Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe

Please hold any lengthy discussions on the talk page, so that the AfD will not become too cluttered. Likewise, please check this AfD's talk page for more discussion. --Philosophus ^T 20:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD submitted by Byrgenwulf with comment "Added an article, will discuss it right away." This is a procedural nomination - my own opinion is Neutral. See also the article's Talk page. Tevildo 14:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This theory is not a generally recognised notable scientific theory. It doesn't meet Wikipedia policy for notability for scientific theories, not having been published in a proper scientific journal.

Moreover, the way it is written is almost completely unintelligible, with too much jargon that is unique to the theory the article is meant to explain.

See the article's talk page for the concerns that have been raised and the manner in which they have been handled. Edits attempting to "fix" it are simply reverted by ardent proponents of the theory.

So far as I am aware, this is not the first time either that this article has come up for deletion. However, I do believe that the proponents should be given the opportunity to respond. So over to the community!

• Update I was right, in fact this article was deleted before, for similar reasons, and was re-introduced with a hyphen in the name so as to bypass Wikipedia policy. See this record of the process. What happens now? Is this spam, since nothing has changed materially since the last deletion?--Byrgenwulf 14:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I belive the article becomes a candidate for Speedy Deltion. Best to ask an admin. Jefffire 14:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Where do I find one of those? Byrgenwulf 14:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You just do I suppose... I'll ask one on your behalf.

Since there isn't anyone who remember the original, we can't be sure it is a direct recreation under the Speedy Deletion criterion. However, it is likey that this will count against it in the current AfD. Doesn't seem worth the effort basicaly as the article will probably get deleted anyway. Jefffire 14:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The deleted article was insufficiently referenced and contained only a few paragraphs, none of which were reproduced in the new article. Since the articles were not "substantially identical", the recreation of deleted material criterion does not apply. The current title includes a hyphen because the name of the theory includes a hyphen; see The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory. The deleted title was incorrect. Tim Smith 16:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not sure what the etiquette/norm is here but obviously my own view should be obvious: Delete --Byrgenwulf 14:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It's generally advisable to make it explicit in an AfD that's likely to contain a lot of text, as this one already does. :) Tevildo 15:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• NBAnyone reading slurs on my personal character here is asked to please read the discussion on the talk page, which should help put things in a bit more perspective.--Byrgenwulf 11:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment My original approach was to try to edit the article. However, Asmodeus, DrL and others simply reverted absolutely every attempt to try to make it more legible and balanced, even referenced concerns, as being "vandalism". As they made the article completely uneditable, and even removed tags saying that there was a dispute about quality/neutrality/factual accuracy (when it was empirically obvious there was a dispute like that), this seemed the next logical move: that article is being used as a soapbox. In my sandbox is an alternative, more balanced article following the usual layout for these "disputed theories": if you have suggestions, do add them to my talk page. --Byrgenwulf 10:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Bergenwulf, there are a lot of people interested in the CTMU. Take false and unsubstantiated accusations (e.g., "socks") to the discussion page (or, more appropriately, to the trash). Your attempts to "edit" the article began with the insertion of links to "pseudoscience" and "crank" and escalated to attempts to equate the CTMU with "Creationism". When the other editors wanted you to slow down and discuss changes, you balked (after all that might have taken hours as opposed to seconds) and threatened to call in the moderators. When the moderators didn't respond to your editing emergency quickly enough and you were thwarted in your attempts to insert your anti-Creationist platform (into an article that has nothing to do with Creationism), you threatened to nominate the page for deletion. Interestingly, you started out by saying the article belonged in Wikipedia, just needed a few changes (according to you). So clearly you have used this Wikipedia procedure in a totally coercive manner and because you were unsuccessful with regard to both the speed and content of your anticipated wholesale changes, we now have this page and this debate. DrL 11:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who wishes to see the sordid details of this petty little saga is more than welcome to review the history, and the talk pages, of the CTMU, and count how many times I mentioned "creationism" (none). I did go in heavy-handed at first, but I rapidly toned it down. But, as usual, we aren't debating the theory, we are debating the article. My major complaint is that "disputed" tags were just removed, on the grounds that they were "vandalism", and not an empirically true description of a state of affairs. This is soapboxing, and an attempt to take out the fly swatter to squelch critics (a metaphor Langan once used about those who disagree with the CTMU). Why not address the article itself, DrL, instead of me? Do you deny that it is in need of revision? Moreover, while at first I thought the article did merit inclusion, my subsequent reading of Wikipedia policy, guidelines, etc., as well as a consideration of the popular press attention (focusing on Langan, not his "theory") has convinced me otherwise.BTW: should this and DrL's comment not be moved to the talk page as well? I'll leave that to someone more experience than I.--Byrgenwulf 11:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

WARNING REGARDING THE FOLLOWING TABLE

The following table has been identified as a confused or dishonest attempt to mislead the Wikipedia community. The problems with it are as follows:

1. Langan is not "discussing" the CTMU in Wikipedia. Langan is the AUTHOR of the CTMU, and is notable in his own right. It is those who wish to dispute the CTMU, or declare it non-notable, who must show their credentials and prove their authority.

2. Again, Langan is the AUTHOR of the CTMU, not merely the owner of a website which talks about the CTMU or which contains archived materials regarding it. This is a very important distinction which the table fails to reflect.

3. Langan did not write the Wikipedia article on the CTMU. Langan is the AUTHOR of the CTMU, the notable, widely-publicized theory ABOUT which the article was written.

In short, the table below is irrelevant or worse, misrepresenting the situation at hand and encouraging the misapplication of Wikipedia guidelines.

Maybe that's why nobody signed off on it. Asmodeus 23:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete -->

CTMU Article	Wikipedia guidance
Langan is of limited means and largely self-taught.	Beware false authority Advanced degrees give authority in the topic of the degree. Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions.
(Langan's) first paper on the theory, "The Resolution of Newcomb's Paradox", appeared in the December 1989–January 1990 issue of Noesis, the journal of the Noetic Society (now the Mega Society)" (Langan was editor of the Noetic Society when the cited paper was published in Noesis [1].) Cites Langan's self-published works on his website.	The first question to ask yourself is, "What are the credentials and expertise of the people taking responsibility for a website?" Anyone can post anything on the web.
Cites Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID) Cites the Christopher Langan biography at ISCID. ISCID and PCID, parts of the same oganization, of which [Langan is a "fellow", have an obvious agenda.	Also ask yourself: Do the sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Check multiple sources. Because conscious and unconscious biases are not always self-evident, you shouldn't necessarily be satisfied with a single source.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.58.130.228 (talk • contribs).

• Still Neutral. As philosophy, it's just warmed-over Neoplatonism that ignores the past 2000 years of metaphysical thought, but our duty as editors is not to assess it as philosophy, but as an encyclopaedia article. It _does_ assert the notability of the subject adequately, although more than one link to the claimed plethora of media articles and interviews would help. It's rather too POV at the moment, but deletion is not a solution to that problem - see Orcadian for a similar example. The article needs a lot of work by a neutral editor, but I think it's entitled to stay. Tevildo 15:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Response If you actually think that the CTMU is "nothing but warmed over Neoplatonism", Tevildo, then you obviously have a few holes in your knowledge of philosophy. Similarly, if you think that the CTMU ignores 2000 years of progress in metaphysics, then you should have concentrated a bit more when reading Langan's paper(s). As you probably know, you couldn't even begin to coherently justify either of these assertions. By making this kind of sweeping, unwarranted statement here and now, you're merely encouraging others to vote down an article whose only crime is that it takes a bit of honest effort to understand. By the way, the disputed article contained plenty of links confirming notability and verifiability; they've simply been disputed and tampered with by those who don't appreciate their content. ABC News, Popular Science...come on, give us a break. Either those are reputable sources, or Wikipedia is really just an appendage of academia which limits its sources to a small set of journals under direct academic control. I don't think that's the case, and if you reflect on it for a moment, I think you'll have to agree with me. (If I'm wrong, please quote the Wikipedia policy statement that effects this limitation - I've looked hard and can't find it.) Asmodeus 20:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I will concede that no student of philosophy can put together an argument against the ad lapidem, so will decline your implied offer. This AfD is too long anyway. I would still urge, however, everyone who reads it to take into account all the opinions expressed, and make their judgement accordingly. Tevildo 21:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Response I think one of the biggest problems with CTMU is that the bombastic and needlessly sesquipedalian language in which it's worded does lend credence to the theory. However, it seems most of the criticism of the theory arises from this single complaint, which says nothing of the theory's validity. Regardless, it has garnered considerable media attention and is certainly noteworthy in that respect. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article provides an overview of the theory which is free of the needlessly sesquipedalian language, and in that respect I also find the article useful. Those who wish to criticize the theory should create a "Criticism" section, not simply request to delete the article. Tarcieri 07:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as gibberish. I couldn't make heads or tails of it, and the few fragments that seemed coherent enough to read and not statements singing the praise of the inventor were incorrect ("all meaningful theories conform to 2-valued logic" overlooks fuzzy logic, "the axioms and theorems of 2-valued logic are tautological" overlooks Gödel's incompleteness theorems if I understand correctly). If the popular press links are valid, they also should be linked from the relevant press sites in any rewrite, not the invetor's mirror. --Christopher Thomas 15:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable sophistical gibberish. Badly written to boot. Jefffire 15:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Do Not Delete - The Wikipedia article entitled "Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe" (CTMU) is subject to ongoing vandalism, largely by one highly dedicated person (and now by others).

Christopher Langan and his theory, the CTMU, have been the recipients of extensive media coverage. Sources include ABC News, Esquire Magazine, Popular Science, and other journalistic periodicals and television documentaries which seriously investigate and employ fact-checkers regarding the material they cover. Both Langan and the CTMU were featured in virtually every instance. The CTMU is a complex, and in my opinion valid, theory. While some laymen complain that they cannot understand the CTMU, there is no reason to believe that this does not owe at least in part to their own negative attitudes and low level of expertise in its subject matter (logic and metaphysics, with broad implications regarding science in general). While there is no expert consensus on the CTMU, neither has it been found wanting. The theory has been out there for a number of years and is therefore eligible for peer review; if this has thus far been inadequate, that is certainly not the fault of the theory or its author, and does not detract from the theory itself.

The editor calling himself "Byrgenwulf" appears to be negatively obsessed with Christopher Langan and the CTMU. What began as an offhand attempt to tar the CTMU and its author with misdirected, unverifiable and decidedly non-neutral epithets like "pseudoscience" and "crank" has now seemingly escalated into a full-time vendetta, to the extent that one wonders where Byrgenwulf finds the time to eat and sleep. He appears to have no understanding of Wikipedia policy; even when various aspects of this policy are patiently explained to him, he attempts to restore past edits, or rewordings thereof, which have already been found in violation.

Although Byrgenwulf has repeatedly claimed that he could effortlessly rip the CTMU to shreds were he so-inclined, he has been caught red-handed in a number of critical errors regarding that theory; and although he claims to have thoroughly read Langan's paper in PCID, he has boldly denied that it contains things which it can be plainly seen to contain (sometimes after falsely stating that he has carefully searched for them). Unfortunately, he appears immune to the sort of embarrassment that anyone else would feel under similar circumstances, merely redoubling his destructive efforts in retaliation. In short, he seems to have no idea what the CTMU is, what it does, how it does it, or for that matter why it doesn't do it (if that is indeed the case), and perhaps for these very reasons, appears hell-bent on sabotaging its Wikipedia entry.

As I understand it, Wikipedia does not consider this to be acceptable behavior for its contributors. I can't speak for anyone else, but I do know that I have better things to do than ride this article 24/7 to keep Byrgenwulf from corrupting it, and to reverse the falsehoods, innuendos, and accusations he nevertheless manages to plant in it against Wikipedia policy. It seems to me that if the Wikipedia moderators were to read this discussion and explore the history of edits, they would quickly verify the truth of everything I've just written, and deal with Byrgenwulf and his accomplices as they deserve. But meanwhile, in apparent denial of this very possibility, Byrgenwulf persists.

Needless to say, the personal misgivings and bad feelings of Byrgenwulf et al are not enough to justify repetitive attacks against an accurate, legitimate, and informative Wikipedia entry. And now, to make matters worse, after Byrgenwulf has tallied a string of edits the likes of which Wikipedia has seldom seen, we have an additional flurry of negative edits, dispute tags, and so on, claiming that, for example, ABC News - which repeatedly ran a 20-minute segment on Langan and his theory - is an "unverifiable source". Such protestations are utterly ridiculous. It seems that a tiny handful of critics (or sockpuppets, or fellow travelers trying to strike a blow for their pet philosophy, or whomever) have taken it upon themselves to change history, declare all of Langan's media coverage one big "unreliable source", pretend that the CTMU was not mentioned in those articles and television segments, and so on ad nauseam.

This article was carefully reviewed for verifiability and NPOV well prior to Byrgenwulf's initial incursion. It was one of the best sources for a lucid overall introduction to a unique and arguably very promising theory which has nothing whatsoever to do with Creationism or "Intelligent Design Creationism" but merely had the misfortune to be published in an ID-sympathetic journal. In fact, as its author states, the theory was intended to give both sides of the evolution debate a common framework for ultimate reconciliation, something which is very badly, and very obviously, needed by all concerned.

I therefore vote for NON-deletion, and request that the moderators do something about the situation ... preferably sooner rather than later. DrL 15:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment DrL has only edited the CTMU article, its talk page, this AfD, the article on the CTMU's inventor and a couple pages directly related to him. Anville 18:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I did not edit the CTMU page prior to Byrgenwulf's initial vandalism. DrL 11:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. WP:SOAP seems to apply here, apparently. Tevildo 15:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Do Not Delete - Do not delete this page, DrL I think you are by and large correct however if you carfully read the paper by Langan he expressly includes intellegent design as an interesting implication of his theory and Langan is a fellow of an intellegent design movement.--IQ Prophet 16:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment user has only edited this article, its talk page and this AfD. Anville 18:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable theory, confusing as heck. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 16:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable confusing fringe science gibberish. And before the nominator started editing it, incidentally, it already was gibberish. Sandstein 16:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - DO NOT DELETE The CTMU is a valuable intellectual contribution which has been erroneously, and in my opinion foolishly, targeted for attack on philosophical and opinionative grounds. It's not easy to understand without the proper background, but that means absolutely nothing, since the same can be said of many of the other legitimate theories covered in Wikipedia. For anyone who knows the relevant technical fields, it displays adequate conceptual integrity - probably far more than the vast majority of what one encounters in the paradox-ridden field of analytic philosophy and the modern philosophy of science - and is unquestionably unique in both form and application. On the other hand, if you can't understand it, then why not do everybody a favor and leave it up for those who can? [By the way, I think it's important that voters know that this vote has not been presented by a "professional philosopher of physics", as Byrgenwulf claims to be on the discussion page. On searching the web, I got a couple of hits on "byrgenwulf". One of them leads to a registered contributor on an anti-ID website. In his personal bio, this person describes himself as a 22-year-old college student from South Africa. Now, while I grant that this may not be the Byrgenwulf that is currently wreaking havoc with the CTMU entry, it is highly probable on orthographic grounds alone (not to mention that he lists "the philosophy of physics" among his interests). This tells me that Byrgenwulf is probably not a professional philosopher of physics, as he claims to be, but just another college kid, perhaps a first-year grad student, drunk on the seemingly boundless knowledge that he has greedily guzzled from the brimming well of academe, no doubt including an introductory course on modern philosophy which devoted almost an entire class period to Godel, whose writings Byrgenwulf has egregiously misapplied to the CTMU (see discussion page), thus displaying that he understands precisely nothing about it. Personally, I find this perfectly consistent with his puerile behavior and the kindergarten level of his criticism. So much for the motivation behind this up/down vote.] Asmodeus 16:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please refrain from personal attacks - WP:NPA refers. Whatever Byrgenwulf's professional qualifications may be, his views appear to be shared by most of the other contributors to this AfD to date. Tevildo 17:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

CommentUser:Asmodeus has likewise only edited the CTMU article and articles relating to its inventor and his high IQ society.--Byrgenwulf 19:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete hand-wavy claptrap of the first order. -- GWO

• Keep - Do Not Delete - Its controversial nature is already noted in the article itself, and the text of the article reinforces this notice through the use of Langan's name throughout it. I don't know why the author's carefulness with regard to highlighting the controversial status of the CTMU through the body of the article itself should be held up as a strike against both it and him. What has not been noted in the argument over this article is whether or not Progress In Information, Complexity And Design is a peer reviewed journal, regardless of what institute publishes it. If McDonald's, for whatever reason, began publishing a peer-reviewed journal of mathematics, its mathematical contents would still be peer-reviewed. I don't know why complaints which amount to a request for recategorization have to take the form of a motion for deletion. As far as the jargon issue is concerned, the external links should supply the needed information. I would, however, advise that the link to the "20/20" interview be removed, as its text is somewhat inconsistent with the content of the CTMU itself. --Danielmryan 18:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User's only edit. Tevildo 17:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Response Thanks for the note. I included that advice as a constructive suggestion which, I hope, would add to comprehension of the article in dispute. (I'll leave the next iteration of the chorusing to Joywords.) -- Danielmryan 19:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
      • How does the theory explain sockpuppets? JChap (Talk) 16:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• To quote Alan Sokal, "As a physicist, I am not impressed." Delete as soapbox-standing, probable OR and vanity. Anville 17:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Clearly the piece is openly a hypothesis and intelligent people can read and make up their own mind about its relevance or cogency. Enough people find it cogent and relevant enough to warrant its insertion. I vote not to delete it and to let time be the ultimate vote, i.e. the amount of attention it actually gets from serious people about the themes presented in his work.joywords --Joywords 18:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User's only edit. (Seems to be a bit of a "repeat chorus" situation today, doesn't it?) Anville 18:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete NN pseudoscientific theory, of little use to the reader of an encyclopedia. The appropriate place for this proposal and resulting discourse is in the scientific literature or the pseudoscientific literature as the case may be. The press coverage alone does not make it ntoable.--Nick Y. 19:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The proposed notability criterion for non-mainstream theories requires reference in only one mainstream publication, explicitly allowing "large-circulation newspapers or magazines". The CTMU easily passes, having appeared in Popular Science [2] (circulation of 1.45 million subscribers; readership of more than 7 million), Newsday (circulation in the hundreds of thousands), The Times (hundreds of thousands of copies sold daily), on 20/20 [3] (averages millions of viewers per week), and elsewhere. It is this level of high-profile exposure which makes the CTMU notable, and which makes an encyclopedia article of use to the many readers introduced to the theory through these sources. Tim Smith 02:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Lacks verifiability. There are only two types of "references" in this article: (1) those pointing to Langan-owned (megafoundation, CTMU) sites, Langan-edited/archived (Noesis) sites, or Langan-is-a-"fellow"-of-an-organization-who,-like-Langan,-has-a-creationist-agenda (ISCID/PCID) sites; and (2) pop-culture periodicals that focus on a weight lifter with a big brain, and not his CTMU "theory." I don't believe Wikipedia policy counts The Sunday Telegraph, 20/20, Muscle & Fitness, or even Popular Science as proper fora for cosmologist peer reviews. --Blaine Steinert 20:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. To present the CTMU as correct, we would indeed need references of other than these two types. The question at hand, though, is not whether we are to assert the theory, but whether we are to describe it. To verifiably and justifiably describe the CTMU here, we need references to (1) its claims, and (2) its notability. The references in the article satisfy these requirements: Langan's writings provide his claims, and the mainstream media coverage establishes notability. (Popular Science focuses here specifically on the CTMU, and other articles describe both Langan and his theory.) Tim Smith 22:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Hogwash.
    Mr. Smith, you stated, "The question at hand... is ... whether we are to describe it." Only if it is something notable, which apparently it is not (see big, red letters below). Wikipedia is clear that it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. I might describe my grandmother's theory of Quasars, and she might have even been featured in Bluehair & Fitness Magazine, but that hardly makes her ideas Wiki-worthy.
  • THE POPSCI ARTICLE SEEMS TO BE A FORGERY
    Mr. Smith, you (and the CTMU article) seem to rely heavily on the PopSci article "Wise Guy," by John R. Quain. But something fishy is going on here: The "archived" PopSci piece - ostensibly the best Langan-independent citation (read: the only reference to an outside "scientific" periodical) - is quite different from the actual, archived article. As you know, archived web pages from the Wayback Machine have been deemed as admissible in court, so I tend to think the Wayback Machine's archived version of the PopSci piece is what PopSci actually printed, and the megafoudnation-version of this PopSci piece has been manipulated.
    Briefly, the real "Wise Guy" article makes no mention of "Robert Seitz, a physicist and former NASA executive," who "admits that he 'doesn't fully understand Langan's theory,'" and who goes on to say Langan is "'perhaps the smartest individual'" he's ever met. Indeed, the real "Wise Guy" article does not even refer to the CTMU. It does, interestingly, recount Langan's interest in The_chicken_or_the_egg dilemma. Pretty interesting, eh, Asmodeus? --Blaine Steinert 18:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • NOTE: THERE ARE TWO POPSCI ARTICLES THAT APPEARED IN THE SAME ISSUE - ONE IS AN ARTICLE, THE OTHER IS AN INTERVIEW - NEITHER ARE FORGERIES Please be more careful. DrL 18:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Robert Seitz is on the board of Langan's "high IQ society". So much for NPOV, anyway. Byrgenwulf 17:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. As DrL says, the Popular Science coverage consisted of two parts, both archived by the Wayback Machine [4][5], both stored on megafoundation.org [6][7], and both linked from ctmu.org. One part interviews Langan; the other part focuses specifically on his theory. As I documented below, other sources also give prominent, attention-getting placement to the theory. Indeed, the CTMU easily meets the proposed notability guideline for non-mainstream theories, which requires only that they be referenced in a mainstream publication, explicitly allowing "large-circulation newspapers or magazines". Again, the question is not whether the theory is sufficiently correct to be asserted, but whether it is sufficiently notable to be described, factually and neutrally. With circulations in the hundreds of thousands or millions, the mainstream media in which the CTMU has appeared establish that notability. Tim Smith 19:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• DEFINITELY DELETE. Whether it's been mentioned in PopSci or not is irrevelant to the notion of peer review. Popular Science is not a journal of peer review. It's a magazine geared towards popularity. This "theory"'s lack of credibility is underscored by the fact the only "science journal" this person/socks has/have in defense of the "theory"'s notability is Popular Science! Even the Wikipedia entry of Popular Science informs us that the magazine is geared "for the general reader on science and technology subjects." Luis Hamburgh 09:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. To present the theory as correct, we would indeed need peer-reviewed sources. But again, the question is not whether we are to assert the theory, but whether we are to describe it, and not whether the theory is correct, but whether it is notable. Popularity does not establish correctness, but it does establish notability, and the CTMU's appearances in the popular media are numerous, with coverage from Popular Science [8], 20/20 [9], The Times, Newsday, Esquire, and more. Tim Smith 00:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Apparently notable only among creationist pseudo-intellectuals. Possibly could be merged to Creation science? But, no, they probably wouldn't want it either. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 20:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The CTMU has received extensive coverage in the mainstream media, including Popular Science [10], 20/20 [11], The Times, Newsday, Esquire, and even Muscle & Fitness! Remember, the question here is not whether the theory is correct—that's not for Wikipedia to decide—but whether it is notable. The relevant notability criterion is that "non-mainstream theories should be referenced in at least one major mainstream publication", explicitly allowing "large-circulation newspapers or magazines". Since the CTMU has been referenced in many such publications, it is notable and deserves an article: not to assert its claims as truth, but to describe them accurately and neutrally. Tim Smith 20:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment on a few issues here. Claiming that the CTMU is philosophy and not science is an attempt to hedge the issue. It is not the case that "science" has standards while "philosophy" is a wishy-washy field where anything goes. The CTMU claims to be a theory of everything (a physical concept), and claims to offer a new interpretation of quantum mechanics, and has a notion of "conspansion" which contradicts much of what the mainstream scientific and philosophic community acknowledges relativity to be. Moreover, all the popular press articles are about Langan, the originator of the concept, not the CTMU itself. They may mention the theory, but they are not about it. As such, these articles and references can be put on Langan's bio page. And besides, the nomination has nothing to do with whether the CTMU is philosophy, sophistry, science or pseudoscience. It is about the article as it appears here, and whether or not it is an encyclopaedic article.--Byrgenwulf 21:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Response to Comment Caveat emptor. Byrgenwulf needs to tell the truth for a change - he attacked the article, and proposed this vote, because he's an anti-ID fanatic who baselessly disputes the content and quality of the CTMU, a theory which he doesn't even begin to understand. There's a record of this on the discussion page, where Byrgenwulf fraudulently intimated that he is a professional philosopher of physics and then proceeded to make elementary errors that no expert in that field could possibly make, and which have now been seriously compounded. In fact, the article IS encyclopedic, or at least was before Byrgenwulf took it upon himself to monkey it up. Indeed, it had been carefully reworded to comply with NPOV and was provided with all of the verifiable source material it needed. All that Byrgenwulf is doing here is attempting to win the game, and get rid of the article, by propagating pathetic misconceptions about science and philosophy that a freshman in English Lit wouldn't lay claim to, thereby polluting the air and muddying the waters as is evidently his habit. (Anyone who thinks that Byrgenwulf knows the first thing about philosophy or science, let alone Wikipedia policy, need merely take a stroll up this page to be disabused.) As far as Byrgenwulf's specific comments on the CTMU, conspansion, and theories of eveything are concerned, forget about them - he has repeatedly been shown not to understand the first thing about the CTMU or anything related to it. Asmodeus 01:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The "relevant policy" noted here is not policy - it is a proposed guideline, which is not finished and does not yet have the support of Wikipedia editors. The pseudotheory is also not referenced in any serious and reputable scientific journal, by the way. --Philosophus ^T 08:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. There are plenty of references. Zos 21:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Having references doesn't affect the other reasons to delete. Having "references" is standard procedure for pseudoscience that is trying to confuse people by blurring the lines. Not that being pseudoscience is necessarily a reason to delete either.--Nick Y. 00:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Response There aren't any "other reasons" to delete. The CTMU isn't science; it's philosophy. Therefore, it can't be coherently labeled as "pseudoscience". It's really just that simple. Furthermore, nobody here is in a position to enforce any particular set of "lines" just because he personally fears that those lines, wherever and whatever they are, may become "blurred". Things can't always remain simple just because somebody wants them to be, particularly with regard to matters of high inherent complexity. Asmodeus 01:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment, someone please remove all of these comments and responses to this nom's talk page. I can barely make out what all the fuss is about. And to let others who wish this article kept, please replace your "do not delete" with Keep. This makes it clearer for others. Zos 21:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete good god what a lot of blather. This is totally meaningless nonsense. Opabinia regalis 00:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Nonsensical and nonnotable mixture of pseudophysics and pseudophilosophy. My main way of deciding notability on articles on non-completely-insane pseudotheory (this excludes Time Cube, which is treated as notable nonsense) is to see whether the references allow one to create an article that satisfies NOR and NPOV at the same time. If the pseudoscientific theory does not have reputable refutations or notable critics when it obviously should, it does not deserve an article. Yoshiaki Omura is notable because he has notable and reputable critics, for example. This does not. The main claim to notability seems to be popular articles articles about the person rather than the pseudotheory. We should delete this, and redirect to the person. --Philosophus ^T 04:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The Wikipedia article describing the CTMU has proved useful to me as a neutral source of information since the time it was originally contributed. --Convolution 06:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• New user's first and only edit. --Philosophus ^T 08:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. As far as I can tell those who want to delete the article want to because of their views on the CTMU itself and not whether it is sufficiently notable. The Popular Science article cited appears to be on the CTMU and not on Langan himself. It even includes a quote by a physicist and former NASA executive who (without passing judgement on its veracity) considers the theory worthy of "serious and open-minded review". While I have reservations on a theory presented in such a jargonized manner, many accepted theories have been presented in that fashion, too, unless or until someone good at explaining the theory comes along (a la Schwinger versus Feynman on QED). The CTMU may turn out to be total garbage, but it has received sufficient press and is a significant part of a high-IQ subculture surrounding Langan. Tox 07:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• That article is titled "Wise Guy"! It is a less-than-two-page article mainly about the person and his theory. It is not an article about the theory, such as one might see in a serious journal, like one of the Physical Reviews. This is nothing like QED: it hasn't shown up anywhere in the legitimate scientific community, or any any reputable journal. It only has a handful of popular articles that, if they are not mostly about the person, are initially started because of the novelty of the person's IQ. The opinion of an ex-NASA "executive" who appears to be involved with the person somehow ("the smartest guy I ever met") doesn't really make the subject notable. The fact that the "executive" apparently doesn't merit his own Wikipedia article and doesn't show up in the first few pages of Google results makes me question the word usage of Popular Science writers, and makes the support even less important. --Philosophus ^T 08:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• I am well aware of the nature of the article. The purpose of citing it has nothing to do with bolstering the veracity of the theory. It is only cited to bolster the notoriety of the theory: namely people are likely to encounter it and seek out more information on what it is about. That is the usefulness of Wikipedia: we can encounter obscure topics we know nothing about and find out about them in Wikipedia, something we could not do with 20th century paper encyclopedias.

Please do not take my QED analogy out of context. I am not saying that the CTMU is remotely similar to QED in its acceptance or its veracity. I am only bringing up QED as an example of a correct theory deliberately described by one arrogant prick in the most esoteric manner possible and by another genius who sought the most intuitive and easily understood version he could find.

I am not a proponent of the CTMU. I find its excessive jargonization extremely irritating and because of that I have not bothered to delve into it much, even though I have been aware of it for years (because it is well-known enough that people looking into ToEs, who don't limit themselves merely to academia, eventually encounter it). In fact I am quite leary of it. It is only my steadfast commitment to open-mindedness that does not allow me to reject it until I get around to serious analysis of it. Which is precisely why I'd like to see a Wikipedia article (not written by Langan) on the CTMU: so I have a decent overview of the theory to look at. Anyone else wanting to know about it would find such an article useful, too. So, if the article is flawed, then fix it, don't delete it. This debate is about the philosophy of Wikipedia, not the philosophy of the CTMU. —Tox 07:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The mainstream media attention that CTMU has garnered alone should justify for keeping it. I don't know why the people suggesting it be deleted say it should be treated with the rigors of a scientific theory. It's a philosophical construct, and one which has been published in Popular Science and other magazines. There's plenty of crank theories in Wikipedia, like Terrence McKenna's Novelty Theory, which wouldn't be considered for deletion simply because they've had such an impact on popular culture. I personally believe Langan is onto something huge with CTMU. Others may not... so, how about editing the article, chaps? That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Joegoodbud 09:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The mainstream media attention has been directed at Mr Langan himself (mainly due to the incongruity between his IQ-test scores and his line of work), not to his theory. I agree that he, as a person, deserves a Wikipedia article, but not that his theory is notable in its own right. The existing description of the theory at Christopher Michael Langan might be capable of slight expansion (emphasis on _slight_), but I don't believe it deserves its own article, especially when any attempts to edit that article are repeatedly over-ruled by certain individual(s) who seem bent on preventing it reaching an unbiased state. If the version of the article on Byrgenwulf's user page could be safely used, then, although I would still regard the article as superfluous, I would have no objection to its retention. However, I don't believe that we can ensure its integrity. Tevildo 11:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. While I appreciate your mediating tone, Telvido, I'd like to emphasize a couple of things. First, I've been watching the CTMU article since it first appeared and have seen it go back and forth and find its way to a reasonable middle before Bergenwulf appeared. I don't believe I had ever bothered to make an edit prior to that.

Byrgenwulf's first edits were "admittedly over the top" (his words) and made for a poor entrance, leading other editors to believe his motives were political and less than sincere. I did delete many of his edits but mainly because he was pushing them through too quickly. I repeatedly asked him to slow down and discuss edits on the Talk page first and indeed thought we were negotiating changes to the Controversy section, but I guess we weren't moving quickly enough (it was taking hours as opposed to seconds). He is not the only editor on Wikipedia and should know enough about Wikipedia etiquette to negotiate changes more slowly and reasonably with the other editors and readers. He only came upon the page, and Langan's work, a few days ago. Shouldn't one spend a little time absorbing the material before editing any article on Wikipedia?

What you are suggesting (that the article be retained but it be Byrgenwulf's edit) is coercive, whether or not you mean it that way. While some clean-up may be in order there was not much wrong with the article as it stood when Byrgenwulf came on the scene (or, indeed, when Tim Smith originally posted it). Further, Byrgenwulf's version is misleading on many points. For example:

It is categorized under "pseudophysics" and "pseudoscience". This makes about as much sense as categorizing a Brahms concerto as pseudoscience because it doesn’t follow the "scientific method". The CTMU is a logical model that is not claiming to be empirical science. Such categorization is designed to lower the perceived credibility of the work.

"The CTMU has close ties to the Intelligent Design movement." Here, "close ties" implies political involvement and I see no evidence of that. What I see is an openness on the part of ISCID toward Langan's ideas and a response to that from Langan by submitting his material for publication. After all, he may perceive himself cut off from mainstream academic venues due to his lack of degrees and see ISCID and PCID as an opportunity for at least some level of peer-review. If you read his chapter in Uncommon Dissent, he clearly criticizes aspects of both ID and strict neoDarwinism (mostly in terms of limits of interpretation).

"While not being of quite the same order as the time-cube, the CTMU can nonetheless be categorised as pseudoscience." By even putting a concept in the same sentence as "time-cube", you are eroding credibility. Again, the CTMU is erroneously categorized as pseudoscience.

"This is an intelligent design journal, the content and nature of which has been the subject of a large amount of criticism by mainstream scientists, including in US courts. This is because these scientists feel that the journal lacks impartiality and rigour in its editorial policies[1]. As such, any paper published in this journal cannot be regarded as being part of established scientific thought.[2]."

The fact that PCID is an ID journal is fair enough for inclusion but this rant against intelligent design journals should be contained in the article on PCID or ISCID, not here! This proposed text links to two footnotes featuring anti-Creationism material. What on Earth is that doing here? The CTMU has nothing to do with "Creationism". In fact, I would expect that Creationists might not care for the CTMU at all. I feel that Byrgenwulf's motives are political. His dogged insistence on the inclusion of these two articles is odd and it almost seems as if he has been given this material along with instructions to push it whenever he has the opportunity.

These are some of the most glaring errors and the points I was hoping to be able to negotiate with Bergenwulf. It would be nice if they could be fixed, but I expect that there is an underlying political agenda here so I don't hold out much hope. DrL

Railing against a single editor will no change the result of an AfD. I suggest that you clearly and concisely list your points, then wait. Jefffire 13:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Jefffire, I am not railing against anyone. I was responding to Telvido's suggestion that the page be retained but using Bygenwulf's edit. My points outlined factual errors and NPOV conflicts in that edit. I am making every effort to respond to the content and primary issues and not the personalities here. DrL 12:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - one person's theory, not in any way in contact with academic reserach. --Pjacobi 13:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Response Who cares how many people wrote it, or whether it is "in contact with academic reserach"? If you want to read about things that are "in contact with academic reserach", you should subscribe to academic journals. Wikipedia is not an appendage of academia, and the CTMU nowhere relies on "contact with academic reserach" to make its points. Please, let's keep our eyes on the ball here. Asmodeus 15:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Wikipedia is also not an indescriminate store of knowledge. The charge is that the subject is non-notable, as per the notability policy. Jefffire 15:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Response But notability has already clearly been satisfied in the form of verifiable sources like ABC News and Popular Science. This is nothing but a flimsy charade undertaken by you and one or two others to remove the article because you don't like its subject matter, on the grounds that it has not been published in academic journals. You seem to think that Wikipedia is an appendage of academia, and you're simply mistaken. Don't muddy the water.

• Merge with Christopher Michael Langan. The other isues like the pseudoscientific aspects and the fact that it is not noteable can be addressed later. Count Iblis 14:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Response This contains a terminological error. The CTMU never claimed to be "science"; therefore, it cannot be coherently labeled as "pseudoscience" (this issue is discussed in more detail on this page and in the discussion area). By its nature, it is philosophical. Ample proof of its notability has been duly provided. Asmodeus 16:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You're in error, Asmodeus. Here's how Langan describe his "theory" in |this essay:

A cross between John Archibald Wheeler’s Participatory Universe and the Stephen Hawking-James Hartle "imaginary time" theory of cosmology proposed in Hawking’s phenomenal book A Brief History of Time, the CTMU resolves many of the most intractable paradoxes known to physical science while explaining recent data which indicate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.

. This seems to indicate that it is cosmology: philosophy doesn't deal in expanding universes or "conspansion", really. And, a bit of a slip up here, the Hawking-Hartle model wasn't "proposed" in Hawking's pop science book, but in Phys. Rev. D28, 2960 (1983). Byrgenwulf 18:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Response You know, I hate to seem impatient. Really I do. But if you don't stop it with these howlers of yours, I may end up climbing the walls of my office. Let me spell this out for you. The only kind of theory capable of "resolving an intractable paradox of physical science" is a theory formulated on a level above that of the paradox itself; thus, using the theory, one can define a function which resolves the paradox by mapping its (otherwise conflicting) elements consistently into observables. Say that one of your college professors were to ask you whether this new theory is "scientific" in the same sense as the scientific theory which generated the paradox. You just answered this question "yes!" But unfortunately for your grade point, the answer is "no". By definition, the paradox has been generated BY a theory of science; in effect, one train of scientific reasoning is slamming into another within a single theory (or conjuctive set of theories), with no chance to avoid the collision. Hence, one needs a metalanguage of that scientific theory (or set of theories) to resolve it...a higher language in which the trains can be re-routed and the collision avoided, with one train passing around the other. Sometimes, it may happen that we can extract falsifiable observation statements from this higher-level theory and thereby construe it as science in its own right...a higher level of science than passed before. Otherwise, it remains interpretative and therefore philosophical. But no matter which way it turns out, the theory remains valuable for resolving the paradox. So here's an extra-credit question for you: given that you call yourself a "philosopher of physics", why don't you appear to understand the first thing about your field of "expertise"? (Now enough already - I'm not getting paid to do your homework for you.) Asmodeus 23:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The only kind of theory capable of "resolving an intractable paradox of physical science" is a theory formulated on a level above that of the paradox itself; thus, using the theory, one can define a function which resolves the paradox by mapping its (otherwise conflicting) elements consistently into observables. WP:BOLLOCKS. Well, perhaps, not, but no such (intractable) paradox is discussed here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The mainstream media coverage is about both the person and the theory, and features the theory prominently. The Times, for example, begins its article (Wigmore, Barry (February 7, 2000); "Einstein's brain, King Kong's body") with:

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

20/20 uses the theory as a framing device:

...I found arguably the smartest person in America in eastern Long Island. [...] His name is Christopher Langan and he’s working on his masterpiece: a mathematical, philosophical manuscript, with a radical view of the universe.[12]

The Popular Science header says:

He's a working class guy with an IQ that's off the charts. What does he have to say about science? Everything -- a theory of everything, that is.[13]

The caption of the article's photo reads:

Christopher Langan spends his downtime coming up with a solution to a problem that philosophers and scientists have pondered for thousands of years.

So the CTMU has not just been "referenced in at least one major mainstream publication" as the proposed notability guideline for non-mainstream theories requires, explicitly allowing "large-circulation newspapers or magazines", but has received prominent, attention-getting placement in many such publications, with circulations in the hundreds of thousands or millions. It deserves its own article. Tim Smith 16:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment A small number of overhyped headlines do not constitute notability. Jefffire 16:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment So, the mainstream media coverage (which says vanishingly little about the content of the "theory" itself) still calls this theory science, despite the claims of the dramatic chorus. Anville 17:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. As visible above, Popular Science says the theory is about science, not that it is science. Philosophy is allowed to be about science; that's philosophy of science. 20/20 explicitly calls the theory philosophical. Tim Smith 21:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The mainstream media no doubt like the Good Will Hunting angle to this, but this is still an emerging theory and all the work on it is centered on one man. Wikipedia has articles on pseudo-scientific and fringe theories like creationism, but as of now there is no reason for there to be a separate article on the theory. It can be discussed in the article about the man himself. JChap (Talk) 16:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

From the 20/20 piece: "The more he talked, the more Christopher reminded me of that character Matt Damon played in the movie 'Good Will Hunting,' a brilliant guy who almost slipped between the cracks. That's Christopher’s story too." Read that how you will. . . . Anville 17:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per the obscurity of the idea. Wikipedia is not a storehouse for every flight-of-fancy made by every random individual. --ScienceApologist 16:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment The idea is not obscure; you simply weren't reading the right sources. If you were asked to prove that Langan is a "random individual" or the CTMU "a flight of fancy", you could not offer a single verifiable source. In fact, you'd find material indicating that Langan is decidedly non-random - indeed, several deviations above the mean in intelligence - and that there are clearly written, publicly available papers regarding the CTMU. You would also find reportage on Langan and the CTMU from verifiable sources like ABC News and Popular Science.

You are taking part in an editorial process here and are bound by Wikipedia policy. By casting this vote, you have failed to meet your editorial burden regarding neutrality and verifiability. If this encyclopedia is such that content can be kept or removed on the basis of unverifiable and counterfactual opinion and innuendo, then it is founded on "truth by democracy". Since that's an insupportable concept, Wikipedia would have no good reason to exist. For the sake of Wikipedia and its users, I hope that's not the case. Asmodeus 17:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I encourage this user to read about consensus, notability, and verifiablity before engaging in this sort of rhetoric. The personal opinion of a single human is not encyclopedic. --ScienceApologist 20:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - As long as the article properly qualifies the CTMU, I see no reason to delete it. Granted, Wikipedia is not the place for original thought, but this article is only summarizing and paraphrasing what has already been published in other sources. It is not promoting original ideas on its own. It's not as if anyone is going to read an article on the CTMU unless they follow a link to the article, and links to the article will only appear in other Wikipedia articles as relevance and notoriety dictate. Deleting the article only means that those seeking to understand the CTMU will have one less resource on the internet. Per contra, keeping the article does not force anyone to accept the ideas of the CTMU, which seems to be the fear of some editors. --Wechselstrom 18:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• DELETE as per the revelation of the PopSci forgery. Tsk tsk! You'd figure a wise guy wouldn't be so reckless with his forged archives.

Something tells me a fat dude on Long Island is having a tough time keeping track of all his sockpuppets! LOL Keglined 18:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Response Just thought I'd tell everyone that Keglined here is lying about the PopSci article being a forgery - as explained above, PopSci actually thought so much of Langan that its Editors included both an article AND an interview on him and the CTMU! (Hey, Keglined - why don't you go and brush up your jealous edits regarding the penis sizes of porn stars Peter North and John "Johnny Wadd" Holmes? Or maybe just watch some more porn...heh heh!) Asmodeus 19:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've Seen the Physical Copy If anyone wishes to continue down this route, I can tell you that I own many past issues of Popular Science including the one featuring the CTMU article in question.68.122.147.181 22:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• How very unimaginative of you, Chris - you assume I'm a guy. OH, and I just looked at the wayback machine stuff - there is NO record of the "other" popular science article. Sorry, Chris/Asmodeus/Dr L/whoever else you need to pretend to be - your charlatan hide has been exposed!!!  ;) Keglined 19:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Response I guess you must be talking to me? (In the future, please address me properly - it's "Asmodeus".) Again, you're either a liar, or too stupid to look in your local library for the article. You see, not every article in PopSci makes it onto the web, or stays on the web, and the wayback machine is still buggy, as many know who have used it. (Popular Science, October, 2001; an archived copy of the article is linked from several Wikipedia entries.) Now why don't you go and glue your sorry little nose, male or female as it may be, to a porn video featuring the penises of your favorite porn stars? ROTFLMAO! Asmodeus 19:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No stretch of the imagination could make such statements appear civil. Anville 19:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless, one has to note the irony: Asmodeus was the daemon of lust. And in Paradise Lost, Milton wrote of him that he has a "fishy odour". Byrgenwulf 19:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Response Obviously, I was merely pointing out Keglined's peculiar editorial history here at Wikipedia, as has been done regarding various others on this page, in a way appropriate to the vicious, defamatory nature of Keglined's own remarks. Would it be too much to ask that you at least try to be civil between your sporadic bursts of fraud and disinformation? Thank you. Asmodeus 22:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment to Keglined Keglined, please refrain from referring to socks. I really do not see any evidence of that here and it is distracting from the main points. Obviously people are interested in the CTMU. It is certainly notable. The article does not include original research, but rather reports on research that is already out there and possesses a reasonable NPOV in its current state. Tim Smith has posted the Wayback links to both POPSCI articles so please focus on whether or not the article meets Wikipedia criteria. It clearly does. Whether or not you like the CTMU or its supporters is not at issue. Nor is your bizarre edit history. I just hope the admins can sort through this mess. DrL 12:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Holy Megalomania, Batman... 52 Times! It’s a Vanity Article
  Wikipedia: “Vanity information... can come in the form of an entire article... Such information usually detracts from the direct illumination of the central topic of any article.”
  The CTMU article seems to focus more on Langan than the CTMU itself. In fact, the word “Langan” appears 52 times throughout the article; "CTMU" only 34. A quick check of other Wikipedia articles shows this figure is highly unusual: “Twain” appears in Huckleberry Finn 14 times; “Gates” in Microsoft 27 times; “Hawking” in Hawking Radiation 21 times; “Einstein” 19 times in Special Relativity; and the word “Darwin” appears in Evolution 12 times. Pathetically, in the CTMU article, each of the words “for,” “as,” and “in” appear fewer times than the word “Langan”!
  Wikipedia: “The most significant problem with vanity articles is that they often discuss subjects that are not well-enough known for there to be multiple editors.”
  Yes, there appears to be a number of sockpuppets at work here; until a couple days ago this article had but a dozen editors, four of which have in one form or another rejected the CTMU. Of the remaining eight, five (Asmodeus, CaveBat, DrL, 70.20.16.129, and 12.207.19.38) have contributed nothing to Wikipedia aside from edits to this article, the article on Langan himself, or references to Langan in other articles (also, it is a matter of record that Langan has published pseudonymously in the past [14]). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.58.130.228 (talk • contribs).

Oh yeah - delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.58.130.228 (talk • contribs).

• FIFTY TWO TIMES??? ROFLMAO!!! "the word "Langan" appears 52 times... "Twain in Huckleberry Finn 14 times; "Gates" in Microsoft 27 times; "Hawking" in Hawking Radiation 21 times; "Einstein" 19 times in Special Relativity; "Darwin" in Evolution 12 times..." That's all I needed to see! It's a blatant advert. Pure garbage.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.58.130.228 (talk • contribs).

• Note above user, who does not sign his posts, is having a conversation with himself. This is the only page on Wikipedia that he has edited. DrL 23:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• As explained, the POPSCI issue contained both an article AND an interview. Neither are forgeries. Please be responsible and don't perpetuate mistakes. If you check the history, you will see that the only reason "Langan" is mentioned so many times is that critics insisted that many statements be qualified (e.g., "Langan states ...", "Langan claims ...", etc.). Also, there are no sock puppets, so please refrain from such accusations. DrL 19:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• There are some very obvious sock/meatpuppets involved in this discussion. --Philosophus ^T 06:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Patent nonsense and clap-trap. linas 20:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Response Voting is one thing; unsubstantiated opinions are quite another. They are of no relevance to anything but your own state of mind, and your own ability or inability to comprehend the article and/or its subject matter...unless, of course, you have relevant, verifiable citations regarding the CTMU on which to base them. But then you'd probably have posted them, wouldn't you. Asmodeus 21:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, of course. Actually, I claim knowledge in broad areas; here's a list of articles I've made major contributions to; based on my knowledge, I am of the opinion that its bunkum. I understood the article -- it doesn't say much, and is mostly hot air. When its not just plain wrong. This is not encyclopedia material. Post it on some blog, if you wish. linas 00:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Response Now, now, no need to try to impress. Most university instructors do not allow Wikipedia articles to be used as a references, precisely because they are too often found in error; hence, you are not citing verifiable sources, and even if you were, you'd need to prove them relevant. But of course, you can't; otherwise, as a conscientious Wikipedia editor, you'd have done so already. Right? Now, I personally don't care whether you think the topic of the article under dispute is "bunk"; that plus a dollar will get your windshield wiped at 5th and Lex (maybe you'd like to start a blog about it). But when you say the CTMU is "just plain wrong" in a forum like this one, you incur an editorial burden. You can either meet this burden or you can't; personally, I'd bet a grand you can't, and that you can't understand the paper you say you read either. But that's neither here nor there. The fact is, if you want to talk this way, you need to put up, or clam up. By the rules of Wikipedia, we can't simply take your word for things when making editorial decisions; believe it or not, you're not sufficiently notable for that, and probably not sufficiently knowledgable either. You need to verify your sources, just like all the plebes. Asmodeus 01:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Instead of expending your energy trying to argue me down, why don't you just edit the article so its not gibberish and hot air? Perhaps people wouldn't be moving to delete if this was actually a reasonable article about some guy who was once interviewed by the press? linas 15:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Response I have plenty of energy these days, so don't worry about it. You seem to be saying that the article is poorly written, but at this point, it has many authors. So we can't exactly blame the original author for that. As nearly as I can determine, the article was (prior to all the pseudoediting) faithful to the material it covers, albeit highly condensed. Maybe, if it stays up, I'll add my bit. But meanwhile, we have to be careful not to make statements about the theory we can't back up with reputable, verifiable sources. Unverifiable statements about content are a luxury that Wikipedia editors just don't have. Asmodeus 21:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia guidelines the burden is upon those wishing to keep the article to prove that it is notable, and not visa-versa. So far all that exists is a few interview with Langon, and nothing else. It is very unlikely that these will be regarded as evidence of notability. Jefffire 15:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Response Please stop lecturing people about Wikipedia guidelines, jeffire; I've already established to my complete personal satisfaction that you have no respect for them yourself and cannot be trusted in any way regarding them. You are not some sort of Prime Bureaucrat who can keep demanding additional sources, when the sources already provided are sufficient. If you don't believe it, consider that neither you (jeffire) nor any of your friends could get an idea into Popular Science if your lives depended on it, except maybe in the Letters to the Editor (if one of you were extremely lucky). Sources like ABC and PopSCi wouldn't have touched Langan with a ten-foot pole if they hadn't satisfied themselves, through a variety of channels, that he's the real deal. Please either stop your nonsense, or go away. Asmodeus 21:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make personal attacks. Although I know I will be admonished for troll feeding, I will note that we could get ideas into real scientific journals, which is what matters. --Philosophus ^T 06:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP - with the priviso that way is found to 'permanently' attach a POV and DISPUTED tag. If this is impossible (and the claim is that it is) then regretfully DELETE. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Why not move the coverage to the article on Langan, which is essentially what is being proposed. --Philosophus ^T 06:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• The word "essentially" disturbs me. I would rather the CTMU be kept as a separate article but be clearly labelled as, er, non mainstream to put it mildly. If there is a problem with keeping warning labels attached then this needs to be sorted out at a higher level since it is a more general issue. Sticking the article in with Langam's bio is sweeping the problem under the carpet. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP - but with a proviso that more work is needed discussing CRITISM of the theory. For example see George_Berkeley Idealism etc. The debate is very long and thoroughly confusing. If it has attracted this amount of debate, I can't see how it fails the WP:notability test. However without padding the Critism section out, then I can only see the article being merged with the other Langen topics Mega Society. :-) Esse est percipi Mike33 17:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• The topic will be covered in the article on Langan, since it is inextricably linked to him, and only notable because of his situation. Note also that lengths of debates on Wikipedia are not a good indicator of notability - often the least notable pseudotheories have the longest discussions, since their authors will go to great lengths to support them through sock puppets and lengthy rants. --Philosophus ^T 06:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• DELETE THIS NONSENSE. The CTMU article cites numerous publications, but only one reference is to a science-oriented periodical (and it's Popular Science? Sad). In fact, this link points to an archived reproduction on the CTMU author's own website. A search for the original article on Popular Science’s website yields no results. The 20/20 reference revisits an interview wherein the CTMU itself is hardly even mentioned! Instead, the focus seems to this weight-lifting, "big brain" dude. It's like the tallest man in the world claiming he's the greatest basketball player in history because he was pictured in a non-sports magazine holding a ball next to a hoop. Aside from some references to self-published copies of the CTMU itself, the only other "independent" references are to magazines and TV shows that have nothing to do with science. Newsday, The Times?, Muscle & Fitness Magazine??? If you're not a cosmologist, but you play one on TV, does your TOE really matter? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 153.26.176.34 (talk • contribs).

• Links to both POPSCI articles in archive.org have been provided by Tim Smith on this page. Please sign your comments. DrL 20:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• One could say the POPSCI has nothing to do with science. Really, if this is a serious TOE, where are your Physical Review references? --Philosophus ^T 06:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• The POPSCI articles help to establish notability, which is one of the WP under consideration. DrL 13:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Conflict of Interest A little research reveals that there is likely a conflict of interest in the above vote. Note in history of CTMU article, user 153.26.176.34 links to crank site www.conspansion.com, which derogates Langan and falsely accuses him of stealing the conspansion idea (with no supporting evidence, of course!). DrL 23:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• This is not an acceptable reason to discount the opinion (though being unsigned and by an anon may be). --Philosophus ^T 06:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The CTMU, though obscure and seemingly intentionally obscured, appears to meet a minimum standard for notability; the nature and validity of the theory are irrelevent to this discussion. So long as the article does not overstate the CTMU's notability or present a biased view of the subject, it should be kept. Even if those criteria were not met, deletion would be a disproportionate response. --Tom1907 02:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• That isn't what we are trying to do. The current article is disproportionately large and highly POV. We want to move coverage of the topic into the article on Langan himself. --Philosophus ^T 06:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. WP is not a peer-review journal. It is not Nupedia. We have defined standards for the inclusion of fringe theories. This theory meets them. That is the only burden that such a theory must meet to be included in WP. It should therefore stay -- no delete, no merger. However, that comes with a substantial caveat. This article will require a substantial rewrite that attempts to pare down the CTMU's escalatory jargon to something understandable, and a criticism section will be needed discussing the (substantial) rebuttals to the CTMU that exist. Nevertheless, poor quality of an existing article is not grounds for the deletion of that article, ceteris paribus. Serpent's Choice 09:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  Note: This is a newly created account apparently made just to discussion the deletion of articles. --ScienceApologist 14:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: It is true that my primary focus has been article deletion. My fields of expertise are relatively well-represented on WP at this time, and so I have felt that my time and resources are better spent contributing to keeping WP free of articles that violate its standards (and defending those that do). I am not a sock of any of the actors in this issue (or any other accountname, for that matter). I have no personal stake in the article's fate. For what its worth, as full disclosure, I think the theory is a lot of pseudo-scientific claptrap cobbled together by its creator in an effort at one-upsmanship versus the physics community. But even if my opinion is proven true in future, that does not mean this topic is not appropriate for inclusion. It has generated mainstream media press and no small amount of critical discussion, all of which makes it a plausible searchbox entry and a notable topic. WP is about documentation, NOT validation [[[User:Serpent's Choice|Serpent's Choice]] 05:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) edit due to failure to proofread own post]. Theories that got it wrong are still worthy of encyclopedia space, especially in an encyclopedia with only the vaguest of space limitations. Regardless, a functional version of this article will probably require a protect. Serpent's Choice 04:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• NB There have been a few comments now, expressing viewpoints along the lines of the article being kept, but subjected to a massive rewrite/cleanup operation, as well as including a criticism section. It should be noted now that twice in the past 24 hours, Philosophus has attempted to do just that, but had his(?) work reverted by proponents of the theory. The idea seems to be that if there is to be criticism, it is to be entirely on the theory's proponents' terms, and no-one else is allowed to make substantive changes to the article without the proponents' prior vetting, while the proponents may write whatever they like there (even the "reception" section they have belatedly decided to include is grossly slanted). WP is neither a soapbox, nor has the theory itself (as opposed to its creator) earnt much noticeable attention. And while DrL is quite happy to class "conspansion.com" as a crank site (which features an idea either stolen from Langan or which Langan stole or some other sordid little saga), she is adamant that the CTMU does not have a "disputed science" infobox attached to it. Byrgenwulf 09:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - ScienceApologist deleted 80% of the article after another editor (not me) had just spent an enormous amount of time setting references. Editors should really respect the work of others. Editing implies constructive changes, not sweeping deletes. That is really all that the CTMU article editors are looking for in an article cleanup. No, a "disputed science" infobox is not warranted. If there is a "disputed philosophy" or "disputed model theory" infobox, one would still need to verify the nature of the dispute (i.e., that it was from a reputable source, content-driven and not political) and that such a dispute was beyond the normal controversy and discussion that goes hand-in-hand with new ideas (and old). The page should not make any claims regarding empirical science, but discussion of the nature of science is fair game (it is part of the philosophy of science). Yes, it's true that I labeled conspansion.com as a crank page because it is void of meaningful content and more than likely put up by a Langan detractor just to bug him. People who are familiar with logic and model theory can follow Langan's ideas. DrL 12:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL, are we resorting to scare bold now? Byrgenwulf 13:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That was a typo. I didn't put the marks at the beginning of the word "Comment". For some reason (possibly having to do with my browser settings) my view does not distinguish bold. I have corrected the formatting (I believe). DrL 15:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep The article seems to be well-verified and addresses a notable topic (I read about Langan and the CTMU in Popular Science). Genotypical 19:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yet another one of those funny accounts which crop up just for purposes of expressing opinions on this discussion. And I have an extremely strong intuition based on the name that this one is a sock- or meatpuppet, but it could be coincidence. Byrgenwulf 19:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I came here to add my opinion, not to be insulted. Genotypical 19:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I am terribly sorry if I insulted you, I don't think what I said is nearly as insulting as some of the invective that's been tossed around here. I was merely expressing my own opinion. And I didn't make any accusations either, merely aired some thoughts. Byrgenwulf 19:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Haven't seen this many socks since my last trip to JC Penny's. I just read the main article's description of "Expansion QUA Contraction," and had to laugh. No offense, guys (sic), but I'd bet plenty of people on psychedelic drugs have come up with more convincing "alternative" explanations of e=mc2 than this one. :)

Keep. It meets the notability requirements. Whether or not it is currently accepted by a majority of philosophers, what one considers to be "gibberish," whether one personally accepts the theory, what one's philosophical persuasion is, and what one's opinion of a theory's author is have little to no relevance here.68.122.147.181 05:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipendians - Please move Discussion about the merits of the Theory/Psuedo-science to another page.

If the artcle does have notability and critism outside of bar bouncers or their apologists, the article should stay. I am not a sock, I am an apologist for Berkley Idealism; neither opinions affect me unless I see the argument in real time. I can see this becoming a vanity decision (purely based on the number of socks) deleted on that basis. There is no need for paragraph after paragraph of debate. All interested editors have expressed opinions now (Disregarding ppl who have socked). I can only see what i see now, but it would make it very difficult to decide other than a delete. With the original editors continually rejecting rewrites - a blatent POV or WP:Notability. Without allowing other editors to edit text what is the point of the article? Blog it somewhere. With constant RV of critism sections the article it is a shambles.

Keep - with open access and sourcable critism

Delete - if apologists continue RV

Strongly Delete any similar article

Merge with any other ideas/clubs connected to Langam

(put please read Serpents's Choice post below re: other methods of adjudication/ resolution) - why prolong a decision with fruitless debate? Mike33 07:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC) repost with amendments Mike33 08:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If the primary problem is that efforts to make the page acceptable and inclusive of appropriate criticism are being reverted with prejudice to the improvement of the article, then that is a reason to escalate to dispute resolution, rather than a reason to delete. Indeed, given the widespread sockpuppetry (as well as allegations of the same) and divergence from the topic in this AfD, that may well be the best course of action in any case. Any acceptable version will quite probably require protection. Serpent's Choice 07:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Google search for "Cognitive-Theoretical Model of the Universe" gives only 14,000 hits, most of which are about the author. By contrast time cube gives 44 million. Clearly non-notable from a google hit perspective. Jefffire 13:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Lots of (probably most) articles would get far fewer hits than "only" 14,000 hits. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Then feel free to nominate them. Jefffire 13:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, because I have no burning desire to remove articles that I have no interest in, anymore than I desire to burn books I haven't read. --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This is misleading. Though still more than "ctmu," the exact phrase "time cube" produces much less than the more unconstrained search: 117,000 pages. (To avoid any "sock" comments, I'm 68.122.147.181 at a different computer.)69.238.48.216 21:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reality check: out by a factor of nearly four hundred eh?; shows that Jefffire is not a reliable source. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete - as nonsense. Not a scientific theory. KarenAnn 14:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Langan article. The wide variety of news sources confirms the theory/author as notable, but not as scientific (and most of the writing on the theory itself is gibberish). Re: Jefffire, I don't think >14,000 Google hits is a fair standard at all. (Edit: Whoops, forgot sig.) Icewolf34 14:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It's neither notable nor verifiable. Typical physics hack stuff, but more visible due to the press going, "Hey, this genius is also a bouncer!" Has it not occurred to you all we'd not even know about Langan if he'd been a sickly file clerk in Omaha? And as far as 14,000 hits constituting notability, MichaelCPrice, try Googling the exact phrase "the moon is made of cheese." I suppose we should now learn who first suggested the moon is made of cheese, give him or her credit for coming up with such a radical idea, and then create a Wikipedia article about the Parmesan Ecliptic Union or PEU (pronounced Pee-YOO) Theory? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phil Thompson (talk • contribs).

Comment. User's only edit. Tim Smith 00:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually since we are all familar with the "cheese moon" concept it is clearly notable, since we have all noted it enough at some time to recall it now. That doesn't mean it is a credible concept, any more than astrology is. But notability and credibility are two completely different issues, which people here seem to have extreme difficulty in appreciating. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- I read the entire collection (CTMU, UHIQS, C.Langan) and they all read like non-notable, vani-spam covered in technobabble. And Muscle & Fitness and Esquire are not proper citations for what presents itself as a scientific topic. Cover with a helping of vandalism, wikilawyering, rulesidestepping and you have yourself a big ole Delete Pie. -- MrDolomite | Talk 20:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I didn't read it all, but what I did read tells me that WP:SOAP applies here. Vanity, thy name is Langan. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Almost as vain as proudly voting to delete something one hasn't bothered to fully research, eh?69.238.48.216 02:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment to closing admin. The CTMU article was created in September 2005 and proceeded peacefully and largely unchanged until last week, when it erupted in controversy. Since then, the article has seen over 220 edits, over 140 of which were during this AfD. An edit war has waged for the whole course of the AfD, with users inserting and deleting huge blocks of text on less than a moment's notice, and reverting each other just as quickly. The size of the article has ranged from 9 KB to 27 KB, the number of sections from 7 to 12, the number of references from 5 to 12, the number of footnotes from 0 to 42. The version of the article that is now protected bears nearly no resemblance to the one originally nominated for deletion.

The AfD discussion itself has obviously also been chaotic. It is filled with one-edit users and IPs, loud accusations of forgery, a large anonymously-added table, personal attacks, irrelevant debates about the validity of the theory, an anonymous user having a conversation with himself, and so on. Many of the reasons given as justification depend crucially on which transitory version of the article the user saw: a user dissatisfied with 5 references might have approved 12, a user calling the article unverifiable with 0 footnotes might have accepted 42; a user calling the 27 KB version gibberish might have found the 9 KB version more understandable.

In short, it is impossible to extract an informed decision from an AfD conducted during an edit war of this scope. At this point, the only option I see is to close with no consensus. Tim Smith 04:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

(Discussion moved to talk page.) Tim Smith 21:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This review has been corrupted by moves of relevant discusion back and forth from the Talk page. Unless a clear consensus to delete can be found (which I think it has), the closing admin (which will not be me, even if I'm an admin by the time of closing) should close and relist. "No consensus" doesn't seem to be a plausible result. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Closing comment from DrL - Mediator, SynergeticMaggot, has informed me of his willingness to mediate editing if the article is not deleted. I would like to reiterate that a good solution would be to require that the editors of this article agree to mediation during the editing process until a version consensus is reached (I felt that we were close in a couple of spots during the past week). This last constructive edit by Byrgenwulf might be a fairly neutral place to start. DrL 23:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.