretical implications of retesting and taking highest scores as indicative of IQ versus the empirical observations that people's IQ is largely consistent over time. Retesting is a vexed issue within the cognitive ability literature, one study shows that someone who scores 50th percentile (IQ 100) in their first test will move to 80th by their third (IQ 113-114 depending on SD). However, there is unanimous agreement that these changes don't reflect real changes in IQ, rather they reflect changes in unrelated areas (eg. test taking strategies). How many times did Langan sit the test before he scored his 47? Can we just continually administer tests to a person until, by chance perhaps, they score well and then believe this is a good representation of their IQ? The claim is wrong on so many levels that the more I look into it the more laughable it seems; only propped up by a generally pervasive misunderstanding of what IQ is and how it is measured. 203.38.24.65 (talk) 06:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

All is well.

OK. Let`s ignore the Mega Test because of all of it`s problems.

If it is true that Langan maxed out on these three other tests, SAT, "Army...something" and the test provided by 20/20, would you say that this shows that he indeed has a very high level of "mental horsepower"? For instance a Z-score of 3, 4 or even more (SD above the mean)? Given the sources that claim that he performed this well on these tests, isn`t it more likely than not that it is true?

In short (please speculate), what IQ-score do you think it is likely that he at least qualifies for?

Heyerdahl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.62.252 (talk) 09:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the invitation to speculate, but I will decline. The large amount of error associated with the measurement tools at our disposal is enough without introducing human error into the picture; furthermore I have no real information or experience with Langan. I see no reason to doubt his claims of scoring a perfect score on the SAT or various other IQ tests. The highest most will purport to measure is 160-165, and although even these claims are absurdly over-blown, that's not a problem to be hashed out on this page. Were the claims around this region then we would have no reason to protest.

As is, I only comment because I think this is illustrative of a particular problem that Wikipedia has. The claim is presented as if it could be true because no credible source has taken the time to dispute it. Wikipedia must be more concerned with verifiability than truth, I accept that, and I see no way out of the bind; it's just an observation. I've seen other people comment on the issue before - such as obvious logical errors that have been made by sources faithfully replicated in articles. 203.161.85.114 (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

We probably basically agree.

I think that measures of IQ is at least better than other things that one tries to quantify in psychometrics, e. g. empathy, personality etc. The test-taker will likely cooperate with the test-maker, in the sense that he/she will try to answer as many problems as possible correct. If ones personality is tested on the other hand, and one suspects that the questions are meant to test for narcissistic personality disorder or something else less flattering, then one might not be equally cooperative and honest :-)

That being said, attempts to measure intelligence is pretty far from an exact science. Putting a number on this, e. g. IQ 120, might give a false impression of certainty and accuracy to people who isn`t familiar with the subject.

If Langan did indeed max out on all these three tests, then that might qualify him for an IQ in the area of IQ 160 (SD 15), whatever that means. Beyond this number, who knows.

Heyerdahl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.15.239.164 (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Well depending on the model of personality I would say IQ is probably more concrete. Certainly, some tests measuring valid personality models have alot of empirical evidence (Big 5, HEXACO) and I see no problems with them. You're tempting me to make some provocative comments on the commercial use and abuse of these tests, but I'll restrain myself. As far as Langan goes; who knows what his ACTUAL IQ is. By this stage it would appear that he has taken so many IQ tests that they probably measure crystallised intelligence rather than fluid. You could probably get an estimate from an Inspection Time or Reaction Time task if you were desperate. Regardless; what we know is that the claim in the lede of this article is patently false. In any case, I think I better stop clogging up the talk page with irrelevant blabber. 203.38.24.65 (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The main point here is that there are factual claims about IQ tests and about an individual's IQ score that are commented about in reliable sources. Once those claims are in the article, reliable sources about those issues are on-topic for the article. I will add some reliable sources on IQ testing and IQ score ranges in the next few days. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree and would ask that you not add info about IQ tests. This is a BLP in which we report notable events in the life of a person. If reliable sources state he has a high IQ then we report that. We don't editorialize about it or debate it, nor do we support it or discredit it in this BLP article. We simply summarize what the most high quality reliable sources say about this person per WP:V. Any sources that do not specifically mention Langan do not belong in this article. For more info see WP:OR and WP:COATRACK. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

If anything, the key idea of WP:OR, namely "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source" serves to exclude claims about a person's IQ unless they are in the form of "[Name of person] told [name of journalist] that his IQ was [number]." Similarly, the WP:COATRACK summary "Articles about one thing shouldn't mostly focus on another thing" suggests that what we are mostly talking about here is the life of one person, but that person is the person who is talking about IQ tests and scores (and also engaging in a variety of occupations over the years). Neither policy suggests a ground for wholly excluding verifiable published statements about IQ score ranges from validated tests, not verifiable published statements about organizations that the biography subject helped found or advise. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe WP:SYNTH is a better way to explain it. It says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources" In this case source A says Langans' IQ is 195. What you want to do is add Source B which says IQ tests vary in order to imply the conclusion C that Langan may not have a super high IQ. Furthermore, WP:BLP says: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source". -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and WP:Peacock

I have noticed that this article is not written in an objective and disinterested tone. It seems to have an agenda of promoting Langan through undue weight and overstatement. I have done some copy editing today to neutralize this and will continue. If anyone would like to discuss any specific edits or issues I am happy to collaborate here on the talk page and reach a consensus. Thanks,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Extraordinary claim?

Do we perhaps already have a Wikipedia policy on exceptional factual claims that applies to the IQ score claims currently in this article? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the last point is relevant as the claim certainly contradicts scientific consensus. Overall though I think that you are battling uphill here as the claim has been echoed by reliable (albeit mistaken) sources. 203.3.24.23 (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Editing basic info

What do you think of this edit (see image)?

http://i.imgur.com/YWtwg6d.png

ViloX sources: http://web.archive.org/web/20090529215804/http://www.vilox.com/images/Vilox_White_Paper.pdf

Disney Research source: see Muscle & Fitness May 2001.

Education: He did attend these, although he didn't graduate, he still attended. I'm not sure if this should be put under alma mater, since technically you can put any university under your alma mater, even if you didn't graduate from it, but at least attended it.

Ethnicity: This can be debated, forensic biology could classify Langan as white American.

Known for: the CTMU has gained media attention, however little the fact is that Langan is known for the CTMU.

Residence: See “Can I become Smarter” via YouTube.

Think this stuff should be added? JT2958 (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Lede change

He achieved a score of 47 out of 48 on Ronald K. Hoeflin's Mega Test which correlates to an IQ of around 190

Interested in a source for this statement - I doubt one will be found since the Mega Test is not an IQ test. Unless someone can dig something up I recommend it be removed. 203.38.24.65 (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Recommendation noted, but rejected. http://www.scribd.com/doc/191439095/OpenStax-Sociology Rice University publication cites Langan's IQ JT2958 (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Er... is that a citation that the Mega Test can measure up to an IQ of 190? It seems like a sociology textbook. 203.38.24.65 (talk) 08:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed a sociology e-booklet, which states Langan has a verified IQ of 190. I recommend you read the Harvard Source guide. I don't know what you mean by "is that a citation that the Mega Test can measure up to an IQ of 190?". If you're wondering if it was the Mega Test that Langan took, no... He has taken a long line of tests. Preview http://cnx.org/contents/afe4332a-c97f-4fc4-be27-4e4d384a32d8@7.16:22 JT2958 (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Your posts are confusing. Firstly why should I read the Harvard Source Guide? Secondly the statement in the Lede specifically mentions that he took the Mega Test, yet you say he hasn't taken this test; which is it? Thirdly the 'references' in the sociology ebooklet that you linked are an opinion column and the Malcolm Gladwell book, which are hardly authoritative.

The claim is that the Mega test can measure up to 190 IQ (Gladwell says 195, but whatever). I am asking if anyone can come up with a scientific reference to substantiate the claim. I have made the changes to the Lede since no references have been presented. 203.38.24.65 (talk) 05:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Whatever that source is, it certainly is not a reliable source for the psychometric properties of the Mega test and relationshis between scores on that test and scores on currently normed, properly validated IQ tests. See Intelligence Citations for a bibliography of good sources on those topics. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that Langan took more than one IQ test that placed him in bell curve. Langan even took the WAIS but broke the ceiling on it. So yeah, he did take the Power Test and the Mega Test, but he also took verified IQ tests... That's what I'm saying. I don't care much for encyclopedic junk, anyway. JT2958 (talk) 09:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The immediately preceding round of edits (mostly 27-28 October 2014) appears to be poorly sourced, possibly COI edits

It is a bright-line rule on Wikipedia that we don't source biographical statements about living persons to sources that are not reliable (for example user-contributed websites with no editorial review). The edits to this article in the last day badly violate that rule, as well as disregarding the Wikipedia Manual of Style as to capitalization and other conventions. Please let's discuss the recent edits here on the article talk page. I will be fixing problems as I go. One question: where and when was the photograph of the article subject taken, by whom? I'm double-checking to make sure that there is not a copyright violation connected to the photograph. Let's discuss. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

What photograph are you referring to? The childhood one, the ranch one, or the one where he is sitting near a computer? --JT2958 (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to the photograph that looks like it was taken near a computer. But what about the other photos, now that we are on that topic? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You can click the links provided on each image, they are all in the CC.

--JT2958 (talk) 05:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Why not give him a fair chance?

If it is true that he has a reasoning ability at an extremely rare level, several things point in this direction, then there is also a good chanse that he has aquired a very high level of general knowledge. After all, isn`t the value of a Ph.d. that it signals intelligence and knowledge? (On a side note, in Norway for example, nobody cares wich university one has an education from, only the LEVEL of education and the GRADES one has aquired).

I just wish some highly capable people would look into Langans work, and judge it ONLY by content. This means, among other things:

- No Straw man arguments

- No Ad hominem arguments

In short, follow the guidelines given by Critical Thinking, in the evaluation of Langans work.

I truly beleve this is all Langan wants. Just for the record: Robert North Seitz, a former physicist at NASA, takes Langan seriously.

89.9.228.86 (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Heyerdahl

For the record, the last statement is false. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Even if that statement were false, was anything else false with his statements? Or are you going to disregard everything he just said with your curt retort? DavidPesta (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

If you look in the references for the article on Langan, you should read the one from Popular Science. In it, Seitz is quoted as saying about Langan that he is "perhaps the smartest individual" he's ever met, and is looking forward to seeing Langan's "theory given serious and open-minded review." Robert Seitz is also a member of the Board of Directors of The Megafoundation. What are your reasons for saying it is false that Seitz takes Langan seriously?

Heyerdahl

Also for the record, no sensible person regards grades as relevant without considering the nature of the institution. I decline to give specifics, because of dispute as to whether a given institution is a "diploma mill", but no sensible person aware that an institution is a "diploma mill" considers degrees from there relevant, regardless of grades. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

How has this become relevant to Christopher Langan? Are you saying that Reed College is a diploma mill? I'm sure they would have something to say about that. DavidPesta (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok. We don`t have any real "diploma mills" here in Norway, so I didn`t think of that. If this might be a problem, then the question would be if indeed Reed College was "one of the top liberal arts institutions at the time" or a "diploma mill", some 40 years ago. We know what Langan says about this, but anybody else could offer proof to the contrary, if they can.

Heyerdal

once again, i'll just say that i'm an american and i'd never even HEARD of the place. we have the Big 3 (harvard, yale, princeton) plus stanford, usually considered the top 4. then we have the 5 "lesser ivies" (brown, columbia, cornell, dartmouth, U penn) plus UC berkeley considered the next level. sometimes U Chicago and U Michigan as well.

in the other direction, MIT and caltech are prolly ABOVE harvard/yale/princeton, but often overlooked in such lists. and then there's the "service academies" (military), certainly as good as the lesser ivies.

reed is about 100 colleges below all those.

i'm sure it's fine and all, but we're still talking about an average place for average students. 209.172.25.62 (talk) 06:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"I know that I know nothing about this so I'm going to make stuff up and then be confused about it" fix'd. 66.65.86.213 (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Close connection with subject

"A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (October 2014)"

I don't even know him, I just follow his works... How do I supposedly have a "close connection" with him?

JT2958 (talk) 04:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

That template was not necessarily added to the article because of you. It could have been added because a user named Christopher Langan made this edit to this talk page. I didn't add the template, so I'm not sure of the reasoning behind it. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Christopher Langan is a controversial figure and that makes this a controversial article. As we know what happens with all controversial Wikipedia articles, wars break out between biased editors on both sides of that article. If Chris himself made edits to the Talk page and not the article itself, first of all, that would not qualify as "A major contributor to this article" but rather a contributor to the Talk page. Second of all, indicates a possible agenda by an editor to bring the content into question to further their political leverage to see their desired changes happen. DavidPesta (talk) 12:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and looked up the exact edit in which the COI template was added. Apparently, it was added to the article because of JT2958. JT2958 now denies having a close connection. Is the COI template still necessary? --Dodi 8238 (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion (as one might expect) yes, I think the tag is still necessary. Just about all the references in the article point out to the article subject's own writings, and this article has been beset by WP:COI (and WP:PROMO) edits for years, as this talk page shows. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you know of any sources about his life besides those he or his immediate relatives produced? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Such as Chris' abuse by his step-father and other claims? Not really. I could alter it to say 'Langan asserts...', etc... --JT2958 (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Overall quality

The article consists mostly of his own words, some attributed to interviews with him, making them reliable for the fact that he said them, not for their truth.

I haven't looked at this article for a long time, but it clearly gives too much weight to his own words, and not enough weight to what is said about him, even if there is little said about him in reliable sources. We are not permitted to note in the article that source A's statement (say, about the Mega test) is contradicted by a reliable source about the Mega test, but we can take note of it and not include false statements, even if "reliable". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Much improved over the past few days. However, I see one small problem. Langan does not claim CTMU to be "religiously-based". I think we can find sources that it is "religiously-based", but he doesn't claim that, and that's the way I would interpret the sentence in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, there are at least 6 "multiple" references where the original was trimmed. This may be beyond the bot's ability to handle it, but, we'll see. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

IQ Claims (again)

Hi all - this article has improved slightly from previous parlous versions so congratulations to all editors for that. However, it still seems to echo Langan's claims, often without serious examination of their truth (eg. the claim to being skipped ahead several years which seems to have no reference). From a personal perspective, I think the IQ claims made in the article need prefacing so that it is clear no IQ test can measure as high as it is claimed he scored. I know this issue has been thrashed out on this page, I'm just adding my opinion to those who say that we need some way of indicating that the IQ claims are not true. A reader may be confused that wikipedia is not internally consistent when seeing that on the IQ page it is indicated tests do not go above 165 and coming here and seeing a claim of 210. 1.127.49.126 (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Your concerns are probably not useful here. People who can understand that g is a fuzzy parameter about the crisp points of the moments of its distribution are gonna blow off the whole article. The facts pretty much speak for themselves to those with the powers of discernment, similar to but a more egregious case I think than Marilyn vos Savant. So given that the current content is prolly perfect as is. Lycurgus (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if I understand you, are you saying that people who understand g are likely to disbelieve the whole article? These aren't the people I'm concerned about, of course anyone who knows IQ testing, or general intelligence will disregard the claim. It's people who don't understand these topics that are likely to be misled. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Although you make a great point that Langan is quite similar to Marilyn - and on her page there is a small section debunking her IQ claims. Why does she have this section, but not this page? 139.130.16.222 (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Well "disbelieve the whole article" is distinct from "blowing it off", there's a real world thing reported here with some level of reportage. On Marilyn's stuff dunno haven't looked at it in years. Lycurgus (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is indeed still a problem of that nature here, and, yes, many members of the general public are not familiar with the limitations of IQ tests for distinguish test-takers with standard scores above about 145 (where the standard errors of the tests increase substantially, as noted by Terman and Merrill in their handbook about the second revision of the Stanford-Binet test). That's an inherent property of all IQ tests, but it is not very well known. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

FTR and clarity, yes concurring, the sigmas much over 4 are more or less pure bogosity, that wasn't explicit above. Lycurgus (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Smart

I don't really care about the IQ claims. Fact is my IQ is high enough to qualify for MENSA, and at one time I was a MENSA member (I just am no longer a dues paying member). The practical reality is that this man is in fact quite intelligent -- the actual IQ score is quite irrelevant. There are people who score high on IQ tests and are MENSA members who I would not trust to take $20 and go to the store to buy beer and safely return with it.

Simple fact is that if you go here: The Art of Knowing and read it, you will understand that this gentleman is quite intelligent. Please give the IQ arguments a rest -- who cares? No one. What matters is the work he has produced, which is thought provoking and useful. SunSw0rd (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree

Yes he is. I have no doubt that he did indeed obtain a perfect SAT score. People on here simply contest the 200 claim, because it is the 200 claim from which he derives his fame. It is true that no standardized intelligence test (in current use) can measure up to 200. Nonetheless, there is no doubt in my mind that Chris does indeed possess high intelligence. However, the 200 claim is a bit extreme because it would mean he is of an intelligence possessed by only one out of several billion people. I should note, however, that simply because he is intelligent does not mean that I endorse his ideas. No mainstream mathematician (that I'm aware of) has ever endorsed his ideas.

FrankAiello (talk) 07:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Spinoza's god

I think you can only get there if you misunderstand the CTMU, which I have read. Langan is not talking about Spinoza's god. He is talking about divine intervention (telic influence). Spinoza's god has no power over the world. Physics is set. Langan is far more flexible in his approach.

Hello, Langan's model of the universe allows for the universe to intersect and modify itself - directly while allowing for the typical usual impersonal modification. This is a deviance from Spinoza's view that God does not interfere directly at all but is impersonal. This mechanism is the origin of the notion of divine intervention, miracles, the messiah or messiah-like heroes (ala Jesus, Moses, various philosophers) and so on. Spinoza is very much close to Langan's work but Langan does apparently have great respect for Spinoza despite disagreeing with him on a few issues, phrasing and technicalities. They have led quite similar lives, as well. 171.99.184.140 (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Christopher Langan. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.popsci.com/science/01/10/14/brainiac/index.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 06:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

This kind of sounds like a joke

The smartest man in the world. He taught himself things. You really have to be smart to do that. He even thought he was smarter than his professors.

A proponent of intelligent design and some mind theory of the universe. It's really dubious whether this article meets Wikipedia standards for a biography. I have known many people who belong to Mensa, some smart some dense, but they all think they have a high IQ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:DA8:D800:279:2CC7:3B73:58F5:FBBA (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I found university professors to be highly uneducated and unintelligent. My IQ was last tested 20 years ago, but was about 190. I also learned on my own.68.45.174.58 (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Article improvement

This article is a bit strange. I'm not American and have never heard of this guy, so the article seems to be a collection of anecdotes about a random guy with a high IQ. Here's what I believe needs to be done to bring this article up to Wikipedia standards.

1. The lead needs to clearly explain why he is notable enough for a wikipedia article.

2. All the "alleged"s need to define who alleges it or be removed.

3. The writing in general needs to be improved. At the moment is sounds like it is written by either the subject, a friend or a fan.

4. The "Early life" section says "During elementary school, Langan was repeatedly skipped ahead, which resulted in torment by his peers. Although teachers praised Langan for his college-level work, his peers still bullied him, not for his intelligence, but because of his family's socio-economic status." So, which is it? The first section says he was tormented because of his IQ. The last says it wasn't.

5. Most of the sources for the article are interviews with the subject. Interviews are not a very good source. It would be good to get some proper written sources unaffliated with the subject.

Ashmoo (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Christopher Langan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070607171146/http://www.kmov.com/topstories/stories/kmov_localnews_061115_genius.3f6953ad.html to http://www.kmov.com/topstories/stories/kmov_localnews_061115_genius.3f6953ad.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/transcripts/2020_991209_iq_trans.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/2020_991209_IQ_feature.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 04:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Why such a failure?

growing up in poverty, with a stifling educational system, and lack of people pushing him to succeed is one thing, but the guy didn't grow up a feral child locked in a shed somewhere! he FINISHED high school, TOOK the SATs, and started college SOMEWHERE. why not harvard? why not caltech? how can anyone with an IQ over about 65 think that "Reed College" (never heard of it) was in ANY way logical?

the feral child could be excused. this guy, tho -- i just don't get it. at the moment he took the SATs, what did he THINK he'd be using them for?!

and what's this about "once got"? if you get a perfect score on the SATs, i dare say you aren't going to tske them again! 67.150.80.208 (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Well...if you consider him a failure you probably make some assumptions first. One might regard financial success and another academic success. Maybe Langan doesn`t share your views on the importance of these factors? In fact he explicitly says, in an interview, that he doesn`t care much about money. When it comes to higher education he gives several reasons why this was a failure, among them are personality conflicts. (Langan has never said this, but I wouldn`t be surprised if part of the problem actually was that the professors might have felt threatened by his abilities. This is pure speculations on my part, but when it comes to acknowledging talent among the younger generation, I beleve you will often find more integrity among the coaches in sports than among the teachers in academia).

Regarding Reed College; in the documentary by Errol Morris, Langan says that Reed College was "one of the top liberal arts institutions at the time"..."highly exlusive". I don`t know if this is correct, I`m not American, but I`m sure you could find out if you want to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.9.215.206 (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

i still don't get it. if the guy had gone to harvard and failed spectacularly, that would be one thing. if the guy was so disoriented as to have never considered college, that would be another. but he ACTIVELY SOUGHT to attend college; he took his tests, he collected his grades, he asked teachers for the various recommendations needed -- at NO point along the way did he or any of those teachers think "hmmm. maybe I should aim higher"?

i'd have more respect for him if he had been a janitor/bouncer or w/e from the gitgo. i just can't fathom this "i'll go to Podunk U" thinking if he were in any way cognizant of his brilliance. even after he GOT to reed, didn't he ever consider an UPGRADE (transfer)?

was there some OTHER factor - like PROXIMITY? i'm sure reed is nice and all, but take morris' quote with a grain of salt. reed doesn't make the top 50 on most lists.

BTW, the school's motto is "Communism, Atheism, and Free Love"(!) even in portland, OR, i'm surprised they'd put that on paper. 67.150.86.38 (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Reed College was "one of the top liberal arts institutions at the time"? That statement probably explains why he is a failure by conventional standards. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Steve Jobs attended Reed. He did pretty well. And it's the only school in the US with a nuclear reactor run primarily by undergraduates. (Reed does have science majors.) 24.250.51.77 (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Just because the guy has a high IQ doesn't mean he is going to make wise decisions. A person with his background isn't going to have the family support to help him along. If he has personality issues teachers aren't necessarily going to help him along, especially if they view him as confrontational or a threat to their personal ego. He may also have self esteem issues. Unless one can see themselves as a success they rarely are regardless of their potential. It takes a lot more than a high IQ and high test scores to become an academic or financial success. 98.166.246.220 (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Reed is a unique experience which many people actively seek and value, and not as a compromise. I don't know why this makes you angry. 66.65.86.213 (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

To clarify: He might've wanted to go to a particular college for its unique characteristics, rather than wanted to reach as high as he could on a given university ranking system, which is valid and reasonable and actually even sounds like a good way to orient your life. 66.65.86.213 (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like instead of trying to understand the man, somebody is bending over backwards to try to not understand him. Either way you slice it, Chris is a very unusual human being with a very unusual mind and a very challenging early life. What made sense to him as he recovered from that early life does not need to make sense to you. People make decisions based on what could be found somewhere in a million different possible unknown reasons that begin to make more sense when you happen to be privy to knowing what those reasons are, which you almost certainly do not.

As for your definition of the word "failure," what seems like a mystery to you about this should be mitigated by the fact that he and many other people whose minds soar above the social structures and constructs and fascinations of common humans do not care about having LOTS of money and prestige. It should be obvious that the desires and values of one who transcends you will also not share your desires and values. When I was a small child, I never did understand why my parents had a hard time playing with my He-Man toys until I grew up and transcended those desires and values myself. If you want a good example of the kind of people who chase after money and prestige, just look at congress. Or even Hollywood. You think someone among the highest of superior intellects wants to be like that?! You think the definition of success == POWER and MONEY or FAME or ability to CONTROL THE WORLD?! That's funny! :D Compassionately though, I genuinely hope that everyone would consider this deeply as they reflect upon what is truly truly truly important in their own lives. DavidPesta (talk) 11:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christopher Langan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20140726070310/http://www.bbsradio.com/content/talk-show-episode-worlds-smartest-man-speaks-out-july-15-2014 to http://www.bbsradio.com/content/talk-show-episode-worlds-smartest-man-speaks-out-july-15-2014

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 23:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Context for CTMU

This article seems like it has been written by Langan as a self-advertisement. The present structure of the page begins with a statement of Langan's astronomical intelligence, and then proceeds to provide an in depth description of his theory with no context apart from Langan's own glowing assessment of its impact. This gives the impression that there is some degree of consensus that Langan is brilliant, and that CTMU is an accepted and important scientific result. However, CTMU has never been published or reviewed by the broader academic community, and a quick Google search reveals that blogs and discussion pages frequented by mathematicians, physicists and philosophers that have mentioned Langan or CTMU generally describe this work as meaningless word salad.

The article ought to be restructured to describe the content more accurately. Important points to cover might be, primarily:

· Langan is occasionally the subject of sensational tabloid coverage because of his claims to a super-high IQ. This entertainment-news coverage is his primary claim to fame and should be the central piece of information, presuming he is notable enough for an article.

And secondarily:

· Langan was president of the Mega Society for high IQ individuals, and after ending his term there he founded the Mega Foundation.

· He has written a theory called CTMU, and makes the dramatic claim that the universe is a mathematical object that can be described entirely by this theory, and that the theory proves the existence of God and intelligent design. This theory has not been published or accepted by the academic community, and has in fact drawn little to no academic attention apart from those with a special interest in discussing and criticizing crackpot theories.

· Langan is a supporter of white Christian nationalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.97.159.34 (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

"Smartest Man in America"

A high IQ score has no bearing on how smart someone is. The last line of this page's intro says that some journalists call him the smartest man in America/the World because he has such a high IQ. This is a silly opinion of whoever wrote it and nothing more. This line should be removed. It spreads the untruth that IQ=smartness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.244.40 (talk) 02:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Langan’s Facebook Comments on Immigration and White Christian Western Civilization

This article seems to suggest that Chris Langan is nondenominational, however it may be more accurate to consider the fact that he believes White Christian Western Civilization is under siege from immigrants with backwards cultures and religions. Some of his supporters did not realize he held such views and were under the false impression that he was not prejudiced towards people of different cultures, races or religions. Just read in the sub-comments below. He also “liked” a post which calls Middle Eastern and North African people “human trash.” I would like to propose an edit which covers his views on this topic, since it is a little misleading to make it look as if everything he supports is “politically correct.”

“Western civilization, culture and heritage are under unprecedented attack, as we see by the fact that all and only the historically White Christian nations of the World are being subjected to weaponized mass immigration.” - Chris Langan https://facebook.com/groups/18509062485?view=permalink&id=10156089832922486

https://facebook.com/groups/18509062485?view=permalink&id=10156089374227486 Mereon (talk) 08:46, 11 Februa 2018 (UTC) Mereon

In the following Facebook post, Chris Langan says that Somalians are less intelligent than Gorillas, and his fans support his assertion, although without data.

https://m.facebook.com/groups/18509062485?view=permalink&id=10156431914622486

“Somalia, an IQ of 68? What nonsense!

There it is — according to the authors of that book, Somalia has an IQ of 68. It’s an odd assertion to begin with, because after all nations don’t have IQs. Individual people do. This is a classic ecological fallacy. But it’s worse than that. You may find yourself asking what that little asterisk next to the 68 is for. Is it a multiplication symbol? No. The asterisk leads to a notice on another page that in the case of an asterisk, they didn’t actually collect any results of any IQ tests at all. Not a single person from Somalia had their IQ score measured for the book, or for any study used by the authors of the book. There are literally zero points of data to support an “IQ Score” of 68 for Somalia.” https://www.somalinet.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=387209

“What I.Q. doesn’t tell you about race. ... If we work in the opposite direction, the typical teen-ager of today, with an I.Q. of 100, would have had grandparents with average I.Q.s of 82—seemingly below the threshold necessary to graduate from high school. And, if we go back even farther, the Flynn effect puts the average I.Q.s of the schoolchildren of 1900 at around 70, which is to suggest, bizarrely, that a century ago the United States was populated largely by people who today would be considered mentally retarded.” https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/12/17/none-of-the-above/amp

“A number of studies have compared average IQ scores between the world's nations, finding patterns of difference between continental populations similar to those associated with race. Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen have argued that populations in the third world, particularly populations in Africa, tend to have limited intelligence because of their genetic composition and that, consequently, education cannot be effective in creating social and economic development in third world countries.[52] Lynn and Vanhanen's studies have been severely criticized for relying on low quality data and for choosing sources in ways that seem to be biased severely towards underestimating the average IQ potential of developing nations, particularly in Africa.[53][54][55] Nonetheless there is a general consensus that the average IQ in developing countries is lower than in developed countries, but subsequent research has favored environmental explanations for this fact, such as lack of basic infrastructure related to health and education.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

“In pre-colonial traditional Somalia, education was dispensed through informal systems of communal interaction. With the arrival of colonialism in the mid-late 19th century, formal programmes of learning were slowly but steadily established. These were limited in scope and were essentially designed for the purposes of colonization. With independence in 1960, the education sector developed very quickly with pre-1991 civilian and military governments building hundreds of schools, training tens of thousands of teachers, adopting the Latin script for the writing of the Somali language, and successfully implementing nation-wide literacy programmes. But with the collapse of the Somali state in 1991, all modern systems of learning in the country were destroyed by the fighting factions, and Somalia has since been a country without any formal programmes of education. This paper first looks at the history of education in Somalia, then it describes and analyses the nature as well as the magnitude of destruction, and ends with an urgent appeal to the international community to come to the rescue of Somalia’s children, and help resuscitate and reconstitute the country’s structures and forms of learning.” http://somali.wdfiles.com/local--files/readings/Abdi1998.pdf

“What caused this agony and the collapse of civil society? What were the forces which shaped it? Was it part of an inevitable evolutionary process? To what extent did the colonial partition contribute to the calamity? By examining the Somali politico-historical perspective, this book explores the impact of the colonial legacy on the political, social and economic life of the Somali nation, and posits that it is one of the main factors which led to the collapse of the modern Somali state in the early 1990s. It will also briefly consider some immediate post-collapse outcomes.” http://dspace-roma3.caspur.it/bitstream/2307/5265/1/The%20Collapse%20of%20The%20Somali%20State%20-The%20Impact%20of%20the%20Colonial%20Legacy.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by PossumKingdom (talk • contribs) 09:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

176.109.24.82 (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC) PossumKingdom

Comments

[2]

Pretty weird to demand "reliable sources" for my comments, when the completely unsubstantiated claims about Langan's self-declared IQ and never-reviewed or accepted by anyone "theory" apparently require none at all.--81.191.118.226 (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

In Popular Culture link

Roy Batty link no longer resolves to a valid address. SquashEngineer (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Dubious IQ Claims

The references on this site for his IQ being so high are not authoritative as best I can see. Every link I have been able to follow goes to a transcript of him being interviewed and making that claim; none of them offer more support for his IQ being so astronomically high beyond his own claim. This should be marked as such.

Yeah. I agree. Jcvamp (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete

I suggest this article be deleted. I can find nothing about this person that is notable. BEST case scenario he did really well on SAT. He has published no books, has no patents, no degrees (simply claims he was smarter than his professors). He has published three articles that have extremely few citations. This man has done nothing notable other than brag about himself. If we are going to put everyone who brags about themselves on Wikipedia, you will need a LOT more servers. How is this person notable? Is being a blowhard now notable?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1526:4538:382c:7613:f67e:fc2d (talk • contribs) 22:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I second that. I mean, who is this person? If you took a poll, say a Gallup poll, what percentage of people would see him as notable? It's obviously written by him and I can't see anything noteworthy in terms of professional life (say as an academic) or in medicine (cure for cancer?), business (is he Bill Gates?), industry (does he run a Fortune 500 company?), politics (is he in the Senate?), diplomacy (does he represent a country at the UN?), the media (is he a newspaper magnate?), philanthropy (how many millions has he given to noble causes?), humanitarianism (is he Bob Geldof?), the military (did he lead any famous campaigns?) or any other sphere of life. What about the IQ test itself - has it been properly verified, done several times so that the statistical spread could be seen and done with the many different IQ tests? Not very scientific; the world’s tallest man would be measured several times and on different days. You might as well have a Wikipedia page for the teenage with the most spots or one who can squeeze the contents the furthest. How about a whole page about the person with the most flatulence? How about one for the neighbour's cat? TheCampaignForRealPhysics (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Quite apart from the invective, the notability of a person is determined not by what we think of the individual but rather by what third-party reliable sources say about them. This is explained more in depth by WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Langan is notable because others have noticed him and profiled him, sometimes at length. This does not mean we need to uncritically accept everything that is said about the person, but that's the rationale. If you don't like those standards, you can try to change them at that level. jps (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, both WP:GNG and WP:BIO make it clear that coverage from reliable sources create a "presumption" of notability but not a guarantee. "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." and "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not." Simply being profiled is not sufficient. Manybytes (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

You are free to start a new AfD if you think you have a case. jps (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Please respect WP:BLP, and don't forget factuality

I notice that this article has been subject to the insertion of various falsehoods recently, and that this talk page now sports a few new unkind remarks about me. Some of these changes violate not only BLP, but one or more of Wikipedia's core content policies (NPOV, V, NOR).

Unfortunately, this represents no real change at all, as this kind of thing has been going on here since 2006 at the very latest.

Here are the facts: I'm a reasonably well-known person, this is true for more than one reason, I've repeatedly attracted serious media coverage despite my penchant for privacy, and I have a very significant theory called the CTMU (Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe), about which papers have been recurrently produced since 1989. In fact, the last four papers have been published in the last couple of years, and in a reputable academic journal to which my contributions were explicitly invited. (I recall seeing links to some of these papers, but they seem to have been removed.) Contributors to this particular journal include a range of well known academics, one of them a Nobel Prize winner in physics, along with several very well-known authors in science and philosophy; nevertheless, my papers reportedly set download records for that journal. Despite this fact, and along with a couple of other pejorative and misleading statements or insinuations, the article falsely claims that my work is "formally unpublished".

Unfortunately, I have yet another distinction which is a bit more problematical: a "following" of diehard trolls, some of them left over from the Intelligent Design controversy of yore. It seems that my work was falsely described as "Intelligent Design Creationism", which caused it to be baselessly attacked and maligned by various parties committed to the anti-ID position. This, apparently, was due to the fact that I accepted an invitation to publish a CTMU paper in "the wrong journal", one that was associated with the ID movement. Other trolls are merely disgruntled gadflies who are in a snit because I ignored or disagreed with them. Some of these people are what might be called "mechanics" when it comes to abusing and/or gaming the rules of sites such as this one.

My concern here is that despite my having been notable by WP standards for the last decade or two - and rightly so - the trolls and vandals are at it again, claiming that I and my work are notable no longer while trying to rewrite history according to their own preferred narrative(s) at the expense of my reputation. Obviously, this kind of activity is not conducive to encyclopedic accuracy.

Does anyone have any idea what can be done to discourage this kind of anti-encyclopedic mischief, which in this case already spans nearly a generation? Thank you. Chris Langan (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Chris Langan: Hi there! I left a message on your talk page, but also leaving one here. Anything that violates WP:BLP should be removed immediately. We can discuss what material is a BLP violation here and deal with it appropriately. Another option for you is WP:OTRS that allows you to contact the Wikimedia Foundation. - Scarpy (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Scarpy is correct, BLP violations you can remove immediately and then discuss later - although some editors may be unaware of this, and argue your conflict of interest. I'm suggesting some other venues, in case you need to escalate this. If there are issues, I suggest making a WP:BLPN report. I can try to take a look, but unfortunately I'm about to be away from the pc for a bit, so if you're relying on me patience will be key, I am so sorry. You might also consider emailing info-en@wikimedia.org to get an OTRS ticket started on this. KillerChihuahua 18:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Expressions of doubt in BLP article

@ජපස: This is ridiclouous. ABC News had his IQ measured by a neuropsychologist, it's not a self-report. It was tested by a professional working with one of the largest news organizations in the world. If you want to fight about the validity of IQ, you can do that in the IQ article. There is no reason to add an expression of doubt in the lede here. I have no problem taking this to ANI or BLPNB if you continue to do this. - Scarpy (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

High IQs simply cannot be measured because that is not what IQ tests are set-up for. Attestations of high IQs are not validated by any rigorous mechanism. All we can do is attribute. We cannot WP:ASSERT anyone's IQ when it is claimed to be this high. jps (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@ජපස: This is a red-herring. You're inventing guidelines about IQ that don't exist on Wikipedia, and even if they did are completely irrelevant here. If you want to talk about WP:ASSERT it is a fact that Langan had his IQ tested by a neuropsychologist as part of an interview with ABC News in 1999. It is a fact that the neuropsychologist said his IQ was the highest he'd measured in 25 years. Those are not "attestations of high IQ" it's a encyclopedic summary of events that are factual. The re-wording of it as "reportedly" is an expression of doubt where no doubt exists. In 1999 that happened, this event occurred and it was reported by ABC News. - Scarpy (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to saying that Langan had his IQ tested by a neuropsychologist as part of an interview with ABC News in 1999. It is a fact that the neuropsychologist said his IQ was the highest he'd measured in 25 years. What I object to is saying in Wikipedia's voice that Langan has a high IQ. That is the opinion of the neuropsychologist. It is not a fact since there is no way to objectively determine IQ. You can only report the opinion of someone who tests IQ. That is all we can actually say in Wikipedia's voice. jps (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Is there any doubt that the subject is known for "High IQ"? If not, why is "Featured in various media as having a very high IQ" needed? I can understand doubt about the numeric value, but the new text does not seem to be about that. Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

No, there is no doubt that he is known for this. The text you are referring to is in an infobox and I'm not sure to what end this particular field is needed/required per the MoS concerns. Quite apart from that, I do not see how we can assert in Wikipedia's voice that Langan has a very high IQ. We can say that various people have attested to his IQ being very high, but there is a danger in misleading people that such attestations are somehow plain facts rather than evaluative opinions. jps (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@ජපස: It is not a fact since there is no way to objectively determine IQ. You can only report the opinion of someone who tests IQ. That is all we can actually say in Wikipedia's voice. - ජපස Show me a Wikipedia guideline that states this (e.g. we cannot include IQ score evaluations as fact because there's no objective way to measure IQ), or that's just your opinion and you're trying to force it on this article. - Scarpy (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines are pretty clear that if there is controversy over a metric, this is not the place to resolve the controversy one way or another. That's the ultimate essence of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia policies and guidelines rarely gets as specific as to identify points of contestation explicitly. I am somewhat surprised that you are so vehement here. From your userpage, it is pretty clear that you have looked into psychometrics. Surely you are aware that claims about very high IQ are essentially impossible to validate. For example, this paper [3] makes it clear that the tails of the distribution and individual attribution of a high IQ score are essentially poking around in the noise, statistically. jps (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@ජපස: I'm sorry but you're dodging my questions, and you're gish galloping on irrelevant points about IQ. It's becoming difficult for me to continue to WP:AGF. Adding an expressions of doubt is bad for at least four reasons (1) it's an expression of doubt which the MOS suggests to avoid (2) contrary to what you're saying above, it runs afoul of WP:NPOV as it's expressing doubt about an event where Langan had his IQ tested by a neuropsychiatrist under the guidance of ABC News and no doubt exists about these facts - Wikipedia's voice is contradicting the WP:RS it's citing (3) it treads on WP:BLP as this is an article about a living person and it's casting aspersions about that person (4) it's bad writing. I'm going to change this back. If you'd like to revert again I'll escalate. - Scarpy (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

*blink* It is not an expression of doubt to explain that the high IQ was reported. Nor is it really expressing any doubt about any event. I'm not sure why you think the guidance of ABC News is at all relevant here, but I don't think there is any contradiction in the source being cited nor the fact that this is an opinion that is expressed. I reject the WP:CRYBLP implications of your argument and think that you should escalate it as I think your case is poorly made indeed. jps (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, the edits you enacted are fine with me, so perhaps this is a tempest in a teapot after all. jps (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

ALERT

I would like to point out that the article disproportionally weights the content of facebook quotes over any of Chris's scholarly writing. Is this what the norm is on wikipedia now; analysis of the social media postings of its biographical subjects? That's just what is going on here. I suggest that entire baffler nonsense be removed.

And categorized as an Intellectual Pursuit? Now that is a bit silly. That entire paragraph is biased and per WP:BLP should be removed while it is reworked. Thanks in advance. DrL (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to just edit your comments just a little bit here, nobody will notice. Make a new section at the bottom and detail your complaints with the material GorillaWarfare has added. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

______________________________________________________

At the top of this "talk" page, we see the following notice: "Asmodeus and DrL are banned from editing this article." DrL was banned from editing this page for her bias and malicious behavior. She is violating Wikipedia's rules by being here. EarlWhitehall (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@EarlWhitehall: The arbitration remedy allows that she may make suggestions on talk pages if [she] is not disruptive GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I see. Thanks for making me aware of that.

Thanks for the input Gorilla warfare. Nigerian chess player (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

What follows are edits from the individuals who have an IRL grudge against Langan

I would like to add a personal views section with direct quotations from chris langan himself sourced to his own knowledge base website.

There appears to be confusion about his social and political views, so lets let langan settle it with his own mouth. Nigerian chess player (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

___________________________________________________

Hi, Nigerian Chess Player. I think this is a good idea. Langan is active on social media sites, and many of the views he expresses online are highly controversial. I think it's important that people reading Langan's Wiki page be made aware of these views. EarlWhitehall (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

___________________________________________________

Calling them high controversial is an understatement but lest I be accused of bias, lets put them up on the article and let the readers and the arbitration committee judge for themselves.

This article is outdated , since 2017 Me langan has been very active on social media and lots have happened since. It is my wish to make the readers of this wiki aware of these changes. Nigerian chess player (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

____________________________________________________

Apparently, Christopher Langan doesn't shy away from venting his eugenicis ideas in his Facebook group. Of course that he and his followers will always play semantic games and point to the different shades of grey that may exist (only in their minds) between eugenics and "anti-dysgenics". By simply following the discussions there, one can easily see that, either way, they pontificate, according to their own white supremacist views, what are the unwanted characteristics their ideal program should get rid of.

Regarding the CTMU, it doesn't even worth mention because, it's unoriginal- being a rip off of Eastern Spirituality and Philosophy, Wheeler's PAP, Charles Peirce's Triadic Model, Kashmir Shaivism and many others. It's intentionally obscure, 100% self-referential, thus defining truth within itself. Any attempt to rational criticism would be tantamount to a dog chasing its own tail.

The reason I think this Wikipedia page should be edited is that many inaccurate claims are being made, the sources are questionable, serving as a marketing tool for the individual in question.

Thank you.

ZenMechanics (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I could also share a source where Mr. Langan expresses his support of anti-dysgenics, and where he says he doesn't advocate for eugenics. But anyhow, even if we decide to use the word "eugenics", there seems to be a certain emotional baggage, the one which makes people immediately picture the worst, e.g. Hitler (a few posts above). But the word itself is older and entered the English language in 1883. Anyhow, in a world where overpopulation has become a problem, advocating self-restraint and rational procreation isn't a bad thing. Mich.Szczesny 11:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

"Well, I could also share a source where Mr. Langan expresses his support of anti-dysgenics, and where he says he doesn't advocate for eugenics.".

For every link you share with such statements, I have at least other two where Langan himself advocates eugenics (let's not play semantic games, ok?).

"Anyhow, in a world where overpopulation has become a problem, advocating self-restraint and rational procreation isn't a bad thing.".

Rational procreation as long as they aren't "low IQ" latinos, arabs or blacks, right?

Give me a break. ZenMechanics (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

If wiki allows Langan’s own quotes, the matter is settled. Langan openly advocated for armed rebellion and violence against European politicians and governments for being “too soft” on immigration, not to mention inciting violence against what he deems to be “criminal immigrants” . Nigerian chess player (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2020

change 'The CTMU was criticized by mathematician Mark Chu Carroll' to 'The CTMU was criticized by software engineer Mark Chu Carroll' Johnnyyiu (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Markchu carrol is a computer scientist and a software engineer which involved lots of mathematics .

If Dr Mark Chu is not a mathematician neither is Langan a philosopher. Nigerian chess player (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I have made the change, as Chu-Carroll describes himself as a computer scientist in his about page: [4]. If there is a source that describes him as a mathematician we could amend it to "computer scientist and mathematician". GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I think I can agree with that, thank you Gorrrilawarfare. Nigerian chess player (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Controversy section

Is the sourcing in the "controversy" section really good enough to present these statements in Wikipedia's own voice, rather than attributing them to individuals? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jonathan A Jones: Yes. The Baffler is a credible source of information. EarlWhitehall (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

For it's own views perhaps. You need more than that to make such statements in Wikipedia's own voice. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jonathan A Jones: If you don't think that The Baffler is a reliable third party source, please provide a reliable third party source to back up that view. Thank you. EarlWhitehall (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, almost everything else on Langan's page is written in Wikipedia's own voice, including the contentious claim that he taught himself advanced maths and physics in high school. The source for this claim is Esquire. Why is this a more credible source than The Baffler? It is suspicious that you are ignoring this and only suggesting that the "Controversy" section be changed. Smells like bias to me. EarlWhitehall (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to stipulate that the Baffler is a reliable source for the views of Justin Ward. You might want to read WP:BLP if you intent a long career on Wikipedia editing biographies, as it will help you understand proper sourcing. But given your edit history I suspect that you are and are likely to remain a single-purpose account. Any relation with the other two recents SPAs that you would like to declare at this point? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jonathan A Jones: Okay, I'm reading it. Hmm... I don't see anything suggesting that The Baffler is not a credible source of information. Tell me why you think it is less credible than Esquire or 20/20.

By the way, I am not the one who edited Langan's page. It was GorillaWarfare (a notable Wikipedia contributor), and she evidently deemed The Baffler to be a reliable enough source to use Wikipedia's own voice. EarlWhitehall (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that The Baffler is sufficiently reliable. I did want to bring up a point here, though -- I don't think the new "Controversy" section is appropriately titled. The views described in it are certainly controversial, but there isn't actually any controversy described there. I wonder if we could find a better section heading? Though I'm having trouble thinking of a good name. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Since the "Controversy" section is all about his racist views and growing support among the alt-right, perhaps it could be re-named "Racist Views" or "Links to the Alt-Right". EarlWhitehall (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I suggest it be called “controversial views” rather than controversy. Nigerian chess player (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nigerian chess player: That works too. In fact, now that I think about it, "Racist Views" would probably draw further objections from Langan's wife and supporters, so better to use "Controversial Views" instead. EarlWhitehall (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. We can short circuit disagreement that way. Nigerian chess player (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

That seems like an improvement to me. I've made the suggested change. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, this seems reasonable. Nigerian chess player (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2020

It is imprecise to put eugenics in this context as from what I could gather Mr. Langan is in favor of anti-dysgenics. It's an important difference. Also, he is not blaming Third world immigrants per se, but rather those who unreasonably and forcibly are trying to uproot the Western culture by irrational immigration policies. So, the changes I have put in more precisely represent the author's views. Mich.Szczesny (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

_________________________________________

These are your opinion, under the pseudonym eric heart he did clearly espouse positive eugenics. Regardless, it is a distinction without a difference.

And yes he is blaming third world immigrants, and you are vandalising the page and starting another edit war. Now be careful , get back to reason , because the facts are all on our side. Nigerian chess player (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

__________________________________________

The terms "anti-dysgenics" and "eugenics" are synonyms. Langan has publicly argued in favor of eradicating genetic traits that he feels negatively impact on a person's quality of life. In his essay, "On the Differences between People, Birds, and Bees", he includes low IQs and physical unattractiveness in this category. He is an open supporter of eugenics, and using the obscure term "anti-dysgenics" could be seen as a way of sugar coating this. We have a duty to present the facts to our readers in the most unambiguous way possible.

The word "eugenics" ought to remain in the article. EarlWhitehall (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

_________________________________________

Yes and it should be noted that Langan also expressed far right white nationalist views and has also endorsed Donald Trump.

If the anyone wishes to view the evidence I can post it here, but a google search suffices. Nigerian chess player (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

__________________________________________

Well, to me the term anti-dysgenics isn't obscure and has got a different shade of meaning, which is important if one wants to be precise. So, it is an important distinction. I didn't think that trying to be more precise and accurate would be classified as "vandalising the page" and "starting another edit war". That is exactly what I am trying to do: be careful with my words and the meaning they convey. Mich.Szczesny 20:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Langan himself referred to “benign eugenics” in the Morris video, which nonetheless still is eugenics. I’m sure Hilter thought his eugenics was also “benign” . Food for thought...

That said, the reason you're hiding behind semantic trickery and word games is because you think its “bad marketing” to call a spade a spade.

Regarding “precision” , what is precise is that there is jo such thing as a recognized , scientifically valid psychometric test that discriminates above the 160s range. So there is no such a thing as an IQ of 195 or 200, unrecognized tests notwithstanding.

Nigerian chess player (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I could also share a source where Mr. Langan expresses his support of anti-dysgenics, and where he says he doesn't advocate for eugenics. But anyhow, even if we decide to use the word "eugenics", there seems to be a certain emotional baggage, the one which makes people immediately mention Hitler. But the word itself is older and entered the English language in 1883. Anyhow, in a world where overpopulation has become a problem, advocating self-restraint and rational procreation isn't a bad thing. Mich.Szczesny 11:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Langan’s own words in Errol Morris said “ a benign form of eugenics” .

He also mentioned the term eugenics in his Eric Hart paper.

The term eugenics and anti-dysgenics are synonymous.

As to your personal opinions regarding overpopulation and eugenics, that is all irrelevant here. This talk section is about reflecting accurate information about Langan and his views and exploits to the public. I trust the public can decide thereafter. Nigerian chess player (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Until there are reliable, third-party sources that can back up that Langan supports eugenics or anti-dysgenics or whichever term, this whole conversation is pretty pointless. It's should not be added to the article in any form without them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Gorrilawafare I respect your attempt at professionalism, but for anyone who can speak English, it takes literally a few seconds on Youtube to check whether Langan himself agrees or disagrees with eugenics. Regardless of what ad hoc arbitrary rules wikipedia has imposed , I’m sure a reasonable person can agree the truth is what ultimately matters, correct?

This is all a manufactured “controversy” . There is no controversy, the facts are as clear as the sun for anyone who wants to find out. Nigerian chess player (talk) 12:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nigerian chess player: My point is that general discussions about Langan's beliefs that do not have anything to do with what should be added to the article are not appropriate for this talk page. Myself and other editors here have been quite clear that interpretation of Langan's views based on YouTube videos of him speaking, no matter how obvious the interpretation may seem, will not be added to the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia talk pages are intended to be used to discuss improvements to the article—they are not for general discussion of the article subject (see WP:TPNO and WP:NOTFORUM). There are plenty of online forums where I'm sure you can discuss Langan's views as much as you want; this is not one of them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Reverting to a neutral version per WP:BLP

While discussions of the new content is being debated and before we reach a consensus as of what to include, I am reverting back to a neutral version per WP:BLP. Johnnyyiu (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

"Langan's IQ has been estimated by various sources to be between 195 and 210"

This is not true. What sources? Even inside the High IQ community these claims are taken to be veey exaggerated. There isn't a single reliable test that give such score interval while maintaining a modicum of accuracy and reliability.

ZenMechanics (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Its an outdated version skewed by langan himself and his lackeys to present him in a positive light .

zenmechanics is correct , there is no such thing as a recognized IQ above 160. Nigerian chess player (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, one of such sources, for example, would be the Omni magazine, April 1990 (the Mega Test comment). Anyway, Mr. Langan has a very reasonable approach to the whole issue, please feel free to go through some of his Quora answers.

Mich.Szczesny 12:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

langan was banned from Quora for repeatedly violating BNBR policy. With the last straw being a post where he compares Gorrilas to Somalis and claims gorrilas to be more intelligent with a lesser crime rate, then asks for Europeans to admit them as refugees.

You consider that a rational approach? Nigerian chess player (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Mich.Szczesny. There are multiple new sources pointing to Langan's 195 - 210 IQ, and reliable and third party sources should not be disregarded on Wikipedia. Regarding his post on gorillas, if you read carefully between the lines, you will see that the post was really a tongue in cheek approach to the trolls on Quora. 221.124.51.249 (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@221.124.51.249: Wikipedia doesn't do "reading between the lines". We simply report what is contained in reliable, third party sources. EarlWhitehall (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The sources pointing to Langan’s IQ aren’t reliable sources, they are all commercial magazines. Do you have a respectable scientific publication mentioning his IQ?

Regarding his Koko the Gorrila being somehow a tongue in cheek against “trolls”, seriously? Do I even need to respond here? Nigerian chess player (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nigerian chess player: Those commercial magazines are reliable sources as Wikipedia policy defines them. Academic sources would be preferable, but the magazines are acceptable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Inaccurate part of article needs removing , langan didnt publish “many books and articles over the years”

Langan’s book hasnt been published since he appeared in 1989, this is almost 31 years. The only “book” he published is a collection of essays half of which were already in the public domain called “art of knowing” .

Parts about his recent exploits need to clarify that the journal is not scientific and has an impact rating lower than 1 . Nigerian chess player (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

________________________________________________________

I agree with Nigerian Chess Player. Here is what an Amazon search for Langan's name returns:

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=chris+langan&ref=nb_sb_noss_2

Langan's "book", The Art of Knowing, is simply a collection of essays. The other two "books" he has published are (1) a collection of his social media posts, and (2) a 36-page paper that he published in the discredited Cosmos & :History journal, which is available for free online: http://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/788 EarlWhitehall (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

________________________________________________________

Agreed, except the last two is a fan collected material and the other a paper not a book.

So this leaves that one book which is a collection of essays .

Anyone disagrees ? Nigerian chess player (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The books have been published on Amazon and assigned ISBN numbers; additionally, the text there included had been re-organised and typeset to meet the book standards. So, by any reasonable measure those two publications are books. Mich.Szczesny 11:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough but the statement “many books over the years” when is still inaccurate. 1 or 2 short booklets in 31 years is hardly “many books over the years” , esp insofar as Langan has not published his long awaited book on his theory until today. Nigerian chess player (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Mich.Szczesny is correct. Books published on Amazon have to be considered books. There are actually 3 books on amazon that Langan published, but since this is under the 'Intellectual Pursuit' section, we should mention his other writings. I would say we change it from “many books over the years” to "multiple papers, books, and articles over the years" Johnnyyiu (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Johnnyyliu: That sounds fine. But please stop including Goertzel's review of the CTMU as an endorsement of Langan's work. I have checked the source, and Goertzel criticizes the CTMU quite heavily, arguing that it does not establish proof for the existence of a godlike entity. He both praises and criticizes the theory, so you are misrepresenting him by mentioning only his positive remarks. EarlWhitehall (talk) 08:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Update: Since there ware no references provided for the claim that Langan has published "papers, books and articles over the years", I have removed this claim from the page. EarlWhitehall (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Multiple, sounds fine to me. But there is no reliable third party sources that mention he has published “multiple books and articles over the years” , is there? Nigerian chess player (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare:I see that you have removed the paragraph saying there aren't third party sources. I did reference the peer reviewed academic journal "Cosmos & History" Langan published with, does it not count as a third party source? Johnnyyiu (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Johnnyyiu: Correct. Linking directly to the publication verifies that it was published in the journal, as claimed. But without a third-party reliable source discussing the fact that he published an article in C&H, there's no indication it's relevant to mention in the WP article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Eugenics claim

I have removed the following underlined content:

In an essay for the Mega Society’s journal “Noesis”, Langan – writing under the pseudonym Eric Hart – argued in favor of implementing a worldwide eugenics program to increase the overall intelligence of the human race. He also argued for eugenics in an interview with Errol Morris. Because of his strong views on eugenics, race realism, and what he perceives as the deliberate replacement and genocide of the white race by Third World immigrants, Langan has amassed a following among members of the alt-right.

References

I have no idea if Langan supports eugenics or not, but any claims that he does so must be sourced to a third-party, reliable source. It's not acceptable to read an essay and interview by Langan, interpret from it that he supports eugenics, and then claim as much in the article—that is original research. Furthermore, while the Forward article says that Langan has a following among the alt-right, it does not say the reason for it is any of those described. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: The article already contains a reference to Langan's Errol Morris interview, in which the man himself explicitly endorses eugenics. He says, and I quote, "That would enable us to solve our population problem right off the bat, and enable us to practice a benign form of eugenics." See for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA0gjyXG5O0

If the words of Langan himself are not evidence enough, what is? Even if it cannot be shown that Langan's support of eugenics is the reason for his following among members of the alt-right, the fact that he is an open proponent of forced sterilization ought to be included on his Wiki page, don't you think? EarlWhitehall (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

As I have said, what would be enough would be a reliable, third party source saying that Langan supports eugenics. The same goes for any claims he supports forced sterilization. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: So the words of the man himself don't count for anything? I have to find some random journalist who can confirm that he did in fact say those words? That's absurd, but whatever. EarlWhitehall (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

We need a reliable third party to infer from what he is saying that he is supporting eugenics. If it is as obvious as you say, it should not be hard to find. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Actually, it's extremely hard, because very few people have ever bothered to discuss the man or his views. But how's this instead? The Baffler article by Justin Ward states the following: "The denizens of /pol/ grant Langan the honorary title of 'based' for his screeds against miscegenation and the 'dysgenic' effects of the welfare state." Here we have a reliable third party source confirming Langan's opposition to miscegenation. So, will you at least edit the page to state that he has spoken out against racial interbreeding? Thanks. EarlWhitehall (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

If very few people have bothered to discuss the man or his views, then Wikipedia should not be the place where they are first discussed. Wikipedia is meant to repeat information available from other sources, not act as its own source. As for the Baffler stuff, that does look like it can be added. Give me a moment to read that source entirely—it looks like it may be useable for some of the additional claims surrounding why he has amassed a following in the alt-right. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I've made this change. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Can't fault your changes. It's a big improvement over the original. Thanks for your time. EarlWhitehall (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Great, I'm happy we could come to some sort of agreeable solution. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Langan himself supports eugenics, there is multiple quotes to that effect all with sources. Nigerian chess player (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The article contains unscientific views like an IQ of 195-210 which is impossible because valid IQ tests are capped at 160 anyways.

Yet the article gives the impression that such a thing is not only possible but that this man has somehow achieved it . Nigerian chess player (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nigerian chess player: If you have reliable, third-party sources that verify that Langan supports eugenics and/or that IQs that high are not possible or valid, please present them. As I've told EarlWhitehall, quotes from Langan alone are not sufficient to make a claim like that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

GW is right. On WP, WP:BLP applies. I found a newsarticle that mentions both Langan and eugenics [5], but it doesn't help the argument for inclusion. I note that even RationalWiki only mention it in passing, so this angle doesn't seem to have much coverage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Well then we can include the quotes of langan himself, just as there are quotes from him on the page already.

If I am reading you correctly, you’re saying it is fine to include his quotes but we can’t interpret them in our words. If that’s the case, no problem , include the quotes then.

Thanks Nigerian chess player (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Direct quotations are not meant to be used to circumvent the fact that there are no reliable, third party sources that can support a claim about a BLP. Per WP:QUOTE and WP:IINFO, Wikipedia articles don't just include every single piece of information that is possible to verify—you need to be able to make a convincing case for the inclusion of a quote. Without third party, reliable sources, I don't think that's likely to be possible. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

There are multiple reliable 3rd party sources in addition to Langan’s own statements on Eroll Morris interview and mega society as Eric Hart (pen name), they are the following:

1-https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan#Eugenics

2-http://greyenlightenment.com/worlds-smartest-man-supports-eugenics/

3-https://peoplepill.com/people/christopher-langan/

4-Langan’s own Mega foundation book interview of Arthur Jensen question 25 http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Discussions%20of%20Genius%20-%20Interview%20with%20Arthur%20Jensen.pdf#page85

5- https://onemansblog.com/2007/11/06/smartest-man-in-the-world-has-diarrhea-of-the-mouth/

2- Nigerian chess player (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nigerian chess player: Please review WP:RS, a policy that has been linked many times over in discussions here. RationalWiki is not a reliable source, per WP:UGC. The PeoplePill content pulls directly from Wikipedia—first of all, Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia (again, see WP:UGC), nor can we cite the Christopher Langan article to support claims in the Christopher Langan article (see WP:CIRCULAR). Grey Enlightenment does not appear to meet the requirements at WP:NEWSORG. Regarding #4, an interview with Langan is not a third-party source. Regarding OneMansBlog, see WP:BLOGS. None of these sources are usable because none of them are "reliable third party sources" as you claim them to be. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

ALERT

This article that was edited by two individuals that know my husband IRL and have personal grudges, need to be reverted to the last neutral version (Johnnyyiu) who reverted the vandalism by these two.

I would like to point out that the article now disproportionally weights the content of facebook quotes over any of Chris's scholarly writing. Is this what the norm is on wikipedia now; analysis of the social media postings of its biographical subjects? That's just what is going on here. I suggest that entire baffler nonsense be removed.

And categorized as an Intellectual Pursuit? Now that is a bit silly. That entire paragraph is biased and per WP:BLP should be reverted while it is reworked. Pls refer to my complaint at BLPN. Thanks in advance. DrL (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@DrL: Hi [redacted]. If you are referring to me, I would like to assure you that I have no personal grudge against your husband. I first heard of him about a week ago, and have never communicated with him personally. Furthermore, it was GorillaWarfare – a trusted and respected Wikipedia contributor – who is responsible for the latest edit of Langan's page. In my opinion, she did a wonderful job, making sure that the information was accurate and able to be verified by reliable third party sources. The Baffler is a reputable journal, so we have no reason to doubt the veracity of Justin Ward's article.

Also, Langan's "scholarly" work (please provide a reliable third party source to verify that his work meets scholarly standards) is not what gained him public recognition. He first gained attention for being a barroom bouncer with a high IQ, and these days he is known for his outrageous social media rants and growing popularity among members of the alt-right.

Warm regards, EarlWhitehall (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@DrL: Wikipedia articles reflect how subjects are discussed in reliable, third-party sources. If those sources spend more time discussing his Facebook posts than his scholarly work, so should we. If we have missed reliable sources that do discuss his scholarly works, please present them and the can potentially be added as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I propose another edit: "Langan's *alleged* high IQ". ZenMechanics (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no reason to use "alleged" unless there are reliable sources questioning Langan's IQ being high, which I have not seen. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@ZenMechanics: Again, there are multiple reliable sources pointing to Langan's high IQ. If your proposals do not have strong backing evidence, they are clearly obstructive to the development of a neutral article per WP:BLP. Johnnyyiu (talk) 03:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

For further information on the validity of the Mega Test, please take a look at the analysis made by Dr. Roger Carlson on the statistics of the Mega Test.

While Langan's performance isn't being questioned, the construct validity of the test per see isn't free from criticism. Ok, some may view it as collection of puzzles that holds similarity with culture loaded IQ tests but the fact is that it isn't approved as an IQ test per see. Also, no psychometric tool, high range or not, can accurately measure scores above a certain threshold. Super high scores are given as extrapolations.

ZenMechanics (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

For some reason, I can't post the link here. ZenMechanics (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The topic of discussion here is whether there are reliable, third-party sources pointing to Langan's IQ, and indeed there are. So per WP:WS, adding the word "alleged" is unnecessary. Johnnyyiu (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Johnyliu: I think Langan's page should mention the fact that IQ tests alone cannot be used as an accurate measure of intelligence. This is the consensus among psychologists and neuroscientists, and here is a reliable third party source to back this up: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-8425911.html

Since Langan's title of "world's smartest man" is based solely on his IQ test results, and IQ tests alone cannot be used to accurately measure intelligence, it follows that Langan's title is disputable.

I think this fact needs to be included in Langan's article. Who agrees? EarlWhitehall (talk) 06:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Please WP:INDENT. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@EarlWhitehall: I found opposing evidence saying IQ is a fair measure of intelligence on these articles: Charles Spearman, Arthur Jensen, and Richard Lynn. In fact, there is a multitude of theories on intelligence and I don't think the discussion should appear on Langan's page. Rather, you may consider editing the g factor (psychometrics) and Human intelligence articles. Johnnyyiu (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Johnnyylui: The discredited opinions of alleged racists does not constitute opposing evidence. Here is a second reliable, third party, multi-award-winning source to back up the claim that IQ tests are fundamentally flawed: https://www.popsci.com/why-iq-is-flawed/ Now, where are your sources?

I am not asking to include an in-depth discussion on intelligence and IQ. I simply think the reader should be made aware, by means of a single sentence, that the vast majority of scientists do not consider IQ tests to be an accurate measure of intelligence. Not including this information gives the false impression that Langan's title of "world's smartest man" is indisputable. EarlWhitehall (talk) 07:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@EarlWhitehall: What you claimed, that "the vast majority of scientists do not consider IQ tests to be an accurate measure of intelligence" is as controversial, if not more, than the validity of IQ tests per se. If you actually look at the articles I provided, you would easily find sources pointing to the relevant research, for example, this one: https://psyarxiv.com/uv673/ . Spearman's statistically robust results, aka my source, cannot be automatically disproved and labelled as "discredited opinions" by your source, which was written by "Sara Chodosh", an "assistant editor + occasional graphics producer @popsci | aspiring gardener" (according to her Twitter), whose claims are not backed by any citation to any notable research. So per WP:BLP, controversial descriptions should be avoided and it follows that what you proposed is inappropriate under the current context. Johnnyyiu (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Johnnyyliu: Sorry that I didn't look at your source. I was too busy looking at all these mainstream sources that suggest IQ tests are not a reliable way to measure intelligence:

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/raise-your-iq-instantly

https://blog.sciencemuseum.org.uk/biggest-intelligence-test-exposes-the-limits-of-iq/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121219133334.htm

http://trendintech.com/2016/07/28/scientists-prove-traditional-iq-tests-useless/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/9755929/IQ-tests-do-not-reflect-intelligence.html

https://simplyphilosophy.org/study/the-uselessness-of-iq-tests/

If the articles themselves don't include links to the studies, look them up yourself. EarlWhitehall (talk) 08:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

It's quite shocking when someone says that the construct validity of a test "irrelevant" in this case. It's even more shocking because the result on this particular test was the only reason that made Langan famous.

How can it he irrelevant, as the Mega Test IS NOT an IQ test, therefore unable to give such score, even if it was possible? ZenMechanics (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I disagree , none of the magazines and journals are reliable to post about IQ because it is simply not a matter of simple opinion. I agree with Zen, all the sources point to

1- the mega test, which isn’t a verified standardized test, and has been criticized by qualified psychometricians as Zen has already posted evidence to.

Btw, Langan’s first attempt at this test was 42 out of 48, which corresponds In Ro. Hoeflin’s schema to a score in the 170s. Langan took the test a second time under the pseudonym Eric Hart and got 47, this is the score that the media has picked up on.

But in any case the test is not a real standardized test as Zen has posted.

And 2- http://web.archive.org/web/20030811145631/http://www.abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/transcripts/2020_991209_iq_trans.html ABCs 20/20 with a psychologist Dr Bob Novelly. Novelly claims that Langan scored in the 190s-200s range and that he was the highest he ever measures in 25 years. Problem? Bob Novelly is not a psychometrician, its not his expertise to begin with. https://healthprovidersdata.com/hipaa/codes/NPI-1861609083-dr-robert-a-novelly-phd , this shows his expertise to be in clinical psychology, particularly mental and behavioral health, with a special focus on psychopathology. No mention of psychometrics or IQ tests.

On top of that he has multiple disciplinary actions on his psychology license. One which resulted in a probation of 3 years and a penalty of 3000 $, and another which resulted in probation.

To sum up Dr Novelly specialized in clinical psychology, mental/behavioral health and not psychometrics and he has had 2 disciplinary actions taken on his license.

So I’m afraid that neither the Mega test nor Dr Bob Novelly is going to verify Langan’s 190+ IQ.

Thanks for your attention. Nigerian chess player (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Again: are there reliable, third-party sources that connect concerns over Dr. Novelly's credentials with the accuracy of Langan's IQ test? Or is this just your own synthesis? GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for community sanctions at WP:AN

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Christopher Langan and comment there if wanted (not here). Johnuniq (talk) 06:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I don’t see a comment space there. Nigerian chess player (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

? I see plenty of people commenting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like they figured it out. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:PC Request

I respectfully request that this BLP be protected under Wikipedia Pending Changes. It's been established that numerous SPA with a prior history with Mr. Langan have been attacking his bio for the past week. In matters concerning BLPs, Wikipedia Policy is to err on the side of caution. It would make sense to further protect the article until things settle down (and before certain users bans expire). Thanks in advance for your consideration. ~ DrL (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

This is currently under discussion at the open thread on the administrator's noticeboard, Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard#Christopher Langan. You may wish to add this comment there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you - I will. I saw that but wasn't sure I could post there. ~ DrL (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Yep! Despite the name, non-administrators are welcome to post there to weigh in on discussions and request administrator attention. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Unnecessarily biased phrasing

This article contains some sentences that are unnecessarily biased against Chris Langan, and which I think should be changed to reflect their speculative nature.

1. "However, Goertzel pointed out that "most of this has been said before in various ways and context[s]" and argued that the CTMU fails in its attempt to prove the existence of God"

The suggestion that the CTMU is merely a repackaging of old ideas is not an established fact, but merely one man's opinion. The phrase "he pointed out that" makes it sound like he is making an objective observation. This sentence should be edited to read:

"However, Goertzel cautioned that "most of this has been said before in various ways and context[s]" and argued that the CTMU fails in its attempt to prove the existence of God"

2. "Chu-Carroll criticized Langan for his poor understanding of set theory, as well as his excessive use of ill-defined neologisms."

The phrasing of this sentence makes it sound like Wikipedia is siding with Chu-Carroll over Langan in this dispute. Quotes should be added around "poor understanding" and "ill-defined" to maintain objectivity:

"Chu-Carroll criticized Langan for his "poor understanding" of set theory, as well as his excessive use of "ill-defined" neologisms.

3. "In 2018, Langan wrote an obituary on Facebook for Koko the gorilla, in which he argued that the Western world should be admitting gorillas as immigrants instead of Somalis, claiming that gorillas are more intelligent."

The actual text of his posts reveals that he was taking a more nuanced position than that "gorillas are more intelligent". It was at most a suggestion.

Proof from the post:

"[Some of you might wonder whether this is a joke. The truth is that I'm not quite sure..]"

"Obviously, this raises a question: Why is Western Civilization not admitting gorillas? They too are from Africa, and probably have a group mean IQ at least equal to that of Somalia."

I propose that "claiming that gorillas are more intelligent" be changed to "suggesting that gorillas may on average be more intelligent". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylancatlow1 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• I do not know about your first two suggestions but this last one violates WP:OR as Langan never stated that "gorillas on average are more intelligent" than Somalians or any other humans - your speculation violates WP:OR - I suggest that you take a break and review the rules before you make suggestions in the future. TIA ~ DrL (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up

I hate to have to interject again so quickly, but new issues have just arisen with respect to the first paragraph of this article. Certain details are disparaging and improperly sourced. I'll comment on each sentence separately.

1. "Christopher Michael Langan (born March 25, 1952) is an American horse rancher known for his claim of a very high IQ, frequently reported to be at 'around 195'."

I typically don't make claims regarding my own IQ, and I certainly hadn't done so prior to being profiled by Esquire Magazine and other mass media outlets. Instead, when pressed on the issue, I have usually cited estimates published by the mass media without discussing their accuracy. The phrase "his claim" seems designed to make it appear that my notoriety is strictly a function of self-promotion. But in fact, I have never requested media coverage, and anyone who says otherwise would be lying. I was informed by media sources that I had been contacted because, in their preliminary investigations, I had been recommended for coverage by various members of the high IQ community.

2. "Many of his claims met not without controversy, since Langan only scored a 42 out of 48 on his first try on Ronald K. Hoeflin's Mega Test (equivalent to an IQ of 164, sd=15) [2] published in Omni Magazine."

This is evidently a pretext to insert alleged information regarding my first application to a certain high-IQ club which had initially promised admission for a certain test score, but then reneged without warning (this kind of turnaround is sometimes called a "bait and switch"). It is immediately followed by a reduced estimate of my intelligence, which is apparently supposed to have something to do with the "controversiality" of unspecified "claims" I'm supposed to have made. In fact, the media were fully informed, by me and others, about the circumstances under which I took the particular test in question, and exactly why I was forced to repeat it.

3. "A second attempt gave a score of 47 out of 48 under the pseudonym 'Eric Hart', after Marilyn vos Savant published some of the answers in Omni IQ Quiz Contest."

I don't know Marilyn vos Savant, and I have never before heard that she released answers to the Mega Test. If she did, then it was certainly unknown to me (and many others) at the time I took the test, which was all the way back in the mid-1980's. In any case, I see no source, let alone a reliable source, for this statement. As for "pseudonyms", several people who took the Mega test did so under pseudonyms, and I made it clear exactly who I was not long after joining.

4. "As a result of his score, he has been described as "the smartest man in America" as well as "the smartest man in the world" by some journalists."

This is an unsubstantiated causal inference. Yes, it is perfectly true that I've "been described as 'the smartest man in America' as well as 'the smartest man in the world' by some journalists." But it has always been my impression that I was chosen to be profiled for a number of reasons, including but not limited to the abovementioned personal recommendations by other members of the high IQ community. It is unclear why the Mega Test should be identified as the sole reason.

In short, while I and my work - especially the CTMU - are certainly notable by Wikipedia standards, and while it is indeed true that "Christopher Michael Langan, an American horse rancher who is known for having a very high IQ (frequently reported to be around 200), has been described as 'the smartest man in America' as well as 'the smartest man in the world' by some journalists," speculative and/or improperly sourced additions and disparaging insinuations obviously have nothing to do with it.

I respectfully request that the recurrent violations of WP:BLP and other Wikipedia policies to which this article has been subject for the last 15 years or so be expeditiously corrected whenever they (re)appear.

My sincere thanks to the Wikipedia community for your attention. Chris Langan (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Chris Langan: I changed the lede a bit to make it sound less like an expression of doubt, which hopefully addresses (1) and (4) I'm not seeing the text from (2) and (3) currently in the article. It might have been removed between the 5th and now... My take here is that this article would really benefit from a more typical Wikipedia-style of referencing (e.g. using citation templates and named references). This is especially true since it seems many of the sources are early 2000sish and mostly exist in archives now. With the way its referenced now WP:V is more difficult than it needs to be which makes arbitrating disputes more difficult. I started doing this in the lede. Many of the citations mentioned there are no longer appear in the article and I had to do some hunting to find them. Step one would be to do that for the rest of the article, step two would be to complete the citation templates appropriately (populating all the necessary attributes, naming, reusing the names instead of citing independently). - Scarpy (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

__________________________

There is no such thing as a verifiable IQ beyond the 160-164 range. All these HIQ tests are unrecognized and invalid.

Regarding the psychologist that tested langan,

1- we haven’t seen the test itself 2- the psychologist isn't known for psychometrics , and it there is no source that he even specializes in administering IQ tests. 3- the psychologist has had several infractions on his psychology license. 4- the test doesn’t break the ceiling of 160 anyways. 5- there is a conflict of interest because ABC hired him to precisely validate their click bait story. Nigerian chess player (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

__________________________

These are all good reasons to doubt Langan's IQ. I suggest that Langan's page be edited to make it absolutely clear to readers that the "sources" who have estimated his IQ are dubious at best. EarlWhitehall (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

This happens to be my field. I have been studying and researching high-end assessment for more than 20 years (starting with the Prometheus Society Membership Committee report, which you obviously haven't read) and was recently awarded a grant to develop such a protocol that could be administered at a distance. You and ZenMechanic know little of what you speak. This matters not, however. Wikipedia is not the place for OR. They simply report what is said by others. That is the way the site works, for better or worse. ~ DrL (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

ALERT Possible SPA

Please note the contributions of user "ZenMechanic" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ZenMechanics

This newly created account is only editing the Langan bio in a negative way. Can and admin block this user from editing the page? TIA DrL (talk) 07:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The changes I've made were minor and properly described. They were in no way "negative", disruptive or disrespectful. On the contrary of what I did, Johnnyyiu and MakeaWay vandalized the article again, against what was decided by the Wikipedia administrators.

ZenMechanics (talk) 09:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

By your user contributions, it is easy to see that you have only come to Wikipedia because you are upset that Langan gets more attention than you feel he deserves. This really speaks to a particular issue that you have with Langan, with whom you have likely had some interaction with in the high IQ community or are otherwise fixated. The admins are on alert so start editing some other articles and then maybe they will believe that you are not simply a Langanphobe. ~ DrL (talk) 10:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Nothing could be farthest from the truth. I don't have anything against Langan and, as I've already explained before, some discussions in Quora, from where Langan was banned, called my attention. Again, I'm discussing the technical aspects of the article, that was vandalized again to serve as a marketing tool that is totally unjustified.

As for my account, I've had to open it, I've used to contribute here a long time ago, sometimes anonymously ("Frank Wilczek", "Samael, the Archangel", "String Theory" and some other articles). Always being respectful and changes made being minor and cogent.

Thank you.

ZenMechanics (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough - you may be interested in my comments on high end assessment in the section above. The point is moot, however, because we cannot conduct OR on Wikipedia. We just report what the sources say. ~ DrL (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@DrL:User:ZenMechanics's edits violated Wikipedia's regulations (like WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS), while mines are constructive - my intentions are to divert readers away from unreliable sources. I have already shown efforts to clarify with admin User:GorillaWarfare certain rules on WP:IS and I intend to stand by these rules. It is also a responsible editor's obligation to revert anything that are libelous, and do not conform to WP:BLP when editing biographies. @ZenMechanics: If you were what you claimed, that you 'used to contribute here a long time ago', then you would have read the aforementioned rules long ago and would not have made these rookie mistakes - but your editing behavior says otherwise. Also, please make use of indents ;) Johnnyyiu (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is pointless, you've violated what was decided by the adminstration. Again, regarding my older contributions, I've never used "Talk" pages before and, as I've said, only made few minor edits. Also, I'm on a mobile, which makes it difficult to properly use the indentation. I didn't edit the article before, only commented here. Don't drag me down to any issues you may have with others. ZenMechanics (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I understand now - you have a misunderstanding of exactly what the administrators' did. They stabilized the article at a certain point and semi-protected it. Now we must make a case for each new edit on the talk page before using WP. That is what I am doing. You are not. If you want to make a change, discuss first and make your case. Only then should you be editing. This is the Wikiway with contentious articles. Now you know. ~ DrL (talk) 11:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@ZenMechanics:Of course it is pointless, because I haven't violated anything. I discussed what should be included with editors before adding them into the article, according to Wikipedia:Principles. But for your case - you are unequivocally biased. Your edits here show that you are strongly opinionated against Langan and his work. As for "I didn't edit the article before, only commented here" - Nobody said you edited the article, but what you proposed on the Talk page would have violated WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS, had anyone taken your proposal. You have already taken a position that could lead to a topic-wide ban on the grounds of WP:BADFAITH. Everything is recorded on your user page so there is no escape, mind you. Johnnyyiu (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The point is: I don't have anything to hide. Let's see, you're trying to justify your vandalism *against the admins decision* by accusing me of being biased. Nothing of what I've said is inaccurate or can be considered a personal. You're accusing me of being biased while you're being biased yourself. I'll not engage in further discussions with you. ZenMechanics (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@ZenMechanics: Not a problem. But you may want to look at User:DrL's reply - there were nothing 'against the admins decision'. As for your accusation on my 'vandalism', read up on WP:VD. Actually, I will quote it for you - "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism". My edits are in accordance with WP:GF, while yours WP:BF. (As shown here in the form of Help:Diff) Johnnyyiu (talk) 12:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, let the admins decide. Have a nice day. ZenMechanics (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I think everyone here is aware of the discussion on WP:AN. That is the place to discuss editor behavioral issues or proposals to restrict an editor not here. There is already an ongoing proposal which will prevent everyone here from directly editing the article. At this time, it won't affect MakeAWay, but that could change. May I also remind editors that while it won't directly restrict anyone from editing this talk page, editors here could be prevented from doing so if their editing is bad enough, so editors may want to consider their talk pages comments more carefully in the future. Nil Einne (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. Will do. ~ DrL (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind reminder, Nil Einne. Johnnyyiu (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Roll this article back to Gorillawarfare last edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.107.99.198 (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, SPA. ~ DrL (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Gorillawarfare has made a good edit just now, thanks. Johnnyyiu (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in this sentence violate NPOV and OR

I suggest the following defamatory sentence be edited from this:

"In 2018, Langan wrote an obituary on Facebook for Koko the gorilla, in which he argued that the Western world should be admitting gorillas as immigrants instead of Somalis, claiming that gorillas are more intelligent.[12][17]"

To this: "In 2018, Langan wrote a satirical obituary on Facebook for Koko the gorilla, in which he argued that the Western world should be admitting gorillas as immigrants instead of Somalis. [12][17] "

My rationale is that it is clearly satirical (a la Swift proposing eating children during a food shortage) and in neither article does it state that Langan asserted that gorillas are more intelligent than Somalians. Because this information is not asserted in either article, it violates WP:OR and should be immediately revised while under discussion per BLP and NPOV.

I would appreciate an admin or editor effecting this reasonable request. Thanks in advance. ~ DrL (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@DrL: Agreed. Further interpretations extended from its literal meaning would violate WP:OR Johnnyyiu (talk) 07:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I have re-added the part that Langan wrote that gorillas should be accepted as immigrants instead of Somalis. As it was written by Johnnyyiu it sounded like the controversial view was that Langan thought gorillas should be citizens of the US. This should hopefully be non-controversial, as it was included in DrL's suggested wording. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Thank you. I think the edit is very reasonable. Johnnyyiu (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Do not remove the cited review by Ben Goertzel

@EarlWhitehall: The review by Ben Goertzel is well-cited. Please do not remove it without a valid reason. Johnnyyiu (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Johnnyyliu: By all means, include Goertzel's review. But make sure to point out that he not only praised the CTMU, but argued that it failed in its central purpose of proving the existence of a god-like being. EarlWhitehall (talk) 08:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Johnnyyliu: Never mind. I added it for you. EarlWhitehall (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The Goertzel article is published on Blogger, a blogging platform. He doesn't appear to be an expert on the topic he's writing about, and his blog appears to simply be a personal website (unlike Chu-Carroll's, which was hosted on what was then a significant blog network). How does it meet our standards for self-published source, especially on an article about a living person? Guettarda (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Guettarda: Goertzel has a PhD in mathematics. The CTMU is supposedly a mathematical proof of God. I would say this makes Goertzel more of an expert on the CTMU than Langan himself, who is a college dropout.

According to Wikipedia rules: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."

Because Goertzel is a well-respected academic who has published many mathematics papers (see his résumé here: https://goertzel.org/ben/resume.html), I submit that his blog review of the CTMU merits inclusion. EarlWhitehall (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Simply having a PhD has never been considered adequate, per SPS. You need something that demonstrates that reliable sources, or at least notable ones, consider him an expert on this topic. Guettarda (talk) 03:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Guettarda: The topic is mathematics, and Goertzel has taught the subject at graduate level and published numerous mathematics papers. Again, see his résumé. What more do you want? Here are some of the papers published by Goertzel in the field of mathematics:

Goertzel, Ben (1992). Measuring Static Complexity, Int. J. Math. and Math. Sci. 15-1, p.161

Goertzel, Ben (1992). Global Optimization by Multilevel Search, J. of Optimization Theory and Applications 77-2, p. 423

Goertzel, Ben, Harold Bowman and Richard Baker (1993). Dynamics of the Radix Expansion Map, J. Math. and Math. Sci. 17-1, p. 143

Goertzel, Ben (1994). Simulated Annealing on Uncorrelated Fitness Landscapes, Int. J. Math. and Math. Sci. 17-4, p. 791

Goertzel, Ben and Harold Bowman (1996). Walks on Random Digraphs, Applied Mathematics Letters, 9-1, pp. 43-47

Goertzel, Ben (1996). Mobile Activation Bubbles in Kohonen Networks, Applied Mathematics Letters.

Clearly, he is considered an expert in mathematics by the journals publishing his work and the college that hired him to teach their graduate students. EarlWhitehall (talk)

What more do you want? Secondary sources that attest to his expertise on this topic. As I said before, having a PhD, having published in your area of expertise, having taught grad level courses - none of that means your blog posts are good enough to use in a biography article. Guettarda (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

It appears some here want to climb the wiki ladder by competing in the pedantry olympics. Is his university not a source that verifies his expertise? And what is exactly “the topic of expertise” ? Langan’s theory features alot of computation theoretic concepts, Dr Goertzel is an AI expert, what is the controversy here again?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/people/bengoertzel/#30b85fe3f790

This is dr Goertzel on Forbes

https://www.roboglobal.com/insights/sophia-the-robot-ben-goertzel/

This is him on roboglobal, as an AI expert...etc

https://thenextweb.com/author/ben-goertzel-alexey-potapov/

Where his accolades in AI are listed.

With that said , his published work range from AI to mathematics and philosophy.

Needless to say there is no such a thing as “being an expert in Langan’s theory” ? Nigerian chess player (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

These aren't secondary sources, these aren't independent sources, and they do nothing to demonstrate either the notability of Goertzel's opinion on this topic, or the reliability of it as actually being Goertzel's blog. Guettarda (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I’m sorry your writing is incomprehensible to me. Nigerian chess player (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I apologise, I made the mistake Wikipedians often make of assuming too much background knowledge. I think you should start by reading Wikipedia:No original research, especially the section on primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Then read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, paying special attention to the section on Questionable and self-published sources. The Wikipedia:Verifiability, especially the section on self-published sources. After that, take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources to get a sense of what sort of sources are considered reliable or not. Finally, and most importantly, read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, especially the section on self-published sources.

It's really important to read these thoroughly and in context. It's important to understand how the pieces fit together. Guettarda (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Guettarda: Agreed. I think both User:EarlWhitehall and User:Nigerian chess player should retain from writing in the style of original research. Johnnyyiu (talk) 07:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

no I meant you weren’t even making grammatical or coherent sense.

None of these sources are self published, are you sure you’re in the right discussion page? Nigerian chess player (talk) 06:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

BLP and tabloid Journalism.

It is clear that much of the claims this article fall under tabloid journalism, for example Muscle and Fitness magazine or a short TV segment from ABC 20/20 . These are not reliable sources with respect to the enormous claims being made in them, and they should be challenged and scrutinized carefully.

Some of the claims being made here is a verifiable IQ of 190-200, a perfect score on the SATs while sleeping, skipping grades ( while in the same Errol Morris interview Langan claims they kept him there for 12 years!!) and other bizarre claims like dropping out because he knows more than his teachers..etc

All of these claims are self reported and unprovable by any valid journalistic ethics standard.

On the other hand , the claims about his controversial views which journalists have attributed to him, can verifiably be sourced back to the individual himself. Because they are mere opinions rather than positive and sensationalist claims about his life, it should elicit a different treatment.

That’s my take on the whole thing, its one thing to say “ I have an IQ of 200 and can teach my teachers” and its another to give a political opinion about the undesirability of non-white immigrants or subscribing to the white genocide conspiracy theory.

Extraordinarily claims require extraordinary evidence , as the saying goes a man is entitled to his opinions but not to his facts. Nigerian chess player (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nigerian chess player: There is an important distinction to be made here, which is that these claims are being properly attributed, which allows room for exactly the kind of doubt you have. Nowhere does the article say Langan has an IQ of 200, it says "Langan's IQ has been estimated on ABC's 20/20 to be between 195 and 210". Nowhere does it say he scored perfectly on the SAT despite napping, it says, "He has claimed that he earned a perfect score on the SAT (pre-1995 scale) despite taking a nap during the test". Nowhere does it say he was smarter than his teachers, it says "Faced with severe financial and transportation problems, however, and believing that he could teach his professors more than they could teach him, he dropped out".

I'm not sure I'm following your remarks relating to the controversial views—how would you like to see these claims be treated in the article? Do you have a suggested wording? GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The article has been re-edited again btw, have you reviewed these changes? Nigerian chess player (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The IQ score claim is not written as “claimed IQ score” but as a matter of fact. So is the skipping grades claim.

The rest I’m inclined to agree, but the article has been messed with already, by Langan sock accounts I persume. Nigerian chess player (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

If you have an edit that you would like to make, open a section and discuss. If you have a complaint about users, this is not the place (see Nil's comments). Regarding adding "claims" to everything, remember, Wikipedia relies on what it considers to be RS and the entire encyclopedia is written that way. To put claim in front of everything would be a cumbersome task and make the encyclopedia look silly. I suggest you complain about the rules on a more appropriate page. ~ DrL (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

An IQ Test vs. Multiple IQ Tests

Suggest "multiple IQ Tests" because the 20/20 piece shows and discusses board certified neuropsychologist Dr. Novelly administering a neuropsychological test battery to Mr. Langan. He certainly wasn't administering the Mega Test, because Langan took that years before. Multiple = more than one. The tests do not have to be named in order to be enumerated. I happen to know that he was given at least 5 tests that day but that would be OR so let's just stick with the facts as presented: multiple. ~ DrL (talk) 06:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

1)Which five tests were that? How were they normed?

2) You've questioned Justin Ward's credentials but I don't see Dr. Novelly's credentials nor notability;

No one is questioning Langan's smartness, what is being questioned is that is highly exaggerated

ZenMechanics (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The names or normings of the tests are not relevant and cannot be introduced per WP:OR that's just the way it is on Wikipedia. If you read any of his papers, for example his four in Cosmos & History, you would not feel that his IQ has been exaggerated. I would recommend "Metareligion as the Human Singularity" as being particularly accessible. ~ DrL (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I won't discuss his papers here, as it's not the proper place, but he and you are welcome to discuss this and his last paper at Math or Physics Stack Exchange, I'll be waiting for your inputs. Here the discussion is irrelevant. Regarding multiple IQ tests, yes, claiming a certain IQ score raises questions about norming, sample size, reliability, construct validity, so on and so forth. Remember, the article is being vandalized again in order to a certain narrative but I'm sure Wikipedia's admins will take care of it. Thank you. ZenMechanics (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

High-end testing happens to be my field. I have been studying and researching high-end assessment for more than 20 years (starting with the Prometheus Society Membership Committee report, which you obviously haven't read) and was recently awarded a grant to develop such a protocol that could be administered at a distance. Having taught research design at the graduate level for more than 20 years, I know all about reliability, validity, norming, etc. You and EarlWhitehall know little of what you speak. This matters not, however. Wikipedia is not the place for OR. They simply report what is said by others. That is the way the site works, for better or worse. ~ DrL (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Alright. Your credentials are not in question here, just like my credentials are also not in question. The mysterious "multiple" tests mentioned in the article are. I've heard about High Range IQ tests and, although they're not the object of my interest, I don't see how mentioning any society could validate the claims made in the article.

Best regards.

ZenMechanics (talk) 11:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

For clarification, I was mentioning a publication, not a society (the PSMCR). Eight or ten well-credentialed members of the Prometheus Society put together an extensive report on high-end testing. It was a fantastic, highly detailed report if I do say so myself. That was 20 years ago. I am in the process of updating it (under a grant as mentioned). ~ DrL (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'm sure it is a very interesting publication. I'm looking foward to see the updated version. Have a nice day. ZenMechanics (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

No reference to support claim that Langan "supports" conspiracy theories in the Forward article that is cited.

This unsupported sentence should be removed immediately as that is not at all what the article says:

"Langan's support of conspiracy theories, including the 9/11 Truther movement and the white genocide conspiracy theory, and his opposition to miscegenation have contributed to him amassing a following among members of the alt-right.[17]"

And frankly, of what relevance is the fact that he has alt-right followers? He's not a politician and has never belonged to any alt-right groups.

I appreciate the pending removal of this unsourced sentence. ~ DrL (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@DrL: Agreed, there are little relevance. In fact, I also notice some members of Langan's Facebook group are clearly left-leaning, and I don't see them being mentioned here. So yes, the sentence should be removed in any case. Johnnyyiu (talk) 06:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@DrL and Johnnyyiu: Langan's alt-right followers are described by two separate reliable sources. That appears to be the focus of recent coverage of Langan (as opposed to coverage of his IQ, which was the topic of the coverage from the late 90s/early 2000s).

Furthermore, the sentence about conspiracy theories, etc. is sourced to The Baffler: One of Langan’s more fantastical claims is that he can prove the existence of God mathematically. At times, his grandiose delusions reach epic proportions. He’s a 9/11 truther, but with a twist: not only does he believe Bush staged the terrorist attacks, he wrote that the motive was to distract the public from learning the “truth” about the CTMU. In the same post, Langan transitions seamlessly into a white genocide conspiracy theory, arguing that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq set the stage for Obama to import “fake ‘refugees’” to replace America’s white population. Posts like this one have made Langan something of a cult hero among the alt-right. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

It is true that Chris made that single highly exaggerated post. In context, it's understandable. Chris (with the help of his wife) had secured a Q & A column in a major NY Newspaper (Newsweek or Newsday, I can't recall). This was going great for a few weeks and then 9/11 happened and the paper cancelled virtually all of these feel-good columns to to go full-bore coverage of 9/11 24/7 for quite a while. You can imagine how frustrating that was. It does not represent a pattern as he never mentioned it again. I realize that's neither here nor there; I just wanted to put it in context.

The inclusion of injudicious facebook postings in a subject's bio really appears like scraping the bottom of the barrel for content and denigrating to the subject (particularly when his is an extraordinarily prolific writer on the topic of the CTMU, which although frequently mentioned positively in the press is downplayed and denigrated in his bio). I would also argue that most of his recent coverage (lengthy interviews by Spike Jonz, Steve Patterson and Drew Marshall [links available upon request]) do not touch on alt-right topics at all. If mention is again made of his "alt-right following", over which he has no control, more attention should be given to some of his more recent positive coverage. Otherwise it seems like Wikipedia is just digging dirt up on its bio subjects and presenting a one-sided picture. The two articles presented are from non-notable authors with admitted agendas; hardly the neutral reliable sources that Wikipedia requires. It seems that would unduly slant this biopic and best be kept out until covered by more neutral reliable sources. Thanks for the open discussion. ~ DrL (talk)

Interviews are not what we need here, since anything Langan says in an interview is still a primary source. A search for "Christopher Langan" filtered by the last year in Google returns the Baffler piece, the Forward article, and not much else (as far as independent reliable sources, that is, of course things like Quora and RationalWiki appear in the results also). No one is "scraping the bottom of the barrel"—recent coverage of Langan (those two sources) focus entirely on his beliefs garnering support from the alt-right. As discussed elsewhere, both sources are reliable publications. I'm not sure where the authors have "admitted [having] agendas" against Langan. Furthermore, Wikipedia does not require sources to be neutral; it requires all viewpoints be represented in proportion to their representation in sourcing. If you have independent, reliable sourcing that portrays a different picture of Langan's views (including that they were just injudicious posts due to frustration over a a column being canceled), please do provide them.

I have restored the content, as it is well-sourced and in keeping with NPOV. I understand that it may be impossible to convince you, his wife, that information about Langan that may lead readers to form a negative opinion ought to be included. However, I am a neutral editor on this topic, and sourced information about a BLP is not removed simply because the subject's wife asks for it to be. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Jack Langan

I respectfully request that this sentence be revised per WP:NPOV and OR.

"Langan claims he was brutally beaten by his stepfather, Jack Langan, who denied this claim.[2][5]"

I don't remember that denial by Jack appearing any where and request the sentence be changed to:

"Langan described his brutal treatment at the hands of his stepfather.[2][5]" or similar.

The revision is verified by every family member (FWIW) and stated clearly in several RS. The original denial by Jack, who is now deceased, is not.

DrL (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The denial is verified in the 20/20 source: [6] GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, GS, I could not find that in the archive. Still I am wondering if this can be considered a RS when it declares itself that it is not. Note that at the top of the page just under the title, the following caveat is declared: "(This is an unedited, uncorrected transcript.)" Without a RS, it would seem best to remove. PS Thank you also for your advice about the template. I will be patient before employing it. ~ DrL (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Uncorrected, in this usage, means not being amended after the fact. Similarly, it being unedited means it hasn't been cut up. How would these things detract from its reliability? Parabolist (talk) 08:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The archive link is available in the inline citation. Agreed with Parabolist. There is no indication that the 20/20 source is less reliable than any other news report, and it seems like a stretch to suggest that one of the hosts just made that up on the spot. As with any other news report, the hosts research the subject ahead of time—just because the transcript is "uncorrected" does not suggest the facts are wrong; it suggests that the transcript is a direct representation of what was said on the show, without any copyediting the spoken word. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in this sentence citing Baffler violates NPOV and OR

As it currently reads:

"Langan's views have been described as racist and antisemitic by journalist Justin Ward in The Baffler.[12]"

At no point in the article does Ward state this. This is actually what the article presents:

"In an article appearing in the Baffler, the writer describes some of Langan's posting as racist and accused him of using veiled antisemitism in some of his other posts.[12]"

The former violates NPOV and OR. The later is much more in line with the handling of such material per WP:BLP. The name of the non notable author was removed because he is not notable at all. Baffler is the RS, not him.

I respectfully request this edit in the spirit of WP:BLP and to place it more in line with policy. ~ DrL (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

You’re wasting everyone’s time. The article is fair as it is. Nigerian chess player (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2020

The article states that Mr. Langan was criticised for excessive use of ill-defined neologisms. I think it's important to present the views of peole who appreciated his mastery of the written word and would like to add the following paragraph: "On the other hand, Pierre R. Latour has appreciated Mr. Langan's work and precise use of words by writing: 'He has devised a deep philosophical foundation for the principles of proper scholarship and enquiry (...). His logic language is king'." Mich.Szczesny (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

____________________________________________________

“Mastery of the written word” ?

Your obviously not an objective observer. His use if word salad is the consensus amongst almost everyone save a small minority of sycophants of his. Nigerian chess player (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________

I agree with Nigerian Chess Player. This part of the article was not specifically about Langan's writing skills, so including the opposing (minority) viewpoint is unnecessary here. EarlWhitehall (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________

Well, yes, I used the expression "mastery of the written word" because that is what the expression "His logic language is king" is synonymous to. I thought it's important to present the views of people who think exactly that. "Consensus amongst almost everyone" is very imprecise and unscientific and can't serve in my opinion as grounds for exclusion of opposing views. Also the expression "word salad" is offensive as implies that Mr. Langan's work is incomprehensible and that is untrue. A lot of words have entered the English language to describe for example new inventions and concepts. And that is what Mr. Langan did: coined new words to precisely express new concepts. From my understanding of his work, the words he used are not just empty terms but neologisms which express very important and deep truths about the reality we inhabit. Mich.Szczesny, 20:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please read the neutral point of view policy carefully (especially WP:FALSEBALANCE) before making any further requests. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not a space to argue about the validity of Langan’s theory, its about Chris Langan and what the majority of notable and valid sources say about him and his views, your personal opinions notwithstanding.

Whether you think the earth is flat or there is a conspiracy against the west is your own views, but scholarly consensus is the arbiter I’m afraid. Keep that in mind! Nigerian chess player (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Word salad or not, the prose of a cosmological theory is rubbish anyway without some equations making falsifiable predictions. So, Did he make any novel, falsifiable predictions? is the only question that matters in this respect. Physics isn't literary criticism. If he did not make falsifiable predictions it is merely a story or merely metaphysics, it isn't a theory of physics. If he made good, novel predictions, neologisms are not important and if his predictions failed, neologisms are not important—in both cases the use of neologisms says nothing about the merits of his theory, it is just a heuristic used to attack woolly speech. AFAIK, nobody answered the question Did he make useful predictions?, which is the main concern in respect to a theory of physics. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

He did not. Although Langan styles his theory as metaphysics he has frequently claimed it is also scientific. Nigerian chess player (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nigerian chess player: We need a WP:RS for such claim. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

No problem, https://web.archive.org/web/20011015141736/www.popsci.com/science/01/10/14/brainiac/index2.html

In it he claims to have a theory od everything that explains “quantum mechanics and consciousness”.

He also claims to answer riddles that scientists have failed to answer.

Here is a video that shows Langan’s quora posts about how his CTMU is the greatest breakthrough for science, philosophy..etc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sO7PTB--jJ0

Regards Nigerian chess player (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

What claim are you hoping to see be added to the article based on the Popular Science article? That is a usable source; the YouTube video is of course not. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare and Nigerian chess player: That article does not say anything about the validity of CTMU. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

That his “theory” explains both Quantum mechanics and consciousness, and explains riddles/paradoxes previously unexplained by science.

Regards Nigerian chess player (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Third Party Source for Removed Paragraph on QMM paper

This is a third-party source verifying the publication of "An Introduction to Quantum Metamechanics (QMM)": https://usiassociation.org/2020/01/13/usia-executive-vice-president-christopher-langan/

It is a third party website situated in South Korea and we have no access to it. I see other bios that simply link to papers on journal sites (e.g., Cosmos & History) so this third party site is a bonus. I have more if you need but I don't want to raise the bar over what is typically required in BLPs. This should be sufficient. Thanks in advance for replacing the paragraph. ~ DrL (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

That isn't an independent source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@DrL: Tgeorgescu has already said the source isn't independent, but I wanted to expand a little bit to address two potential misconceptions I'm seeing in your comment. Firstly, you say "we have no access to it", I think to try to point to it being independent. However, if you look at the policy you'll see that independent does not only mean "not published by the article subject" (although that is also true), but also not published by closely-affiliated groups. In this case, because the Langan is the Executive Vice President of the USIA, publication from them relating to him are not independent.

Secondly, you mention "I see other bios that simply link to papers on journal sites". I have no doubt you have. However, we have a concept on Wikipedia usually referred to as "other stuff exists". In a nutshell, just because you've seen something done on another Wikipedia article does not necessarily mean it's best practice (or even necessarily in compliance with policy). As for "raising the bar", why wouldn't you want this article to be properly sourced even if the "bar" for other articles you've seen is low? If the sourcing is out there, it would be valuable to know about it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Is Quora better? https://www.quora.com/Could-someone-with-an-understanding-of-quantum-mechanics-critique-this-paper-written-by-Christopher-Langan-the-self-professed-smartest-man-in-the-world?fbclid=IwAR2JN--pmhluDhLv4IRqLqcCkaUIXv2w9KkAsdoiB0Nq90fgW21kpxqec-8

Sorry for the long url. It provides the link to Cosmos & History and contains an independent review on a reliable third-party site. Maybe we can use it present a more balanced view of Mr. Langan's work? ~ DrL (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@DrL: No, Quora is not usable, as it is user-generated content and so not considered to be reliable. What we need is something like a newspaper or magazine article mentioning that Langan published the C&H paper. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Directly linking to Langan’s papers in scientific journals should be considered appropriate sources under Intellectual pursuits.MakeAWay (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Article not fully consistent with WP:NPV

Some of the phrasing in this article casts an unnecessary amount of doubt on Chris Langan's credibility.

For example: "Langan attended high school but *claimed* that he found himself spending his last years engaged mostly in independent study, due to the relative indifference of his teachers in accommodating his pleas concerning his increasing need and capacity to absorb more advanced material."

Or: "Langan *claims* he was brutally beaten by his stepfather, Jack Langan, who denied this claim."

In these two cases, "claims" really should read "reports". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylancatlow1 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:SAID, how about "said" or "stated"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The second link [5] for the articles about the SAT apparently leads to nowhere. What are the several reliable sources that reported it? If there are more sources other than the McFadden's 20/20 article in link [2], can you please insert it? Otherwise that part of the article will be inaccurate.

Thanks. ZenMechanics (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@ZenMechanics: The archived version was already linked in the citation, though I've just adjusted it so that's the primary link. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Use of “claim” is standard in wiki, when the stated claims can’t be verified.

I don’t see why the special exception in this case. Nigerian chess player (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nigerian chess player: What is your objection to "reports" or the other rewordings that Dylancatlow introduced? I'm not sure I understand why you prefer "claims"; they strike me as relatively synonymous. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM - should not be used except perhaps in cases where RSs also express doubt. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance, —DIYeditor --Dylancatlow1 (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. Sounds like my personal perception of the term is out of line with the MOS. Regardless I have no objections to replacing "claim" with "said" or any other less-loaded synonym; still curious to hear what NCP thinks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

But the 20/20 article states it as a fact that Langan achieved a perfect SAT score. MakeAWay (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

If they are synonyms, there is no need for it to be changed. But as Dylan correctly noted, it does cast some mild aspersion on what is being said. Where I differ with Dylan, is that I believe the mild skepticism is valid and natural. The WP:CLAIM section seems to verify this. Use of “claim” as opposed to “state” or “report” depends on the nature of the plausibility of the claim and its verifiably.

Regarding the “beat his step dad and kicked him out when he was 14” claim, its pretty obvious that this isn’t something ordinary or even believable without some proper evidence to outweigh the implausibility. Did his stepdad just allow him to beat him without a fight, at 14 mind you and then left his home for good? No police report? What happened with the mother? Was she okay with it somehow? And so on.. Regardless the fact that Jack Langan denies this is enough to justify the usage of “claim”. That’s my take and I think its perfectly consistent with the WP:Claim section. I would say ditto for the rest of the “claim” vs “ report” instances here. Nigerian chess player (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

That’s my opinion, I’ll leave the matter to Gorrilawarfare anyways, I think she’s the only neutral editor here. No offense to the rest! Nigerian chess player (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree to rephrase for the following reason: 1. the information regarding Langan's life comes from a highly reliable third-party news source, 2. they aren't technical discussions, just facts about Langan reflected from an interview, which is within the ability and responsibility of a journalist/ editor from a reliable news source to verify - as opposed to technical discussions in the Baffler and Forward sources of which the journalists have no expertise on. Johnnyyiu (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Suggest removing the following sentence

"Journalist Justin Ward in The Baffler also argued that it "isn't particularly scientific—or original", saying "it was rather a repackaging of intelligent design".[12]"

Aside from the fact that the CTMU predates "intelligent design", making it difficult to be categorized as a "repackaging", Justin Ward has zero credentials in the field of science or mathematics. He is a self described "activist" having only written a handful of articles on "far-right extremism." I don't see that his opinion should be included. Thoughts on this are welcomed. ~ DrL (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The CTMU does not predate the concept of intelligent design; creationism goes back far before Langan was even born. Furthermore, the claim is properly attributed in-text per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Intelligent Design is a recent movement with specific characteristics that make it distinct from creationism in general.MakeAWay (talk) 09:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Debatable, it was more of a rebranding. Which, to some extent, makes it distinct, sure. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@DrL:Agreeing to remove the sentence. According to Intelligent Design, the term first appeared in 1989 and was not even developed. The CTMU was created in the mid-1980s and published in a fully developed form in 1989. Johnnyyiu (talk) 05:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Appreciate if you could read my previous comment before reverting my edits. The aforementioned sentence is false opinion and should not appear in the section. Johnnyyiu (talk) 08:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Johnnyyiu: Take it up with the Baffler. It being "incorrect" (It's extremely clear that he's describing them as coming from the same sort of idea, rather than accusing Langan of plagiarizing ID) is immaterial to it being quoted. We're not saying this in wikivoice, and we're providing a source link to the context, if people want to understand further. Parabolist (talk) 09:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Johnnyyiu: Parabolist pretty much said it already. Plus your edit summary was misleading. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The Controversial Views Section Should be Deleted ("Wikipedia is not a tabloid")

According to Wikipedia's own self-published content guides (as sampled below), biographies of living persons should not contain potentially damaging material - let alone a controversial views section - unless that material is both highly relevant and verified by mainstream news sources. Chris Langan has only two claims to fame: his very high IQ, and being the author of the CTMU. It is therefore hard to see how an incomplete (and potentially misleading) account of his political views belongs on this page. This is especially true when all of the sources cited in this section refer to articles on the Internet published by fringe news "outlets" attempting to analyze Chris' *Facebook activity*. How many other articles about living people contain a controversial views section based almost entirely on that person's Facebook activity, as interpreted by unknown journalists? My guess is not very many. It would be entirely rational to just remove this section altogether.

1. [Avoid victimization] when writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

2. Do not use controversial or effusive descriptions unless commonly used by reliable sources.

3. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

4. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and we are not in the business of "outing" people or publishing revelations about their private lives,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

Dylancatlow1 (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This section seems to go against the spirit of the Biography of Living Persons guidelines and brings potential undue harm.MakeAWay (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

This should be put up for consideration — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeypaw2007 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Support the proposal to delete section. Hamster.flying (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Neither the Forward nor the Baffler are "fringe" in any way. If you want to merge that content into another section of the page, so that we don't have a "controversial views" head, that might be fine. However, the wholesale removal of two reliable sources, while repeatedly trying to discredit them, reeks of whitewashing. It would also help the optics of your requests if every section like this wasn't immediately flooded with single purpose accounts all chiming in to agree. Parabolist (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Parabolist. The section is adequately sourced, and both The Baffler and The Forward are sufficiently reliable. BLPs are not puff pieces for their subjects. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, you're right that The Baffler and The Forward are not as fringe as I had thought. I just hadn't heard of them before.

But that is ultimately beside the point. Quite little has been written about Chris' political views (certainly not enough to call these claims "widely sourced"), and the scant material that has is all based on an analysis of his Facebook activity.

You're also right that BLPs aren't meant to be puff pieces - but they're not meant to be hit pieces either. Absent the controversial views section, this article can hardly be considered a "puff piece"; with it, it borders on being a hit piece (it's already quite critical in parts).

Simply because a claim about Chris Langan is "adequately sourced" does not mean it belongs on this page. Again, Chris is famous for his high IQ and theory of everything, not for his political views. If he was a political figure or otherwise very well known, it would be fine to include this. Dylancatlow1 (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Please read my comments in the section #No reference to support claim that Langan "supports" conspiracy theories in the Forward article that is cited. Recent coverage of Langan has focused on his controversial views, and so it should be included. This is by no means a "hit piece"; rather, it represents proportionally the views on Langan and his work. Removing criticism would be skewing the article improperly. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare I appreciate the quick response. It's true that some recent articles about Langan have focused on his political views. But there have only been a few, and they've all been based on his Facebook activity (therefore not about his "work," which is the CTMU). It's fine to include criticism in a BLP - of which there is already plenty in this article - but the criticism in this case is gratuitous, and frankly kind of bizarre. I've never before seen a bio page that included criticism of some relatively unknown person's Facebook activity.

Also, I think it may be time for some outside analysis. I've heard you say before that when an admin makes major edits to a bio, eventually they're supposed to "back off" and not sit on their work. I don't mean to suggest that you aren't well-intentioned, but don't you agree that objectivity requires multiple perspectives? I don't think your position is entirely unreasonable by the way, but according to Wikipedia's content guides, potentially damaging material shouldn't be included if there's any good reason not to. I've pointed out several reasons why it's wrong to include this material.

P.S. A few of the people who have chimed in so far I recognize as Chris Langan fans, but some are just people passing by who happen to agree with me.

Dylancatlow1 (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

There have only been a few in total, but they comprise basically all recent coverage of Langan in RS. Furthermore, plenty of Wikipedia BLPs describe controversies relating to the subject's actions outside of their work--this is not a new thing, nor is it against any policy or guideline. The claim that a Wikipedia article may only describe the subject's career focus is not in keeping with Wikipedia policy.

I'm not sure where you've heard me say that--are you referring to my comments about WP:INVOLVED? It is correct that an admin should cease administrative involvement with any article they've edited substantially, which you will see I have done. But I have not said, I do not believe, nor is it required by policy, that admins must stop expressing their opinions on article talk pages after some arbitrary period of time. I am happy for outside analysis to be invited here (though I will note that SPAs should not be trusted for "outside analysis" in this case, as there has been evidence of off-wiki organization), but I do not understand your request that I "back off". GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

It would do you a lot of good to drop the "based on a Facebook activity" thing. If you have an issue with how the secondary sources perform their work, you should take up with the sources themselves, in this case the editorial boards of the Forward/Baffler, or attempt to (quixotically) convince people at WP:RSN that these articles make them unreliable. Otherwise, at Wikipedia, we assume that the editors of the reliable sources know what notable content is, and its useless to try and quibble about that sort of thing. If something is published by a reliable source, it's reliable.

Outside of the two sentences in the controversial views section, and the third paragraph of the CTMU section, what exactly do you think qualifies this article was "bordering on a hit piece"? Parabolist (talk) 09:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Parabolist, I keep bringing up the fact that these two articles base their claims on Chris Langan's Facebook activity because it calls into question whether they are appropriate sources to use on a site like Wikipedia. They're what you'd expect to read in a tabloid, and so repeating their claims here on Wikipedia puts it at risk of seeming like a tabloid as well. Remember: Wikipedia is not meant to be in the business of "outing people or publishing embarrassing revelations about their personal lives". And if potentially damaging material is to be included, this material must be widely sourced. Two articles is hardly enough in this regard.

And I would claim that this article "borders on being a hit piece" primarily because of the three sentences you have for some reason deemed "off-limits". The article is short enough that three sentences is all it takes.

Dylancatlow1 (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I point out that they're three sentences because the article isn't short enough that three sentences feels like undue weight. Two reliable sources used their editorial judgement to decide that criticism of the CTMU, and commentary of Langan's political activity was both newsworthy and notable to his status as a public figure. We can say "how much weight are these pieces given in the overall article?", but the answer is again, practically the minimum without excluding them entirely. We're not about to get into whether these pieces should have been published, however, because that's not our job. Our job is to report reliable secondary sources. If you have issue with their reliability and want to gain consensus that they are a "tabloid", there is a noticeboard you can take that to. Parabolist (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Parabolist, how can these articles be a "commentary on Langan's political activity," when there is no political activity to speak of? We're only talking about some political views he expressed on Facebook, which two journalists decided to "expose" him for. And no, we're not obligated to report on every claim made by a "reliable secondary source". As per Wikipedia's own content guides on BLP: "when writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic."

These two sources don't provide proof of their claims, are too critical to be considered neutral, and are arguably off-topic, insofar as Chris is not famous for his political views, but only for his high IQ and theory of everything.

Dylancatlow1 (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dylancatlow1: Please WP:INDENT. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dylancatlow1: Langan is hardly the first person to say something unrelated to his work on social media that became a topic in the press, and this Wikipedia article is hardly the first to describe it. I'm not sure why you are claiming that noteworthy behaviors that are not directly related to one's career cannot be discussed in a BLP, because that is simply not the case: take a look at the various tweet subsections in Roseanne Barr#Controversies, or Kathy Griffin#Depiction of Donald Trump, or Azealia Banks#Controversies, or Spike Lee#Controversy, or one of many other BLPs out there. Furthermore, your claim that the sources are too critical to be considered neutral shows a serious misunderstanding of WP:NPOV—please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources. Again, these sources make up the majority of recent coverage of Langan, which makes them worth including—the interest in his IQ alone seems to have largely faded since the coverage around the turn of the century, and now it appears to be his popularity among the far-right that is bringing him back into the public eye. That should not be whitewashed from the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, all of the examples you cite are of public figures involved in widely reported scandals. Chris is not a public figure, and the "scandal" in this case consists of two journalists scrutinizing his Facebook activity. These cases are not at all equivalent. It's a mistake to assume that two highly critical articles should be used as source material for this article simply because they make up "the majority of recent coverage".

And I'm not appealing to WP:NPV, I'm appealing to Wikipedia's own content guides on BLPs, which state that "biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." These articles are not "completely neutral".

Dylancatlow1 (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The scandals I linked to were based on social media activity as well. Furthermore, I don't understand how you claim to not be appealing to NPoV, but then point to the part of the BLP policy that mentions neutrality. If your concern is about neutrality, then NPoV is the relevant policy. And NPoV requires that we "represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Including two sentences about Langan's controversial views in a 37 sentence article is proportionate representation of this critical coverage. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I support this message. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2020

Return Controversial views section to it previous format and lock article indefinitely, article appears to have been vandalized yet again. 5.41.109.121 (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done to the first part. If you think the article needs to be protected at a higher level than it already is you can request it at WP:RFPP, but in my opinion the semi-protection has handled most of the outright vandalism. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Gorilla Warfare needs to take a break

Violated policy numerous times. Can another admin pls review this article. GW has obviously become emotionally involved. Am I the only one who sees this admin run amock? Crdvyniu (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC) — Crdvyniu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Are you referring to where I undid your removal of the entire "Controversial views" section, when you falsely claimed there was consensus on this talk page for its removal? Because there's no such consensus here, as you can plainly see. I have not violated policy, nor am I acting in any administrative capacity to do with this article. As a side note, your previous edit to this talk page was to a section over a month old. Not sure if you meant to put it there or meant for it to be down here in a new section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

GW is correct, there was, and is, no consensus to remove the controversy section, and I see no signs that GW needs to take a break from the article. As for other admins, User:JzG has gone through the article, but it's not the job of admins to "review" articles - their primary job as admins is to police behavior. Any editor, admin or not, can "review" articles, if they're interested in doing so.

There is no justification to say that GW has "run amock", a statement which I believe is perilously close to a personal attack, and saying that she has "violated policy numerous times" is itself a violation ofWP:Casting aspersions because you have presented no evidence of such a violation on her part. She's simply doing what Wikipedia editors do, editing an article as she sees fit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Crdvyniu: I am an administrator. I will block you if you repeat anything that looks like a personal attack. This is an article talk page to be used to discuss improvements to the article based on reliable sources. Any further commenting on contributors will result in a block. Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Some Observations on the Article

Pardon me, but in the spirit of improving this article, I have a few comments that I hope will be regarded as constructive. One of them has to do with the following sentence:

"Journalist Justin Ward in The Baffler also argued that it 'isn't particularly scientific—or original', saying 'it was rather a repackaging of intelligent design.'"

I don't know much about Justin Ward. Apparently, he's a left-leaning journalist who decided to write what most would consider an unfavorable article about me, possibly out of some combination of spite and opportunism. Of course, he's entitled to his opinions, negative as they may be. But he is not a credible authority on my work. I doubt he's read a word of it, and with all due respect, something tells me that he might have trouble understanding it even if he tried.

Mr. Ward wrote what he wrote, so I won't take issue with the sourcing. But there is simply no way that the content of his opinion on the CTMU is discernibly connected to fact, let alone technically accurate. Even where absolute nonsense comes from a known source, it was never the intention of Wikipedia to propagate nonsense, at least in the biographies of those toward whom it has been unkindly directed.

First, the CTMU is in fact highly original. It contains more new concepts than the work of any modern philosopher of whom I'm aware, something for which I've taken a great deal of heat over the years. The simple fact is that most "critics" of the theory have proven to be people who don't understand it, but who were determined to cancel and/or polemicize against certain ideas with which it was mistakenly associated.

Secondly, there is absolutely no way to reasonably claim that anything I've ever written is "a repackaging of intelligent design". The very idea is absurd. The structure of the CTMU resembles ID Theory in just a single particular: the structure and dynamics of reality involve intelligence and intentionality in the most generic sense of those terms. The term "God", where used at all, is used to label cosmological generalizations of intelligence and intentionality independently of religious doctrine.

Even if one wants to characterize both theories, the CTMU and ID, as "arguments for the existence of God", they differ in many crucial respects. For example, whereas ID relies on probability theory and resembles the teleological argument, the CTMU contains no probabilistic reasoning and most closely resembles the ontological argument ... but even so, is vastly divergent from the standard versions.

As far as Mark Chu-Carroll is concerned, I debated him years ago in the comments of one of his several explosive anti-CTMU blog posts, and carefully explained to him why the CTMU is in no way equivalent to "naive set theory". In the course of this debate, I learned that Mr. Chu-Carroll was, shall we say, unclear on the distinction between "set" and "set theory" as well as on the meanings of certain mathematical concepts including "set", "model", and "syntax". The debate remains there for all to see (if not necessarily to understand), at least up to the point at which he began childishly "disemvoweling" my responses in order to "win the debate" (which he failed to actually do).

This situation is especially problematical because certain Wikipedians refuse to let Wikipedia host an article on the CTMU. The reason is apparently that among Wikipedia's editors and administrators, there are militant atheists who have either confused the CTMU with "Intelligent Design", reacted against the CTMU because it contradicts their philosophical opinions, or decided to censor my work because they personally dislike or resent me. But in any case, it is clearly unfair to exclude the CTMU from encyclopedic coverage while relaying misinformation about it.

Encyclopedias are not supposed to be about "cancel culture". The CTMU is absolutely unique in its logical structure. It has profound philosophical and scientific implications, is described in highly significant publications dating from 1989, and is clearly described in many online essays and social media comments as well as half a dozen clear and well-written articles in peer-reviewed academic journals. If Wikipedia doesn't want anyone to know about it, so be it. But may I at least humbly request that the public not be blatantly misinformed about it?

Regarding the "Controversial views" section, it's a bit lopsided - I have some conservative views and some liberal views, and although I think that conspiracies do in fact exist in high places (consistently with decision theory, which shows conspiracy to be rational under conditions satisfied by some highly placed people in certain situations), I'm certainly not one of those individuals who never met a conspiracy theory he didn't like. I reject conspiracy theories I find insubstantial, but I'm not sure that this comes across in the wording.

As always, thank you for your attention, and I do appreciate the efforts of conscientious and well-meaning Wikipedia editors and administrators to make the article as fair and accurate as possible. Chris Langan (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Chris Langan: This really isn't the place to rebut other peoples views on your work. It's also not the greatest place to try to correct mischaracterizations of your work, unless you can show sourcing that backs it up. Though it might seem like bizarre practice, we can't actually take your word for it even though this is your work—we have to go by what reliable sources have said. If you have published clarifications like this somewhere else (your website, for example) we could potentially write that you have disagreed with characterizations of your work, but we can't just point to an account we haven't even verified to be you, posting a comment on the Wikipedia article talk page. If other reputable sources (see WP:RS and WP:IND) have published their views on the CTMU, certainly feel free to link them here so they can potentially be added to the article here.

As for your claims that people are "refusing to let Wikipedia host an article on the CTMU", that is an extremely bad faith argument that frankly contradicts all evidence. There are plenty of Wikipedia articles about topics that are unquestionably about intelligent design and other religious topics (for example, the article on intelligent design itself)—Wikipedia does not exclude articles about religion, religious ideas, or anything of the sort. Furthermore, a skim of the deletion discussion for that page shows that it was deleted primarily because of notability concerns. That said, the discussion happened in 2005, so I imagine the state of things may have changed substantially since then. Still, it doesn't appear anyone has made any substantial attempts to reintroduce the page (at least going by this history). You certainly should not be the one to do so, per WP:COI.

As for the controversial views section, it seems to fairly accurately reflect what has been reported in reliable sources. While I have no reason to doubt that you indeed hold views of all kinds, we have to go by what the sourcing says there (rather than draw our own conclusions about what beliefs of yours are "controversial", which I imagine you'd agree would be a problematic approach). GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. However, it seems to me that whether or not a source is "reliable" should reflect the subject(s) regarding which he or she can be reasonably credited with knowledge. As I've pointed out, Ward shows no sign of having any knowledge whatsoever of the CTMU, except how to spell it. Furthermore, he has not "argued" that the CTMU is what he says it is - he has merely stated it.

As for your "bad faith" accusation, my observations on the CTMU article are based on Wikipedia history dating back to 2006, in the course of which everything I just said was arguably shown to be true. The conflict went on for months and left a bad taste in the mouths of many people, which perhaps explains why no one has ever bothered to attempt a restoration. (If there was any "bad faith" involved, it was not displayed by supporters of the CTMU article.) As for the many pages generated on this issue in 2006, most of them can no longer be found on this site, so I'm pretty sure you haven't read them.

But again, thank you for your very informative remarks, and have a nice day. Chris Langan (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Certainly, most people have their own opinions on what should constitute a "reliable source". That's why we have the reliable sources policy—to try to standardize it so it can be applied consistently on Wikipedia.

I have not read all the arguments on the CTMU, no—I have read some of them, and I've certainly spent enough time already reading all the arguments that this page has attracted. But your accusations against Wikipedians are not different from accusations I read often, and I find that what often appears to people as concerted attacks on their work based on various biases often tend to turn out to be a group of Wikipedians explaining that a subject is not appropriate for Wikipedia based on policy. Still, my point remains that what was argued in the mid-2000s probably doesn't hold much bearing on conversations about that topic that might be held today (both because of changes in reporting on the subject, but also because of changes in Wikipedia policies and guidelines). If someone does try to recreate the article I will certainly watch with interest. Be well, GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Baffler absolutely not appropriate. Gorillawarfare is acting totally innappropriately. Too invested - back off and let consensus decide. Crdvyniu (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

A first step would be to list independent reliable sources that cover the topic. If the independent coverage is significant, it would indicate the notability of CTMU and that there's enough material to write on it. Without it, another iteration of the CTMU article risks getting deleted again at WP:AFD. Not being an administrator, I do not have access to the old article and its sources. If the hypotheses or model gained traction, we can assume that more sources exist since its deletion. Even if they are few, they may still be useful to improve this very article. Important aspects sources should help with: why it is notable, main tenets, its influences, what impact it had on philosophy, math, cosmology or movements, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 11:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Intelligent design

The part about 'intelligent design' is deeply unfair and objectively wrong.There is no resemblance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.73.97 (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source saying this, or is this just your opinion? GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Chris Langan himself. do you think defamation is a reliable source? this is your opinion. you are targeting him because he is a theist. he has never advocated intelligent design. his CTMU theory has nothing to do with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 777 persona 777 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC) — 777 persona 777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Repeating what a reliable source published, with in-text attribution, is not "targeting" Langan. If a third party reliable source has published Langan saying it is not intelligent design, we can add that as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source. The third party 'source' is a slander article that calls him Alex Jones with a thesarus. You can't use that as a source. It's unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 777 persona 777 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

We have discussed the quality of the source on this page already, and it was decided that with in-text attribution it's acceptable to use. So far you haven't provided any argument for why it doesn't meet WP:RS, other than that you dislike the source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:SOURCE states "the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." The severe lack of legitimate scrutiny given to checking facts is evident in the Baffler source from blatantly erroneous assertions such as "the CTMU isn’t particularly scientific—or original", "the CTMU could best be described as intelligent design buried beneath an impenetrable word salad made up of neologisms", and "[Chris Langan's] entire identity rests on IQ tests". No explanation needed; these phrases are obvious slander. -- Concerned Bystander 2600:1700:DD0:3670:3977:9DC0:7C0:F14E (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Just because an opinion doesn't match yours doesn't make it erroneous, or slander. Ward's criticism of the CTMU is adequately attributed in-text. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

a libelous source which defames and namescalls langan as a 'alex jones with a thesaurus' is not an objective source for information. on wikipedia people want objective sources. this is not one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 777 persona 777 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, I would urge you to read about how we determine which sources are reliable. It's based on editorial oversight, history of fact-checking, etc., not based on whether or not we agree with what their articles say. I would also encourage you to read about what slander and libel are. I have repeated myself enough in this conversation so at this point, I'm going to leave this. As I've already said, if at any point you find reliable sources presenting other viewpoints, I'd be happy to see them and potentially add them to this article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• The argument as presented is circular. They argue that the source is defaming, libelous, and slanderous, and therefore should not be used as a reliable source, but why is it defaming, libelous an slanderous? Because it says that Langan's CTMU is a re-packaging of intelligent design. So the IP simply makes the assumption, based on their own opinion, that the statement is untrue and unfair, which means that the source is unreliable.
  We work in a different way. We have a policy, WP:reliable sources, which outlines what makes a source reliable or not, which has to do with things like having a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking and publishing corrections when they're wrong. Those are the criteria, but whether any particular source meets those criteria is a matter for editors to reach a WP:consensus on. That consensus discussion can take place here, on the article talk page, or, if a wider discussion is needed, at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, where editors who often discussion these questions can take on the source in question. The opinion of the subject of the article about the source can certainly be considered, but it is not controlling, the RS policy and the consensus discussion is.
  There also is a difference between when we report someone's opinion, and when we state something as a fact in Wikipedia's "voice". In this case, the article does not state as a fcat that Lngan's CTMU is "a repackaging of intelligent design", it reports someone's opinion that this is the case, taking care to state who expressed the opinion and where. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• The previous discussion about wether The Bafller is a reliable source is here. As I read it, the consensus was that it is a reliable source, but that the opinion should not be expressed in Wikipedia's voice. That's what we have in the article now. Further complaints that the sources is defaming, libelous or slanderous (which are not the same thing, by the way) will need to be backed up by citations from a reliable source as to why The Baffler is unreliable, or to Justin Ward's lack of credibility to express the opinion offered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Beyond My Ken and GorillaWarfare here. XOR'easter (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• The last paragraph of the personal life section also includes a statement about his own views. I don't see a problem with the article. It's normal for people to express opinions on ideas and those presented are attributed to their authors. —PaleoNeonate – 22:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Including a 'source' that is an article full of insults such as calling Langan 'alex jones with a thesaurus' is absurd and unproffessional. Imagine if you did this on Buddha's wikipedia or another philosopher. You don't allow this on other articles, but for some reason, on this one you do. For Jesus wikipedia page, there is no amateur source listed that have a thinly veiled insult like 'The bible is just repackaged judaism', but for some odd reason, you believe here it should be allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 777 persona 777 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• You're stuck in a loop, saying the same things over and over again. You clearly have not read any of the policies you've been pointed to. If you continue to waste everyone's time with that kind of behavior, you'll likely to end up being blocked from editing this article and talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• You should read the policies. You clearly have not read any of them otherwise you would not allow an amateur source that is insulting on this article. You wouldn't do that on Jesus or Buddha so don't do it here. It's unproffesional. There is no reason why I would be blocked. I have only demonstrated holes in your thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 777 persona 777 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, you're right, in my 15 years here, making over 250,000 edits, I have never, ever, bothered to familiarize myself with any of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines or essays. I've just been winging it all these years, whereas you, with your 11 edits in 6 days have managed to read them all and placed yourself in a position to tell long-time editors and administrators that they don't know squat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

So finally coming back to this. I initially didn't know access to other older on-WP CTMU material was possible, but having found it:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe
• An older version of the CTMU article and its sources
• Mega Foundation and Research Group would be a personal website of the author
• ISCID a (defunct?) ID/DI-affiliated project to produce a journal without adequate independent academic peer review (fellows, biography, paper)

Having read the paper it is clear to me that it presents circular arguments of design and objects to mainstream biological evolution and mainstream cosmology. Being already familiar with "specified complexity", "irreducible complexity" and a number of other similar relativist and/or idealist arguments, seeing the fellows page unfortunately further confirms the association. This appears to correspond to Justin Ward's assessment in The Baffler, afterall... With some experience determining the demarcation problem, CTMU falls under the WP:PSCI policy. Having been a proponent and author of such arguments myself, this assessment should not be considered an insult to intelligence: it's my experience that very intelligent people also have the ability to confuse testable reality and very convincing imaginary models. Afterall, much remains unknown about the actual world, while one can express many ideas and thought experiments, via philosophy, language, mathematics and symbols, no matter how testable against reality...
Unfortunately, looking at not only the recent threads but also at previous endless debates, with evidence of off-wiki campaigns, convinced me that I should probably not spend much more time on this... —PaleoNeonate – 13:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Undo edit by Johnnyliu, who I believe has already been warned for messing with this page and displaying pro-Langan bias.

The addition of, "According to the observation of a journalist," in the Controversial Views section sounds like an attempt to skew the page. In fact, there are at least two journalists who have referred to Chris Langan's racist social media posts: Justin Ward writing in the The Baffler, and Christopher Feldman writing in The Forward. The edit could be changed to, "According to journalists," or "According to some journalists," but even that seems unnecessary. I recommend just undoing the edit entirely.

Thank you. 90.208.134.158 (talk)

I already undid it: [7] GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: It still says "According to the observation of a journalist" on my screen. It also says, "members of the alt-right and other on the far-right." Misleading information and a typo. 90.208.134.158 (talk)

Oh, thanks—I missed the changes made further down. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me, Gorilla Warfare. You seem to be conversing normally here with a user who was recently blocked, but is now back for some unknown reason calling me a "racist". You know that's a problem, right? A couple of sloppy no-name journalists doing it is one thing, but Wikipedia is supposed to be above all that.

This person is presently in massive violation of various Wikipedia policies. To see what I'm talking about, visit Talk:Simulation Hypothesis, where he appears as "Gary 90.208.134.158", and examine his posts. Here are a few examples:

"...your racist and conspiratorial social media rantings" (pretty much what we see right here)

"Try as you might to weasel your way out of this, you won't succeed. All your talk of "crushing" those who debate you is just that – talk. You have never crushed anyone in a debate, and that certainly isn't going to change while I am your opponent. Unlike you, I don't cower away in an echo chamber ... I am used to debating people, which is why mopping the floor with you today has been so easy for me." [In other words, "Gary" sees the talk page of the Wikipedia article "Simulation hypothesis" as his own personalized "debate" forum to be used for "mopping the floor with" me. (I'm afraid he didn't quite succeed.)]

"Try again, champ. I am sure you will "crush me like a bug" eventually. Don't lose hope!" [Another highly personalized ejaculation from "Gary", demonstrating that he's using Wikipedia as his own personal debate forum. If you think that this is appropriate, please consult WP:TPO and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.]

Now have a look at the comments of "Nigerian chess player", who still doesn't seem to have been so much as warned. Is this some kind of joke?

With all due respect, I'm getting tired of being chased around and trolled here. I don't have time for it. So if you wouldn't mind, can something be done about it? Thanks. Chris Langan (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Chris Langan: As I have been an active editor of this page, I am staying out of any administrative actions against users who are editing it (per policy). I would recommend posting any concerns you have at WP:ANI or, given the history of this page, WP:AE. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Chris Langan: I have blocked Nigerian chess player (talk · contribs) for a short period and have issued a warning at User talk:Nigerian chess player#Blocked and User talk:90.208.134.158. If there are further problems, much longer blocks will occur. Please do not engage with the arguments shown at Talk:Simulation hypothesis. By all means propose an edit but further discussion should be focused on the merits of that proposal. Do not respond to the kinds of comments raised at that talk because doing so could have no possible benefit for the encyclopedia. Instead, feel free to notify me (post {{ping|Johnuniq}} at a talk page, or post a link to the discussion in a new section at my talk). Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I think we can apply indefinite PC to this article, and possibly SPROT the talk page. Wikipedia is not Reddit. Guy (help!) 08:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Guy: That's a good idea if things deteriorate further but it's reasonably under control at the moment. I'm happy to provide an administrative incentive to any editor/IP who crosses a line, and I'll call on you if I need assistance. Johnuniq (talk) 09:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Ben Goertzel and Mark Chu-Carroll are RS

As pointed out in WP:REPUTABLE 'source' has multiple meanings. In the citations here, while the blogs themselves are not reliable sources, the authors are confirmed and are reliable sources. WP:RSOPINION is not violated here as the comments are not about Langan, but Langan's theories. I agree that no in-depth discussion of CTMU belongs here as it's not relevant to his notability and that it should be reserved for another article if we can show that it passes WP:GNG. The depth at which CTMU is discussed is due weight and appropriate for a BLP article. - Scarpy (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG hey ^^^ what gives? - Scarpy (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Scarpy, as stated: primary sourced to blogs / self-published sources. Opinions are like arseholes: everybody has one. I don't think we want to start mining the internet for self-published quotes about Langan, not least because Dr. Google indicates that the majority of them are less than flattering, so let's stick to secondary sources. Guy (help!) 08:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG What you’re saying is generally true but not everyone with an opinion is a confirmed domain expert in a relevant field like machine learning and artificial intelligence, e.g. Ben Goertzel. He would be RS in this case. - Scarpy (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Scarpy, I don't disagree necessarily but with this article falling into the intersection between WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE I think we need to stick with secondary sources. Guy (help!) 18:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2020

Under early life and career, it states:

Langan attended high school, but spent his last years engaged mostly in independent study. He did so after his techers denied his request for more challenging material. "techers" should be changed to "teachers" Ktb1044 (talk) 08:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Done, thanks for noticing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: There's also a typo in the "Controversial views" section. It reads "andantisemitic" at the end, but should read "and antisemitic." 90.217.36.161 (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe

There is an ongoing discussion at the Talk page of "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" (the article is currently a redirect to this one). XOR'easter (talk) 05:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Content removal

Why was this removed? There is no indication in the source that it was "sarcastic" and no prior consensus in the Talk page (including the archives) against it. XOR'easter (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. It's in the article. Plus, it seems to still be on the Facebook page (described as "a perfectly natural conjecture"), if anyone actually thought the article was lying. --tronvillain (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding content – suggestion

After having found the below short article written by Pierre R. Latour, PhD (Chemical Engineering), a distinguished engineer, successful entrepreneur, and recipient of, among others, National Science Foundation fellowship and Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award, (source), I would like to suggest the following change to the main body of the biography (suggested change in bold) and of course provide the above source:

Christopher Michael Langan (born March 25, 1952) is a professional philosopher, American horse rancher and autodidact ...

Apart from that, I think it would be fitting to include a link to the CTMU article itself:

Langan has developed a "theory of the relationship between mind and reality" which he calls the "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" (CTMU).

It would also be my suggestion to include a section "Publications" as it is so often the case with many authors who have profiles on Wikipedia.--Mich.Szczesny (talk) 11:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Mich.Szczesny, based on what reliable independent source? Marquis Who's Who is pay-to-play, neither of these websites meets our criteria. Guy (help!) 14:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

None of the links provided are to reliable independent sources. Indeed, the first is to a website whose home page is full of COVID-19 conspiracy-mongering, so directing readers to that domain would be a public health hazard. XOR'easter (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

1_vs._100_(American_game_show)#Special_episodes

Is the "who at the time of taping, had the highest IQ in America" bit correct? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Even if it said that in the episode, we shouldn't have it in wikivoice. The episode does seem to have been billed as "The Smartest Man in American", hereand here. --tronvillain (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's not really a wikivoice-appropriate statement. XOR'easter (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Removed the Disney Research People category

I didn't see this mentioned of this in the article, and I'm not aware of anything documenting an association with Disney. - Scarpy (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Addition to the "Biography" section

The Biography section mentions that Langan set up a "nonprofit corporation" called the Mega Foundation in 1999. But according to this report by the Missouri State Tax Commission, Langan's Mega Foundation was denied non-profit status in 2017: https://stc.mo.gov/legal/mega-foundation-inc-v-diana-blunk-assessor-mercer-county/?fbclid=IwAR3DQtX3-uE76EQlgRUyPsUT20sVyh4bf1cXLvWP8hZ0eZy7Oal0Q34gvX0 The report concludes: "The Hearing Officer found that the Complainant failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence to establish the necessary elements of exemption. Complainant presented no evidence as to the use of the property for an indefinite number of people in furtherance of educational or charitable goals or for raising crops or for livestock management."

I suggest that this information be added to the Biography section. The Mega Foundation was never legitimately a non-profit corporation.

Regards,

Gary. 90.211.215.6 (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

In the Findings of Fact, that document says, Complainant is incorporated as a Not for Profit in Missouri and is exempt from federal income tax as a 501(c)(3) organization. It seems that the Mega Foundation was a 501(c)(3), but certain property they owned (a 3.4 acre site with three buildings, an older brick building, a 40’ X 80’ steel utility building and a shed) was not exempt from taxation.

No evidence was offered to show the property is 1) used as an institution of learning, 2) attended by students, or 3) any course of study designed to impart knowledge of “things broadly covered within the field of education.” [...] Exemption rests on the use of the property, not merely the charitable character of the owner. [...] Although Complainant is a not-for-profit organization, Complainant did not offer substantial and persuasive evidence to prove the property is actually and regularly used exclusively for a charitable purpose. [...] Respondent’s Exhibit 14 clearly shows Complainant charges membership fees between $50 and $5,000, for subscriptions and memberships. Complainant offered no evidence of any indigent policy or reduced rate policy for those that cannot afford a subscription or membership to show the ability of “those who need and can least afford the service” can be educated by Complainant. [...] Although Respondent put forth evidence that the subject property operates as a not for profit, Complainant put forth no evidence of how the subject property benefits society in general and not simply a select group of highly intelligent individuals. Complainant did not offer evidence to meet this element of its burden of proof.

So, "yes" to registered non-profit, but "no" to tax exemption for their HQ. XOR'easter (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: Ah, I see. Thanks for clearing that up.

Is it worth mentioning in the Wiki article anything that you just quoted? For example, the lack of evidence that the Mega Foundation HQ was being used for charitable purposes, or the extortionate membership fees? The latter seems to contradict Langan's image as a blue-collar guy who doesn't care about money.

Regards,

Gary. 90.211.215.6 (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Definitely not. Drawing conclusions like that from a primary source (this finding of fact) needs a secondary source, especially for BLPs. Please see WP:BLPPRIMARY: Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.... Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Cleaning up the controversial views section

One of the views mentioned here stands out from the rest:

"(Langan has claimed that the George W. Bush administration staged the 9/11 attacks in order to distract the public from learning about the CTMU)"

This is not so much a controversial view as an eccentric one, and since it doesn't relate to the 9/11 truth movement as a whole, and since Langan isn't attracting fans because of it, I think it should just be taken out. I don't agree with there being a controversial views section, but so long as there is one, the other views listed are appropriate to mention. But this one is just too weird to include I think.

GorillaWarfare --Dylancatlow1 (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It's sourced and pertinent. What matters is not whether he's attracting fans because of it (we don't know that one way or the other), but that a secondary source found it sufficiently noteworthy to document. Calling it "controversial" is also fair; "controversial" is generally a go-to option for describing conspiracy theories and the like in an unprovocative way. XOR'easter (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

^ Don't think I could have said it better myself, I agree with all of this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

A claim that 9/11 was staged definitely falls under "9/11 Truther." --tronvillain (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

One can interpret Langan's 9/11 post in various ways. The secondary source takes the comment out of context to make it more provocative (implying Bush staged this event to specifically distract from the CTMU as opposed to the interpretation that this event had the effect of distraction) and should be considered libelous. This goes against the spirit of Biography of Living Persons, especially for someone that is notable but outside what is considered a "mainstream public figures." MakeAWay (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

We report what the secondary source says. Any complaints should be directed at The Baffler, not here. XOR'easter (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2020

Change views section to controversial views, also add(Redacted) Robertofirmino1 (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Robertofirmino1: I redacted your edit request as they are only for requests to add encyclopedic information based on reliable sources. Wikipedia has a strong living-persons policy which means that opinions on living people must be based on what reliable sources say, rather than personal observations. Regarding the issue, bear in mind that readers can form their own views without the need for an article to direct them. Johnuniq (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Major issues with neutrality and notability

This page seems to struggle with maintaining a neutral point of view. Ultimately, all of the information on this page comes from Langan himself - although occasionally filtered through sensational news outlets reporting on his self-promotion. Even if we ignore this, it's bizarre that this page rather uncritically describes him as "described... as the smartest man in the world" in the header, and goes on to describe the various self-reported struggles and heroics of his life.

This is followed by an equally uncritical section about his crackpot CTMU theory. No formal publications I can find have reviewed the CTMU, which exists only as a long, incomprehensible PDF distributed online. The reason for the lack of review is the same reason a paper submitted to the ArXiv saying the earth is flat might not have coverage in newspapers - it's not significant or worth discussing because of its absurdity. This strikes me as a bad reason for presenting the CTMU so uncritically.

Including numerous hedging statements to indicate these issues within the article would be confusing and make it unclear why the article exists in the first place. So ultimately, I think this article should be deleted because Langan is not notable per wikipedia's guidelines. Specifically, the secondary sources are **not reliable or independent of one another.** There was the original short 20/20 spot in 1999, and every other citation is either a clickbait listicle referring to that interview or a primary source.

A man who pretended to be very smart and got on the news because of it might be notable if this activity were part of some larger hoax or conspiracy or if he became a more significant cultural icon, but Langan hasn't done much of note other than self-promotion. If we include an article on Langan, we should include an article on every person who ever appeared on 20/20.

Henrybrinkerhoff (talk) 09:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk pages are for actionable proposals to improve the article, based on reliable sources. If you want this article deleted, ask at WP:HELPDESK for how to start an WP:AFD. I will remove any further commentary as being outside the purpose of Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

One difference is that not all people on 20/20 got a chapter in a book because of it. Langan seems to meet WP:BASIC, but you can start a new AFD if you want. I think it would end like the last one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Correction, the chapter in a book was about 1 vs. 100. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit grammar

Under Biography, in paragraph 5 there is a grammatical error: "he used his and social savvy and his parents used their influence" I believe it should read as: "he used his social savvy and his parents used their influence"

Agree and done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2020

change "when Langan tried to convince college adminsitration" to "when Langan tried to convince college administration" Don Fuego (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Gladwell

When I read the article it's possible that too much weight is given to claims in Outliers. It's written by an interviewer journalist and the book has received criticism in relation to accuracy or oversimplification (some relevant sources are at the author's article). It's used in this article to compare Langan and notable late physicist Oppenheimer and goes into much personal details about Langan. Moreover, funding and better access to academia would still not have made things like CTMU plausible... It's at least attributed to the author, though. —PaleoNeonate – 04:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Views - 9/11

Given with his high IQ and the article leading up to the 9/11 view, it has to be right. In his statements about 9/11 he clarified that it was just a conjecture. He posted this is a comment with source 10 (Facebook). It's less of a sure fact than what the article makes it out to be.

So maybe adding "He claimed that it MIGHT be..." would help clarify better. Joshotack (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Joshotack, Smart people are not immune to being wrong. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect Spelling

Under heading "Biography" paragraph 5 reads: "when Langan's mother missed a deadline for financial aid, Lagan lost his scholarship and when Langan tried to convince college"

"Lagan" should be spelled "Langan". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:EB40:3AB0:C1AA:A9E3:C873:31B5 (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Is His IQ Verified?

I have removed the text posted by 68.206.248.178 (talk · contribs) because an article talk page is not available for speculation about people. The article makes no claim about Langan's IQ other than that he is known for a high IQ and has been reported as scoring very highly on IQ tests. Another claim is that he earned a perfect score on the SAT. If anyone has a good reason to believe the sources are inadequate, they should ask at WP:RSN whether these assertions are verified by the sources. Per WP:BLP, do not post speculation or opinions or suspicions about living people. Johnuniq (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Gina Lynne LoSasso page

the Gina Lynne LoSasso page that is linked says nothing about Christopher. How do we know it is really her who is Christopher's wife and not just some woman with the same name? --2601:901:4300:1CF0:34DD:2BE1:3237:7313 (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Not WP:BLP perfect, but [8] makes it likely. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)