Talk:Christopher Langan

Notice: Asmodeus and DrL are banned from editing this article.

The users specified have been indefinitely banned by the Arbitration committee from editing this article. The users are not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page. Posted by Srikeit 17:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC) for the Arbitration committee. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist.

Talk page archives

• Archive 1 • Archive 2 • Archive 3

WP:NOR - removing original research, do not re-insert unless you have a source other than original research

I removed the section about the lawsuit as being (quite blatantly) original research of the sort that Wikipedia must avoid. This is actually an excellent example of what is wrong with original research in Wikipedia -- by drawing selectively on sources, the section gave an impression that is significantly at odds with the views of relevant parties to the dispute, so that WP:NPOV was badly violated.

Wikipedia should not be held hostage by people who are doing original research in support of an agenda. If it is reported in some reliable source, then we can report on that. But we do not engage in original research.--Jimbo Wales 12:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand, the sources that the lawsuit prose were based on were all fairly straightforwardly delineated. It was a fairly good summary of the state of affairs. However, I don't see that the lawsuit necessarily was notable enough for inclusion in the article as many points in this article are probably well-beyond the scope of Wikipedia's encyclopedic nature. I agree with Rubin's total removal of the MegaSociety, but I would like to point out that the prose removed by User:Jimbo Wales was not original research since it was a simple reporting of facts and no conclusions were drawn. --ScienceApologist 13:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Jimbo is using the phrase "original research" different from its Wikipedia-policy specific useage and using it in a more common general useage sense which translates into wikipedia speech as "inappropriate reliance on primary sources rather than secondary sources". WAS 4.250 15:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Should we amend the policy? •Jim62sch• 16:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Now Jimbo has said that it wasn't a matter of using primary sources, but rather one of interpreting primary sources to create novel conclusions. [1] Yet this section header clearly contradicts that statement. So, does that mean that the section can be reinserted if it fairly represents the sources (and how does it not fairly represent the sources?) or does it mean that Jimbo hasn't redefined OR, just redefined OR for this article? Guettarda 16:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The section followed WP:RS and WP:V to the tee and only stated what the notable parties had to say. I'm confused where exactly the "original research" was. Jimbo Wales' deletion seems arbitrary to me. Now we'll have to rewrite the section without knowing what he means by original research. 151.151.21.103 18:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to request a more thorough explanation regarding this application of WP:NOR in a WP:BLP context. I think I understand what Jimbo means, but this seems far to important to leave to conjecture. And perhaps there are aspects to the situation of which only Jimbo may be aware? AvB ÷ talk 19:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

I think may understand. Let me be specific, and JW can accept or deny. The Mega Society lawsuit section could be considered as three parts. The first part was that the MS filed suit against Langan and LoSasso. That's pretty clearly supported by the existence of the court documents. The third part was what the court decided. That's also pretty clear. But the second part was the Langans' actions that the MS sued about, and for all but the first sentence of that we really only have the MS's statement for - it may be part of the court records, but it's still only their statement. I propose removing that. In other words, condense to something like this:

In 2002 the owners of the Mega Society, a high IQ society, filed suit against Langan and his wife, Gina LoSasso, claiming unauthorized use of the society's trademarks and trade names.[29][30][31] The Langans had been active members of the society but in October 1997 left the organization, and in 1999 formed their own competing organization, which they called the "Mega Foundation." The Mega Foundation was established as a non-profit corporation established to "create and implement programs that aid in the development of severely gifted individuals and their ideas,"[32] declaring itself to be the official Mega Society. [33] This litigation resulted in a California Superior Court ruling enjoining the Langans from any use of the Mega Society name and trademark,[36][29] and a National Arbitration Forum ruling that forced the Langans to release the domain names "megasociety.net" and "megasociety.com" to the Mega Society.[35] The Langans retained the domains megafoundation.net and megafoundation.org and the Mega Foundation's journal Noeon.[35]

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That's reasonable. I'd support it. Obviously it's a notable event and some coverage needs to be given it. 151.151.21.103 20:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

if it is a notable event, then why there is no references to 3rd party discussions of it? I'd say it is rather nonnotable. `'mikka 09:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

References

Arthur Rubin, there is no logic to the argument that because the section on Langan's lawsuit must be deleted, therefore all references to Langan's foundation must be deleted. All of these references are to Langan's work, which is discussed in the article, and should be discussed in the article, and should be referenced in the article. The argument that the entry will be improved by deleting these references makes absolutely no sense, and is just another partisan (and petulant) intervention. All this is so unnecessary. FNMF 13:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is. If the lawsuit, which is described by obscure public sources, is original researchnot worthy of inclusion then the society's existence which is derived from similarly obscure public sources is not worthy of inclusion. --ScienceApologist 13:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Explained in comment. Basically, now that we know (even through primary sources, which cannot be included in the article without a secondary source asserting notability) that L is not with the Mega Society, any reference to the Mega Foundation must be accompanied by a note that the Mega Foundation is not affilliated with the Mega Society. I'll try to consrtuct a valid disclaimer to meet WP:BLP and avoid libeling the Mega Society. (But the references to articles, other than by L, on the Mega Foundation site, must also go. See {{self-published}}.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you really, honestly, believe these arguments? I note for the record that there is no mention of Langan's foundation in the entry, other than a link to the foundation's website. To call a link to the website "the inclusion of non-notable material" (as ScienceApologist does) is absurd—it is quite normal and uncontroversial for biographical entries to contain a link to a website belonging to the subject of the entry. To call a link to the website libelous (as Arthur Rubin does) is absurd—the foundation and website exist, and are not in dispute. It is the guy's website. Not one argument has been advanced as to why "mentioning" the Foundation (which is not mentioned in the article) would be libelous. The other references are all to Langan's work, and are references there to support the information in the entry. I also note for the record that the reason for excluding discussion of the lawsuit is that it is original research, not that it is unworthy of inclusion (although I believe it is unworthy). But the idea that because a lawsuit is not mentioned, therefore the Megafoundation is not worthy of inclusion, makes no sense, and has not been argued. The reality is you are deleting the references supporting the information contained in the article, references that have every right to be there. The notion that I am pushing a point of view is untrue and hypocritical. I honestly don't understand this persistent vindictiveness. FNMF 13:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is mentioning a lawsuit which is a matter of public record original research? I can understand the "messy divorce" provision from dragging Wikipedia into non-encyclopedic arguments, but arguing that it is "original research" indicates that simply reporting the contents of a public document somehow constitute a unique perspective or amalgamation of sources. If I take the "messy divorce" parallel to its natural conclusion the Megafoundation would act sort of like a child of the litigants. If we were writing an article about a litigant, the child of the litigant being renamed as a result of the messy divorce would be the equivalent to this issue. Avoiding all discussion of the litigation would be akin to avoiding all discussion of the naming of the child and if there was a website which used the name of the child, I can see that being a major concern. The flip side is that you aren't really concerned about the actual issues at all but just want to see the litigation excluded for reasons that are totally opaque at the present-time. --ScienceApologist 13:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I note that none of that even attempts to defend the deletion of references from the entry. I don't need to defend the NOR issue any further than it has already been defended minutes ago. We are not talking about the child of a messy divorce. We are talking about references constituting the supporting evidence for an article, and a link to a subject's website. I repeat: not one sensible argument has been advocated for deleting these references. As to your "flip side": the reasons the lawsuit should be omitted have been made abundantly clear, and the reasons the lawsuit should be omitted are the reasons I want to see the lawsuit excluded. Rather than opaque, I believe I have been transparent. FNMF 13:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo and User:FNMF are clearly wrong in claiming WP:OR, as the wording of the section is quite simply available from the court and arbitrarion records themselves. However, WP:BLP specifically suggests that public records (the lawsuits) may not be included in the article unless a reliable secondary source mentions them. (CML is not known for lawsuits, unlike Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch.) In this case, the secondary sources are parties to the lawsuit and KL. Parties to a court or arbitration procedure cannot be considered be considered reliable, and KL's reliability is disputed by User:DrL. On the other hand, we clearly need a disclaimer that the Mega Foundation is not associated with the Mega Society, and the Mega Foundation web site may only be used to support articles and statements by CML, rather than about CML, under WP:SELFPUB. I thought it best to remove all reference to the Foundation while the matter is straightened out. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. So the only things necessary for us include the lawsuit and arbitration again according to Jimbo's objection is to rely upon secondary sources and add Langan's POV as a counterpoint. So let's just find the sources and rewrite it, what's the big deal? 151.151.21.103 19:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem if you want to put in a statement that Megafoundation is not Mega Society. Totally unnecessary, but if you want to do it, go ahead. So are we agreed, then, that we can put the references back in? FNMF 14:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Because if you are honest, you will admit that every single one of those references is just to an archive of public documents (interviews, articles, etc.) from outside sources, that are kept on the website. It is not using the website to make claims about Langan. It is purely a convenient place where the articles are collated and accessible. FNMF 14:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Only the references that quote Langan may remain, not any to articles about Langan or assert that Langan published. I think that still eliminates the one in the lead. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I can go along with that. So we are agreed that we can revert the deletions, then delete that first reference to the CTMU Q&A thing? FNMF 14:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I am going to go ahead and make those changes now. I hope all editors are clear that in doing so, I am following the declared wishes of Mr Rubin, when he wrote (just above) that "Only the references that quote Langan may remain, not any to articles about Langan or assert that Langan published. I think that still eliminates the one in the lead." I will therefore undo the reversion, then delete the first reference, as per my understanding. Note that the deletion I am reverting was first placed by Mr Rubin, and hence my "reversion" of this deletion is in fact in conformity with his own present views. I am glad that a formerly acrimonious dispute can hopefully come to this civil conclusion, and I thank Mr Rubin for helping to make this possible. I am hopeful that this will be the end of acrimony in relation to this entry. FNMF 14:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Because of 3RR (for which you have a pass from Jimbo, as your removals of the lawsuit section have his stamp of approval), I can't stop you, but I suggest that the megafoundation links be removed from the references to articles about Langan, as well. (The statement "The CTMU says..." also needs to be changed per my most recent edit, as we don't have any WP:RS as to what it does say.) But I otherwise concur that megafoundation.com may be used to source Langan's quotes. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Another solution might be to use the links at Langan's CTMU site: http://www.ctmu.org/Q&A/Archive.html#CTMU, http://www.ctmu.org/Press/Esquire1.jpg, http://www.ctmu.org/Press/TheSmartGuy.pdf, http://www.ctmu.org/Press/MrUniverse/MUTitle.jpg, http://www.ctmu.org/Press/BBC.html, http://www.ctmu.org/CTMU/Articles/CTM.htm If you think that's acceptable (although I'm not sure what is wrong with the current links), I can try to change them, though an editor with more experience in referencing might do a better job! --NightSky 15:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now completed the process of re-inserting the links to the articles mentioned in the article. As we all know, these are just links to articles which do exist in the outside world and are legitimate sources, so I hope everybody can agree that this is acceptable. I have left out the CTMU Q&A reference as per Mr Rubin's preference. I hope editors can agree that with these re-insertions no attempt is being made to promote the ideas of Mr Langan, but simply to provide links to the sources of information about Mr Langan and his ideas. The links are not academic sources, and are not there to try to prove Mr Langan's ideas are correct; just to provide attribution for the information contained in the article. Thanks again to Mr Rubin for helping to lessen the acrimony in this dispute, and, as mentioned, I continue to hope this will be the end of this episode. FNMF 15:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Or one could just delete the article -- Langan really isn't notable. •Jim62sch• 15:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think an appearance in Esquire as "the world's smartest man" makes him notable. His iconoclastic status as genius/bouncer was interesting enough to the media to result in several stories and interviews. Even if he was only notable for a few years around 2000, this makes him notable. --Otheus 15:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Replying upon Langan's website as a source

Jimbo says we shouldn't rely upon primary sources and I have some serious reservations about using Langan's website as a source, particularly after reading the currently removed lawsuit and arbitration documents. I think we better find some secondary sources for Langan's claims. Langan's own site is partisan -- he uses it for self promotion. Also we should not be helping him Google bomb his own article to promote himself. 151.151.21.103 19:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I note that you have removed all the references sourced from the CTMU website. Have you actually looked at where those links take you? They take you to legitimate secondary sources, reproduced there for accessibility. You imply that they are primary sources: they are not in any way primary sources and there is no basis for claiming they are. You also have "reservations" about using the website, but again, and has been stated repeatedly: these are links to published and legitimate secondary sources. Your refusal to accept this appears to be a clear case of disruptive editing. If you remove these references again, your editorial behaviour would appear to be vandalism. Please desist.

As for the arguments for re-including discussion of the lawsuit, the situation is now clear. Do not include anything on this section if you cannot find a legitimate secondary source to rely on. If you do not understand what Mr Wales has written on this question, this failure to understand is not an excuse to ignore it. Again, it comes across as the expression of an intention to continue disruptive editing. Do not consider re-introducing the section on the lawsuit if you cannot fully address the issues delineated by Mr Wales. FNMF 23:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

references sourced from the CTMU website. Have you actually looked at where those links take you? They take you to legitimate secondary sources

Uh, that's the point. We don't need Langan's own site to provide secondary sources for us, they should be readily available elsewhere if they are genuine. Why should we rely on or trust an established self-promotor for links to other secondary sources? It's not as if Langan's site isn't partisan is it? 151.151.21.104 23:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If you remove these references again, your editorial behaviour would appear to be vandalism.

And if you add these references again, your behavior would appear to be promoting Langan and his views. Please desist. Really, please. 151.151.21.104 23:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

(1) That is true. You don't need these links to legitimate the references. The situation is as follows: some things are available on the web, and some things are not, and in that case one has to go to a library or find a copy in order to read them. If they are available on the web, then a link to them is helpful. If you can find other web sources for these articles, I am happy to use them in preference to the links to Langan's website. (2) But it is also obviously the case, then, that one cannot on the one hand cite these articles and say that is legitimate, and then on the other hand claim that to link to these articles is somehow illegitimate because it is promoting Langan. It is the same material. Again: the articles in question are the supporting evidence for the material contained in the entry. If you are trying to argue that somehow Langan has tampered with the material, then you are obliged to provide evidence of this. But you really know that he has not tampered with the material. It is now clear that you know what these links contain, and are willfully insisting on a false line of reasoning. FNMF 00:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Policy seems to have changed. After rechecking WP:ATT, it doesn't seem as if there is any policy against the links. I think the links should be noted as a personal copy, as a warning to researchers to check the original, but that's minor.

My mistake. Although I think the policy change is a mistake (that we should only use a personal web site as a source for what that person said, rather than for any comments about him), it is now policy. This makes a mockery of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Proposed decision, in that policy findings 4 (and 4.1 and 4.2) no longer map to current policy or guidelines, but it's apparently correct at present. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I missed something. Did you refer to a proposed decision? --Otheus 15:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That link isn't piped; a majority of the ArbCom has agreed to the decision, but it hasn't officially been closed, yet. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for and against using Langan's website as a source

The following arguments have been made for deleting the links to articles which are accessible at Langan's website:

• That it is "unbalanced" to delete the lawsuit section while retaining links to articles contained on Langan's website.
• That to refer to these links promotes Langan's ideas.
• That these links constitute primary research that therefore must not be included.
• That these links are to material that is not worthy of inclusion.
• That Langan may change the links to other material than the articles intended to be referenced through these links.
• That the website is an unreliable source.

Each of these arguments has been countered. The refutations, in order, are the following:

• Just because there was a lawsuit between two parties about two organisations does not make reference to an organisation arising in the aftermath of that dispute "unbalanced." Langan's current organisation does not appear subject to any current legal dispute. The article does not ever discuss Langan's foundation, other than to include a link to Langan's own website. It is common practice to include a link to a website held by the subject of a biographical entry. This argument for "unbalance" now appears to have been dropped by most editors.
• The links in question are to the material constituting the supporting evidence for the entry. That the material itself is legitimate has not been contested. All the links are to material available elsewhere as legitimate published sources. The material is simply collated at Langan's website to enable easy public access to this material. To insist on deleting the links is simply to make it more difficult for the public to access the legitimate sources of information informing the Langan entry.
• The links are not in any way primary research. They are not material that Langan has created for his website in order to promote himself. They are legitimate, published, secondary sources, simply made accessible on Langan's website.
• The material is the very same material that is sourced for information informing the article. If the material is legitimate as a source, then it is worthy of inclusion as a source. It is not a question of detailing events or facts beyond the material included in the entry. It is simply the supporting evidence for the entry.
• All links included on Wikipedia may one day be altered or deleted. At that time the inclusion of the links can either be adjusted or removed. There is no evidence that the links are likely to change in the near future. They are material which Langan has collated for easy public access, and no likely reason has been advanced why this should change, or how it might change. It has been suggested that Langan may tamper with the material, or may already have done so, but there is no evidence of this whatsoever, nor has any evidence been provided that he is likely to do this. Nor has there even been any explanation of why he would want to do this.
• It is not original website material that is being referenced. It is, again, legitimate and published secondary sources of information regarding Langan. There is nothing unreliable about this archive of material, and no reason has been advanced for considering this material unreliable.

No counter-arguments have been advanced against any of these refutations. When one point has been refuted, another has been raised, but none of these arguments has been defended on its own terms.

I therefore consider that it is appropriate to re-introduce the references. Again, I will leave out the particular reference objected to by Arthur Rubin, the "CTMU Q&A" reference.

If other editors disagree with the inclusion of these links, please advance your arguments on the talk page here for discussion rather than simply deleting the links. And I strongly urge you to consider the above arguments when giving your reasons for not including the links. To ignore the above arguments is to indicate that you do not wish actually to defend removing the links, and to indicate simply that you wish to remove them. Simply removing these links without adequately discussing this will constitute vandalism. FNMF 02:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Per consensus here, I reinserted the links. Felt it best to remove the megafoundation link as it is not Langan's site, per se and seems just to be causing problems. --NightSky 13:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the substance of the arguments. However, I suggest that there is a problem in the appearance of the conflict of interest. There's a benefit to the community if the links are sourced to their original copies where available, and when not, to various sources:

• It reduces the impression that the source materials might have been tampered with
• It adds to the confidence that the page is not being used as a tool to prop up links and hits for a particular site
• It adds to the impression that the sources for the article span the web, not just one or two websites.

So there are several reasons to find other sources for the pages. --Otheus 02:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree. As I wrote in an earlier comment: "If you can find other web sources for these articles, I am happy to use them in preference to the links to Langan's website." If you check the links they are all to legitimate secondary sources, and the chances they have been tampered with are remote. No reasons why such tampering might occur have been advanced. And, of course, anyone with access to the publications may check the accuracy, and bring any problems to the attention of editors. The sources for the article span various publications and television programs, so whether they span the web is perhaps not a major consideration. Nevertheless, if other supporting links are available, they should be used in preference. I think it should also be pointed out, as has already been pointed out, that one user who removed the links claiming they were improper, later restored one of those links, because he wished to use it to support an argument. So there is clear evidence of inconsistency by those rejecting these links. That said, users now appear satisfied that the links may remain (to be replaced if and when other links become available), so I would hope that this issue does not need to be reopened without good reason. FNMF 02:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Original research

As I see no reference to any of that stuff (lawsuit) which is not heavily original research, I think that all of it should be omitted. Wikipedia is not the right place for people to be doing original historical research. Has there been a book about this? A magazine article? A newspaper article? Or are we simply picking up on some web fight and lawsuit of very dubious importance and trying to do original historical analysis on what it was all about and how important it is?

If some contributors to this article think that they have stumbled upon something interesting, historical, and noteworthy, then I encourage them to try to get those aspects of the article published somewhere. I think they might well be right that this could be an interesting story.

But it is as far as I have seen an original story, one which is really far outside the scope of Wikipedia's mission. Additionally, this is directly and simply a WP:BLP issue: the interpretation given in this article was strongly contested by the subject of the article, and WP:NPOV demands that we not assert things which are controversial. Additionally, in reading what was posted on this site about the section in question, it does seem to me to be quite likely to be a much more complex story than the heavily one-sided presentation that was here would indicate.--Jimbo Wales 04:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is a bit of a stretch away from the original research definition. Primary sources are problematic sometimes, but pointing out that primary sources exist and what they say is hardly "original historical research". If it were a requirement that Wikipedia only rely on secondary sources, I would understand this argument more, but as it is there is nothing very "original" about quoting/summarizing a public document. Original research, in my understanding, would be using such a document to draw a conclusion about Langan, his actions, or motivations. Simply reporting and attributing the contents of an arbitration ruling cannot be original research by normal standards any more than reporting the contents and attributing the contents of any other primary source document. --ScienceApologist 10:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Moreoever, if we're going to start questioning the original research character referencing primary source documents, we're probably going to have to take a hard look at the references we have to Langan's statements and primary sources about himself. If this is truly the direction Wikipedia is going, the only sources which can be used are the mainstream media puff-pieces that have been written about the man. No more CTMU explanations (except where described by third parties) for example. --ScienceApologist 10:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, would it be correct to say that, when we have information from a primary source but lack a secondary source, we have no way to gauge the importance of the information? I think you're saying that if information needs to be weighed before inclusion in the encyclopedia, but we have no secondary sources to guide our assessment, we cannot publish. If we do, it is original research, not to the degree that it is untrue, but to the degree that we do not know how (un)important it is. Am I understanding this correctly? AvB ÷ talk 19:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a response from Jimbo to a similar question on the e-mail list (see archives or post). AvB ÷ talk 09:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Original research of using only primary sources consists in selective quoting of the primary sources at wikipedian's whim, thus creating a limited picture of the topic of unqualified POV. For example, you may quote "The defendant killed Jhn Doe" while omitting the continuation "...who pointed a loaded gun at him". In our specific case the situation is a bit trickier. The wikipedia's description of the court case innocently says "the Langans retained the domains megafoundation.net ...", conveniently omitting that the court established that in fact Mega Society attempted to "reverse hijack" these domains from this superbrainiak, i.e., wikipedia was implicitly presenting the MegaSoc as an innocent victim of a nasty Langan the squatter, while in fact MegaSoc is a no better picker-grabber. I may continue to waste my time and explain that nearly every sentence in this description is a bias against Langan inadvertent or not.

Of course, there is no guarantee that a secondary source may have the same drawback of heavily leaning in favor of the MegaSocs. Here the second consideration kicks in: notability of the case. If the case is nonnotable, 2-3 publications may easily be biased in one direction. Whereas if the case got sufficient attention, chances are much better to produce a balanced description, which is a must in the case of a living person per wikipedia rules. `'mikka 09:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. My defense of Langan in no way means I like him or something. In fact I think that having such a high IQ and being dragged into this lawsuit only to lose is a token either of an idiot or a very nasty person who knew all in advance but nevertheless decided to step on the toes of his foes (out of general nastiness, or to make a fuss for advertising purposes (which failed), or for the reason I cannot guess, becase he is smarter than me he says). `'mikka 10:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S. Sleeping over it, now I see that my discourse above contains a principial logical fallacy. I wanted to delete my rant, but decided to leave it, first, out of humility, second, the text still explains why the past and proposed sections about the court case are poor and inadmissible descriptions of what actually happened. `'mikka 16:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Relevant policy

WP:ATT is our policy designed to address credibility: Attribution to reliable published sources provides the ability of readers to verify that specific claims made in wikipedia are made by reliable sources and not by us. Claims wikipedia makes that not only are not attributed but can not be attributed are called "original research" in wikipedia policy talk. WAS 4.250 13:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP is our policy designed to address morality: Privacy rights must be respected meaning that contentious items not noted by mainstream third party sources such as newspapers should not be included. As near as I can tell Jimbo is calling this "original research". WAS 4.250 13:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A note on "primary" versus "secondary" sourcing. The source itself can be either depending on what claims in it one is sourcing and whether one is using "primary source" as historians use it concerning documentary evidence or as scientists use it concerning objective reproducable evidence. The nature of the source does not make it primary or secondary; but only the relationship of the claim to the attributed source and the attributed source's identification of its source for the claim. WAS 4.250 13:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent Design section

Removed "fellow" from the phrase "fellow intelligent design proponents" per WP:BLP and WP:OR as there seems to be controversy. Also removed the category "ID advocates" as this has been disputed. More work should be done on that section to provide balance. --Honorable citizen 18:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

From William Dembski, :David Chiu is a design theorist. As a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (see http://www.iscid.org/fellows.php) is a card-carrying member of the ID movement.[2] If the head of ISCID uses ISCID membership to characterise someone as a "card-carrying member of the ID movement", I think it's safe to describe an ISCID fellow as an ID proponent. If both the pro-ID and anti-ID sides agree on this, I'd say it's a pretty safe statement. Guettarda 04:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly contest the use of this "evidence" that Langan is an advocate of intelligent design, for the following reasons:

• Firstly, and most importantly, it is not about Langan. It is about someone else entirely.
• Dembski is clearly a partisan commentator. Guettarda argues that if the pro-ID Dembski and the anti-ID editors of this entry both think someone is an ID advocate, then he is. This is a false conclusion. The fact that Dembski writes "As a fellow of the ISCID, such and such is a card-carrying member of the ID movement," does not make it correct to infer that ISCID fellowship equals ID advocate. Dembski is involved in a pro-ID political campaign, so no doubt wants to claim people as pro-ID.
• There are more than just two "sides." What would be really interesting was if someone who was not a member of either of these sides supported the claim. That is, is there a non-partisan secondary source that states that Langan is an advocate of ID? So far, no such source has been found.
• Even Dembski is not cited here claiming Langan is pro-ID. So it is not true to say that "both sides" agree that Langan is pro-ID
• The fact that an anti-Langan editor is forced to resort to this kind of "evidence" is itself a further indication of how little actual evidence there is that Langan is an advocate of ID.
• Not one citation has been provided from a secondary source stating that Langan is an advocate of ID.
• Not one citation has been provided from Langan stating that he is an advocate of ID.
• Substantial evidence and argument has been provided that Langan is not an advocate of ID, and that anti-Langan editors have persistently misunderstood the nature of Langan's position. None of this evidence and argument has been refuted, or even discussed, by anti-Langan editors.

And I note as well the continuing trend of anti-Langan editors to edit the entry, then make a comment on the talk page for possible discussion, rather than discussing the matter and seeing if there is agreement. That is if they leave a comment at all. This is clearly poor form in an entry that is obviously contested and controversial. Some people have been blocked for less. FNMF 05:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, since Dembski is in charge of ISCID, he should know what appointing an ISCID Fellow means. We have a clear statement that being an ISCID Fellow means being a "card-carrying member of the ID movement". We have Brauer et al., saying the same thing. When Dembski and Barbara Forrest say the same thing, I'd say it's reasonable to characterise ISCID that way.

Obviously, that's ancilliary evidence. The primary source is Langan himself - the CTMU papers, the UD book chapter. So - Langan is a person who argues in favour of ID and is a fellow of an organisation of "card-carrying member[s] of the ID movement". He presents papers at ID conferences. He has not said anything which puts him outside of the ID core. So, someone who writes in favour of ID, presents papers at ID conferences, and is a fellow of an organisation of "card-carrying member[s] of the ID movement" should not be described as an ID proponent on what grounds? Guettarda 07:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have given my reasons why I find that evidence insufficient. You argue that the primary source is Langan himself. OK, I would like to hear the arguments based on statements from this primary source that he is an advocate of ID. Because I don't believe he is one, based on the evidence I have seen. FNMF 07:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I honestly believe, and I've said this before, that there is a way of resolving this question. And the reason I believe it is because I believe that there has been a big misunderstanding about who Christopher Michael Langan is, and what he stands for. I would like to make two points.

• To be an advocate of something means to advocate for it. That is, it means to argue for it publicly. (One could be a private advocate around the dinner table, I suppose, but to argue this in an encyclopaedia would need very good evidence.) So, if somebody is an advocate, there should be clear evidence that he advocates the thing of which he is an advocate. Being an advocate means something different from, and something more than, being a member of an organisation. If it has been so difficult to find the clear evidence Langan advocates ID, that should give editors pause for thought, even those editors ill-disposed to the man.
• I believe the reason this evidence has been so difficult to locate is because Langan is not an advocate of ID. He is just not an advocatory kind of guy, if I may be permitted to put it like that. He is a very individual, probably very self-preoccupied sort of person. Contrary to how he has been presented, my impression is that he is anything but a self-promoter. He certainly is a guy who seems confident he is right about what he thinks, and would like people to listen to him. But that is not the same thing as being a self-promoter. More importantly, he comes across as somebody who is not at all interested in joining political movements, and is, in general, not a "joiner" of any kind. I truly believe that, as a guy totally outside academia, he was happy to receive the offer to speak at the ID conference, and could see grounds whereby what he had to say pertained to the interests of ID proponents. And the ID proponents, for their part, and as anti-ID people must surely recognise, are happy to accept into their fold anybody who seems like they could help the cause. So it was, if you like, a man and a movement taking mutual advantage of each other. Additionally, and as I have argued many times now, Langan's CTMU is disqualified from being a species of ID theory, because it explicitly disavows scientific proof, the very opposite of ID theory, which constantly tries to claim scientific testability. Langan, I honestly believe, is just not the kind of guy he has been taken for by anti-ID editors. And that is probably why the evidence just does not seem to be there. FNMF 08:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

In other words, the reason I believe the editing of this entry should be a solvable problem is this: it is not like the dispute between pro-evolution and pro-ID editors on entries such as "evolution" or "intelligent design." Those disputes are between two groups of people with different understandings of the world, fighting over every inch of territory in the conviction they are right. In this case, the dispute is between people who are arguing about what kind of guy a guy is, about what his understanding of the world is, not whether that understanding is right. The dispute is between the people who are convinced he is an overt or cryptic advocate of ID, and the people who remain unconvinced of this. The distance between these groups seems far, but that is because, I believe, the anti-Langanites are seeing the battleground of this entry as a microcosm of the battle over intelligent design. But its not a microcosm of the intelligent design entry. Its really just a debate about how to be fair and accurate to an unusual guy with some unusual ideas, who for one reason or another got mixed up with some pro-ID people. This is not to say there is no connection between Langan and ID. But the connection is not easy to pin down, and certainly doesn't seem to amount to advocacy. It is because this connection is so difficult to pin down that editors should stop trying to prove that Langan advocates ID, and be happy just to point out the associations there have been between them. I cannot stop editors from taking my argument as a "rant," but I believe that to any objective observer my contributions are made in the very best of faith, according to the highest ideals of Wikipedia, and in the most positive spirit. Not only that, they're right! FNMF 08:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Lastly, I would like to thank user Guettarda for reverting his own edit, pending discussion. I take that as an act of good faith and good will. FNMF 08:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen, I'd think that calling Langan an 'ID advocate' or an 'Evolution advocate' would be oversimplifying. He's promoting a sort of 'have your cake and eat it too' philosophy... Evolution and ID as one, with a heavy dose of Atman / Brahman duality... the universe dreaming itself into existence as an exercise in self-realization. Living creatures are evolving, but that process of evolution is guided by a universal intelligence, of which we humans are both part originator and part outcome... in short, he seems to be saying 'everybody is right'. Which IMO seems very likely a 'conclusion' that preceded the logic cited as establishing it. You could say that he supports ID. You could also say that he supports evolution. But neither would be precisely accurate - as he has redefined both to essentially be synonymous. --CBD 14:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this information, Guettarda. Dembski's rebuttal is quite a long document, can you tell me a page number or section for the "card-carrying" quote? It seems a bit presumptuous on Dembski's part and I was interested in reading the passage in context. In any case, I'd have to agree with FNMF and CBD that Langan has been very careful in his writings to present a balanced view of the debate (as it relates to the CTMU) and not position himself on one side or the other. I don't think we are in a position to infer, from his publication in ID venues, anything more than his interest in getting a wider audience for his work. Unless we can find some reliable report that Langan advocates ID or reliable account of advocacy behavior, we should just present the facts that we know regarding his fellowship and publications. --NightSky 14:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out something about the original post, isn't synthesizing two sources (i.e. Langan is a member and some other guy who is a member is a member of the ID movement) a horrible example of exactly what why we're supposed to avoid original research? Unless someone actually said Langan was a member of the ID movement, I'd have a very hard time swallowing that leap. Shell ^babelfish 03:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No, not really. He is an ISCID Fellow...which means he is an ID proponent. ISCID exists to promote ID. That's common knowledge, it was supported by a citation. Spurious opposition was raised here. I simply quoted the head of ISCID explaining what ISCID is. If you are part of the leadership of the ACLU, and based on that someone says that you are a supporter of civil liberties, is that original research? All the citation from Dembski did was provide another citation to explain what it meant to be an ISCID Fellow. Guettarda 04:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

One could be part of the leadership of the ACLU for reasons other than to support civil liberties - a CIA plant, or it was the highest paying job you could get, or a political stepping stone. You might as well claim that just because some is a minister or priest that they are a proponet of ... well name it. Anything you name is original research because different people do things for diferent reasons. WAS 4.250 07:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"If you are part of the leadership of the ACLU, and based on that someone says that you are a supporter of civil liberties, is that original research?" -- Yes: "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material, which appears to advance a position". -- Jibal 11:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

ISCID

For those contributors here who insist on implying that International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID) is engaged in activities other than furthering intelligent design arguments by insisting on the phrase " a professional society whose activities include promoting intelligent design" over simply "a professional society promoting intelligent design" I have a question and a challenge for you: 1) Do you have a non-partisan secondary source that says ISCID does things other than engage in activities that promote ID? 2) Name one activity they do (no need for a source) that does not further ID. Insisting on implying that they are through the use of ambiguous phrasing is likely to be seen as not neutral since ID proponents have a well established practice of dissembling on what exactly it is they are promoting. Relying on an organization's own partisan rhetoric for a simple description of that organization simply will not pass NPOV muster. FeloniousMonk 04:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, the head of ISCID has characterised it as an ID society. Of course, it probably also serves coffee and cookies at seminars... Guettarda 04:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User Guettarda has just introduced a quotation into the footnote based on the statement from Dembski cited above about being a "card-carrying supporter of ID." The way in which Guettarda has used this quote is clearly a manipulation if not indeed a distortion. I note that Guettarda has not responded to the multiple arguments I made against the use of the quote. The use of the quotation in the form in which Guettarda has inserted it shows clear bias and is obviously unacceptable. The quotation should be removed. FNMF 05:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to Langan's chat at ISCID. Maybe we should include it in the article? It seems to give a good idea of where Langan's focus and interests lie. Here's another example of an open discussion that could not be characterized as "promoting intelligent design". There are others as well. There is an active discussion board at ISCID with a wide range of topics. Characterizing ISCID as a group solely dedicated to "promoting" intelligent design does not seem to be supported. In any event, the purpose of ISCID needs not to be debated, or even declared, in this bio. The reader can visit Wikipedia's article on ISCID or the ISCID site if they want to learn more about ISCID. --Honorable citizen 11:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the references. One editor's refusal to be civil is not a rationale for removing cited content. Guettarda 12:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As a compromise, and in the interest of consistency, I brought the intro to this section in line with the article on ISCID. The citations and presentation should not go beyond what is presented in the ISCID article. In fact, I don't think discussion of the nature of ISCID should be contained in this bio, but in the spirit of compromise, I have made this edit. --Honorable citizen 12:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The ISCID website has the tag line "retraining the scientific imagination to see purpose in nature". Any claim that ISCID is not "a professional society promoting intelligent design" is absurd and false, whether or not they might sometimes do other things (like serve cookies, or have a discussion that doesn't explicitly promote intelligent design). And inserting weaselly words like "their activities include" is obfuscatory, obscuring the raison d'etre of the society. -- Jibal 11:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

In the following sentence, the phrase a collection of essays by intelligent design proponents and ISCID fellows is original research as far as I can tell. (I think this has already been mentioned somewhere on this page, but I can't find it.)

"In 2004, Langan contributed a chapter to the book Uncommon Dissent, a collection of essays by intelligent design proponents and ISCID fellows edited by William Dembski.[22]"

Suggestions for wording this phrase in such a way as to not violate WP:OR? --Honorable citizen 13:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

NightSky and I mentioned it in this section. I've suggested simply expanding the title of the book and conveying the ISCID and ID connections via Dembski:

In 2004, Langan contributed a chapter to Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing, an essay collection edited by ISCID cofounder and leading intelligent design proponent William Dembski.

What do you think? Tim Smith 19:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It's better, but isn't it ID heavy? Either qualifier alone (ISCID cofounder or leading intelligent design proponent) would seem like overkill enough. --NightSky 02:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Just "ISCID cofounder" is fine with me. I do think it relevant, given Langan's involvement with both the book and the society, to note that the book's editor is also among the society's founders. Tim Smith 19:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The proposed sentence glosses over the fact that 8 of the 15 people contributing to Uncommon Dissent verifiably belong to the recognized leading organization of the ID movement: [3][4][5][6][7][8] 151.151.73.169 17:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The background of the contributors is more relevant to the article on Uncommon Dissent itself. More important here, I think, are the book's full title and editor. My proposal does preserve the ISCID and ID connections through Dembski. Tim Smith 19:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no original research: As noted at the Uncommon Dissent article and other ID articles 8 of the 15 people contributing to Uncommon Dissent, William A. Dembski, Phillip E. Johnson, Nancy R. Pearcey, Michael J. Behe, Michael John Denton, Cornelius G. Hunter, David Berlinski, are fellows of the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture, the leaders of the ID movement. It's an easily verified fact, do your research: [9][10][11][12][13][14]151.151.73.169 17:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The characterization in question is "intelligent design proponents and ISCID fellows". Eight of the fifteen contributors are ISCID fellows; that's sourced. However, that every contributor is either an ID proponent or an ISCID fellow is not sourced. Additionally, the background of the contributors can be covered at Uncommon Dissent. More relevant to this article, I think, are the book's full title and editor. Tim Smith 19:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This is Langan's bio. It should therefore include only information that is relevant to Langan and his ideas. Including irrelevant information makes it appear biographically relevant, and thus misinforms the reader. Obviously, the affiliations of other contributors to Uncommon Dissent are not relevant to Langan and do not belong in his bio, unless you can show, without benefit of original research, that they have somehow influenced Langan or his ideas. In fact, there is no evidence that Langan was even aware of the affiliations of other contributors to this volume. Thus, inserting these affiliations would contitute original research.

My preference is the following simple handling of this mention: "In 2004, Langan contributed a chapter to Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing, an essay collection edited by William Dembski."

However, in the interest of compromise, I will endorse Tim Smith's suggestion. --Honorable citizen 23:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I support the change by Honorable Citizen, for the reasons he has given. FNMF 00:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it because it ignores the evidence presented above that Uncommon Dissent is exclusively an ID book. We shouldn't be promoting the well documented ID viewpoint that seeks to use ambiguity to sneak ID in through books and lectures by not identifying them as promoting ID. 151.151.73.163 16:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point. LoC classifies the book as [15]

• Darwin, Charles, 1809-1882- --Criticism and interpretation.
• Evolution (Biology)--Religious aspects.
• Intelligent design (Teleology)
• Creationism.
• Religion and science.

Guettarda 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Circular point. You're arguing that it is exclusively an ID book to support the point that Langan is supporting ID. Further, you did not actually provide evidence that this is exclusively an ID book. Finally, Guettarda rebuts your point by noting the classifications include other, non-ID aspects. Given that, your revert appears to be promoting POV, so I'm reverting.--Otheus 01:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

How so? ID is creationism, and it's a religious aspect of biology; obviously it's a topic in "religion and science", and it's a critique of Chuck. The LoC classification identifies the book as an ID book, the publisher identifies the book as an ID book... and, of course, you could figure that out if you read the book (sure, that would be OR, but far less so than your rejection of the publisher's description of the book).

The fact that the The Library of Congress classification identifies Uncommon Dissent as an ID book and the publisher identifies it as an ID book is ample justification and notable enough to describe it as such here, despite all the purposeful dissembling and furious arm-waving that it isn't going on here. What seems to be lost on some here is that the more they continue to publicly deny the obivous and work to obfuscate easily verifiable facts, the more their claims of working toward a neutral version and of not promoting Langan's views in the article start to ring hollow. Something to think about. FeloniousMonk 16:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

CTMU section (2)

Since the previous discussion, FNMF has supported the inclusion of a section on the CTMU, and NightSky has said that maybe we can work on such a section here. The absence from this article of a CTMU section is in my opinion a glaring omission, and one I hope we can soon remedy. To summarize from the earlier discussion, the arguments for such a section include:

1. The CTMU is a major part of Langan's notability, with the mainstream media giving it prominent, attention-getting placement. The Times, for example, begins its article ("Einstein's brain, King Kong's body") with:

Every age has its great thinkers: Plato looked at metaphysics, ethics, and politics; Descartes tried to rebuild human knowledge; Bertrand Russell gave us mathematical logic; from Stephen Hawking came A Brief History of Time. Now there's Chris Langan, the brainy bouncer, with his Cognition-Theoretic Model of the Universe.

20/20 uses the theory as a framing device:

...I found arguably the smartest person in America in eastern Long Island. [...] His name is Christopher Langan and he’s working on his masterpiece: a mathematical, philosophical manuscript, with a radical view of the universe.

The header of the Popular Science article archived here says:

He's a working class guy with an IQ that's off the charts. What does he have to say about science? Everything -- a theory of everything, that is.

2. The CTMU received far more attention in Langan's media coverage than did intelligent design, which already has a section in this article. 20/20, Popular Science, The Times, Newsday, and Esquire all covered the CTMU, but said nothing about intelligent design. In fact, as far as I know, none of Langan's press coverage said anything about intelligent design. If ID merits a section here, the CTMU merits one a fortiori.

3. The CTMU, which was created in the mid-1980s and published in 1989/1990, long predates Langan's intelligent design connections, which date from 2002. As a purported philosophical "theory of everything", its scope goes well beyond biological evolution and intelligent design, encompassing questions of free will, consciousness, ethics, metaphysics, the origin of reality, philosophy of mind, and more. Currently, our discussion of the CTMU is largely confined to the "Intelligent design" section. To limit it to that context is imbalanced and misleading.

4. At the CTMU AfD, the objection that deletion would be a disproportionate response was met with: "That isn't what we are trying to do. [...] We want to move coverage of the topic into the article on Langan himself." ESkog, the AfD closing admin, explained his decision to delete in part by saying that the CTMU could be "covered completely" at the article on Langan, even offering to temporarily undelete the article so that it could be merged. To be adequately covered here, the topic needs at least a section.

Draft

In view of these arguments and the comments from FNMF and NightSky, I've created a draft CTMU section for inclusion in the article. It is intended to coexist with the "Intelligent design" section, which would continue to cover the CTMU's relationship to ID. I tried to present the material neutrally and verifiably, with frequent qualifiers (e.g. "Langan contends", "he argues", "claims Langan") and footnoted citations. Constructive feedback and suggestions for improvement are welcome. Tim Smith 23:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I support this process started by Tim Smith. I also believe his draft is worthwhile. I agree with the reasons Tim has given for inclusion of the section. I reiterate that my support for this does not mean I agree with Mr Langan's ideas, but neither do I believe that disagreeing with Mr Langan's ideas should mean editors oppose inclusion of such a section. Despite all the problems with this entry, I continue to believe it is possible for the entry to achievable lasting and worthwhile stability, and I am hopeful that editors will support this process as one step toward this outcome. FNMF 03:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a good draft for such a section. I am wondering if the last line in the first paragraph doesn't constitute OR. I think the sentence is factual and seems fine there, I am just wondering about policy. --Honorable citizen 13:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, ever hear of undue weight? CTMU is a concept that has almost zero acceptance anywhere outside of the two Langans and a vanishingly small handful of MegaFoundation fellow travelers. It is the very definition of a "tiny-minority" described at WP:NPOV. The community has already once determined CTMU is not notable enough for its own article and that it be covered here, but (unsurprisingly) Tim Smith's proposed draft reads like one of Langan's promotions.

The more obvious problems with the proposed draft are 1) It implies that CTMU has gotten media coverage on its own accord ("Though the recipient of mass-media coverage") whereas in actuality it has gotten none on its own and it was Chris Langan who was being covered, and any coverage CTMU got was incidental to that. 2) It totally leaves out CTMU's relation to intelligent design. 3) CTMU's reception by the scientific community, which is to say, none/zero. Considering these glaring deficiencies, this version of the draft violates WP:NPOV and will never fly as written. FeloniousMonk 16:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand the argument that CTMU is not notable enough to have a section, but the connection between CTMU and ID is notable enough to have a section. If the connection of one thing to another thing is worthy of discussion, that would seem to imply that the first thing is notable enough to warrant discussion. More than that, since some editors insist on the importance of the ID connection, fairness to the subject of the entry would seem to demand at least some effort to inform readers of what it is that is being connected to ID. FeloniousMonk's second point, that the section "totally leaves out CTMU's relation to intelligent design," seems to ignore the fact that an entire section about that relation already exists and will continue to exist. FeloniousMonk's first point does not seem to me to be a serious problem: I am not convinced the implication he perceives is there, and if it is, it is easily fixable through re-drafting. As for the third point, if FeloniousMonk or others can find reliable secondary sources for the scientific reaction to the CTMU, then they can certainly present these and re-draft accordingly. I also remind editors, again, that the CTMU does not claim to be a scientific theory. More generally, I do not accept that a section discussing the CTMU amounts to some kind of illegitimate "promotion" of Langan's ideas. I don't understand what the fear here really is. Again: if it's OK to conduct some kind of forensic investigation into the relation between CTMU and ID, surely fairness to the subject of the entry demands some discussion of the idea itself. Lastly, I feel it necessary to make the following point: if editors have hostile or negative feelings for the subject of an entry about a living person, then they are morally obliged to take all the more care not to violate WP:BLP. This means that they must take all the more care to edit with sensitivity, without bias or malice, and without introducing controversy. FNMF 19:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, FeloniousMonk refers to undue weight to argue that a section on the CTMU somehow violates that aspect of policy. But I would draw attention to the following paragraph from the policy on Undue Weight:

"Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them — Wikipedia is not paper. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view."

This would certainly seem to legitimate the notion that Langan's ideas may be discussed in the entry on Langan. The appropriate place for the discussion of Langan's ideas is on the page devoted to Langan. Tim Smith's draft section is certainly not attempting to "rewrite majority-view content" from a minority perspective, merely describe Langan's ideas in a neutral way. Furthermore, according to the above paragraph, Langan's view may, indeed, be "spelled out in great detail," so long as reference to the majority viewpoint is not neglected. And, again, if editors wish to put other views on Langan's ideas, they are certainly welcome to do so, so long as they refer to reliable secondary sources. FNMF 19:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I now lean toward some mention of CTMU in this article, but the draft is — well, drafty; i.e., full of holes. Unless you wish to preface each sentence with "Langan claims", it's unsourced. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: All but 3 sentences (and the questionable claim that the theory has mainstream coverage) do have that disclaimer. It's almost ready, although it's still not describing "Langan's ideas in a neutral way." — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've made some adjustments, clarifying that the CTMU appeared in conjunction with Langan and tweaking for neutrality. How does that look? Tim Smith 19:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That draft looks good, but I am wondering ... "Langan's work has not appeared in mainstream academic journals." While this may be true, doesn't that statement constitute OR? I would say that this is pretty obvious, however it does actually require some research to verify since it has not been mentioned in a secondary source (or has it?). --Honorable citizen 13:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed that statement for lack of a source; we can restore it if one is found. I've also reworked the first sentence. What does everyone think about posting what we have? We can of course continue to improve it afterward. I think the article is long overdue for a section on this topic. Tim Smith 07:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe Tim Smith has done his best to incorporate the comments of other editors into his draft version. This being the case, and five days having elapsed, it now seems appropriate to paste the draft section into the entry itself. I recommend going ahead and posting. If editors have other criticisms or improvements, they can of course continue discussing these on the talk page, and these can be added as appropriate (as Tim already said). FNMF 08:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The new first sentence also requires a "Langan claims". The reference probably doesn't assert that he worked on it, but only that he said he worked on it. If it had been an actual article edit, I would have reverted it as not justified by the source, and almost certainly not sourced at all. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) The source (Sager 1999) says:

The result of ten years of solitary labor, the CTMU--pronounced cat-mew--is, says Chris, a true "Theory of Everything" [...]

While this excerpt does not assert that the CTMU is a "Theory of Everything" (only that Langan says so), I do read it as asserting that the CTMU is the result of ten years of solitary labor. I've further reworked the sentence, though, and added "says Langan" to the end. Tim Smith 17:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Article updated per draft

Since I asked about posting the draft almost a week ago, FNMF has recommended doing so, and I've tried to address Arthur Rubin's objection about the first sentence. I'll therefore go ahead and post what we have. Suggestions for further improvement remain welcome. Tim Smith 21:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a break from fighting other wikibattles. I looked at Tim's edit and deemed it needing some tuning. If the CTMU is to stay, it should be a very concise summary. I removed several parts that seem to distract from the main idea, that only introducing buzzwords, or that didn't make sense to someone who took a rudimentary college-level course in philosophy (I took two). However, I fear I may have over-rephrased, resulting in an inaccurate version of the CTMU. Comments welcome. --Otheus 22:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Otheus, Tim has worked patiently on this section for two weeks. I think you should be careful when introducing changes to ensure they are in fact improvements. For instance, in the version of the first sentence you composed, the repetition of the word "developed" was poor writing. Also, the claim that Langan was "following the track of modernist philosophy" seems like original research to me. I am also not convinced it makes the section easier to understand. Just because something seems to be written in easier language does not mean it is clearer: what exactly does the statement about modern philosophy mean? I think you should propose changes here rather than simply editing them into the text, given the history of the entry, and to ensure they are well-composed. FNMF 22:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

From my talk page [Otheus...] I am disappointed that Tim Smith has left his draft up for discussion and improvement for two weeks, and within minutes of him posting it, you have seriously reduced the quality of the section. I urge you to rethink your actions about this controversial entry. FNMF 22:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I saw that he changed the article without recently updating the talk page, so I assumed his was hastily done. I saw some problems with it and hacked it. After, of course, I saw the talk page comments. On the talk page you mentioned problems with OR, and well, I really did blow the second paragraph. So I restored my edits to the first and third paragraphs. If you think my recent edits are still ill-advised, I'll self-revert. --Otheus 22:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Otheus, thanks for re-considering your course of action. I have left almost all your changes in, which mostly are good (others can discuss). But I did change the first sentence of the section back to a slightly altered form of Tim's, for two reasons: I thought his was better expressed; and it was the outcome of above discussion and therefore care should be taken with it. FNMF 22:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Now waiting for the fudge to hit the fan. --Otheus 23:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Minor changes: I dropped in with some changes to CTMU paragraph 3. I am confident they are consistent with both a good faith review of this discussion and the need to keep content accessible to a general audience. Also fixed was a broken cross-ref relying on commented-out material. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 03:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Minor, but well-done. Definitely improved readability. I'm still concerned about the phrase 'logic's "absolute truth"'. Is that in reference to "analytical truth", ie, certainty built via (for example) by propositional logic? --Otheus 13:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You raise a good point here, that could use some clarification as well. If I have time I will take a shot at an appropriate re-draft to address this. dr.ef.tymac 14:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: A proposed readability re-draft of CTMU paragraph 2: proposed readability re-draft. It is a bit longer, and may not be universally acceptable to all interested parties, so extensive criticism, modification, feedback are of course welcome. If no one complains I can add it to the article at a later time. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 16:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

More changes: CTMU section is now slightly larger in order to keep the content accessible and still relatively consistent with a good faith and impartial reading of CMLs essay. If anyone objects to this, please include remarks here in discussion if and when you make modifications. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 01:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Life section

No offense, but the Life section reads somewhat more like People magazine than an encyclopedia - would anyone object to my eliminating some of the Langan quotes and more subjective statements? Hal peridol 16:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of editors actively editing this bio. Most of the editors are collaborating to some degree. The best approach would probably be to propose your specific changes here on the talk page. --Honorable citizen 18:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Got that right. There's been a lot pro-Langan promotion going on at this article for some time now, with those opposing being piled on to some degree. 151.151.73.167 18:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't confuse good-faith collaboration with "pro-Langan piling on". That's an offensive and uncivil remark to be making toward the community on this page. Oh, and please get an account. --Otheus 21:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid the anon seems correct. Perhaps the section should be gutted and restarted as if this were an encyclopedia. (And the polite term is hagiography, rather than "pro-Langan piling on".) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a better phrase would have been "piling on the anti-Langaners" or something. Are you feeling "piled on"? --Otheus 23:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes. There's a lot there that wouldn't be there if we were properly insisting on sources, and there's a lot there which isn't notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil comment of 151.151.73.169 on 17:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC) removed by --Otheus 23:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a major problem with the section. Perhaps the word "flurry" could be replaced with "degree" to characterise the extent of media interest? Mostly it seems neutral and factual. I agree with Honorable citizen that specific changes should be proposed on the talk page, and consensus sought, before changing the entry itself. This will lessen the chances of unhelpful conflict. FNMF 02:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It reads like a MegaFoundation press release, please. FeloniousMonk 04:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Arthur, about your statement "there's a lot there which isn't notable", I have a meta response: WP:Notable clearly states that notability must exist for the existence of the article, but not its contents. Second, what do you mean "if we were properly insisting on sources"? What sources do you see as "improper" and why? Are you referring to your comments earlier in Christopher Langan#References? --Otheus 23:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it needs fixing. Please feel free, we could use new contributors here. FeloniousMonk 04:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've eliminated a fair bit of material - most seemed unencyclopedic. The information about Langan's mother is uncited - I was unable to find that information. Hal peridol 19:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Good job! I hope that will satisfy the other critics. --Otheus 20:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The tone is now quite good. Others will have to check whether the cited information really exists, other than in Langan's mind. (As noted above, the Mega Foundation site is Langan's, so it falls under "self-published", even when it archives articles in reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hal, I appreciate your effort to make the section more encyclopedic. I do think some relevant material was removed, so I'll rework its presentation. I'll also cite the statement about Langan's mother. Let me know what you think. Tim Smith 19:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Quoting FM, it still reads like a MegaFoundation press release. Some editing of the more obvious puffery will have to be done to fix that. 151.151.73.167 19:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed CTMU description

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

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

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

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

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

Moreover, I believe that even a basic exposition of CTMU could be argued as not violating WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, and WP:SCIENCE because it has been *characterized* as having philosophical *as well as* scientific implications. (See e.g., [16])

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving Forward

Moving forward: Arguments are getting re-hashed. Speculations of improper motives are re-surfacing. This is not good. The goal is a professional article that fairly and accurately presents the subject matter, consistent with WP policy, is it not?

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal for consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How's that?

ScienceApologist 17:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

this refers to your statement before FNMF's

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

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

This refers to your previous statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Personal attack removed]. Reminder, please abide by WP:CIVIL. 151.151.21.104 17:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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