Talk:Christopher Langan/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Should this article be at

No one's disagreeing, so I've moved the article to

Christopher Michael Langan, leaving Christopher Langan as a redirect. Tim Smith

20:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

That said, some of the characterizations of Langan's CTMU in this article seem to be more hopeful assertions than demonstrated facts. This article's characterization of the CTMU as mathematical is only partially borne out by Langan's published writings. The mathematics in the CTMU is only occasionally symbolic, rather it is generally presented in verbal form. Also, the applicability of the CTMU to any specific area of natural science has not been demonstrated or refuted, so far as I have seen. Enon 15:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason that I added the "Pseudoscience" and "crank" links is precisely because Langan's ideas are not science, and yet are passed off as such (if one reads the entries for these terms one will see why they fit): while his ideas have certainly not been demonstrated, they are actually fairly easily refuted by anyone with an understanding of what he is on about; the problem is that simply we don't bother, because we have more important work to do than write papers ripping apart pseudoscientific theories. While Langan may claim that his ideas are "metaphysical", they do not conform to the generally accepted norms and standards of

esoteric

section of a bookshop.

Perhaps "crank" is a little over the top, but I really feel that a link should be provided to pseudoscience, perhaps with a proviso included somewhere about how this is how some critics construe his work? If the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to educate, then surely one must allow the reader the opportunity to evaluate the merits of an individual's claims in the light of current scientific opinion, without being misled?--Byrgenwulf 11:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is a biographical sketch. Aside from the obvious fact that the CTMU does not rely on empirical justification and therefore cannot be classified as "pseudoscience", nebulous criticisms of it have no place here.

Byrgenwulf, who hints around that he is an academic expert in the philosophy of physics, should know that in order to credibly criticize Langan's work, he would need to write a well-reasoned paper on the topic, attach his real name to it, and include it in his vitae so that it can be properly associated with him and the academic institution with which he is affiliated and thus exposed to rebuttal. After all, a CTMU paper was published some time ago, and this is how "peer review" is supposed to work. If Byrgenwulf finds the CTMU too "unimportant" to merit this sort of treatment - or if he does not want people to see how coherent his criticisms really are - then he should not be wasting his valuable time carping about the CTMU on Wikipedia, let alone in somebody's bio. DrL 18:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the disputed tags for well-documented items, like the fact that Langan worked as a bar bouncer or has a high IQ. These facts are discussed repeatedly in the reference articles. The fact that Langan owns and operates a horse ranch is common knowledge in the high IQ community. There are photos of his ranch at the megafoundation website as he uses it for get togethers. I would hesitate to link to his ranch website, lest that be seen as an advert. DrL 11:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, for a change, DrL...but would like to add (as I've seen this comment before) that for encyclopaedic purposes, consensus among the "high IQ community" counts for less than nothing.--Byrgenwulf 11:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added dubious proviso links next to the suspect PopSci articles as per this mention of how they might be forgeries. Byrgenwulf 18:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

As previously noted, this is a legitimate source. There were two articles in the same issue. One was an article, the other an interview. The issue (October, 2001) should be available at a local library if you wish to check. DrL 19:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I see Mega Foundation has just been merged here. There is an article on Langan's other IQ club, Ultranet. It has even less merit than the Mega Foundation, and seems even more of an advert. Can it also be merged here? I would summarily do it myself, but I must confess I don't know how...although it would probably be a good skill to learn. Byrgenwulf 19:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Response (1) The Mega Foundation and the Ultranet are not "IQ clubs". One is a registered nonprofit foundation; the other is a project of that Foundation. (2) You are not in a position to pass judgment on the "merit" of Langan, his work, his Foundation, his fora, or the associated Wikipedia entries. Please try to understand this. (3) You are not in a position to "summarily" do anything related to the Wikipedia articles on these topics. Please try to come to grips with this. These misconceptions run afoul of Wikipedia guidelines in fact and in spirit. Asmodeus 17:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding point 3, Asmodeus, you are wrong. See

WP:BOLD --KGF0 ( T | C

) 05:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC).

I've heard differing accounts of Langans IQ, ranging from a slim 140 to an impressive 195. Which is it? Are we cherry picking the highest number? Jefffire 12:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Where did you see this 140 figure? It is possible that Langan took a lousy IQ test that had a ceiling of 140. All the certified psychologists that have tested Langan, have speculated that he possesses an IQ that approaches 200 (15 points per SD). Regardless of the fact that the CTMU looks like the work of a 15 year old. CDiPoce 17:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Traditional IQ tests don't go up that high, and those that claim to do so are more dubious and probably measure different things, which is why I'm concerned. Jefffire 18:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That's something that's been worrying me. Something doesn't add up here...the Mega test apparently has a "ceiling" of just less than 5 standard deviations. A standard deviation with IQ is 15 points, which means that it can only accurately (insofar as it is accurate at all) measure up to 175. I was shown a newspaper article about a chap who wrote the Mega test and came away with an IQ of 185. Which means there is something very odd going on about the reporting of scores here; I'm not sure quite what, but the whole thing is very strange. Byrgenwulf 19:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason why I said that psychologists have "speculated" 195 is because that IQ would have been extrapolated from a test. However, that does not mean we can disregard the 195 figure. They had made an educated guess, which holds more weight than us just spewing out lower numbers because of our own inadequacies. In the case of the Mega Test, I believe there was some ceiling bumping. CDiPoce 23:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what we, as editors, think about the reported scores is completely irrelevant.

cite it. --KGF0 ( T | C

) 05:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I placed two links. Note Langan does not control the website that those links lead to. Links are of scans and add color to the article. I also corrected a previous error (wrong link, oops!). DrL 14:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Byrgenwulf, you are attributing comments to Errol Morris that I don't believe were stated by him. Please provide the source of Morris's comments. This was a terrific documentary that won an honorable mention for Morris at the Cannes Film Festival. As far as I know, a transcript does not exist. DrL 18:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Go here and hover your mouse over Langan's picture on the mosaic. Byrgenwulf 18:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't deny that it was "hyped" that way by the website; just that Morris never said anything even close to that. Please don't mislead. Watch the documentary. It's very good. DrL 18:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm calling for mediation on this one. Please discuss your changes here first. DrL 13:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

DrL, don't you understand? You don't get to decide what Morris said, Morris decides that. And on his own website, Morris makes that comment. I am simply quoting Morris. Simply because it is less than flattering doesn't mean it should not be included, especially since the documentary in question is being used to glorify the subject of this article; this is gross distortion of fact, made clear by the fact that the person who made the documentary describes the subject of this article in a less than flattering way. Byrgenwulf 15:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that you watch the documentary. If you want to attribute a quote to Errol Morris, then look for a quote with a source, signature, or byline. This is a piece of unattributed hype appearing in a rollover on a gif at a website that is not edited by Errol Morris directly. Please...that's hardly a source, particularly when

It is not unattributed hype when it appears on the website of the person who made the documentary in question. You have no way of proving who edits Morris' website, or who determines what statements are put there. That statement has all the qualities required of a reliable source. Therefore, I would suggest the following:

"In the description given of the documentary on Morris' website, Langan is bla bla bla (fill in text I had previously posted)."

Whatever can be wrong with that? It is the truth DrL. If that is what appears on Morris's personal website, that is how Morris wishes his documentary to be portrayed, not so? Byrgenwulf 15:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Byrgenwulf, there is no indication that this is Errol Morris's "personal website". It looks like the website for a production or media company. I would expect that Morris has little or no involvement in creating or editing the content. He is certainly not listed on WHOIS. The absolute best you could propose would be "In the description given in a rollover caption at www.errolmorris.com, bla bla bla " which is clearly unsourced and cannot be included in a bio per

It is the official website of his production company. It is considered a reliable source for statements made by the company about the documentary. --Philosophus ^T 02:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is in fact considered more reliable than a description made by a Wikipedia editor who has watched the documentary. --Philosophus ^T 03:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding recent reverts by DrL: the presentation of the text on the website is not relevant. It is the description given there. "Unsourced" makes no sense, since I am not claiming that Morris himself said this. It is, however, on the website of his production company. --Philosophus ^T 05:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:LIVING - you need a stronger source than this. There is no author listed at the website. No author = no source. But I'm sure you already know that. DrL 05:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The author is Fourth Floor Productions. They are a reliable source for a description of a documentary which they produced. LIVING does not override

WP:RS.--Philosophus ^T

05:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed "unsourced" and noted that the documentary itself is the primary source. I'm wondering where you found "Fourth Floor Productions". I can't seem to locate that. DrL 05:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

whois --Philosophus ^T

06:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

DrL, you still had the bit about "rollover gifs" etc. Please don't mislead in the edit summary or the talk page, because what changes you said you made are not the same as the changes you really did make. Byrgenwulf 06:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are complaining about. The comment does appear in a rollover on a gif. It's obviously hype. DrL 06:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's put it like this. There seem to be double standards afoot here. When I wanted it to be explicitly clear that Langan's claims to have a "sum over futures" interpretation of QM were merely mentioned in a diagram caption, it was decided that the exact location of that information should be in a footnote, but the information could be included.

Now, when it doesn't suit Langan, that kind of information is not relevant, or must be suitably coddled with dismissive provisos in the main text? Really, it can't work both ways to Langan's benefit. Nor is it "hype" just because it is a "gif rollover". Anyway, that is how the site is designed: the gifs make a "table of contents", with the descriptions of each episode appearing when the mouse is over the entry. It is clearly the description those people wished to give of their documentary.

Do not apply double standards, please, do not mislead, and please try to stop letting any personal involvement you might have get in the way of an objectively true description of the content of this article. Byrgenwulf 06:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm getting your point, Byrgenwulf. I don't see any "sum over futures" reference on Wikipedia.

Btw, it's hype because that's what it is, not because that's what I say it is. It's not contained in the documentary, just for presentation on the website and, yes, as a gif rollover (that does make a difference). It's simply offhand and would never in a million years be considered a reliable source. I've been teaching research methods for years to people just about your age. Most of my students are probably not as smart as you but they'd pick this one correctly. Please don't pretend you don't know exactly how weak this is as a "source". DrL 06:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In the CTMU article, when I wished to point out that the "sum over futures" claim was made in a diagram caption in order to make it clear how tenuous it was, it was decided that the location of the claim could be put in a footnote, while the claim itself could remain in the article unadulterated.

The information on that site is not "offhand". The page in question gives information on each episode of the documentary series. They could have decided to do it all "text-only", just a list of headings giving titles, with the short paragraphs describing the episode underneath. Instead, in keeping with the general "artsy" feel of the site, it is designed with pictures and the hover command.

The manner in which a website is designed should have no bearing on its reliability as a source. If you teach research methodology, you should know that much: layout may count in terms of giving an impression, but sometimes even the most sloppily presented information is valuable. The reliability of a source is determined by other factors, such as who created it. Since the people creating the source are in a good position to decide what a documentary they have made is about, the information should be included.

I also do not appreciate references to my age, DrL; my age has nothing to do with anything. If I were truly wanting to be objectionable, I could start making a fuss about

WP:CIVILITY

, but I shan't, because I don't think of myself as a petty person.

As a concession, then, why not put the "gif rollover" proviso in the footnote, like what happened with "sum over futures" in the CTMU article, where the "diagram caption" proviso was similarly shunted to a footnote? Byrgenwulf 07:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

My comment about "sum over futures" was sarcastic. The article was deleted ... and my comment about age was tongue in cheek, really, my students are all ages - I was just trying to make a point. I hope the edit merits a truce - for now - I don't think it's fair and I'd still like to see what the admin says. DrL 07:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies if I took you the wrong way: things have been very tense, here, of course. Anyway, your previous edit is still slanted, because you are including unsourced information, as well as bias and opinion: "the declining state of the world". It is not an established fact that the state of the world is declining. It might be Langan's opinion, but Wikipedia is not Langan's blog. Byrgenwulf 07:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely - it has been tense. Please check your sources, and be absolutely sure about their content and authorship, before editing this page again. So will I. Let's both make a greater effort at NPOV. Thanks. DrL 14:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

<- unindent

unindent -> NPOV doesn't mean only including the positive parts of the description. Either the description is a reliable source, or it isn't. Since the consensus seems to be that it is, we need to include a balanced sample of it, not just a positive bit of it. It might also be nice if we could find a more detailed description of the documentary in a reliable source to add to the paragraph. --Philosophus ^T 14:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Absolutely. Just please check your wording so that you don't misrepresent the content of the source. Note that you were the one that originally introduced the quote that's on the page now. DrL 14:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

DrL, what makes it permissible to attribute the claim that Langan has the highest IQ in the world to the website, but not to use information from the very next sentence? Quoting the site directly, as I did, is not misrepresenting the content of it. Please try not to let any personal involvement you might have get in the way of the neutral status of the article.

I also think that distorting the purpose of Philosophus' actions like that is out of line. Byrgenwulf 14:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are suggesting including an additional sentence, that's certainly reasonable. Please use an accurate quote, though. What else would you like to include? DrL 14:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the version which now stands is pretty much a verbatim quote from the website in question, so I cannot imagine what could be wrong with that. Byrgenwulf 14:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sudden changes to errolmorris.com

As Anville noted, the text of the description on errolmorris.com abrubtly changed at about the same time that DrL changed her opinion on the reliability of the source and started insisting that the quote be accurate. This is really suspicious. DrL, did you contact the operators of the website about the text? If so, what did you say? --Philosophus ^T 15:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I would expect that word may have gotten back to them regarding how their website was being misused. I still think it's a poor source and the entire paragraph should be removed. Please just try to be responsible editors. DrL 15:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Truly, it is a strange day when "quoted" translates to "misused". Anville 15:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, do not misrepresent old content as being currently displayed at the em.com website. If they removed it, they probably felt it was not accurate. The link to the archive is there so why don't you give it a rest. DrL 15:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Either that or they received a legal threat, and decided that the easiest option was just to remove the material. --Philosophus ^T 17:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that. I think they just realized that material they had placed on the website as "hype" was being used for unintended purposes. A lot of companies do try to be responsible in that way. DrL 17:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Byrgenwulf, that is actually inaccurate. Marilyn's 200+ childhood IQ score is equivalent to about IQ 180 adult. IQ batteries for children are typically calculated on a different statistical scale (Marilyn took the Stanford-Binet at the age of 10). This is well-known. Marilyn actually scored lower than Chris on the Mega Test. I would make a neutral correction, acquiescing to probable exaggeration (again the passage is pure "hype" and nothing in the passage should be referenced, IMO), but I don't want to be accused of POV pushing. DrL 17:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not too sure I agree with that reading, DrL. Because while you are right about translating between adult and child scores, there are two other concerns here. First, it is unclear that the Mega Test measures anything like the same construct as the Stanford-Binet. Second, it is also well established in psychometrics that repeatedly taking a test decreases its efficiency, as you no doubt know. Now, it seems that Langan took the Mega Test twice, the first time yielding the absolute bare minimum for admission into the Mega Society; a host of people scored higher than him on his first attempt. The second time, it would appear that he took it under the name of his alter ego, "Eric Hart" or something like that, and scored five points better. Since that fiasco, I believe Dr Hoeflin has had to strongly discourage taking the Mega Test more than once, as many people were abusing the system to artificially inflate their apparent IQ. Don't take me for a fool, DrL. Not everyone is taken in by bluster. Since articles positively filled with bluster and tongue-in-cheek mockery are being used to play up Langan's glory and wonder, a little balance is perhaps called for here, don't you think? Perhaps all of that history pertaining to the measurement of Langan's IQ, and his antics with pseudonyms and things should be mentioned. What do you think? We can reference Noesis, the official journal of the Mega Society, the one which Langan received a court injunction to stop publishing under that name. Does that merit inclusion, perhaps, since it is easy and reliable to reference the findings of the Supreme Court? I would appreciate hearing your opinion about all that stuff. Byrgenwulf 17:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, reference to Noesis would violate WP:LIVING as the editor has a long-standing and very well-known dispute with Langan. Note that the policy explicitly states:

• Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below).

DrL 17:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The whole IQ testing scheme is fraught with difficulty. IQ tests are inadequate. Attempts at "high-end testing have not been successful. For example, there was no restriction on retaking the Mega Test when it first came out so a lot of people took it more than once. After all, there was no time limit and specific feedback was not given with results. It quickly became compromised so probably the only truly accurate results were those early ones. Marilyn's score on the test came after she had been dating Hoeflin! How accurate could that be? DrL 13:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Before initiating a content dispute, I would like to see if there is any objection to simply removing the entire Errol Morris paragraph per WP:LIVING, which clearly states:

• Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject

The material, both positive and negative, is clearly hype and exaggeration. DrL 18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You are very good at selectively quoting policy, DrL. This how the paragraph reads in full:

Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below).

Since the website in question is neither partisan nor self-published (i.e. personal, like a blog, which is what the policy is talking about), it should be a valid source. Otherwise we just have your word to go on when it comes to determining what the documentary says.

Also, I see no reason why Noesis cannot be included, because the proposed information from it is not derogatory. It is merely the documented truth about Langan's claims (I have another source as well, but we'll leave that for now). It doesn't make Langan out to be a fool: it merely explains how he came to have the "measured" IQ that he does. I'm also going to include a bit about how contentious the method of measuring his IQ is, if that's alright: it is also interesting in general, I think. Byrgenwulf 18:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note that WP has already determined Noesis (and the Mega Society) to be a non-notable source. If it was non-notable enough for excision from WP, it is certainly non-notable here. As far as measurement of IQ is concerned, the discussion is probably more suitable to another article. In fact, if you do a little research, I believe that it is discussed already in a couple of WP articles. It is controversial and you could certainly reference that article from here. DrL 18:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Noesis was never established as a non-notable source. That is nonsense. It is merely not a third party source about the Mega Society. That is why it was not appropriate to establish notability for the Mega Society. But, by that argument, why not delete all the links to documents stored on the Mega Foundation site, since the Mega Foundation isn't notable enough for this encyclopaedia either? Byrgenwulf 18:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Notable or not, the editor has a long-standing dispute with Langan, making it inappropriate as a source per WP:LIVING. I'd be happy to request a third opinion on that. Please let me know if you would like me to initiate that discussion. DrL 18:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope no one will object to the factual inclusions, minor edits, and mention of the CTMU paper published in 2002. DrL 08:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really - I changed two words, for objectivity's sake, though! Byrgenwulf 08:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice of you to stop by, but do you really think that you should be editing this talk? Admin or no, you seem to have some kind of personal involvement with at least one proponent of the CTMU. I wonder about the neutrality of your POV. You voted down the CTMU article without ever having read the paper behind it (which you admit below). You don't even seem to be able to answer a single question about it. Not very responsible, IMO. DrL 04:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The introduction to the CTMU paper I mentioned in the discussion on my talk page, itself, qualifies that paper as not scientific (including philosophy as a science). If you (= proponents of keeping the article) wanted to add a pseudo-philosophy tag, I would probably be neutral as to whether it's a notable pseudo-philosophy. If CTMU were notable, it would tend toward making Langan notable. (But I don't remember editing this article except for reverting removal of sourced information which may be considered critical of the subject.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Generically speaking, calling the CTMU "pseudo-philosophy" betrays four (4) distinct kinds of ignorance: (1) ignorance of the fields of philosophy in which the CTMU properly resides; (2) specific ignorance of the CTMU itself; (3) a profound ignorance of how truly awful most of what passes for "real philosophy" is these days; and (4) ignorance of the responsibility of Wikipedia editors to maintain NPOV at all times (as opposed, for example, to letting their personal prejudice hang out all over the place come hell or high water). That being said, the CTMU is definitely notable, because it definitely satisfies WP notability criteria. Please try to contain your obvious resentment of this original, unique, and extremely notable idea. It isn't nice to attack someone else's work without even having bothered to read up on it. Asmodeus 17:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In regard point (3), are you trying to say that CTMU, although

WP:BOLLOCKS (and is not in Wikipedia, for what it's worth). (If the claim is that CTMU is a type of non-self-consistent theory, or a philosophical theory of physical non-self-consistent theories, I didn't see it.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk)

18:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

With respect to point (3), I am saying that the distinction between "philosophy" and "pseudophilosophy", which you seem to regard as both clear-cut and significant, is no longer meaningful (if it ever was). As the

article on that subject states, it is really an opinionative distinction cited by contentious people, e.g. you, who are bent on discrediting others' work. ID "complexity theory" is mentioned on page 2 of the PCID paper, but even a cursory reading of that paper reveals that irreducible and specified complexity - two ideas near and dear to the hearts of the readers of PCID - nowhere figure as CTMU premises. In fact, you may have it backwards. The author merely seems to be suggesting that these concepts would have to be interpreted in the CTMU in order to acquire something they need to this day, namely, an explicit model. (After all, ID critics are constantly complaining that these concepts lack a model, so Langan was merely respecting their demands by discussing that issue.) For present purposes, the claim regarding the CTMU is simply that it is notable and therefore merits an article in Wikipedia. Since this claim has already been very well substantiated, I see no need to argue about it. Asmodeus

19:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Quote Asmodeus: "how truly awful most of what passes for "real philosophy" is these days". I think this is the first thing I have seen Asmodeus (or Langan!) write with which I can agree 100%. Unfortunately, the vast majority (but fortunately, not all) of philosophy these days has become bogged down in a quagmire of postmodernism and political correctness.

However, reading this, I feel compelled to add some pertinent information here. The "Intelligent Design" (ID) journal paper propounding the CTMU has an entire section devoted to explicating the compatibility between CTMU and ID. I cannot remember the page numbers offhand, but it's the last section, and anyone who has a .pdf of the paper can read the relevant bits. My point is that Langan seems to go out of his way to illustrate how CTMU can act as a "bridge", as it were, between ID and conventional Darwinism. This is because the CTMU, being "panentheistic", holds that because the universe can be described as a "cognitive entity" which is forming itself through "self-determinacy" (as Langan puts it), all the forms inherent in the universe are necessarily the products of intelligence. Of course, this step that Langan takes in order to explain the entirety of human experience has the side-effect, as it were, that rocks can think, albeit in a fashion different to human beings.

But here's a question for Langan (or Asmodeus).

William Dembski

, the founder of the self-proclaimed professional society to which Langan belongs, has put forward the idea of "specified complexity": any structure which has less than a certain probability of forming (if I recall it is < 10^-150) must necessarily be the product of an "Intelligent Designer". One of the many, many problems with Dembski's ideas is that this figure is completely ad hoc. If every structure in the universe is the product of some cognitive/computational process (a la CTMU), then the probability of that structure forming ex nihilo must, by Dembski (since the CTMU insists it is compatible with ID) be equal to or less than 10^-150. Can the CTMU (rigorously, i.e. using proper mathematical methods, not polysyllables) prove this idea? If so, can Langan (or Asmodeus) provide a formal proof? Or, alternatively, is Langan (or Asmodeus) prepared to go on record providing a (rigorous) formal refutation of Dembski's "let's pretend" mathematics, and risk censure in the ID club which Dembski founded?

Anyway, the bottom line is that the author of the CTMU idea proclaims that it is entirely compatible with ID. The only venue of publication of any "professional" literature directly pertaining to CTMU is in an ID journal. The only claim to professional authority the author of the CTMU can make, aside from the dubious evaluation of his IQ, is membership of an ID society. In short, the CTMU is so inextricably linked to the ID movement that any claim by its proponents to distance itself from that movement must be seen for what it is: a cheap sleight of hand to try to pull the wool over the eyes of others for purposes of self-aggrandisement and self-glorification (in my not-so-humble opinion, anyway). Byrgenwulf 19:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You complain that "the author of the CTMU idea proclaims that it is entirely compatible with ID." If, as its critics maintain, ID is theology, and theology is independent of reality, then any theory of physical reality "is compatible with ID theory", whether it is formulated on the scientific or philosophical level of discourse. So this can't really be taken as damning evidence against the CTMU, or for that matter any other theory bearing on reality. Regarding

William Dembski's universal probability bound

, the CTMU nowhere figures in its computation. (The UPB is simply a way of bounding a probability space, and the gist of Dembski's reasoning does not depend on its exact value. In any case, one is obviously better off letting Professor Dembski explain it himself than asking others to put words in his mouth.)

As for "the bottom line", the CTMU does not require publication in any special, academically-approved body of "professional literature" in order to be valid or notable; its validity depends on its content, and the mass media suffice to establish its notability. Nor does its author need any sort of "professional authority" based on membership in academia, the output of which is itself characterized by an extremely low information-to-noise ratio. Prior to becoming notable, Langan does not seem to have been involved in any way with the ID movement, which subsequently did nothing to promote his theory; thus, anyone who claims that the CTMU or its author is a product or even a part of the ID movement is plainly motivated by some combination of prejudice, confusion, and deceit. Needless to say, Wikipedia does not define proper editorial behavior as a function of bias, befuddlement, or dishonesty. Asmodeus 22:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There is very little "mass media" on CTMU; it's almost all on Langan, with CTMU as an example of his megalomania thinking. (Popular Science, I'm afraid, is no longer "popular" nor "science", and may not be a

WP:RS...) — Arthur Rubin | (talk)

23:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, especially when the coverage in Popular Science is considered along with reportage by other large-circulation periodicals and a few major television and radio networks. All of the same sources and links will remain available, and they add up to ten times more than is required. Although they were deemed insufficient the first time around, this was clearly due to a combination of deliberate misrepresentation, solicitation under false pretenses, and contemptible violations of various Wikipedia standards and guidelines. Take that sort of ratmobile out of the garage too often, and it's a sure bet that at some point, the wheels will fall off. My advice would be to just relax and let it happen, because it's certainly going to happen sooner or later. You can't fight the inevitable, and you can't kill an idea whose time has come. Asmodeus 00:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The conversation above has been recreated here to illustrate the involvement of Arthur Rubin in this topic and show his insuitability as an editor of this page. It also speaks to a systematic style of editing that has been involved in the Langan article and led to the deletion of the CTMU article. DrL 13:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not copy and paste from editors talk pages in such a bad faith and disruptive manner. This is "disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point"

WP:Point, and assuming bad faith. Don't do it. Jefffire

13:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll recuse myself from taking administrative actions in regard this page (in the future; if I've taken such actions in the past, I apologize). I will not recuse myself from editing the page. I don't consider myself biased, but I have no objection to DrL and/or Asmodeus linking to my previous opinions that CTMU is

WP:BOLLOCKS. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)

16:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for officially recusing yourself, Arthur, and also for gratuitously belaboring your unabashedly ill-informed opinion on the CTMU. (By trying to link the CTMU to WP:BOLLOCKS, you evidently mean to insinuate that it "has only the most tenuous connection to reality". Accordingly, I'll once again point out that you are in no position to make such a claim, and furthermore, that you could be effortlessly dismantled were you ever to do so in any sort of meaningful detail. Feel free to stack that neatly, tie it in a ribbon, and take it to the bank. ;) Asmodeus 17:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, one could argue that philosophy, as a whole, has only the most tenuous connection to reality; so it may be real philosophy, but still

WP:BOLLOCKS. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)

18:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And yet, we see a very great deal of philosophy in Wikipedia, do we not? It would seem to follow that your generally low opinion of it must count for very little indeed, and must be very far removed from

WP:POLICY. Asmodeus

19:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The mass media are a perfectly acceptable source for Langan's (or Marilyn vos Savant's, or anybody else's) estimated IQ. Estimated IQ is not "actual measured IQ"; Langan and many others are on record as saying that IQ cannot be reliably measured at this level. In any case, such claims do not pretend to be scientific or mathematical facts, but are merely statements about why the subject is considered notable. That Langan is considered notable for this reason is a well-established fact, and does not require publication of his personal scholastic or medical records. Asmodeus 14:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Per

WP:RS, multiple media sources are reliable enough for this "estimate". Based on the McFadden interview alone this is sufficient. 20/20 had Langan tested by a professional neuropsychologist as part of their derivation of this estimate. Although his scores were not released, they were available to 20/20 staff who based their published estimate on this and other information. DrL

14:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

A magazine simply stating that that is his IQ is not a reliable source. If they are deriving it from something, then quote that source. Alternatively reword the sentence into something more neutral. Jefffire 10:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral wording added and source quoted. Hope that's better. DrL 14:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As a member of WP:BIO I would ask that all editors to this article please review policy on editing bios of living persons. TIA --DrL 15:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

So this includes removing things such as pointing out that

WP:BIO

does not mean "remove all information that might be a bit embarassing to the subject".

Look see PCID does not like peer review and has redefined it. Now

WP:RS. Trying to censor that it does not is cheating. Haldane Fisher

18:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

And neither does DI guy

sour grapes and analysis of sour grapes

.)

So, why has Langan not tried to publish this "theory" in a proper peer-reviewed journal? Hey why not ask him? Haldane Fisher 18:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

And why are all the web references to the Mega Foundation site? They provide

WP:V that Langan wrote the articles (as he probably has enough control of the Mega Foundation to ensure that they would be correct), but not that they were actually published. (I fixed the PCID reference to point to the PCID site.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk)

19:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

In addition, why are all the alleged press articles about this guy also hosted on his own organisation's website? I can understand him hosting his own 'theories', but not using his website to store and reference copies of commercial publications about him. Isn't he violating copyright by doing that?

For verifiability purposes, articles about him should surely also be hosted by third-parties, preferably the actual publications. This article is like an overly flattering author's blurb!

Maybe I can't google properly, but when searching for third-party copies of the articles, most often I can't find them. Why? The Crying Orc 18:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Most media outfits do not keep their archives up forever. I suppose some exist in the wayback machine (like the popsci article). Anyhow, to have an accurate reference for a print article, a web source is not needed, so whether or not an article facsimile is preserved at one website or another doesn't matter. In fact, those links can be removed. I put those media sources in as a footnote when someone asked for references for the opening statement. Someone else moved them to the article. The list of media sources should probably be changed back to a footnote. --DrL 13:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I can find no (online) evidence the the film was made or shown at Cannes. There was an episode of the documentary (TV) series First Person (IMDB entry on series, TV.com entry on episode) which featured Langan. I believe that section needs to be removed unless sourced. (The reference is a plausible publisher, but, without a film title, even off-line checking would be impossible.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not good.

Arthur, I am trying to keep a neutral footing here. Why don't we discuss your objections to my edits? I am certainly not edit warring. I am trying to improve the flow of the article. As far as I know Asmodeus has not edited this article so what are you talking about? Will be happy to negotiate changes. --DrL 18:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the editing behavior on the article, I am sincerely trying to maintain a NPOV. Please review my changes and notes in the edit boxes. I really don't think the drum needs to be beat so heavily to make certain points. For example, it should be sufficient to say that one is an autodidact and has little formal education to make that point. Obviously he doesn't have any college degrees. Likewise, the ID connection has been sufficiently noted. Langan is actually not involved in the ID movement as far as I know, other than to have published a paper in PCID and accept appointment as a "fellow" in the scholarly, rather than political, sense. Some things for you all to think about. TIA for your consideration. --DrL 18:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It might be helpful to explain your changes bit by bit, rather than saying "please review my changes". What is it about the ID issue that makes you feel it should be removed? Why do you discount direct quote from Langan? Given the context, it's more useful to say that the person has no formal training in the fields in which he is a self-proclaimed "expert" than it is to say how much college education he has. As for the ID thing - you removed references to his contributions to ISCID and his writings on ID. The "political vs scholarly" angle on ID is a red herring - that isn't what the text you removed addresses, and more importantly, since the ID movement has yet to produce any science, how can you separate "scholarly" from "political" in an overwhelmingly political movement? Guettarda 18:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I explained changes in the edit boxes. I did not have a problem with the direct quote, but I did have a problem with all my edits being reverted wholesale, including a neutral description of the contents of the paper. --DrL 18:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, without a detailed consideration of

WP:NPOV); however the fact that he's a fellow of ISCID must occur before his paper in PCID, or we have to report that he's a fellow twice, as the fact that he's a "fellow" is relevant to the degree of peer-review that they would take. I also would appreciate a cite, although I don't think it's possible, that he's a fellow in the scholarly, rather than political, sense. I'm not sure that ISCID has sufficient scholarly attributes that there's a significant difference. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)

18:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

ISCID is not a scholarly organization, not in any meaningful sense of the term scholarly like the NAS or the AAAS. Rather it is group of like-minded individuals who share notion that is considered by the courts and scientific community to be pseudoscience. FeloniousMonk 18:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree about ISCID being a scholarly organization. I believe it very much is. I don't deny that there are political overtones. I have never read anything to indicate that Langan is politically involved in the ID movement. --DrL 18:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course everybody thinks they are the ones trying to maintain a NPOV. Edit warring starts with the first revert, not the changes it removes.

Prior to my arrival at this article yesterday it read like a Langan hagiography; it even failed to mention in the intro what he is, that he is an autodidact promoting several notions on scientific topics, that he has little to no formal education on these topics, or how his notions on matters scientific are received by the scientific community. That simply will not fly by Wikipedia standards. Any article on Langan that ommits or glosses over these points will simply be incomplete. FeloniousMonk 18:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Some parts of the article are an improvement but others are lacking. For example: "He has no or little formal education in these fields, and no diplomas or certificates, [...]"

It is already stated that Langan is an autodidact. It is later stated that he has little education ("With only a small amount of college, Langan has held a variety of labor-intensive jobs "). This sentence brings in no new information and is an example of a pattern of edits designed to portray him in a negative light by repeating and emphasizing certain pieces of information over others. --DrL 19:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your editing advice. I've made several content edits and many format edits to properly align the references, etc. I hope that you find the article improved and NPOV. Constructive feedback welcomed. --DrL 16:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Without mentioning any names, it's been brought to my attention that an active editor on this page has a personal stake in the topic of this article. The edits of this contributor are suspect, and so I'm asking that contributors with personal interests in this topic limit their participation at this article to comments on this talk page and not edit the article per

It doesn't matter who edits an article as long as the edits reflect a NPOV. While it is frowned upon to edit one's own biography, it is encouraged that the subject correct errors and historical information. Even then it's allowed because Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit". It's really not up to editors to contend or accuse other editors of having a "personal stake" in one topic or another. The important thing is to strive for a factual, neutral presentation of the material. As long as we don't lose sight of that and have a willingness to work with other editors, then Wikipedia may have a chance of succeeding. --DrL 18:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no. "It doesn't matter who edits an article as long as the edits reflect a NPOV" Nice try, but no. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Er, yes ... it may be time for you to reread the Wikirules. :) --DrL 19:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Er, no. When an obvious crank like

Christopher Michael Langan starts editing his own article, well. Hal Fisher

20:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

And both

WP:COI apply to relatives and family members as well. FeloniousMonk

20:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Please make constructive changes in collaboration with other editors. Also, please assume good faith! encourage editor collaboration and discussion. I am perfectly willing to work with the other editors and would suggest that changes that are too POV one way or the other, positive or negative, be discussed by interested editors before being inserted into the article. --DrL 17:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read

WP:AGF says "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. " and your pattern of inserting and emphasizing details favorable to Langan while deleting or minimizing properly sourced facts that are unfavorable belie your appeal to good faith. FeloniousMonk

18:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Although User:DrL may be related to the subject of the article, most of his/her edits have been improvements toward NPOV. Please do not globally revert his/her changes. I'm going to be away for a few hours, at least, but I hope that some resolution of the questions of the exact nature of ISCID and whether the quote User:FeloniousMonk has been inserting really supports the claim that that Langan is really an intelligent design proponent. (I, personally, don't think it's adquate without additional context, and DrL doesn't think it supports the issue at all.).

Other issues include the double-listing of the PCID paper, the summary of intelligent design (which seems unnecessary to me), and the claim that CTMU is a form of meta-Darwinism (it claims to be, but I'm not convinced we should take its own word on the issue.)

I won't protect the page, as I'm involved, but I think a request for page protection might be seriously considered by an uninvolved Admin. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Arthur, I have cleaned up the article and removed the double references, formatting errors and a typo or two. Thanks for your input. --DrL 18:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"Although DrL may be related to the subject of the article, most of his/her edits have been improvements toward NPOV." I disagree, DrL's contributions promote an overly rosy depiticion of Langan and his "scientific" notions while minimizing or removing altogether how they have been received by the scientific community, something

WP:AUTO absolutely precludes editors from editing articles about themselves as controversially as DrL has. Skirting policies and guidelines by hiding behind anonymity is an act of bad faith by definition. FeloniousMonk

18:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Aside from your being just plain wrong about what WP:AUTO does or does not "preclude", this article is not about me. Even if it were, I would still be allowed to edit out any misleading or disparaging comments. Langan does not advocate "a particular form of intelligent design". ID theory purports to be empirical science; its statements are subject to verification by the scientific method. Langan's theory, being philosophical in nature, is subject to verification by deduction alone. If you had read his writing with the care it warrants, this would be perfectly clear to you. Moreover, the CTMU article written by Tim Smith explicitly presented the CTMU as philosophy, specifically metaphysics. You are engaged in the deliberate misrepresentation of the ideas and beliefs of a Wikipedia biography subject in stark violation of WP:LIVING. (The only criterion for being a fellow of ISCID is to have done significant work pertaining to complex systems. No candidate is required to embrace ID as a condition of appointment.) --DrL 18:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

DrL wrote: "ID theory purports to be empirical science; its statements are subject to verification by the scientific method." The second clause happens to be false. As for the statement "(The only criterion for being a fellow of ISCID is to have done significant work pertaining to complex systems. No candidate is required to embrace ID as a condition of appointment.)", I find it implausible, requiring evidence. However, the implication I was trying to make was that the publication was even less peer-reviewed than normal for PCID, as Langan is a "fellow" of the parent institute, and PCID really only publishes ID papers. I wasn't intending to imply that Langan supports ID, only that his work, as published, supports ID, to the extent it's likely that was the intent. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Arthur. You state: "DrL wrote: 'ID theory purports to be empirical science; its statements are subject to verification by the scientific method.' The second clause happens to be false." I'm afraid I disagree; ID theory does indeed purport to be scientific in the empirical sense, and by the definition of empirical science on the scientific method, DrL's second clause is absolutely correct. (Whether or not you think that ID theory can be verified by the scientific method, i.e. by the gathering of observational support for its hypotheses, is another matter entirely.) Secondly, a brief visit to the Fellows page of

ISCID will inform you of its fellowship criterion. Note that explicit acceptance of the ID hypothesis is not required, nor is it necessary in order to "foster the intellectual life" of ISCID and help "guide its programs". Any Fellow is free to add to the intellectual atmosphere in any desired way, and to offer program guidance in any desired direction. (I hope you're enjoying the holidays!) Asmodeus

19:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, DrL's refusal to clarfiy her relation to the topic or abide by

WP:COI have resulted in DrL being added to the ongoing arbitration around Langan-related articles, [1], so this will be settled there. In the meantime I suggest DrL limits her participation to this article's talk page. FeloniousMonk

18:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That arbitration was initiated by Asmodeus against Science Apologist. I will be happy to enter my comments. --DrL 19:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

As with most things in life, the rule of unintended consequences applies to arb cases too; since all relevent evidence is reviewed and few involve clearly one-sided violations many result in "a pox upon both your houses" type outcomes. Please limit your participation here to the talk page until the case settled. FeloniousMonk 20:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• and self-styled expert - what is the benefit in removing this statement?
• and an intelligent design advocate - this appears to be true, and is supported by a quote from Langan
• He has no or little formal education in these fields, and no diplomas or certificates, and his views on various topics are not widely accepted within the mainstream scientific community - I suppose the "no diplomas or certificates" may be redundant given the start of the sentance, but the idea is appropriate and useful at this point in the article.
• a substantial amount of puffery about the CTMU, which is fringe trivia.

What is the benefit to the article, and how does it outweigh WP:AUTO/WP:COI concerns? Adding puffery about a topic that you are apparently too close to isn't acceptable. Guettarda 19:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No one is "adding puffery". Some of the "fringe trivia", like the RAPID mention, was added by Arthur Rubin or someone else. I put a lot of time into reworking parts of that article this morning and getting out the typos only to have it reverted without a fair read. Instead of making constructive changes, you simply reverted. No offense intended, but that is both lazy and unfair. WP:AGF, please! --DrL 19:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Typos? You have a pretty strange definition of typos, methinks. Observation: AGF is most frequently invoked by those in violation of AGF. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I worked on both the content and typos. --DrL 19:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

These areas of the original are preserved identically in DrL's section.

This is spun differently, but not a typo:

And here's a real difference, but even if she counts it as a typo, it's certainly not plural.

So I don't see what you mean about lazily reverting typos - it's all content-based, with one possible exception which may or may not be seen as a typo. And if you want to change the word "intelligent design" back to "CTMU", then say that, don't go on about having all your "hard work fixing typos" undone, because it's simply not true. Guettarda 20:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

My point was that I fixed a lot of typos and formatting mistakes, in addition to content changes, which were all reverted. It took me a long ime to adjust the punctuation to set the periods outside of the references, etc, but I will just not bother with that until the bio settles down more. In the future, please don't just revert to a previous version - that is not constructive and it is sad to see an admin engaging in disruptive editing behavior. It is important that editors include only factual and properly sourced material in bios. Not only this bio, but all bios of living persons on Wikipedia. I am a member of project bio and see this as a major problem. --DrL 14:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again - what typos? I presented all the text that you did not remove from the article, in the original and in your version. Which of the changes presented above are typos? Guettarda 17:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: It seems that we now have 60% of WikiProject:ID on the scene, disruptively editing a biography in clear and concerted violation of

Of course, most of these people are also interested in pseudoscience, which leads them to the arbcom case against you, which leads them here... Guettarda 20:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Refreshing that some folks can still "do math". Absolutely refreshing. BTW, ever seen the "watch" button? Ever seen "Category:ISCID fellows"? There ya go. Rather than get so clever that you tangle yourself up in conspiracy theories, think Occam's razor. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed because it does not include an appropriate citation and is therefore speculative (and arguably in violation of WP:OR). Please don't put it back without an appropriate supporting source. I think it would be great if editors could stick to verifiable facts. I will do my best to do the same! --DrL 14:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed pending verification. The citation used does not support this speculation. Please do not attribute ideas or positions to biography subjects without clear supporting references. To do so is a clear violation of

I've compared the chapter list and the ISCID fellow list and at least three of the authors are not ISCID fellows. Unless this is stated as a conclusion elsewhere, a comment that all individuals contributing to a writing project share a particular viewpoint is little more than speculation and also in violation of WP:OR. Please stay with verifiable facts when entering information into a persons' bio, particularly a living person. --DrL 14:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the material in the citation, Langan presented on the CTMU paper, not "intelligent design". Please try to stick with the facts that are supported by the citations. --DrL 18:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight... Langan is a fellow in the ID group the

William Dembski

, but you want us to believe Langan's not an ID advocate? Please.

Um, no. You're simply trying to spin and control the presentation of facts, promoting a particular POV. FeloniousMonk 18:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Listen to me, please. You can either produce citations to prove that Langan presented on the topic of Intelligent Design, or you can't. I say you can't, and that your strange way of inferring it from the title of the society does not meet Wikipedia verifiability standards. In general, the notion that speakers at the X Society can only give presentations directly on the topic of X is not true. It follows that the POV is all yours. Now kindly provide the requested citations, or find something else to argue about. (Oh, yes...and don't forget to run right back to the ScienceApologist RfAr and post a link to this highly incriminating request.)Asmodeus 18:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What was it on then? CTMU says that an emergent intelligence is responsible for the way things are; it is perforce a form of intelligent design and that's why Langan is welcomed at International Society for Complexity, Information and Design. I understand your desire to control how Langan's work is perceived. I do not acknowledge your authority to do so. You and DrL need to read

WP:OWN. FeloniousMonk

18:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's a problem here. FM wants to state that Langan is an ID promoter (which is not clearly supported by the evidence yet presented). DrL wants to excise all information which would tend to lead others to believe that he's an ID promoter, which is a clear violation of

WP:NPOV

, as the evidence is there and is cited. In regard RAPID, can't we just state that the organization and conference were on ID, without explicitly specifying that Langan's talk and paper were on ID?

It's not clear to me that CTMU's "emergent intelligence" means the same thing as a rational person or ID means by "intelligence". That's the only failed link in the chain from Langan to ID. If you (FM) can provide evidence toward that, I'll agree that DrL's position is wrong. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, Arthur, but that's not "the only failed link in the chain from Langan to ID". We also have the following important distinction: ID theory purports to be a theory of empirical science, while the CTMU purports to be a theory of philosophy which draws its conclusions not from empirical data, but from model-theoretic necessities of the scientific observation process. This is a key distinction, and it implies that the CTMU cannot possibly be ID theory, at least according to informed usage. (The central premise of ID theory is that the observational methodology of the empirical sciences provides evidence of design in nature; that's what accounts for the Paley comparisons, science polls, and so forth. In contrast, the CTMU presents an abstract conceptual framework to which standard empirical methodology is secondary.) Anyone who can't see this, and yet pretends to be an authority on ID theory or the surrounding political and educational controversies, should hurry up and find a new hobby. I trust that you're capable of understanding this, and would appreciate it if you'd stop being disingenuous about it. Don't whitewash things for those who can't get their facts straight and their citations in order; give it to them straight. Regardless of whether anyone in particular thinks that Langan's work is without merit, it's still notable by Wikipedia standards due to its mass media coverage, and Langan's account of it is presently the only acceptable means of classification. Asmodeus 19:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Since CTMU is only explained by Langan and not reviewed by any independent publications, it fails

WP:V. This is why there is no CTMU article separate from Langan. --ScienceApologist

19:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The CTMU has been mentioned and/or described by secondary mass media sources, and that (along with its primary publications)suffices to establish that it satisfies RS and NOR. Therefore, this cannot be the actual reason that "there is no CTMU article separate from Langan." You know very well what went down. Asmodeus 19:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

CTMU is not explained by the mass media sources. It is only obliquely referenced as one might say, reference a hobby or an interest. That a notable person has a hobby or interest does not make said hobby or interest notable. What went down is that people realized that Langan-original-research-vanity-cruft didn't belong in the encyclopedia anymore than any other vanity cruft one may see deleted on a day-to-day basis. --ScienceApologist 21:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

To put it as bluntly as possible, that's false and seemingly mendacious, and you know it. (Note that the basic approach of the CTMU is indeed explained in this article.) Please don't waste my time, and the time of others on this site, with anything but the truth. It's inconsistent with the encyclopedic values of Wikipedia. TIA, Asmodeus 18:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the only encyclopedia identifying Langan as an ID advocate; ResearchID.org does in several articles. In the "ID-programmatics" article (""The sub-field of intelligent design that provides general frameworks for undertaking scientific research is ID-programmatics...) lists Langan thusly [2]:

Cognitive-Theoretic program

Christopher Langan has proposed a Cognitive-Theoretic Model of cosmology and Reality Theory that has the potential of developing a unique ID research program.

For more information on the Cognitive-Theoretic program, refer to Langan's paper on his model in PCID, "The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory"

And the ID-heuristics article at ResearchID: [3]

Pandas Thumb is another secondary source that identifies Langan as advocating a particular form of ID. At Panda's Thnmb: [4]

These are secondary sources identifying Langan as advocating a particular form of ID and the latter meets the bar for inclusion in the article. FeloniousMonk 20:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Did I hear you right? Did you say that the Panda's Thumb, an outrageously prejudiced anti-ID site, "meets the bar for inclusion in the article"? What could you possibly be thinking? For that matter, did you say that "having the potential to develop a unique ID research program" is equivalent to "being ID theory?" Do you think that the two terms "model" and "theory" are equivalent? The mere fact that the CTMU is explicitly labeled a model rather than a theory is enough to show that it purports to occupy a higher level of discourse than ID theory per se, and thus cannot be identical to it. Tell the truth, please - are you really presenting yourself to the Wikipedia community as an expert on ID theory? I don't want to be overly judgmental, but I really think that we need to set the record straight about your qualifications and the weight of your opinions here. Asmodeus 20:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, you heard me right. Panda's Thumb is an acceptable source for what is said at Panda's Thumb. FeloniousMonk 22:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but not for what is said about Christopher Michael Langan in Wikipedia. Panda's Thumb is nothing but a political-purpose Internet bulletin board mainly populated by amateur ID critics with heavy axes to grind. I hate to disappoint you, but that's not the kind of "reputable source" demanded by Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Asmodeus 06:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Bill Dembski and cranks like Chris Langan (and Mrs and cat). This is a mainstream perspective. Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia places mainstream sources above cranky sources. Haldane Fisher

09:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Basically what Haldane said. The usual problems with blogs don't apply to PT. The authors are well-known experts in their fields and material is reviewed before being posted. In any event, this is a bit of a red herring since the other sources given by FM in the section above this one would be enough to establish the ID element anyways. JoshuaZ 15:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Pile on, PT is "one of the top 5" according to Science, the authors are noted scientists. Not Your Average Blog, Asmo. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you see as the difference between a "model" and a "theory". I do see a difference, but CTMU is a theory, rather than a model, by any reasonable interpretation. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not quite right, and it's not just a matter of "how I see" the difference. An axiomatic theory T is derivable from its axioms (complete with appropriate nonlogical variables and constants) through its rules of inference by grammatical substitution. At the risk of oversimplification, one starts with linguistically-formulated axioms consisting of primitive and defined terms, and ends up with theorems. Now, T is conventionally distinguished from the universe U in which it is interpreted (in the case of a theory of empirical science, U being the world of observational data). A consistent interpretative mapping M:T-->U of T to U is called a "model", and its expression requires a metalanguage expressing the relationship between T and U. To the extent that the model is described in terms of the metalanguage (as opposed to the object language in terms of which T alone is expressed), it is also a descriptive theory, but only in light of an important distinction: it exists on a higher level of discourse than T itself. This requirement is what distinguishes the theoretical language (string set) T from its model M in U, and unless T is sufficiently self-referential to serve as its own model and metalanguage (as the the CTMU is purported to be), this distinction is mathematically inexorable: M must exist as a proper extension of T by the adjunction of appropriate metavariables, functionals and so on. So you see, where ID theory is analogous to an ordinary empirical theory T and the CTMU is (purportedly) analogous to M, there's a very real difference between them. You're a mathematician, and I'm sure that on some level, you're capable of understanding this distinction. The bottom line is, the CTMU is not identical to "ID theory" as it is ordinarily understood, and for the sake of encyclopedic accuracy, we can't let uninformed editors use Wikipedia to misinform the public. Asmodeus 21:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That's enough evidence for me. The syllogism can be roughly summarized: ID is to empricism as CTMU is to metaphysics. Therefore, associating Langan with ID is entirely appropriate. --ScienceApologist 21:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess you're trying to be funny? That's fine, as long as you don't try to insert your sense of humor into Wikipedia articles. (ID theorists call what they're doing "science", not "metaphysics". In the end, that you happen to think they're doing "metaphysics" instead of "science" doesn't count for much.) Asmodeus 21:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You might check out Intelligent design and see how real scientists don't consider the IDers to be doing "science". --ScienceApologist 21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that matters here is that whatever it is they're really doing, they're not doing the CTMU. Asmodeus 21:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, CMTU is labelled as a model, not a theory. Well bust my britches...how in the world did RAPID get the billing wrong? "Christopher Langan, Megafoundation "The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory". Odd that, no? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Another "ID expert" weighs in. Read carefully, please: "To the extent that the model is described in terms of the metalanguage (as opposed to the object language in terms of which T alone is expressed), it is also a descriptive theory, but only in light of an important distinction: it exists on a higher level of discourse than T itself." Now look in what I wrote above. Do you see that up there? Why, sure you do! (See how easy that was?) Asmodeus 22:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I see. So, it is a theory but it's not a theory. Quite the poser there, eh? If I catch your theory of theories correctly, something is a theory when it's convenient to be a theory, but not when it's inconvenient. The distinctions you espouse are dysfunctional piffle. See how easy that was?. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

A bit too easy, I fear. My best advice is to try to address the technical points actually raised without getting too cute. Here's a technical point that seems to be giving you some trouble: the meanings of the terms model and theory are not mutually exclusive, but neither are these terms strictly synonymous. Now, and I say this with all due respect and sensitivity, a complex logico-linguistic relationship like this may be very, very hard for an "ID expert" such as you to grasp. If so, then please accept my sympathies. But in that case, I must be honest, and confess that I'd prefer to have a rational conversation with somebody who understands the distinction between convenience and model theory. Have a nice evening, and happy opinionating. Asmodeus 22:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Model and theory aren't the same? Well, hush my puppies and knock me over with a feather. No one was arguing that they were, as near as I can tell. It seems to be you and Langan (ex uni pariunturne ambo?) are depending on rather tenuous and questionable definitions of both to make a distinction that is not valid. It is only a theory at a metalinguistic level, but is merely a model at a less sophisticated level of discourse? OK. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Are we making an invalid distinction, Jim? If so, then why don't you do everyone a favor and come up with the real definitions and fill us all in on them, and give everybody the low-down straight-and-skinny? That way, we'll all know that you have the technical know-how to be making judgments of the kind you seem to want to make, in a subject you seem to think you know a lot about. (We're waiting...) Asmodeus 01:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the

Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe is only a theory and not a fact, regarding everything. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. Haldane Fisher

09:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually Asmodeus, it seems to be you (plural) who are having difficulty with the definitions, so I see no point in boring everyone by explaining what they already know. Now, if you want to state that your beloved CTMU is fundamentally a theory from which a theoretical model is then constructed, fine. However, denying that it is first and foremost a theory is to live in a Panglossian paradise.

Your quips regarding "ID experts" are humourous, albeit not on the level you believe them to be. ID is hardly a very complex "theory": it is creationism dressed in the rags of bad science and bad math. Thus, it is not any more difficult to be an expert on ID than it is to be an expert on the Wizard of Oz. God/aliens/a time-travelling biologist/(in your case) a universal emergent intelligence designed things = Dorothy and Toto were swept up in a tornado, killed a witch, met lots of interesting creatures and came home. Same level of complexity, same level of fantasy. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Please try to follow chronological order when presenting information in bios. --DrL 20:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Just curious why the identity of his collaborator (on the ISCID paper) and fellow fellow isn't relevant here? It's normal to list a person's spouse in their Wikipedia bio - if the spouse is a collaborator on their major work, then all the more so, I would think. Not so? Guettarda 22:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes Arthur, we wish his wife would stay out of this too, but unfortunately they are connected through the venue Langan has chosen to present his views. No, the other one, ISCID. Langan's wife being an ISCID Fellow along with Langan is highly notable and relevant in and of itself. It's also verifiable: [5][6][7] It clearly warrants being in the article. I'm curious as to why Arthur thinks it in not notable or relevant. FeloniousMonk 22:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The identity of his collaborator (on the ISCID paper) didn't appear in the article (and I didn't check). If she is a co-author, put it back. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The paper had no coauthors. There's a burden of proof on anyone who claims that Langan's wife "collaborated" with him on the paper (as opposed to, say, helping out with illustrations and so forth). Citations will be needed. Asmodeus 23:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you know? FeloniousMonk 00:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(ec)Not a co-author, but she is acknowledged as a collaborator in the acknowledgements: The author wishes to thank Gina Lynne LoSasso for creating the diagrams that appear in this paper and for many stimulating discussions and feedback regarding the presentation of this work. She is acknowledged as a collaborator, rather than a "thanks for being there" kinda way. No one else is mentioned in anything like a similar way.

It's normal to mention spouses, especially if they are mildly notable. DrL removed it with an edit summary saying "rm information as disproportionately emphasizing ID in relationship to Langan and his work". If DrL isn't directly connected with Langan then removal of the information with a misleading edit summary is evidence of nothing. If, on the other hand, DrL is connected with Langan, then s/he should be restricting his/her edits to this page, and again, should present at least some semblance of a reason why this article should be different from all other biography articles. Either we AGF about who DrL claims s/he is or isn't, or we undo unexplained deletions by someone who shouldn't be editing the article at all. Guettarda 23:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Collaborator, not co-author. And whether she is his co-author is not the point. The point is she is also a Fellow of the ISCID [8], and as an ISCID fellow is responsible for vetting what articles get published: [9] Since their "peer review" process is opaque to outsiders, readers of the this article should know that the possibility exists that she was the reader who passed his article for publication by the PCID. Something similar occurred with their fellow Fellow Richard Sternberg, and this is why it is important to lay out all the facts and let the readers connect the dots or not as they may. FeloniousMonk 00:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Noesis, The Journal of the, Mega Society; Special Issue: Kevin Langdon Replies to Chris Langan and Gina LoSasso [10]. The addition of this well-sourced, accurate material, which meets

I'm very sorry, but that's not a reliable source in the sense of

WP:LIVING, and other important Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Of course, I understand that you don't put much stock in these policies, but others do. Please make sure that your future edits to this article are in compliance with them. Thanks for your attention. Asmodeus

07:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't divined that you were such an expert on

WP:LIVING that would support the efforts of yourself and DrL to make it one. If this is at all unclear, I'm sure I could ask my eleven-year-old to explain it to you as she understands it without a problem. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;

10:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks a perfectly reliable source to me and a notable and verifiable fact relevant to this topic. Exactly why is Mega Society; Special Issue: Kevin Langdon Replies to Chris Langan and Gina LoSasso not a reliable source again? Because they have an viewpoint that differs from Langan's you say? Gee, no kidding; likely the cause of their suit. Megasociety.org and the imbroglio described there easily meet both

WP:V in my opinion. FeloniousMonk

07:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not meet Wikipedia verifiability and NPOV standards (read my explanation above), and will therefore be summarily removed from the article if you attempt to insert it there. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for your despicable POV-driven vendetta against Mr. Langan. Have a good night. Asmodeus 08:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The California Superior Court ruling [11] and the official arbitration ruling [12] support the megasociety.org account but not yours. Unless you can show that arbitration ruling document is fraudulent I can't finding your objections to be well-founded or compelling. On one hand we have proper sources, and on the other, your word. FeloniousMonk 08:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been emailed by two people associated with the Mega Society, both are completely confident that Asmodeus is Langan and DrL is Langan's wife, at least one has sent evidence to that effect to the arbitrators currently considering

WP:COI. Guy (Help!

) 18:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Your personal emails have no relevance or credibility here. DrL and I have opted not to share our RL identities with you, and that's the end of it. Why have we made that decision? Because this site contains far too many trolls, ID critics, failed litigators, and so on, who would surely use that information to subject us to harassment. If you want to try to make RL identity an issue anyway, then you need to demonstrate a clear pattern of

WP:NPOV violations in our edit histories. I'm willing to stand on my record to the letter, and I believe that DrL is willing to do the same. Of course, I'm aware that FeloniousMonk has linked to every single one of our edits as "evidence" of such violations in the ScienceApologist RfAr, but FeloniousMonk is mistaken and clearly driven by philosophical bias (and possibly some form of jealousy). So, it would appear, are you. What does this imply? It implies that you are engaged in personal harassment of DrL and me, plain and simple. Once again, I'm politely asking you to desist. Asmodeus

19:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

For someone with an alleged IQ of 195 you sure do have issues with comprehension. Is it maybe that

WP:COI are put too plainly, completely lacking in abstract modalities, too lacking in higher level discourse to spark your little grey cells into action? As a fellow autodidact with a high IQ (something I am generally loathe to publicise -- actions speak far louder than self-proclaimed accolades) I can assure you that the IQ in and of itself is meaningless and irrelevant for RL purposes and not in the least impressive if the simplest of concepts escape one's grasp. I can also assure you that jealousy does not play into anything here, nor is there any philosophical bias at work (except, perhaps your own). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;

20:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Asmodeus: See that over in the far distance? That's the point, that is, and you missed it.

WP:COI applies to your opinions, and those of your wife, on this article. Quack, quack. Guy (Help!

) 23:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This [13] is related to the megasociety.org imbroglio and relevant as well, as is the official ruling [14]. FeloniousMonk 08:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, so what needs to be covered is the California Superior Court ruling against Langan for portraying himself as the Mega Society, and the National Arbitration Forum ruling forcing the release of the domains megasociety.com and megasociety.net to the real Mega Society. Sources:

• National Arbitration Forum - The Mega Society v. Gina LoSasso: [15]
• Superior Court of California - The Mega Society v. Chris Langan: [16]

And as part of the Megasociety imbroglio there is Ian Goddard, Megasociety member, who says Mrs. Langan took his work from the Megasociety site and then attributed it to her husband as his original work: [17] We'll need to write a neutral account of this. FeloniousMonk 09:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm looking for a source of both Mr and Mrs Langan's ban from the pro-ID Access Research Network messageboard, my old link has died, [18]. It was discussed here [19], [20] FeloniousMonk 09:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure his being banned from an ID message board is all that relevant, (Shock! horror! Hal Fisher comes out in defense of CML!) but it is relevant to his arbcom case that others think he is a net kook too. Haldane Fisher 10:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: If you people would like to converse with or about the Mega Society, feel free to apply. All you have to do is take a little IQ test, score very well on it, and pay a few bucks to get in. But as I say, this group has been pronounced non-notable by Wikipedia three times in succession, so they won't be getting any space in Langan's bio.

Incidentally, you seem to have a few misconceptions about this group. First, the people presently running it did not prevail in their lawsuit against Langan; ICANN threw out most of their California judgment, leaving them with two or three little domain names that they originally hadn't even wanted (and denied them the ones they actually did want). Secondly, regarding your belief that the State of California sides with the Mega Society, the Medical Board of California issued warnings to Langdon and others to the effect that they had been violating the law. Essentially, they've been forbidden to operate their testing business in that state, and were subsequently warned by other states as well. Thirdly, your "reputable source", Kevin Langdon, was sued for fraud by Omni Magazine in connection with his own testing activities and was compelled to pay a substantial monetary judgment. All of this can be documented (and has been documented, both to ICANN and before a federal court). But given what I said above, it doesn't have to be documented to you. You're simply not that important in the scheme of things, and even if you were, the rules of Wikipedia have already spoken on the matter. Wikipedia is not the Mega Society's final court of appeal.

Please don't get me wrong - the Mega Society contains a few nice people, even a few smart ones. But at the top of its organizational hierarchy, it's a veritable rogue's gallery, and its newsletter simply fails to qualify as a reliable (or relevant) source. Now please go away and quit messing up this talk page with nuisance threats against a Wikipedia biography subject who, as you know, falls squarely under the protection of

Do you have a source for that? All of the above is simply Asmodeus' personal opinion, and hence by your own reasoning employed elsewhere and so not relevant to this article. FeloniousMonk 16:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see sources for most of this. In any event, it shouldn't be hard to look up the actual ICANN decisions (if they exist). Furthermore, you confuse being notable enough for their own article and the dispute itself being notable enough in the context of Langan. JoshuaZ 16:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict X2: "you" = Asmodeus)

The ICANN judgement gave the megasociety domains to the Mega Society, letting L & MrsL keep megafoundation (as being a prior use) and megacenter (as not being confusing). That seems to a mixed win, rather than a "trivial" win, as you state.

The "fact" that the Mega Society cannot perform testing in California is only relevant to the article on that society; it does not go to credibilty of that society. (I put "fact" in quotes because I didn't check, as it's not relevant.)

The question of whether MrsL appropriated Goddard's ideas as L's or whether Goddard claimed L's ideas has his own, would need further research. (However, you haven't provided a source for a claim of the latter, while we do have a source of a claim of the former.)

KL being sued for fraud by Omni Magazine might be relevant to his credibility, but not if it relates to KL's claims about testing he performed. Besides, Omni Magazine is not a credible source except for statements which its principals made under oath.

As for FM's original comments:

L's dispute with the Mega Society is relevant to L, even if the Mega Society itself is not worthy of an article.

KL's claim that L created Mega Society-East and Noesis-East in violation of the Mega Society's trademarks are relevant. At this point, if the claims from those references are not included in the article (which does push the boundardies of

WP:LIVING), we must consider http://www.megafoundation.com

an unreliable source except in regard statements by L (and possibly MrsL). In other words,

1. We delete all references to http://www.megafoundation.com, except as to L's claimed statements.
2. We delete all claims that http://www.megafoundation.com provides text of L's published articles, or of articles about L. We may include http://www.megafoundation.com as a source that L wrote or said things, but not that they were published.
3. Any now unsourced statements must be deleted.

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Come on now. Reports of legal harassment of Langan by random parties considered non-notable by Wikipedia don't belong in Langan's bio. They're irrelevant for biographical purposes, and already get far more space than they deserve even on Kevin Langdon's personal web server, which is their ultimate source. On the other hand, the Mega Foundation is a perfectly legitimate organization that Langan cofounded, so it does belong in Langan's bio. Moreover, all of this aimless wikilawyering does nothing whatsoever to diminish the validity of Mega Foundation archives, which provide faithful scans of many important sources for the article. Please don't make a joke out of Wikipedia's biography guidelines with any more of this nonsense. Asmodeus 17:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Arthur, I think you are on the money here. Megafoundation counts as a self-published source: it verifies that Langan has said something but not that he has done something, precisely as you say. As to the Mega Society case, they clearly consider it notable even if he doesn't, it is explicitly verifiable from court records and other sources, to have verifiably lost an IP lawsuit is hardly defamation (Felonious will remember another case where court records were rather more problematic, especially when they did not seem to say what was claimed or indeed be what was claimed, of course we should be reasonably cautious in what we actually say). Sure, Asmodeus would rather it wasn't in there, but Wikipedia biographies are supposed to be neither hatchet jobs nor hagiographies, and the case does appear to provide some insight into the kind of person Langan is and how he interacts with others (including illustrating the obsessive behaviour to which he is stated to be prone). As such it seems to me to be reasonable to include it. ICSID is also essentially autobiographical - we cannot use it to verify, per the lead, that he has taught himself anything, we can verify that he claims to have done so (different). Guy (Help!) 18:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Copies of articles do not need to be reproduced online in order for the work to be cited. If one doubts the accuracy of any particular archived source material, it may be acceptable to remove the link. In any event, the reference stands without it. --DrL 19:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the existence of the published articles about Langan, and the content of the published articles by Langan. So far, the only people who claim to have seen the articles are User:DrL, User:Asmodeus, Langan, and Morris. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, Arthur. The best sort of proof has been provided in the form of exact scans of the source material. Don't like where the archives are kept? Too bad, because those archives are legitimate and factual. Granted, you are allowed to demand citations and other verificative information, and others are then required to provide it. But once they do, then if you want to undermine that proof, you need to do your own homework. Now the burden is on you to establish that these archives are so utterly questionable, so flawed and unreliable, that they should be rejected. Unfortunately for you, the well-known fact that the Mega Foundation was cofounded by CML is not enough to do the trick. You need more than that, or you need to stop accusing others of archival forgery (which is in fact what you're doing, and something to which I strongly object). Asmodeus 20:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no, Asmo, Arthur is not being ridiculous. See

WP:RS

(again). Sorry if you don't like the rules, but hey, too bad, so sad. Maybe you and DrL could start your own wiki, maybe poorpoorpitifulsavantwiki. I'm sure it'd outdo Wikipedia in a matter of days if you devoted even half of those highly charged little grey cells to the endeavour.

Rem breviter narrare: ei incumbit probatio qui affirmat, non qui negat -- res te affirmata erat, Arturo negata. Affirma! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing sources with archives, jim62scherino. The sources being archived are important, but under ordinary circumstances, it makes little difference where archives are stored on the web. Think about it - Wikipedia really can't afford to be too picky about that, since server space is expensive and archives are usually stored only by those with a tangible interest in their content. Again, if you have reason to believe that a given archive is forged, it's up to you to do your own homework. Practically anything on the web might be forged or faked, so you and Arthur really have no way around this responsibility. (Just pretend that the Mega Foundation is no longer performing the service of maintaining archives for you, leaving you in the position of questioning a raw citation. Essentially, you'll either need verifiable access to a comprehensive archive of all past material from that source, or a signed statement from the source publication to the effect that the cited material doesn't exist. Tough, but true. Without that, you have no business accusing anyone of forging the archive, and no argument for removing a link to it.) Asmodeus 21:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not following this closely, so sorry if this doesn't apply: Wikipedia requires published reliable sources, with "published" in this context meaning that in general the source can be accessed and thus verified with typical examples being available from a reliable source on the web or available from a public library (directly or inter-library loan). If it isn't generally accessable then it isn't published by wikipedia standards as the ability to verify is the point. If there is any question of forgery or deliberate falseification then it is not reliable as in we can't rely on it to be what it is claimed to be. And after one has a reliable published source one must deal with issues of bias, authoritativeness (reliability of content), suitability for the article in question, nonmisleading ways to phrase and so forth. Hope that helped. WAS 4.250 22:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite corect WAS. Asmodeus, do you work in IT? We all know the answer is no. Info from an IT professional: server space, as in memory, is actually quite inexpensive. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Reliable published sources are exactly the kind which have been cited in the CML bio...e.g., Popular Science. Arthur claims that a certain PopSci article was never written. An archived scan of the article has been provided for Arthur, disproving that claim. Arthur now claims that the archive is a forgery. It is now time for Arthur to go to the library and see whether he's right. I can't go to the library for Arthur; he has to put shoeleather to pavement and do that for himself. For that matter, if Arthur makes it to the library but then stands there with his eyes clamped shut, I can't force him to look. All I can say is that if he does, he'll find the cited material. Nobody at Wikipedia can do any better. Thanks, Asmodeus 23:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems clear some serious fact-checking is in order here. A scan of unknown provenance is not a reliable source. If the article was indeed written there online archives (used by journalists for fact-checking) available where it would be listed and available if published. We'll need the month and year of this issue of Popular Science to check this out. FeloniousMonk 19:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this man really qualified to judge Langan's IQ? [21] --ScienceApologist 15:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Perhaps we should remove that reference. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

According to 20/20, Novelly is a board certified neuropsychologist. Expertise in intelligence testing is core to this certification. Board certified neuropsychologists are frequently used as expert witnesses in court and typically present on the validity and reliability of IQ and other cognitive ability tests and test results for particular individuals. --DrL 18:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Intelligence testing is not an integral part of the board certification process for neuropsychology. It is obliquely related but it does not seem to be Novelly's expertise. He specializes in being an expert witness for criminal trials, but is that standard up to Wikipedia

WP:RS? --ScienceApologist

18:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Expertise in intelligence and cognitive ability testing is absolutely central in training. Board certification is a verification that the individual has met these training expectations. In fact, clinical psychologists and neuropsychologists (and Novelly is both) are the main source of expert testimony in the field of intelligence/cognitive ability testing. Social workers are sometimes also used, but they are generally considered less qualified (I suppose they are used because they are less expensive also). There is no higher qualification for expert testimony on intelligence testing than a board certified clinical psychologist or neuropsychologist. Definitely meets WP:RS. --DrL 18:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a court of law, but I think it is important that we look at whether or not intelligence testing at the high-end is part of Novelly's expertise. After all, most of Novelly's work involves testing for neuropsychological disorders. --ScienceApologist 18:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I would expect that someone like Novelly has lots of experience across the board. He is definitely regarded as an expert in the field and is a reliable source. --DrL 18:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Your expectations here are meaningless. Do you have any evidence that Novelly has lots of experience across the board? --ScienceApologist 19:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. We'd all expect a chef to create tasty dishes, but we've all had substandard meals. We'd all expect a doctor to be skilled in medicine, yet we routinely seek second opinions. Perhaps a reading of Dickens' Great Expectations might be in order. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Wikipedia merely reports on reliable sources and what they say. 20/20 is considered a reliable media source. The quote is accurate and taken from a transcript of the show. It's beyond the scope of the encyclodedia to investigate sources further than that. --DrL 15:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. A news-magazine television show is not a reliable source for who is and isn't qualified to make judgements about a person's intelligence. --ScienceApologist 17:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

(ri)Correct. 20/20 merely quoted what was said, it did not go into Novelly's qualifications. News magazine TV shows frequently have "experts" who declare any variety of things, but the expert's qualifications are only very rarely indicated; rather, the shows use the person's title to imply a level of expertise that may very well not exist.&#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Is ScienceApologist really qualified to pass substantive judgments on the work of Wikipedia biography subjects like

You don't have my support. Please read

WP:POINT. --ScienceApologist

18:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you? If so, why? FeloniousMonk 19:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I should like to see this "test" explained. Seems quite the challenge, eh? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If by "challenge" you mean "set-up"... It is interesting that User:Asmodeus thinks so much of himself that he believes he is qualified to test me and offer a neutral adjudication of my "qualifications". I wonder if he is a board-certified neuropsychologist. -- ScienceApologist 13:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, SA, my second sentence was TIC. Is Asmodeus qualified to test you? Doubtful. But, his defender might be. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 15:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This whole Christopher Langdon wiki-saga is truly amazing - there seems to be very little merit in having any article at all conerning this person or the organistations associated with him. The whole thing should be deleted and the wikipedia kept out of such spurious debates. If wikipedia hosts this material, then every crank in the world will put their own articles in and then wikipedia will become a joke.

Langdon should endow a new project - wikicrank - and then he can put as much material on as he likes!

—The preceding

In all honesty, Langan probably only barely passes the smell-test for meriting an article. He is really not all that notable. Hell I have more Google hits than Langan and I too am an autodidact, but that doesn't mean I rate an article (in fact, I definitely don't). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)