Talk:Christopher Michael Langan/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

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

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

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

From what I understand, the sources that the lawsuit prose were based on were all fairly straightforwardly delineated. It was a fairly good summary of the state of affairs. However, I don't see that the lawsuit necessarily was notable enough for inclusion in the article as many points in this article are probably well-beyond the scope of Wikipedia's encyclopedic nature. I agree with Rubin's total removal of the MegaSociety, but I would like to point out that the prose removed by User:Jimbo Wales was not original research since it was a simple reporting of facts and no conclusions were drawn. --ScienceApologist 13:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps Jimbo is using the phrase "original research" different from its Wikipedia-policy specific useage and using it in a more common general useage sense which translates into wikipedia speech as "inappropriate reliance on primary sources rather than secondary sources". WAS 4.250 15:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Should we amend the policy? •Jim62sch• 16:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The section followed WP:RS and WP:V to the tee and only stated what the notable parties had to say. I'm confused where exactly the "original research" was. Jimbo Wales' deletion seems arbitrary to me. Now we'll have to rewrite the section without knowing what he means by original research. 151.151.21.103 18:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to request a more thorough explanation regarding this application of WP:NOR in a WP:BLP context. I think I understand what Jimbo means, but this seems far to important to leave to conjecture. And perhaps there are aspects to the situation of which only Jimbo may be aware? AvB ÷ talk 19:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

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

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

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

That's reasonable. I'd support it. Obviously it's a notable event and some coverage needs to be given it. 151.151.21.103 20:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
if it is a notable event, then why there is no references to 3rd party discussions of it? I'd say it is rather nonnotable. `'mikka 09:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

References

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

Yes there is. If the lawsuit, which is described by obscure public sources, is original researchnot worthy of inclusion then the society's existence which is derived from similarly obscure public sources is not worthy of inclusion. --ScienceApologist 13:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Explained in comment. Basically, now that we know (even through primary sources, which cannot be included in the article without a secondary source asserting notability) that L is not with the Mega Society, any reference to the Mega Foundation must be accompanied by a note that the Mega Foundation is not affilliated with the Mega Society. I'll try to consrtuct a valid disclaimer to meet WP:BLP and avoid libeling the Mega Society. (But the references to articles, other than by L, on the Mega Foundation site, must also go. See {{self-published}}.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you really, honestly, believe these arguments? I note for the record that there is no mention of Langan's foundation in the entry, other than a link to the foundation's website. To call a link to the website "the inclusion of non-notable material" (as ScienceApologist does) is absurd—it is quite normal and uncontroversial for biographical entries to contain a link to a website belonging to the subject of the entry. To call a link to the website libelous (as Arthur Rubin does) is absurd—the foundation and website exist, and are not in dispute. It is the guy's website. Not one argument has been advanced as to why "mentioning" the Foundation (which is not mentioned in the article) would be libelous. The other references are all to Langan's work, and are references there to support the information in the entry. I also note for the record that the reason for excluding discussion of the lawsuit is that it is original research, not that it is unworthy of inclusion (although I believe it is unworthy). But the idea that because a lawsuit is not mentioned, therefore the Megafoundation is not worthy of inclusion, makes no sense, and has not been argued. The reality is you are deleting the references supporting the information contained in the article, references that have every right to be there. The notion that I am pushing a point of view is untrue and hypocritical. I honestly don't understand this persistent vindictiveness. FNMF 13:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Why is mentioning a lawsuit which is a matter of public record original research? I can understand the "messy divorce" provision from dragging Wikipedia into non-encyclopedic arguments, but arguing that it is "original research" indicates that simply reporting the contents of a public document somehow constitute a unique perspective or amalgamation of sources. If I take the "messy divorce" parallel to its natural conclusion the Megafoundation would act sort of like a child of the litigants. If we were writing an article about a litigant, the child of the litigant being renamed as a result of the messy divorce would be the equivalent to this issue. Avoiding all discussion of the litigation would be akin to avoiding all discussion of the naming of the child and if there was a website which used the name of the child, I can see that being a major concern. The flip side is that you aren't really concerned about the actual issues at all but just want to see the litigation excluded for reasons that are totally opaque at the present-time. --ScienceApologist 13:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I note that none of that even attempts to defend the deletion of references from the entry. I don't need to defend the NOR issue any further than it has already been defended minutes ago. We are not talking about the child of a messy divorce. We are talking about references constituting the supporting evidence for an article, and a link to a subject's website. I repeat: not one sensible argument has been advocated for deleting these references. As to your "flip side": the reasons the lawsuit should be omitted have been made abundantly clear, and the reasons the lawsuit should be omitted are the reasons I want to see the lawsuit excluded. Rather than opaque, I believe I have been transparent. FNMF 13:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo and User:FNMF are clearly wrong in claiming WP:OR, as the wording of the section is quite simply available from the court and arbitrarion records themselves. However, WP:BLP specifically suggests that public records (the lawsuits) may not be included in the article unless a reliable secondary source mentions them. (CML is not known for lawsuits, unlike Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch.) In this case, the secondary sources are parties to the lawsuit and KL. Parties to a court or arbitration procedure cannot be considered be considered reliable, and KL's reliability is disputed by User:DrL. On the other hand, we clearly need a disclaimer that the Mega Foundation is not associated with the Mega Society, and the Mega Foundation web site may only be used to support articles and statements by CML, rather than about CML, under WP:SELFPUB. I thought it best to remove all reference to the Foundation while the matter is straightened out. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. So the only things necessary for us include the lawsuit and arbitration again according to Jimbo's objection is to rely upon secondary sources and add Langan's POV as a counterpoint. So let's just find the sources and rewrite it, what's the big deal? 151.151.21.103 19:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Only the references that quote Langan may remain, not any to articles about Langan or assert that Langan published. I think that still eliminates the one in the lead. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I can go along with that. So we are agreed that we can revert the deletions, then delete that first reference to the CTMU Q&A thing? FNMF 14:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I am going to go ahead and make those changes now. I hope all editors are clear that in doing so, I am following the declared wishes of Mr Rubin, when he wrote (just above) that "Only the references that quote Langan may remain, not any to articles about Langan or assert that Langan published. I think that still eliminates the one in the lead." I will therefore undo the reversion, then delete the first reference, as per my understanding. Note that the deletion I am reverting was first placed by Mr Rubin, and hence my "reversion" of this deletion is in fact in conformity with his own present views. I am glad that a formerly acrimonious dispute can hopefully come to this civil conclusion, and I thank Mr Rubin for helping to make this possible. I am hopeful that this will be the end of acrimony in relation to this entry. FNMF 14:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Because of 3RR (for which you have a pass from Jimbo, as your removals of the lawsuit section have his stamp of approval), I can't stop you, but I suggest that the megafoundation links be removed from the references to articles about Langan, as well. (The statement "The CTMU says..." also needs to be changed per my most recent edit, as we don't have any WP:RS as to what it does say.) But I otherwise concur that megafoundation.com may be used to source Langan's quotes. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Another solution might be to use the links at Langan's CTMU site:
If you think that's acceptable (although I'm not sure what is wrong with the current links), I can try to change them, though an editor with more experience in referencing might do a better job! --NightSky 15:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I have now completed the process of re-inserting the links to the articles mentioned in the article. As we all know, these are just links to articles which do exist in the outside world and are legitimate sources, so I hope everybody can agree that this is acceptable. I have left out the CTMU Q&A reference as per Mr Rubin's preference. I hope editors can agree that with these re-insertions no attempt is being made to promote the ideas of Mr Langan, but simply to provide links to the sources of information about Mr Langan and his ideas. The links are not academic sources, and are not there to try to prove Mr Langan's ideas are correct; just to provide attribution for the information contained in the article. Thanks again to Mr Rubin for helping to lessen the acrimony in this dispute, and, as mentioned, I continue to hope this will be the end of this episode. FNMF 15:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Or one could just delete the article -- Langan really isn't notable. •Jim62sch• 15:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I think an appearance in Esquire as "the world's smartest man" makes him notable. His iconoclastic status as genius/bouncer was interesting enough to the media to result in several stories and interviews. Even if he was only notable for a few years around 2000, this makes him notable. --Otheus 15:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Replying upon Langan's website as a source

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

I note that you have removed all the references sourced from the CTMU website. Have you actually looked at where those links take you? They take you to legitimate secondary sources, reproduced there for accessibility. You imply that they are primary sources: they are not in any way primary sources and there is no basis for claiming they are. You also have "reservations" about using the website, but again, and has been stated repeatedly: these are links to published and legitimate secondary sources. Your refusal to accept this appears to be a clear case of disruptive editing. If you remove these references again, your editorial behaviour would appear to be vandalism. Please desist.
As for the arguments for re-including discussion of the lawsuit, the situation is now clear. Do not include anything on this section if you cannot find a legitimate secondary source to rely on. If you do not understand what Mr Wales has written on this question, this failure to understand is not an excuse to ignore it. Again, it comes across as the expression of an intention to continue disruptive editing. Do not consider re-introducing the section on the lawsuit if you cannot fully address the issues delineated by Mr Wales. FNMF 23:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
references sourced from the CTMU website. Have you actually looked at where those links take you? They take you to legitimate secondary sources
Uh, that's the point. We don't need Langan's own site to provide secondary sources for us, they should be readily available elsewhere if they are genuine. Why should we rely on or trust an established self-promotor for links to other secondary sources? It's not as if Langan's site isn't partisan is it? 151.151.21.104 23:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
If you remove these references again, your editorial behaviour would appear to be vandalism.
And if you add these references again, your behavior would appear to be promoting Langan and his views. Please desist. Really, please. 151.151.21.104 23:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
(1) That is true. You don't need these links to legitimate the references. The situation is as follows: some things are available on the web, and some things are not, and in that case one has to go to a library or find a copy in order to read them. If they are available on the web, then a link to them is helpful. If you can find other web sources for these articles, I am happy to use them in preference to the links to Langan's website.
(2) But it is also obviously the case, then, that one cannot on the one hand cite these articles and say that is legitimate, and then on the other hand claim that to link to these articles is somehow illegitimate because it is promoting Langan. It is the same material.
Again: the articles in question are the supporting evidence for the material contained in the entry. If you are trying to argue that somehow Langan has tampered with the material, then you are obliged to provide evidence of this. But you really know that he has not tampered with the material. It is now clear that you know what these links contain, and are willfully insisting on a false line of reasoning. FNMF 00:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Policy seems to have changed. After rechecking WP:ATT, it doesn't seem as if there is any policy against the links. I think the links should be noted as a personal copy, as a warning to researchers to check the original, but that's minor.
My mistake. Although I think the policy change is a mistake (that we should only use a personal web site as a source for what that person said, rather than for any comments about him), it is now policy. This makes a mockery of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Proposed decision, in that policy findings 4 (and 4.1 and 4.2) no longer map to current policy or guidelines, but it's apparently correct at present. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I missed something. Did you refer to a proposed decision? --Otheus 15:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
That link isn't piped; a majority of the ArbCom has agreed to the decision, but it hasn't officially been closed, yet. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Per consensus here, I reinserted the links. Felt it best to remove the megafoundation link as it is not Langan's site, per se and seems just to be causing problems. --NightSky 13:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the substance of the arguments. However, I suggest that there is a problem in the appearance of the conflict of interest. There's a benefit to the community if the links are sourced to their original copies where available, and when not, to various sources:
  • It reduces the impression that the source materials might have been tampered with
  • It adds to the confidence that the page is not being used as a tool to prop up links and hits for a particular site
  • It adds to the impression that the sources for the article span the web, not just one or two websites.
So there are several reasons to find other sources for the pages. --Otheus 02:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree. As I wrote in an earlier comment: "If you can find other web sources for these articles, I am happy to use them in preference to the links to Langan's website." If you check the links they are all to legitimate secondary sources, and the chances they have been tampered with are remote. No reasons why such tampering might occur have been advanced. And, of course, anyone with access to the publications may check the accuracy, and bring any problems to the attention of editors. The sources for the article span various publications and television programs, so whether they span the web is perhaps not a major consideration. Nevertheless, if other supporting links are available, they should be used in preference. I think it should also be pointed out, as has already been pointed out, that one user who removed the links claiming they were improper, later restored one of those links, because he wished to use it to support an argument. So there is clear evidence of inconsistency by those rejecting these links. That said, users now appear satisfied that the links may remain (to be replaced if and when other links become available), so I would hope that this issue does not need to be reopened without good reason. FNMF 02:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Original research

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

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

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

Again, this is a bit of a stretch away from the original research definition. Primary sources are problematic sometimes, but pointing out that primary sources exist and what they say is hardly "original historical research". If it were a requirement that Wikipedia only rely on secondary sources, I would understand this argument more, but as it is there is nothing very "original" about quoting/summarizing a public document. Original research, in my understanding, would be using such a document to draw a conclusion about Langan, his actions, or motivations. Simply reporting and attributing the contents of an arbitration ruling cannot be original research by normal standards any more than reporting the contents and attributing the contents of any other primary source document. --ScienceApologist 10:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Moreoever, if we're going to start questioning the original research character referencing primary source documents, we're probably going to have to take a hard look at the references we have to Langan's statements and primary sources about himself. If this is truly the direction Wikipedia is going, the only sources which can be used are the mainstream media puff-pieces that have been written about the man. No more CTMU explanations (except where described by third parties) for example. --ScienceApologist 10:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo, would it be correct to say that, when we have information from a primary source but lack a secondary source, we have no way to gauge the importance of the information? I think you're saying that if information needs to be weighed before inclusion in the encyclopedia, but we have no secondary sources to guide our assessment, we cannot publish. If we do, it is original research, not to the degree that it is untrue, but to the degree that we do not know how (un)important it is. Am I understanding this correctly? AvB ÷ talk 19:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a response from Jimbo to a similar question on the e-mail list (see archives or post). AvB ÷ talk 09:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Of course, there is no guarantee that a secondary source may have the same drawback of heavily leaning in favor of the MegaSocs. Here the second consideration kicks in: notability of the case. If the case is nonnotable, 2-3 publications may easily be biased in one direction. Whereas if the case got sufficient attention, chances are much better to produce a balanced description, which is a must in the case of a living person per wikipedia rules. `'mikka 09:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. My defense of Langan in no way means I like him or something. In fact I think that having such a high IQ and being dragged into this lawsuit only to lose is a token either of an idiot or a very nasty person who knew all in advance but nevertheless decided to step on the toes of his foes (out of general nastiness, or to make a fuss for advertising purposes (which failed), or for the reason I cannot guess, becase he is smarter than me he says). `'mikka 10:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Relevant policy

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

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

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

User 151.151.21.101

User 151.151.21.101 has now revealed a clear intention to disrupt the editing of this article, to ignore all arguments, to make edits without any attempt at adequate justification, to ignore Wikipedia policy, and to presume bad faith on the part of other editors. Until such time as this user demonstrates a different intention, I believe all editors are justified in ignoring contributions coming from this user, and justified in reverting disruptive edits by this user. FNMF 22:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I was about to say that about you. You're approaching making yourself subject to the ArbCom decision which banned DrL and Asmodeus from the article.
Consider yourself warned. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Cool -- a warning war! --Otheus 22:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I have done nothing other than argue my case. These arguments have been supported by other editors. But these arguments are utterly ignored by users who edit the article without even attempting to justify their arguments. You have given no grounds for any warning. Making threats without grounds is simply intimidation. FNMF 22:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You have added favorable (but questionably sourced) material and removed unfavorable material against clear consensus. I don't know whether that's sufficient to put you under sanctions, but I'm certainly considering going to the ArbCom for comment. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I think a review of my edits will show I have added or removed almost nothing. I have argued extensively about certain questions, and the answers to some of those questions have, I believe, become clearer as a result. Other editors have supported by arguments, and the article has improved as a result. I am happy to have my contributions scrutinised by whomever you like. FNMF 23:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The only souce of disruption here is the use this article by Langan's cronies to continue Langan's campaign of spin and self promotion. You're creation of this section dedicated to a personal attack is evidence of their disruptive nature. 151.151.21.104 23:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I have not created a section devoted to a "personal attack." I have given five separate reasons why your editing is a problem, and any user who disagrees is welcome to provide evidence that these reasons are invalid. I hope that in the future your edits will be measured, thoughtful, and constructive, but at the present moment I believe my 5 reasons are valid. FNMF 23:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Perfect SAT score

I am critical of the wording and skeptical of the claim that he scored a 1600. These scores are private, and the only proof could come from Langon himself. Also, the SAT article notes (but uncited) that in some years, it was impossible to get a 1600. Langdon Langan would have taken it around 1973? The citation comes from the reporter's voiceover from the 20/20 special. The reporter provides no evidence. Does this meet the WP:ATT guidelines? --Otheus 22:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Does what meet ATT? The SAT score, if not documented, has to go. •Jim62sch• 12:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The 20/20 article is narrated by a reporter who claims that Langan scored the 1600. 20/20 is a secondary source used throughout wikipedia. My question is: Is there anyway someone could independently verify this score? If not, then is this statement attributable, even though it is cited by a secondary source? --Otheus 15:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Did he state it unequivocally, or did he say "it is reported"? There's no way to verify, I'm assuming Langan made the claim. •Jim62sch• 00:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Autodidact

Re: (autodidact is not the same as self-taught...) Uh, yes, it is. Greek: auto = self, didaktikos = taught. •Jim62sch• 12:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, technically, Gretab is correct. One can be self-taught without being an autodidact. (This time, I didn't rely on Wiktionary) Autodidact refers to an approach to learning. I might be self-taught to play video games, but that doesn't mean I can claim to be "self-taught". Based on the comments I saw in the rest of the article, and from Langan's autobigraphical statements, autodidact appears to be a more precise term than merely "self taught". --Otheus 15:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Have a source for the claim that one can be self-taught without being an autodidact? Because I have sources that says both you and Gretab are wrong:
  • Autodiact: A self-taught person. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
  • Autodiact: A person who has taught himself WordNet 2.1, © 2005 Princeton University
  • Autodiact: A person who has learned a subject without the benefit of a teacher or formal education; a self-taught person. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary,

To avoid attempts to redfine "autodiact" to cast Langan in a different light, we must stick to a verifiable definition like the ones at dictionary.reference.com. 151.151.21.103 22:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It amazes me that the thread go this long. Shame etymology isn't taught in school these days. •Jim62sch• 00:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Or epistemology. Or logic. We can thank Dewey and the Pragmatists for that. But I digress.
While an autodidact (notice the second 'd') is defined as a self-taught person, it is not necessarily the case the reverse is true.
But we are also talking about connotation and a quirk about English grammar. When you say a person "is self-taught", because taught is in the past tense, it gives the impression of being in the past. It is also ambiguous, as people are likely to say/think/ask, "self-taught in what?" But if you say a person is an autodidact, it maintains the present tense and does not suggest when the self-teaching occurred. It also implies a general sense of being self-taught. For instance, I taught myself how to program computers. But I don't go around claiming I'm an autodidact. With Langdon, if you say he is "self-taught" and mention his IQ and status as a bouncer, well, that hardly gives a meaningful impression.
For that reason it's as I stated earlier -- an approach to learning. Langan is generally self-taught (or something like that), but more critically, I think, his attitude seems to be "why should I bother learning from someone who is my intellectual inferior". That's the impression I got from the video interview.
Having said that, I assume someone else did call him an autodidact, right? Because if not, then the whole thing is OR.
--Otheus 01:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism removed •Jim62sch• 10:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Otheus, I think you're getting carried away, and trying to use shades of meaning (semantics) that are non-existant. It's irrelevant whether someone else called him an autodidact when we're using true synonyms (and they are a rarity). Note this sentence, "Langan is author of the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe..."[emphasis mine]. Did anyone actually call him the author? Would it matter if we said author, designer, developer, creator or inventor? The semantic value of the words would be equivalent in this case.
BTW, in teaching yourself how to program computer, you were engaged in autodidacticism. Maybe your next challenge should be linguistics -- I suggest Ferdinand de Saussure, Mario Pei and the Journal of Language and Linguistics at [2] as starters. Should you wander by my user page, you'll not varying degrees of proficience in 14 languages, 12 of which were self-taught. Thus, I have every right to claim that I am an autudidact in linguistics/languages. •Jim62sch• 11:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I hate to reply-n-run, but I need to go on wikibreak to concentrate on real life for a few days. I actually fully intend on investing time on linguistics.
Perhaps I am getting "carried away". But the shades here are existent: There's a difference whether you label someone in the lead as an autodidact versus "a self-taught person". Whether the difference here applies or not depends, I think, on the source for this label. Maybe someone else can comment on whether Langan should even be described as "self-taught".
And yes, we engaged in autodidactism. But in both cases, we qualified that with "in computers" or "in languages". Because Langan actually went and attended school, I'm don't think we can call him an autodidact. By contrast, here in Austria, there was a girl who was kidnapped when she was 9 or 10. They found her 7+ years later. Upon her release, she appeared to be more educated than the typical 17 year old. I think it can be said, truly, she is an autodidact.
Finally, you're right -- true synonyms are a rarity. However, "self-taught" is an adjective, whereas "autodidact" is a noun. These aren't synonyms. --Otheus 09:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't find any media source calling Langan an "autodidact". Uncommon Dissent's "Contributors" section labels him an "independent researcher and reality theorist", and this ISCID chat introduces him as a "reality theorist and researcher". How about:
Christopher Michael Langan (born c. 1957) is an American independent researcher whose IQ was reported by 20/20 and other media sources to have been measured at around 195.
Tim Smith 00:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I think autodidact is ok, and so is independent researcher. Perhaps "Independent researcher" should appear in the infobox? --Honorable citizen 12:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I actually favor removal of the infobox; I think it clutters the article while adding little of value. "Independent researcher" might be better than "autodidact", since Uncommon Dissent uses the former, but no source, that I can find, uses the latter. Tim Smith 14:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Dude, as the sources and the article already makes clear he's self taught; an autodidact. Replacing autodidact with "Independent researcher" is pure puffery. 151.151.21.105 21:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"Christopher Michael Langan (born c. 1957) is an American autodidact whose IQ was reported by 20/20 and other media sources to have been measured at around 195."

Anyone who's read a newspaper knows that good writers don't use big words simply to appear intelligent. Unless you're writing for a "smart" audience, you shouldn't use them. No one cares that you have a big vocabulary; vocabulary size is useless in the real world anyway, even if it's weakly correlated with success. Get a life. Bulldog123 19:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

So much for the idea that the purpose of an encyclopedia is to educate its readers... The term 'autodidact' is linked to the Autodidact article for anyone who bothers to read the article and is not familiar with the term. Heaven forbid a Wikipedia user learn a new word... FeloniousMonk 02:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
FeloniousMonk, why don't journalists use high-level words? Why don't writers of real encyclopedias? All using "self-taught intellectual" instead of "autodidact" does is make the article less frustrating for most people to read. Bulldog123 03:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
What have you been reading? Harpers, New York Times, The New Yorker. 151.151.21.105 22:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Bulldog123, there are a couple of problems with "self-taught intellectual"; namely, intellectual is sort of POV here, and usually applies to someone with far more acceptance as such than Langan has yet to receive. "Self-taught" would be fine, but insufficient, since we're all sort of self-taught on things and to some degree. So "autodidact" seems to best sum up the consensus on our understanding of Langan's approach to learning. Plus, the term is linked to -- it's not like people reading Wikipedia don't know how to click on a link to find out what a word means. --Otheus 22:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me of the nagging that got "irascible curmudgeon" removed from the Fred G. Sanford page in favour of "irritable." Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it's an encyclopedia. — Athænara ✉ 00:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent Design section

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

From William Dembski, :David Chiu is a design theorist. As a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (see http://www.iscid.org/fellows.php) is a card-carrying member of the ID movement.[3] If the head of ISCID uses ISCID membership to characterise someone as a "card-carrying member of the ID movement", I think it's safe to describe an ISCID fellow as an ID proponent. If both the pro-ID and anti-ID sides agree on this, I'd say it's a pretty safe statement. Guettarda 04:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I strongly contest the use of this "evidence" that Langan is an advocate of intelligent design, for the following reasons:
  • Firstly, and most importantly, it is not about Langan. It is about someone else entirely.
  • Dembski is clearly a partisan commentator. Guettarda argues that if the pro-ID Dembski and the anti-ID editors of this entry both think someone is an ID advocate, then he is. This is a false conclusion. The fact that Dembski writes "As a fellow of the ISCID, such and such is a card-carrying member of the ID movement," does not make it correct to infer that ISCID fellowship equals ID advocate. Dembski is involved in a pro-ID political campaign, so no doubt wants to claim people as pro-ID.
  • There are more than just two "sides." What would be really interesting was if someone who was not a member of either of these sides supported the claim. That is, is there a non-partisan secondary source that states that Langan is an advocate of ID? So far, no such source has been found.
  • Even Dembski is not cited here claiming Langan is pro-ID. So it is not true to say that "both sides" agree that Langan is pro-ID
  • The fact that an anti-Langan editor is forced to resort to this kind of "evidence" is itself a further indication of how little actual evidence there is that Langan is an advocate of ID.
  • Not one citation has been provided from a secondary source stating that Langan is an advocate of ID.
  • Not one citation has been provided from Langan stating that he is an advocate of ID.
  • Substantial evidence and argument has been provided that Langan is not an advocate of ID, and that anti-Langan editors have persistently misunderstood the nature of Langan's position. None of this evidence and argument has been refuted, or even discussed, by anti-Langan editors.
And I note as well the continuing trend of anti-Langan editors to edit the entry, then make a comment on the talk page for possible discussion, rather than discussing the matter and seeing if there is agreement. That is if they leave a comment at all. This is clearly poor form in an entry that is obviously contested and controversial. Some people have been blocked for less. FNMF 05:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
To begin with, since Dembski is in charge of ISCID, he should know what appointing an ISCID Fellow means. We have a clear statement that being an ISCID Fellow means being a "card-carrying member of the ID movement". We have Brauer et al., saying the same thing. When Dembski and Barbara Forrest say the same thing, I'd say it's reasonable to characterise ISCID that way.
Obviously, that's ancilliary evidence. The primary source is Langan himself - the CTMU papers, the UD book chapter. So - Langan is a person who argues in favour of ID and is a fellow of an organisation of "card-carrying member[s] of the ID movement". He presents papers at ID conferences. He has not said anything which puts him outside of the ID core. So, someone who writes in favour of ID, presents papers at ID conferences, and is a fellow of an organisation of "card-carrying member[s] of the ID movement" should not be described as an ID proponent on what grounds? Guettarda 07:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I have given my reasons why I find that evidence insufficient. You argue that the primary source is Langan himself. OK, I would like to hear the arguments based on statements from this primary source that he is an advocate of ID. Because I don't believe he is one, based on the evidence I have seen. FNMF 07:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I honestly believe, and I've said this before, that there is a way of resolving this question. And the reason I believe it is because I believe that there has been a big misunderstanding about who Christopher Michael Langan is, and what he stands for. I would like to make two points.
  • To be an advocate of something means to advocate for it. That is, it means to argue for it publicly. (One could be a private advocate around the dinner table, I suppose, but to argue this in an encyclopaedia would need very good evidence.) So, if somebody is an advocate, there should be clear evidence that he advocates the thing of which he is an advocate. Being an advocate means something different from, and something more than, being a member of an organisation. If it has been so difficult to find the clear evidence Langan advocates ID, that should give editors pause for thought, even those editors ill-disposed to the man.
  • I believe the reason this evidence has been so difficult to locate is because Langan is not an advocate of ID. He is just not an advocatory kind of guy, if I may be permitted to put it like that. He is a very individual, probably very self-preoccupied sort of person. Contrary to how he has been presented, my impression is that he is anything but a self-promoter. He certainly is a guy who seems confident he is right about what he thinks, and would like people to listen to him. But that is not the same thing as being a self-promoter. More importantly, he comes across as somebody who is not at all interested in joining political movements, and is, in general, not a "joiner" of any kind. I truly believe that, as a guy totally outside academia, he was happy to receive the offer to speak at the ID conference, and could see grounds whereby what he had to say pertained to the interests of ID proponents. And the ID proponents, for their part, and as anti-ID people must surely recognise, are happy to accept into their fold anybody who seems like they could help the cause. So it was, if you like, a man and a movement taking mutual advantage of each other.
Additionally, and as I have argued many times now, Langan's CTMU is disqualified from being a species of ID theory, because it explicitly disavows scientific proof, the very opposite of ID theory, which constantly tries to claim scientific testability. Langan, I honestly believe, is just not the kind of guy he has been taken for by anti-ID editors. And that is probably why the evidence just does not seem to be there. FNMF 08:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
In other words, the reason I believe the editing of this entry should be a solvable problem is this: it is not like the dispute between pro-evolution and pro-ID editors on entries such as "evolution" or "intelligent design." Those disputes are between two groups of people with different understandings of the world, fighting over every inch of territory in the conviction they are right. In this case, the dispute is between people who are arguing about what kind of guy a guy is, about what his understanding of the world is, not whether that understanding is right. The dispute is between the people who are convinced he is an overt or cryptic advocate of ID, and the people who remain unconvinced of this. The distance between these groups seems far, but that is because, I believe, the anti-Langanites are seeing the battleground of this entry as a microcosm of the battle over intelligent design. But its not a microcosm of the intelligent design entry. Its really just a debate about how to be fair and accurate to an unusual guy with some unusual ideas, who for one reason or another got mixed up with some pro-ID people. This is not to say there is no connection between Langan and ID. But the connection is not easy to pin down, and certainly doesn't seem to amount to advocacy. It is because this connection is so difficult to pin down that editors should stop trying to prove that Langan advocates ID, and be happy just to point out the associations there have been between them. I cannot stop editors from taking my argument as a "rant," but I believe that to any objective observer my contributions are made in the very best of faith, according to the highest ideals of Wikipedia, and in the most positive spirit. Not only that, they're right! FNMF 08:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Lastly, I would like to thank user Guettarda for reverting his own edit, pending discussion. I take that as an act of good faith and good will. FNMF 08:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
From what I've seen, I'd think that calling Langan an 'ID advocate' or an 'Evolution advocate' would be oversimplifying. He's promoting a sort of 'have your cake and eat it too' philosophy... Evolution and ID as one, with a heavy dose of Atman / Brahman duality... the universe dreaming itself into existence as an exercise in self-realization. Living creatures are evolving, but that process of evolution is guided by a universal intelligence, of which we humans are both part originator and part outcome... in short, he seems to be saying 'everybody is right'. Which IMO seems very likely a 'conclusion' that preceded the logic cited as establishing it. You could say that he supports ID. You could also say that he supports evolution. But neither would be precisely accurate - as he has redefined both to essentially be synonymous. --CBD 14:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for this information, Guettarda. Dembski's rebuttal is quite a long document, can you tell me a page number or section for the "card-carrying" quote? It seems a bit presumptuous on Dembski's part and I was interested in reading the passage in context. In any case, I'd have to agree with FNMF and CBD that Langan has been very careful in his writings to present a balanced view of the debate (as it relates to the CTMU) and not position himself on one side or the other. I don't think we are in a position to infer, from his publication in ID venues, anything more than his interest in getting a wider audience for his work. Unless we can find some reliable report that Langan advocates ID or reliable account of advocacy behavior, we should just present the facts that we know regarding his fellowship and publications. --NightSky 14:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to point out something about the original post, isn't synthesizing two sources (i.e. Langan is a member and some other guy who is a member is a member of the ID movement) a horrible example of exactly what why we're supposed to avoid original research? Unless someone actually said Langan was a member of the ID movement, I'd have a very hard time swallowing that leap. Shell babelfish 03:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
No, not really. He is an ISCID Fellow...which means he is an ID proponent. ISCID exists to promote ID. That's common knowledge, it was supported by a citation. Spurious opposition was raised here. I simply quoted the head of ISCID explaining what ISCID is. If you are part of the leadership of the ACLU, and based on that someone says that you are a supporter of civil liberties, is that original research? All the citation from Dembski did was provide another citation to explain what it meant to be an ISCID Fellow. Guettarda 04:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
One could be part of the leadership of the ACLU for reasons other than to support civil liberties - a CIA plant, or it was the highest paying job you could get, or a political stepping stone. You might as well claim that just because some is a minister or priest that they are a proponet of ... well name it. Anything you name is original research because different people do things for diferent reasons. WAS 4.250 07:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
"If you are part of the leadership of the ACLU, and based on that someone says that you are a supporter of civil liberties, is that original research?" -- Yes: "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material, which appears to advance a position". -- Jibal 11:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

ISCID

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original Research

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think? Tim Smith 19:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
It's better, but isn't it ID heavy? Either qualifier alone (ISCID cofounder or leading intelligent design proponent) would seem like overkill enough. --NightSky 02:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Just "ISCID cofounder" is fine with me. I do think it relevant, given Langan's involvement with both the book and the society, to note that the book's editor is also among the society's founders. Tim Smith 19:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The proposed sentence glosses over the fact that 8 of the 15 people contributing to Uncommon Dissent verifiably belong to the recognized leading organization of the ID movement: [4][5][6][7][8][9] 151.151.73.169 17:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The background of the contributors is more relevant to the article on Uncommon Dissent itself. More important here, I think, are the book's full title and editor. My proposal does preserve the ISCID and ID connections through Dembski. Tim Smith 19:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
There's no original research: As noted at the Uncommon Dissent article and other ID articles 8 of the 15 people contributing to Uncommon Dissent, William A. Dembski, Phillip E. Johnson, Nancy R. Pearcey, Michael J. Behe, Michael John Denton, Cornelius G. Hunter, David Berlinski, are fellows of the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture, the leaders of the ID movement. It's an easily verified fact, do your research: [10][11][12][13][14][15]151.151.73.169 17:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The characterization in question is "intelligent design proponents and ISCID fellows". Eight of the fifteen contributors are ISCID fellows; that's sourced. However, that every contributor is either an ID proponent or an ISCID fellow is not sourced. Additionally, the background of the contributors can be covered at Uncommon Dissent. More relevant to this article, I think, are the book's full title and editor. Tim Smith 19:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
This is Langan's bio. It should therefore include only information that is relevant to Langan and his ideas. Including irrelevant information makes it appear biographically relevant, and thus misinforms the reader. Obviously, the affiliations of other contributors to Uncommon Dissent are not relevant to Langan and do not belong in his bio, unless you can show, without benefit of original research, that they have somehow influenced Langan or his ideas. In fact, there is no evidence that Langan was even aware of the affiliations of other contributors to this volume. Thus, inserting these affiliations would contitute original research.
My preference is the following simple handling of this mention: "In 2004, Langan contributed a chapter to Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing, an essay collection edited by William Dembski."
However, in the interest of compromise, I will endorse Tim Smith's suggestion. --Honorable citizen 23:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I support the change by Honorable Citizen, for the reasons he has given. FNMF 00:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I reverted it because it ignores the evidence presented above that Uncommon Dissent is exclusively an ID book. We shouldn't be promoting the well documented ID viewpoint that seeks to use ambiguity to sneak ID in through books and lectures by not identifying them as promoting ID. 151.151.73.163 16:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Good point. LoC classifies the book as [16]
  • Darwin, Charles, 1809-1882- --Criticism and interpretation.
  • Evolution (Biology)--Religious aspects.
  • Intelligent design (Teleology)
  • Creationism.
  • Religion and science.
Guettarda 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Circular point. You're arguing that it is exclusively an ID book to support the point that Langan is supporting ID. Further, you did not actually provide evidence that this is exclusively an ID book. Finally, Guettarda rebuts your point by noting the classifications include other, non-ID aspects. Given that, your revert appears to be promoting POV, so I'm reverting. --Otheus 01:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
How so? ID is creationism, and it's a religious aspect of biology; obviously it's a topic in "religion and science", and it's a critique of Chuck. The LoC classification identifies the book as an ID book, the publisher identifies the book as an ID book... and, of course, you could figure that out if you read the book (sure, that would be OR, but far less so than your rejection of the publisher's description of the book).
The fact that the The Library of Congress classification identifies Uncommon Dissent as an ID book and the publisher identifies it as an ID book is ample justification and notable enough to describe it as such here, despite all the purposeful dissembling and furious arm-waving that it isn't going on here. What seems to be lost on some here is that the more they continue to publicly deny the obivous and work to obfuscate easily verifiable facts, the more their claims of working toward a neutral version and of not promoting Langan's views in the article start to ring hollow. Something to think about. FeloniousMonk 16:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

CTMU section (2)

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

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

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

20/20 uses the theory as a framing device:

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

The header of the Popular Science article archived here says:

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

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

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

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

Draft

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

I support this process started by Tim Smith. I also believe his draft is worthwhile. I agree with the reasons Tim has given for inclusion of the section. I reiterate that my support for this does not mean I agree with Mr Langan's ideas, but neither do I believe that disagreeing with Mr Langan's ideas should mean editors oppose inclusion of such a section. Despite all the problems with this entry, I continue to believe it is possible for the entry to achievable lasting and worthwhile stability, and I am hopeful that editors will support this process as one step toward this outcome. FNMF 03:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
This looks like a good draft for such a section. I am wondering if the last line in the first paragraph doesn't constitute OR. I think the sentence is factual and seems fine there, I am just wondering about policy. --Honorable citizen 13:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, ever hear of undue weight? CTMU is a concept that has almost zero acceptance anywhere outside of the two Langans and a vanishingly small handful of MegaFoundation fellow travelers. It is the very definition of a "tiny-minority" described at WP:NPOV. The community has already once determined CTMU is not notable enough for its own article and that it be covered here, but (unsurprisingly) Tim Smith's proposed draft reads like one of Langan's promotions.
The more obvious problems with the proposed draft are 1) It implies that CTMU has gotten media coverage on its own accord ("Though the recipient of mass-media coverage") whereas in actuality it has gotten none on its own and it was Chris Langan who was being covered, and any coverage CTMU got was incidental to that. 2) It totally leaves out CTMU's relation to intelligent design. 3) CTMU's reception by the scientific community, which is to say, none/zero. Considering these glaring deficiencies, this version of the draft violates WP:NPOV and will never fly as written. FeloniousMonk 16:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not understand the argument that CTMU is not notable enough to have a section, but the connection between CTMU and ID is notable enough to have a section. If the connection of one thing to another thing is worthy of discussion, that would seem to imply that the first thing is notable enough to warrant discussion. More than that, since some editors insist on the importance of the ID connection, fairness to the subject of the entry would seem to demand at least some effort to inform readers of what it is that is being connected to ID. FeloniousMonk's second point, that the section "totally leaves out CTMU's relation to intelligent design," seems to ignore the fact that an entire section about that relation already exists and will continue to exist. FeloniousMonk's first point does not seem to me to be a serious problem: I am not convinced the implication he perceives is there, and if it is, it is easily fixable through re-drafting. As for the third point, if FeloniousMonk or others can find reliable secondary sources for the scientific reaction to the CTMU, then they can certainly present these and re-draft accordingly. I also remind editors, again, that the CTMU does not claim to be a scientific theory. More generally, I do not accept that a section discussing the CTMU amounts to some kind of illegitimate "promotion" of Langan's ideas. I don't understand what the fear here really is. Again: if it's OK to conduct some kind of forensic investigation into the relation between CTMU and ID, surely fairness to the subject of the entry demands some discussion of the idea itself. Lastly, I feel it necessary to make the following point: if editors have hostile or negative feelings for the subject of an entry about a living person, then they are morally obliged to take all the more care not to violate WP:BLP. This means that they must take all the more care to edit with sensitivity, without bias or malice, and without introducing controversy. FNMF 19:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, FeloniousMonk refers to undue weight to argue that a section on the CTMU somehow violates that aspect of policy. But I would draw attention to the following paragraph from the policy on Undue Weight:
"Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them — Wikipedia is not paper. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view."
This would certainly seem to legitimate the notion that Langan's ideas may be discussed in the entry on Langan. The appropriate place for the discussion of Langan's ideas is on the page devoted to Langan. Tim Smith's draft section is certainly not attempting to "rewrite majority-view content" from a minority perspective, merely describe Langan's ideas in a neutral way. Furthermore, according to the above paragraph, Langan's view may, indeed, be "spelled out in great detail," so long as reference to the majority viewpoint is not neglected. And, again, if editors wish to put other views on Langan's ideas, they are certainly welcome to do so, so long as they refer to reliable secondary sources. FNMF 19:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I now lean toward some mention of CTMU in this article, but the draft is — well, drafty; i.e., full of holes. Unless you wish to preface each sentence with "Langan claims", it's unsourced. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Update: All but 3 sentences (and the questionable claim that the theory has mainstream coverage) do have that disclaimer. It's almost ready, although it's still not describing "Langan's ideas in a neutral way." — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I've made some adjustments, clarifying that the CTMU appeared in conjunction with Langan and tweaking for neutrality. How does that look? Tim Smith 19:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
That draft looks good, but I am wondering ... "Langan's work has not appeared in mainstream academic journals." While this may be true, doesn't that statement constitute OR? I would say that this is pretty obvious, however it does actually require some research to verify since it has not been mentioned in a secondary source (or has it?). --Honorable citizen 13:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I have removed that statement for lack of a source; we can restore it if one is found. I've also reworked the first sentence. What does everyone think about posting what we have? We can of course continue to improve it afterward. I think the article is long overdue for a section on this topic. Tim Smith 07:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe Tim Smith has done his best to incorporate the comments of other editors into his draft version. This being the case, and five days having elapsed, it now seems appropriate to paste the draft section into the entry itself. I recommend going ahead and posting. If editors have other criticisms or improvements, they can of course continue discussing these on the talk page, and these can be added as appropriate (as Tim already said). FNMF 08:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The new first sentence also requires a "Langan claims". The reference probably doesn't assert that he worked on it, but only that he said he worked on it. If it had been an actual article edit, I would have reverted it as not justified by the source, and almost certainly not sourced at all. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) The source (Sager 1999) says:

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

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

Article updated per draft

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

I have a break from fighting other wikibattles. I looked at Tim's edit and deemed it needing some tuning. If the CTMU is to stay, it should be a very concise summary. I removed several parts that seem to distract from the main idea, that only introducing buzzwords, or that didn't make sense to someone who took a rudimentary college-level course in philosophy (I took two). However, I fear I may have over-rephrased, resulting in an inaccurate version of the CTMU. Comments welcome. --Otheus 22:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Otheus, Tim has worked patiently on this section for two weeks. I think you should be careful when introducing changes to ensure they are in fact improvements. For instance, in the version of the first sentence you composed, the repetition of the word "developed" was poor writing. Also, the claim that Langan was "following the track of modernist philosophy" seems like original research to me. I am also not convinced it makes the section easier to understand. Just because something seems to be written in easier language does not mean it is clearer: what exactly does the statement about modern philosophy mean? I think you should propose changes here rather than simply editing them into the text, given the history of the entry, and to ensure they are well-composed. FNMF 22:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
From my talk page [Otheus...] I am disappointed that Tim Smith has left his draft up for discussion and improvement for two weeks, and within minutes of him posting it, you have seriously reduced the quality of the section. I urge you to rethink your actions about this controversial entry. FNMF 22:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I saw that he changed the article without recently updating the talk page, so I assumed his was hastily done. I saw some problems with it and hacked it. After, of course, I saw the talk page comments. On the talk page you mentioned problems with OR, and well, I really did blow the second paragraph. So I restored my edits to the first and third paragraphs. If you think my recent edits are still ill-advised, I'll self-revert. --Otheus 22:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Otheus, thanks for re-considering your course of action. I have left almost all your changes in, which mostly are good (others can discuss). But I did change the first sentence of the section back to a slightly altered form of Tim's, for two reasons: I thought his was better expressed; and it was the outcome of above discussion and therefore care should be taken with it. FNMF 22:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks good. Now waiting for the fudge to hit the fan. --Otheus 23:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Minor changes: I dropped in with some changes to CTMU paragraph 3. I am confident they are consistent with both a good faith review of this discussion and the need to keep content accessible to a general audience. Also fixed was a broken cross-ref relying on commented-out material. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 03:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Minor, but well-done. Definitely improved readability. I'm still concerned about the phrase 'logic's "absolute truth"'. Is that in reference to "analytical truth", ie, certainty built via (for example) by propositional logic? --Otheus 13:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
You raise a good point here, that could use some clarification as well. If I have time I will take a shot at an appropriate re-draft to address this. dr.ef.tymac 14:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up: A proposed readability re-draft of CTMU paragraph 2: proposed readability re-draft. It is a bit longer, and may not be universally acceptable to all interested parties, so extensive criticism, modification, feedback are of course welcome. If no one complains I can add it to the article at a later time. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 16:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
More changes: CTMU section is now slightly larger in order to keep the content accessible and still relatively consistent with a good faith and impartial reading of CMLs essay. If anyone objects to this, please include remarks here in discussion if and when you make modifications. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 01:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Life section

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

There are a lot of editors actively editing this bio. Most of the editors are collaborating to some degree. The best approach would probably be to propose your specific changes here on the talk page. --Honorable citizen 18:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Got that right. There's been a lot pro-Langan promotion going on at this article for some time now, with those opposing being piled on to some degree. 151.151.73.167 18:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Please don't confuse good-faith collaboration with "pro-Langan piling on". That's an offensive and uncivil remark to be making toward the community on this page. Oh, and please get an account. --Otheus 21:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid the anon seems correct. Perhaps the section should be gutted and restarted as if this were an encyclopedia. (And the polite term is hagiography, rather than "pro-Langan piling on".) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a better phrase would have been "piling on the anti-Langaners" or something. Are you feeling "piled on"? --Otheus 23:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, yes. There's a lot there that wouldn't be there if we were properly insisting on sources, and there's a lot there which isn't notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Uncivil comment by 151.151.73.169 on 17:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC) removed by --Otheus 23:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a major problem with the section. Perhaps the word "flurry" could be replaced with "degree" to characterise the extent of media interest? Mostly it seems neutral and factual. I agree with Honorable citizen that specific changes should be proposed on the talk page, and consensus sought, before changing the entry itself. This will lessen the chances of unhelpful conflict. FNMF 02:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
It reads like a MegaFoundation press release, please. FeloniousMonk 04:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Arthur, about your statement "there's a lot there which isn't notable", I have a meta response: WP:Notable clearly states that notability must exist for the existence of the article, but not its contents. Second, what do you mean "if we were properly insisting on sources"? What sources do you see as "improper" and why? Are you referring to your comments earlier in #References? --Otheus 23:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it needs fixing. Please feel free, we could use new contributors here. FeloniousMonk 04:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I've eliminated a fair bit of material - most seemed unencyclopedic. The information about Langan's mother is uncited - I was unable to find that information. Hal peridol 19:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Good job! I hope that will satisfy the other critics. --Otheus 20:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The tone is now quite good. Others will have to check whether the cited information really exists, other than in Langan's mind. (As noted above, the Mega Foundation site is Langan's, so it falls under "self-published", even when it archives articles in reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Hal, I appreciate your effort to make the section more encyclopedic. I do think some relevant material was removed, so I'll rework its presentation. I'll also cite the statement about Langan's mother. Let me know what you think. Tim Smith 19:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Quoting FM, it still reads like a MegaFoundation press release. Some editing of the more obvious puffery will have to be done to fix that. 151.151.73.167 19:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)